It's kinda funny, when digital started many years ago, MF backs were at 5.8mp and 35mm DSLR were at 6mp, now with backs at 39 and DSLR's at 16, the gap has never been greater.
Yes, but in this epoch, the MF backs are 24*36 mm dimensions, and, today, the difference are the double dimensions of the MF Vs 35 mm DSRL, of all ways, if is certain that, those of 35 arrive at the half of resolution that those of MF, 39 to 17, and the 17 MP, are A3 applications (offset 300 ppp), the 80% of the professional printing, the discusion, I think, is not which is better, the question is that, many applications of MF, they can be done without problems with a 35.
In this way, Hass and the other, they see its market reduced, and enlarged the difference in 8x the price of a DB-MF that in the best of the cases, multiplies for 2 the resolution of a 35... In the epoch that your speeches, a DB-MF cost around 12.000 and the first one DSRL, of Kodak for Nikon F-3 some 7.000.
I believe that, the hasty descent of sales in MF, by photographers that utilized MF and now they utilize 35, is very large for which has carried on the one hand to the businesses MF-makers to close or to stop manufacturing (bronica,pentax,contax,yasica,rollei??) and by another, due to the great investment, cannot do more accessible its product, and therefore the present difference of price has grown so much.
Y belive, the solution for the manufacturers, is to produce more affrodable products, to entry to the MF, and versatile than 35 cameras. The Mamiya Way.