Actually, they very much do have the ability to control pricing, just like many other brands do with their products. Cell phones and consoles are pretty much the same price in retail stores by region, because the product maker demands it. Manufacturer-imposed conditions such as pricing are sanctioned by the FTC.
LINK for veracity:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/dealings-supply-chain/manufacturer-imposed
The first paragraph:
Reasonable price, territory, and customer restrictions on dealers are legal. Manufacturer-imposed requirements can benefit consumers by increasing competition among different brands (interbrand competition) even while reducing competition among dealers in the same brand (intrabrand competition). For instance, an agreement between a manufacturer and dealer to set maximum (or "ceiling") prices prevents dealers from charging a non-competitive price. Or an agreement to set minimum (or "floor") prices or to limit territories may encourage dealers to provide a level of service that the manufacturer wants to offer to consumers when they buy the product. These benefits must be weighed against any reduction in competition from the restrictions
Based on launch information, that's what AMD seemed to be implying to the public, that the listed prices were governed by contract. Turns out, that's not the case, I guess. Whether someone pursues AMD for giving out false information that affected stock prices remains to be seen.
And I can safely say that AMD might be liable here because they gave out all that info about wanting to make sure gamers could get GPUs, and the packages, etc...
Based on local supply of VEGA, clearly these cards are set at uncompetitive prices, IMHO.