Their products, in the same manner as Adobe and Autodesk, aren't necessarily intended for individual consumers. It's a bit like the difference in cost between a Ferrari and a Renault; the production costs are high, and a high price also breeds a bit of exclusivity and makes the product seem more "legitimate". There's also no guarantee that reducing the price will increase interest in the product, especially in such a niche like video editing where anybody who is a professional already has their favourite choice of software and probably doesn't care much for price over features/functionality.
While they may not necessarily have many more "features" than cheaper counter-parts, these hyper-expensive software products are specifically designed to shave down a company's production time by a large margin (with very small time-saving tools, shortcuts and pre-made content that comes with the editor), which ultimately reduces cost for the buyer. If you're able to edit a show in half the time on one bit of software vs. the other, that's a significant amount of money you just saved, and it's likely those savings will occur for every show you edit.
You have to remember too; this is a one-time price (if we forget about Adobe's CC subscription service for a moment). Ideally, you will recuperate the difference between a cheaper competitor and the expensive software you bought easily with the first product, and then your future products will all return a profit.
