The real-terms cost of all sorts of electronic equipment has fallen sharply over the last thirty years or so; I remember paying £250 for a pair of Sennheiser headphones back in 1980. I guess that would have been about £1200 in today's money -- it was several week's pay, anyway. I can't imagine paying that kind of money for headphones these days.
But, for me, the important question isn't whether something is good value, but simply whether I can afford it.
£600 for a good quality HF transceiver might, for all I know, represent excellent value for money. However, as a man considering retirement, with no savings and two kids still in education, it falls into the category of "unjustifiable expenditure." £200, on the other hand, is the sort of expenditure I might make make on non-essential items once in a while.
Aside from my personal impecuniousness, however, I do have to question whether something really is good value, when a product with similar functionality is available much more cheaply. I recently had an opportunity to compare the performance of Baofeng UV-5Rs with considerably more expensive Icom units on ~140Mhz. This was at open open-air charity event in mixed park and woodland. I found the range, coverage, and sound quality broadly equivalent. I can understand why the Icom units are more expensive, but _five times_ more expensive? That's not a scientific test, of course, but I didn't come away regretting that I could only afford a cheap VHF radio for my own use.
It would be nice (for me) if there was an HF equivalent of the Baofeng, but I guess there isn't sufficient demand for that kind of equipment to make the necessary economies of scale. I expect to get what I pay for -- I'm not expecting something for nothing. I accept that my budget does not stretch to top-quality gear. Unfortunately, in the HF area, it doesn't seem to stretch to anything.