Most manufacturers make changes to make less costly products to increase market shares and profits. Be it MIM parts, injection molding, casting, etc.
Engineering changes are also made to increase reliability, reduce wear or failures, etc.
The end question is not what costs can we live with but what cost is our life worth?
For example, most 1911 makers use MIM parts in some place or another, often many.
But a few, still cling to refusing to use MIM parts. The difference is a couple of hundred dollars to start, normally.
What happens? People buy the cheaper product because it 's cheaper. Rather than considering if it's better or not.
Take the Glock for example, at @$500 you get a gun remarkably reliable, reasonably accurate and one that takes a tremendous amount of abuse. Same with the XD, M&P and others.
Jump to three times that price and people start having chest pains, brain issues and they can't find the ability to carry a gun that costs that much. However for that price you get something that's just as reliable as the Glock, much more accurate and one that will only increase in value over time. Note I didn't mention model or make.
Compare it to cars.
Buy the Toyota, it runs and keeps on running.
Buy the 'Vette, it runs and takes a little tinkering but holds its value over the years.
They both do the same thing, one just looks a whole lot better doing it.
As far as change goes, people are generally against it, and occasionally with good reason.
One of our local deputies bought a brand new Sig 226. And comparing it to my 25 year old 220, there were a major number of differences. The trigger was terrible, the locking block was rough as a corn cob (MIM), machining changes, etc. He didn't even keep it a week.
Evaluate change on it's own merits.
Rule .303, not just for historical purposes anymore.