It's... augh, I admit that I am biased. I am biased towards the notion of progress existing. And the blaster weapons, in my mind, exemplify that notion.
I don't want 'cheap' power to everyone. I just feel that, as science advances, and new things are discovered, better things - sometimes cheaper, sometimes just of about same cost - can be created.
Do blaster weapons stand in contrast with almost every other entry in the armory? Yes, they probably do.
Do they have to be nerfed just on basis of "too good compared to everything else"? No, that was the whole point of creating more advanced weapons.
Do they have their drawbacks? Yes, they do, even though sometimes those are overplayed and sometimes downplayed.
Could they have been "written" (as in, from narrative sense/balance) in less contrast to everything else? Yes, they could, and I could even get behind the idea as long as it was still reasonably powerful. Kugelblitz is reasonably powerful. Force monosword is reasonably powerful. But, as they stand at the moment, they are a figurehead for all the potential scientific advancement and revamping of the whole armory. Sometimes, for nice "average" things to exist, there need to be extremes on both sides of the golden middle; and for now, the blaster weapons are the higher extreme of efficiency/power.
So yes, I don't want just to magically make everything cheaper, to reprice everything because of just one thing overnight. But if there is advancement, if there is some certain 'power creep' as some of you might call it, then yes, slowly and surely everything (almost everything, maybe) should become cheaper/better. Not overnight, not 'just like that', without any effort on our part, but as a reward for our successes. For having retrieved the proper samples and artifacts that mattered. For having figured how to make those work, and how to base designs on their quirks and features. Just the kind of thing RC has mentioned recently (sorry for misappropriating your quote, RC):
It'd form a great incentive to go out and find artifacts again!
(And yes, Devastator, I know how you feel about "mission successes". The truth is, there are outright mission successes, outright mission failures, and then outcomes in-between. As of now, M21 is a total mission failure - but maybe, just maybe, if we managed to film/record something interesting with that camera&sensors unit, it might be reclassified as
partial mission success, however bizarre that sounds. Because apparently the glass is quarter-full, at least as far as Steve and the board of Generals are concerned.)
P.S. And that's why I've always been proponent of tying the price of an item to its resource cost where it's applicable. Because that's how it works from in-universe point of view, barring special cases.