Perhaps personal then, but buying two games at full launch price? I'd have to be very heavily hyped to even consider that,
I agree, I personally never buy at launch or preorder, but cannot ignore the fact that when I received those games, that was indeed their prices. So that was their value at the moment.
I learned buy at launch is generally not really a benefit to begin with.
Agreed.
To be very honest I think there's a healthy load of cognitive dissonance in saying you got 170,- worth of value out of these games.
As mentioned, day one launch price was that and thats when I got them, so fair is fair.
Wait a few months and you'll pay 30,- per game.
Sometimes that works, but will use one particular example, the Spider Man games have not come down in price. They do go on sale, but not "low" enough, considering their age.
Think about this for a minute and reflect
Perhaps its really worth it to you and that's fine. But I strongly doubt this is a rational calculation here.
Please see above.
I won't deny there IS value. But I'd value that at perhaps 60
Please see above.
RDNA3 competes with Ada... but not quite.
It does, as stated, except perhaps with the 4090, but that was never the target.
DLSS is superior and evolves faster
According to some, not entirely the case and sometimes, even their own customers get shafted, just ask the proud owners of the 30xx series.
That is something that many people have already mentioned and debunked here and other threads. Personally, I have seen a couple and I mean literally a couple of times where I say wow, rt is nice. And then reality hits, not even the 4090 with dlss and frame gen is enough for some of those, so I dont think such prices are worth now.
Cards are slightly more power efficient
Funny how power consumption only matters when I can be used against AMD. I speak about the other times when this comes up, like with the current intel CPUs, when magically, power consumption on a desktop doesnt matter. yes, potato - potatoe or how the saying goes.
Granted, they worked on that for a while and had the vision, but if you need it and there are alternatives, just not mature enough.
So the reality is, Nvidia simply has a better product to sell, and people throughout the years have clearly shown preference for the biggest featureset
I wouldnt say its as a one sided but I get it.
more so than a slightly lower price.
Again, that matters when is convenient, for example, how many post in this thread alone are asking for lower prices?
And let's not forget AMD's terrible pricing strategy, waiting far too long with undercutting Nvidia hard, and instead trying to get maximum dollar for what is essentially a lesser offering. Customers don't like that.
Yet they were ok in accepting the price increase from the 3080 ($329) to the 4080 ($1100).
For that all you need to compare is the development of FSR vs DLSS.
I'm willing to take the a slightly less "performant" tech if it helps a bigger userbase.
You can of course not be a fan of the proprietary approach (I'm not, anyway), but the reality is, the overall experience with DLSS is better, so if you're just gaming, what do you pick? Principles, or optimal gaming?
Principles, hence why I like AMD.
Consoles are low margins market that Nvidia is not interested in competing directly, at least for now.
They went extra hard on Tegra 2 or whatever is called for the upcoming Switch 2, since AMD also did a big push with Nintendo so they would switch to AMD.
This is all the times you said Ngreedia, in just this thread, we get it.. but isn't it a thread about AMD? Can we stay on topic?
The biggest threat to AMD pulling this off is AMD.
I love how I live rent free in your world.
Funny how people get triggered just because little ol'me doesnt like Ngreedia.
