Editorial AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes

[TheMailMan78]

Vega is why I left PC gaming and moved on to a console.

 

[ratirt]

Vega is why I left PC gaming and moved on to a console.

Yeah good point. Keep in min that consoles are using AMD stuff now so I guess it's Polaris or Vega(not likely since just out but on the other hand ......) that they utilize you tell me which one of these two is better. Besides console market is way bigger than PC market. I'm talking about gaming of course.

 

[medi01]

1080 and 1070 didn't have any competition, why would you expect them to stick to MSRP? FE was Nvidia's way of telling resellers: this is what we think you can really charge. Still a crappy move, but nothing unexpected given the circumstances.

So your "MSRP is MSPR" comment in that context had some meaning, but quite elusive one.

Why would anyone even raise A point about price fixing when there IS competition, by your logic?

 

[medi01]

.the fact they lied to reviewers

Could you elaborate what the lie was please?

 

[EarthDog]

Ive mentioned it multiple times already. Read my posts in this thread.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Could you elaborate what the lie was please?

go to youtube and search for linus tech tips- the recent Wan show. also jayztwocents did a video about it too.

 

[arbiter]

Could you elaborate what the lie was please?

The lie was MSRP was 399/499. Seems like that was a limited time rebated price that didn't stick and went up 100$. Reviewers wrote their reviews on that discounted price which ends up changing the conclusion of pretty much any review of the card since it changes where it sits performance/price wise vs cards it compete against.

 

[sweet]

The lie was MSRP was 399/499. Seems like that was a limited time rebated price that didn't stick and went up 100$. Reviewers wrote their reviews on that discounted price which ends up changing the conclusion of pretty much any review of the card since it changes where it sits performance/price wise vs cards it compete against.

Didn't any review of 1070/1080 draw their conclusion based on MSRP, that's almost non-existence at released?

AMD didn't lie about 399/499. An MSRP is not a random number that can be set casually.

The common conclusion now is that at that price the retailers have almost no margin. That's why the retailers are unhappy about it and are selling at much higher price.

If AMD had pulled an nVidia move and released only the silver card at $599, they would have avoided all these shits. But at least they are offering some $499, so I don't understand why ppl are pointing at AMD. It's not like you are buying the cards directly from AMD anyway.

 

[EarthDog]

The lie was MSRP was 399/499. Seems like that was a limited time rebated price that didn't stick and went up 100$. Reviewers wrote their reviews on that discounted price which ends up changing the conclusion of pretty much any review of the card since it changes where it sits performance/price wise vs cards it compete against.

Reviewers werent told it was a limited time/stock offer. AMD didnt leave any meat on the bone for retailers... nor stock.

 

[bug]

Didn't any review of 1070/1080 draw their conclusion based on MSRP, that's almost non-existence at released?

That was very different. Everybody knows there's a markup around launch and that was exactly what we saw back then.
In this case, the claim was AMD knowingly lowered the MSRP (presumably to "trick" reviewers into touting a better priceerformance), but intended to raise MSRP once the initial batch was sold out. AMD has stepped in since than and clarified that was never the intention. Case closed, let's put this to rest now.

Edit: Unless you like the Streisand effect.

 

[TheMailMan78]

That was very different. Everybody knows there's a markup around launch and that was exactly what we saw back then.
In this case, the claim was AMD knowingly lowered the MSRP (presumably to "trick" reviewers into touting a better priceerformance), but intended to raise MSRP once the initial batch was sold out. AMD has stepped in since than and clarified that was never the intention. Case closed, let's put this to rest now.

Edit: Unless you like the Streisand effect.

What was said/intended and what they did are two very different things. Its like saying Hitler disliked some books and thought we might be better without reading them. Instead......

 

[Xzibit]

That was very different. Everybody knows there's a markup around launch and that was exactly what we saw back then.
In this case, the claim was AMD knowingly lowered the MSRP (presumably to "trick" reviewers into touting a better priceerformance), but intended to raise MSRP once the initial batch was sold out. AMD has stepped in since than and clarified that was never the intention. Case closed, let's put this to rest now.

Edit: Unless you like the Streisand effect.

We did ?

Nvidia at the time announced two prices. A FE and a MSRP. Was the MSRP even available at launch. Take a guess. NO. It was up-to the AIBs if they wanted to make it available and at what quantities. How many reviewers even benchmarked one of the MSRP cards when they became available? Havent found one in the TPU review database. Most reviewers reference the MSRP price pointing to it instead of the FE price of the card they actually reviewed.

 

[EarthDog]

So, that is the REVIEWERS fault, not NVIDIA misleading anyone.

What would that have to do with this where essentially, reviewers were duped??? They were told a price, but were not told it was only for a limited availability.

Also, FE price was for reference cards (now called FE), while the second price was for AIB cards. I really cant find the association between those two situations...

 

[Xzibit]

So, that is the REVIEWERS fault, not NVIDIA misleading anyone.

What would that have to do with this where essentially, reviewers were duped???

How exactly where they duped ?

 

[EarthDog]

How exactly where they duped ?

As i said, we were told the price was X. We were not told that price was a temporary launch price with limited availability...this skewed review results based off a false/temporary pricing model.

(Also edited that post a bit, note...)

 

[Xzibit]

As i said, we were told the price was X. We were not told that price was a temporary launch price with limited availability...

(Also edited that post a bit, note...)

Maybe we are hearing two different things

I heard it as a single card and two packs. Nothing stopping a distro or retailer to shift stock from the lower price one to a higher one just to do what they do and say stock on the low one has run out look at what Newegg did with the 64 and bundles.

Aside from rumors has there been official word on it?

 

[EarthDog]

There were two packs so to clarify, X and X+100.

This isn't at the distro level, at least the out of the gate statements. Not ONE review mentions it was a temporary launch price, because we were not told such. AMD has said that was a launch price. They have also said they would be restocking that queue, however, I doubt it. NOW is where you get a lot of distro/retail price hikes, but not out of the gate... which skewed perception on the card in reviews.

Official word on what?

 

[Xzibit]

There were two packs so to clarify, X and X+100.

This isn't at the distro level, at least the out of the gate statements. Not ONE review mentions it was a temporary launch price, because we were not told such. AMD has said that was a launch price. They have also said they would be restocking that queue, however, I doubt it. NOW is where you get a lot of distro/retail price hikes.

Has that been established ?

Because you have AMD saying this..

“is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”

 

[Vya Domus]

So, that is the REVIEWERS fault, not NVIDIA misleading anyone

This doesn't bode well at all.

From this I gather that the same reviewers that are now up in arms have proven to be incapable of doing their job properly in the past.

So at this point what are we even talking about anymore ? Reviewers and their incompetence or shady marketing tactics used by companies ? Because either way it looks like no one can be trusted.

 

[EarthDog]

Has that been established ?

Because you have AMD saying this..

[insert name of company here] says a lot of things. Its clear (as mud) when you put the re/etailers statements and Steve Burke's together. Perhaps I am reading between the lines, but the fact that they have little margins, offered etailers rebates that they seemingly are not offering anymore to those stores, then puts the 'bad guy' name on the etailer raising their prices... which, they now HAVE TO DO, according to them, to make anything off it.

This doesn't bode well at all.

From this I gather that the same reviewers that are now up in arms have proven to be incapable of doing their job properly in the past.

So at this point what are we even talking about anymore ? Reviewers and their incompetence or shady marketing tactics used by companies ? Because either way it looks like no one can be trusted.

Incapable of doing their job? Are you kidding me? What more could have been done from a reviewer? We get a price(s) and we write about said object with that price. Should we have asked, "hey are you suuuuuuuuure, this price isn't just based off a limited quantity of cards and seemingly only possible due to the limited rebates you offered stores?" That has never been done before. Not even sure how you ask that without getting cut off, LOL!

 

[Xzibit]

[insert name of company here] says a lot of things. Its clear (as mud) when you put the re/etailers statements and Steve Burke's together. Perhaps I am reading between the lines, but the fact that they have little margins, offered etailers rebates that they seemingly are not offering anymore to those stores, then puts the 'bad guy' name on the etailer raising their prices... which, they now HAVE TO DO, according to them, to make anything off it.

Then that's the retailers fault if they are complaining about margins. No ones forcing them to carry it or not. For all we know the retailers complaining about the price might be due to their local distros adjusting to market.

 

[EarthDog]

Then that's the retailers fault if they are complaining about margins. No ones forcing them to carry it or not. For all we know the retailers complaining about the price might be due to their local distros adjusting to market.

But it wasn't initially...

AMD has said the rebates are in limited quantities. This piece of information, reviewers were not told.

It would have been easy to add a part in there saying 'get it while its hot as this price is limited to launch time and a set quantity'. Sadly, we sit here today, currently without anything close to MSRP. Between the rebates of a untold to reviewers - limited supply, a lack of available profits, and the stores NOW raising the price to compensate, the whole landscape is jacked up. While it is the store's choice to carry it or not, AMD not leaving squat on the bone, only after this "limited supply of rebates" leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Really, I have no idea what to believe. I have never seen a pricing structure like this, and my mind leads to dubious activities to deceive. Be it intentional or not, it is confusing at best and out right lies at worst.

 

[Vya Domus]

Incapable of doing their job? Are you kidding me?

I am sorry but you said it yourself , that in the case of Nvidia's pricing scheme reviewers failed to properly quote prices.

They had 2 prices and SKUs about which they have been informed from day one. Failing to properly convey that through their reviews counts as incompetence in my book.

I know you as a level-headed guy but this time around it looks like you are trying to find excuses for the crap that Nvidia has done. I urge you take a better look and realize that what they did is on the same level as to what AMD has supposedly done now.

 

[Xzibit]

But it wasn't initially...

AMD has said the rebates are in limited quantities. This piece of information, reviewers were not told.

It would have been easy to add a part in there saying 'get it while its hot as this price is limited to launch time and a set quantity'. Sadly, we sit here today, currently without anything close to MSRP. Between the rebates of a untold to reviewers - limited supply, a lack of available profits, and the stores NOW raising the price to compensate, the whole landscape is jacked up. While it is the store's choice to carry it or not, AMD not leaving squat on the bone, only after this "limited supply of rebates" leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Really, I have no idea what to believe. I have never seen a pricing structure like this, and my mind leads to dubious activities to deceive. Be it intentional or not, it is confusing at best and out right lies at worst.

I like avoiding rumors.

They gave us a set quantity to sell at this launch price which was several hundred and limited to 1pc per customer. We expected it to last several hours, maybe even a day, unfortunately it lasted around 20 minutes.

Mind you if you read his post, He contradicts himself several times. Has anyone asked, Gibbo who he meant by "They"

We've spoken to AMD UK and they've told us they know nothing about any launch rebates

 

[EarthDog]

I am sorry but you said it yourself , that in the case of Nvidia's pricing scheme reviewers failed to properly quote prices.

They had 2 prices and SKUs about which they have been informed from day one. Failing to properly convey that through their reviews counts as incompetence in my book.

I know you as a level-headed guy but this time around it looks like you are trying to find excuses for the crap that Nvidia has done. I urge you take a better look and realize that what they did is on the same level as to what AMD has supposedly done now.

I didn't say, nor allude to ANYTHING like that about NVIDIA. I springboarded my NVIDIA comment after Xzibit's...

Nvidia at the time announced two prices. A FE and a MSRP. Was the MSRP even available at launch. Take a guess. NO. It was up-to the AIBs if they wanted to make it available and at what quantities. How many reviewers even benchmarked one of the MSRP cards when they became available?

To be frank, that doesn't even make sense what he said. AIB cards and FE cards from NVIDIA were available at launch IIRC. But pricing was CLEARLY posted on reviews of the FE and AIB cards (MSRP, as he used it, was not correct). They are two distinct cards at two different prices. The head scratching part was the FE's MSRP was more expensive than AIB's MSRP. People knew darn well though prices would rise and fall because of supply and demand. The other big difference here is NVIDIA was clear as day in setting up MSRP for FE and AIB cards. AMD gave prices, but failed to mention it was only a launch price with limited quantities. Stores didn't complain about rebates getting their profit margins, etc.....

Again, NVIDIA has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. Please leave the straw man arguments at the door as it is NOT relevant. Nobody is turning a blind eye to the things NVIDIA has done in the past (you said that DAYS ago and was already addressed.. why are you deflecting, AGAIN?!!), but it really has nothing to do with NVIDIA. NOTHING.

I like avoiding rumors.

So do I...

OcUK's Andrew Gibson went on to say that AMD's launch price of £449 "(...) is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum." The retailer representative also went on to say that "Unfortunately AMD did not make the launch pricing plan clear at all to the press or the consumer, which has caused a lot of confusion, if we could sell cards at £449 and make money, they'd be at that price. If that was the case we probably would have sold around 5,000 units now at OcUK, whereas the reality is we've sold a little over 1000."

Where is the truth guys??????? Somewhere between my take and yours!!!