I also don't think you can really compare GBs and programming.
Even if the library is small, there are libraries like sample modeling trumpet which sounds really good, but is a really small library.
I'm assuming a lot of work went in to inventing the script and we are paying for the scripting "skill" as well.
We can't simply compare the cost of talented/skilled programmers.
Sure if you simply compare the man power (how many people were involved), you have the musicians, engineers and many other people involved in playing & sampling lots of samples.
But you can't devalue the skills/intelligence of the programmers.
Lots of amazing plugins are all small in size, but some cost even $1000+ (e.g SPAT).
Because skilled/talented programmers invented a unique piece of program/script which other could not.
I unfortunately don't own LASS, but I've heard and read about what it can do. And I don't think its fair to just consider it overpriced just because the size of the library is small. Programming is not cheaper than sampling, especially when the programmer is talented and has invented something that no other developer has.
In that regard, I wouldn't be surprised if CSS cost a lot more, not because of the size of the library, but because of the genius legato/portamento scripting it has.
And finally on to the topic, I wish Spitfire put more time in to improving their scripting further.
They did a really good job with the Performance Legato patch in SCS. I personally really like it.
And if this is a new chapter, I personally would have loved if they came out with next gen "Performance Legato 2".
But kind of disappointed they don't even have the original Performance Legato patch included in SStS.
Sorry for the long post.