The joys of already offering literally double the performance of the competiton at 4K and not even with this... the full chip.
Right, this argument might be valid if the 2080ti and the Vega 64 were priced the same. Problem - they are not.
With the 2080 Ti you pay so much premium because of the stupid high die size that a huge part of it isn't even utilized that much, and with the current state of the 'rtx' demos. clearly is still not ready to market. they might as well just throw away half of the die space and get the
same performance on 'conventional graphics' with a card probably half the price. IMHO its probably what most consumer wanted anyway. rtx is in alpha state performance wise. and when you look at actual demos. even besides performance, things like the horrible noise on 'rtx effects' its just mind boggling why any one would pay that much to be a beta tester on a product full of promises and marketing alone.
The main complaint as I see it isn't the 2080ti and isn't even the titan. mainstream don't care about this type of cards, and never buys them, the only people who buy this type of cards are either enthusiasts or plain and simple have too much money to spare..
The Problem is the mainstream cards. they brings almost nothing to the table besides maybe dlss. ray tracing is not fast enough on even the 2080ti for decent resolution/fps so on lower end its mainly marketing gimmick and a die space/excuse for a price increase. with past generations newer cards meant higher Performance at lower/the same price vs the product they replaced. the funny thing is that with the current generation (and the previous one when you count in the actual retail prices of maxwell cards at the time of pascal's release) you basically pay more for more performance, this isn't what a customer expects when he looks for a new product to replace his old one. imagine you replace your car every 2 years, you buy the same Japanese economy-box type of car, in 2010 the price was $25K, 2 years later you bought the updated model for $27K, 2 years later in 2014 the updated model was already at $30K and 2 years later in 2016 the company released the same car for $35K, why ? because they basically can, sure the newer car is much better at many aspects, but at the same time manufacturing is improving and new tech is lowered into the mass market with mass production.
the as you can buy a 4K tv dirt cheap vs its price 4 years ago.
that's basically invalidates the whole idea of different price brackets.
In 2014 a 970 had the same performance/$ as 770 2GB and better performance/$ than a 670.
today... a 2070 has worse performance/$ than a 2 Year old GTX 1070 and a 4 Year old GTX970.
let this sink. A GTX 2070 has WORSE performance/$ than a 4 YEARS OLD GPU.
Its like we are going backwards. much for 'innovation'..
As a GTX970 Owner I want a faster card, the 970 might be a decent 1080p card still, but with the current 1440p monitor I own it struggles with some games more than others. My luck (I guess) is that I game less today with full time work and games becoming worse (IMHO) so I play mostly when there is actually good and exiting release and not every big Ubisoft or EA game with exactly the same underlying game. but the point is that as an adult with bills to pay, its hard to allow yourself to throw money you saved on hardware like this when your old 4 year old card has better Price/performance than the new options. its just unacceptable I would say.