starborn63 :
King Dranzer :
renz496 :
The 2080 and 2070 might be expensive but i'm not sure about 2080ti. I think majority of people want 2080ti to be priced at the exact same price as 1080ti while offering 50%-60% more performance. but the thing is right now the competitor canmot even touch 1080ti. There is no pressure for nvidia to drop 1080ti price. So it is more logical for nvidia to charge even more for 2080ti. But ultimately if nvidia did price 2080ti at $700 it does not good for consumer either down the road.
The day Pascal series is either out of stock or not being bought anymore NVIDIA will have to lower its price on RTX series especially RTX 2080Ti(to around $800, we cannot expect NVIDIA to drop its price to $700 at any given point). Till then we have to wait. All this is caused by two main reasons. First being that AMD is unable to compete with NVIDIA. Second but equally important the Crypto-currency mining because of which NVIDIA had to delay Turing launch by months only to clear already manufactured Pascal GPU. If both of these factors were answered then RTX 2080 and 2070 would have launched long ago and at much meaningful price of $450 and $650 respectively and now RTX 2080Ti would have launched for $750.
In 2016, there was no Ryzen. Tossed Intel into panic mode. With 7nm in the upcoming mix, Nvidia is probably eyeing AMD closely. Nvidia doesn't own ray tracing and just because they have a process in working with it doesn't mean it can't and won't be done better in the future. and as an aside, other than a very limited range of programs that can utilize it, who needs live ray tracing? Much like buying a VHS player...or "pre-ordering" when there were only 4 movies you could buy for it....all insanely overpriced because they knew they could milk the greed and ego of those that just "Had to be 1st".
Heh... Although I don't disagree with your main point of "early adoption fee", you need to take into account the silver lining of it: you DO need early adoption for any technology to flourish. You might not like nVidia, Microsoft or even their products, but Ray Tracing is a technology that has been around for a very long time. Seeing it being approached again is amazingly nice. It's what GPUs were created for: better eye candy. Otherwise, why the hell do we even want better GPUs for? Low polygon count should be enough, right? No lighting effects and everything should look like Minecraft with no shader effects, or not?
In your example though, VHS didn't succeed because of it's early adoption rate, quite the contrary. VHS was competing with BetaMax. Sony pushed BetaMax to compete against VHS, but VHS was way cheaper to produce due to it being licenced whereas BetaMax was Sony only. BetaMax was technologically superior, but way more expensive. Now, here's an interesting parallel you can draw here: how much more expensive is it to add Ray Tracing into games than traditional lightning techniques? Well, nVidia, if you remember the presentation, made it very very clear: "it is cheap". Why do you think that is, thinking back to the "VHS vs BetaMax"?
Being "better" doesn't mean you'll succeed over the cheaper alternative that is "good enough".
Cheers!