Better product or bigger profits?

I expect that, like many blokes, I automatically switched from a 'Gillette Mach 3':

 ...to a 'Gillette Fusion Power':

... almost as soon as the newer product hit the stores a few years ago.  To use, it was a bit bigger, but (at the time) seemed to do it's job equally as well as the older razor.
Fast forward to today; the country is technically in recession, interest rates at rock bottom, there's quantitative easing, and in this household, outgoings under are constant and close scrutiny.
MrsB was a little shocked (but not as much as I was) when she searched for the blade refills I'd asked for.  A pack of 8 blades would cost £18.53.  Holy shit!  That's £2.32 each!
I asked her to look up the older style blades (as I still have the handle) and they came in at £9.76, or £1.22 each, or most pertinently, half the cost.  The older style blades were ordered.
This morning, my first shave with the Mach3 blades was comfortable and effective.  In actual fact, the razor glided better, grabbed less, and the overall result was no better or worse that the supposedly superior Fusion Power razor.

So, the obvious question is what does the Fusion do better than the Mach3 in order to justify a 50% price increase?  The only real answer I can come up with is to provide bigger profits for Gillette (which is Proctor & Gamble, right?).  I'm not against companies making profits per se, but I do object to such a massive increase in cost to me (the consumer) with no visible benefit.

Seems I'll be buying Mach3 blades for the foreseeable future...