This really doesn't work without a definition of what we're going to consider an "old school" game. Each generation coming through is going to relate the games of their childhood the term "old school". For me, it was NES and the original GameBoy, although I did play some self programmed games on the BBC Micro. Here are my thoughts though:
1. They had a affordable price.
I play PC games mostly, so I may be a little skewed, but great "new school" games are being given away for free or are regularly heavily discounted. I picked up the amazing Subnautica on the epic store for free and steam sales put all sorts of games out for ludicrously cheap. Even on consoles, Xbox gives out free games every month with the live subscription. Sure, the launch price of some games is high, but it rarely stays at that for long. And as with all looking back at any old prices, remember to account for inflation.
2. You know company would release games every 6 months instead of 2-6 years.
I'm not sure that I agree that this was ever the case, but the reason for long development cycles now is often just pure practicalities here: higher fidelity graphics demand higher quality assets, which requires artists time. The structure of games companies is also very difference now, where there used to be giants like Sega and Nintendo churning out lots of different games, these group of developers are now separated into different studios.
3. The games actually back then had more challenge in them than newer games. I just think new games are too easy.
Have you played Dark Souls?
Also, difficulty is not in itself a good thing. I remember endlessly dying in Super Mario Bros because of the timing needed to jump past the fireball chains in Bowsers castle, this didn't make the game any more fun or rewarding. Games developers now pick the challenges better I think and control schemes are actually suited to the game mechanics (a games that tests how fast I can mash a button repeatedly is challenging, but IMHO not a good game).
4. I think new games are too busy with the graphics of a game than actual gameplay or story line (If the game has a story line off course)
Hate to say it, but this very much sounds like a "gumpy old man" line, and I don't believe it's true at all. There are more in depth and complex stories, with richer characters, and more hours of varied gameplay in modern titles than ever before. Sure, some games are equivalent to Michael Bay films, but just as the existence of the Transformers franchise doesn't reflect all of cinema, the likes of Call of Duty don't reflect all of the video games domain. We're in the middle of a resurgence of deep story driven isometric CRPGs (e.g. Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin), Low-Fi emergent gameplay mechanics driven sandboxes (e.g. Factorio), narrative driven action games (e.g. The Witcher 3) and really anything else you could want. The growth of the indie games development scene and the ease of putting them onto the market means that even niche titles that wouldn't be appealing to a major publisher are readily accessible to everyone.
The best example I can think of that reflects the positive difference between old school games design and "new school" is the unofficial remake of Theme Hospital: Two Point Hospital. The spruces up the graphics and adds some Quality of Life fixes that you'll honestly wonder how you played the original game without, all while maintaining the same gameplay and humour that made the original great.
TLDR - New School is standing on the shoulders of giants and doing a great job of building on the Old School legacy.