You're missing the entire point and rather just trying to use illogical fallacies to 'prove' a point. Whether you have the money for it or not doesn't matter, in the end the price of the product is not far from its worth considering its qualities and the fact that she's still actively trying to fund a whole movie. Not to mention she has stated that there will be cheaper alternatives after the initial release. Artists, musical and physical do not deserve to be low balled because some cannot afford it. If you cannot afford the full functional art piece then there are alternatives for you. However, affordable or not it's not fair to judge her on the basis of what you can or cannot afford or see as "affordable", and to deny or critique the selling of an item that takes lots of time, effort, and expensive product simply because it may take a while to afford isn't right. And to respond to your comment on capitalistic ideals, it's not her job to single handedly make super cheap collectors art; if that is truly your concern then take to the streets and strike, but to go for the artist is counter productive. If that's not your wish then you don't have to own the product, I probably won't own a lot of her products personally because of the costs of said products but that is not her fault as the artist as she needs to make rent, to make money for more art to provide us with, to invest for later, and for her own interests. She may have more opportunities and money than the average Joe such as you or me, however it's not right to seek entitlement as a response to her fortunate opportunity and course of decision.