Part of what has me asking this question is that I am considering treating myself to a higher dollar scope. I have a highly practical side that I am doing battle with.
I am considering a Leupold VX5 firedot.
I appreciate that people have various conceptions of what is a reasonable amount to spend on hunting, or rifles, or optics. There are guys that accomplish more with an old lever gun and a peep sight than a good portion of the guys that buy Blasers crowned with Z8's. There's nothing wrong with a person who uses a inexpensive or even cheap rifle and cheap optics who hunts ethically and puts meat on the table. On the other hand, I think the experience that a big portion of American hunters have involves a very limited amount of time each year in the field, with a great deal of expenses involved in being there. The biggest expense is likely to be the time away from employment, careers, and businesses. There are also substantial expenses in travel, accommodations, land access, possible guide or pack expenses, and the licenses and tags. In the end, the expense of quality equipment isn't a particularly big factor unless it's only used for a single short season. Even then, it hasn't necessarily lost its value, it's just that disuse lowers its utility. Unless the money saved by buying a cheap scope could buy the hunter more time, it's not a good trade. I don't think that is the case for most people. Our time for hunting is limited and a few hundred or even a thousand dollars isn't going to buy us more.
I agree with Woodhits' comments that a rifle scope is a sight and not an observation device. I would also note that it's not a camera lens. Even on high-end Leica, Swarovski, and Zeiss rifle scopes, there are optical flaws that result in images less optically perfect than lens systems designed at similar expense for observation or photography. They aren't designed for picture-perfect images, but are fit for their purpose. For example, rifle scopes could have substantial axial chromatic aberration. The VX5HD scopes probably have less of that if they use flourite glass (often referred to as HD or ED). While anti-reflective coatings result in higher light transmission and potentially extended low-light visibility, whether less chromatic aberration makes any practical difference in the field may be a moot point. For the same reason a person wouldn't spend many thousands of dollars on a hunting trip and take along a unreliable rifle with a sight that won't hold zero even though it "could work," a rifle scope manufacturer producing a product that is high quality in every other respect isn't going to cheap-out and give the customer glass that produces bad purple fringing with the excuse that, "it doesn't affect accuracy."
Fortunately for hunters, there is a limiting factor on rifle scope expense: weight. Unless you're willing to carry an optic that weighs close to two pounds or more, hunting scopes tend to stay in the $2000 price range. I would also note that optically, scopes tend to be better at lower magnifications which also happen to be better suited to hunting due to the wide field of view.
