Rob
I do sympathise with your point of view. For those of us who grew up with film, the price of cameras now seems mind-boggling.
But, to be fair, high-end MF gear always was (relatively) very expensive. I remember staring into the window of Truro Photographic back in about 1982, wishing that I could even think about affording the beautiful Hasselblads. Let alone one with more than one lens. Eventually I managed to scrape enough cash together for a Rollei 2.8F (secondhand), and that was the limit of my ambition.
Looking at it today, a film magazine for a 500 'Blad is over £700, new. And I think an 'H' system film mag is more like £1,800. And of course you have to have at least two magazines, and preferably three. The 50mm Zeiss lens was over £3,000 last time I looked. All of that is nothing to do with digital.
The market for MF digital backs (especially those dedicated to the V-system) is tiny, a few thousand world-wide for all MF DBs from all manufacturers. Against the possible sales you have to factor in the R&D, tooling costs, specialised manufacturing facilities (clean rooms etc), paying Kodak or Dalsa the huge prices they demand for large sensors, the cost of warranty returns on a low unit turnover, and in the case of the CFV it has to be assembled by hand (no automated assembly) because it matches the film mags with all the polished chrome and leatherette covering as per the classic 500.
Now, I'm no apologist for the camera manufacturers. But even if you take digital out of the equation, and want to shoot film with brand-new MF gear, it's still not going to be cheap. And it never was.
John