No need to... I basically agree with you... Where is the competition to 1070, 1080 and the new titan? But i also agree that:
GTX 970 is still the most common graphics card. I can guarantee that half of the sales was after all the known Vram and DX12 and even the false advertising issues. Here are the money, for 1070 and 1080 RnD... The people who still drink Nvidia kool aid and truly believe we must keep quiet and not talk about the shit, because it's a free market - it's their fault. Buyer beware is no longer applicable, when all the information we have is wrong. I have literally red a reviews, that says: "Nvidia's model is both slower and more expensive, but i would recommend it, because it's not about performance." If you buy Graphics card not about performance, your doing it wrong.
Capitalism has it's limits (shocker, I know, except not really), capitalism isn't stable when allowed to go Wild West, because then it isn't a free country anymore, it's a freemium country and then it's basically whoever has the most money has freedoms and everyone else can suck it. This country is proof of concept on that regard, so was old school Rome, before they fell apart.
While it don't help for people to paying for subscriptions they do not need. To blame consumers for monopolizing behavior is absurd, we see companies monopolize on essential stuff such as foods, are we not going to eat? Their behavior will continue whether we buy their products or not, look at Microsoft, prime example, they never "learned" as one would say.
"It's Company Y's fault for Company X deciding on the prices and possessing subhuman level ethics and participating in zombified and primal levels of capitalism (eat or be eaten)"
is almost like
"It's not that guys fault that he raped someone, it was the victim's fault for being raped in the first place."
Logic-101, AMD does not own NVidia, I am pretty sure NVidia has more control of NVidia than AMD.
All that said I am still waiting for an Intel competitor on the CPU side of things, I could definitely use a better APU for a mobile system, nevermind the fact that AMD needs a better 1070 competitor and a 1080/Titan XP competitor, although buy the time I buy another GPU we will probably be at an RX 600's or GTX 1200's.
Yes, I agree with that. Though I don't know if it's because capitalism is at fault, or if it's our fault for abusing it. I haven't made up my mind on that one yet.
As for Microsoft, I also agree with you on that one.
Steam already has a different approach that I think they prefer. >30% of all steam game sales are taken by valve. Then they also have the item community market. Yeah the're racking it in. I heard somewhere that they're the highest profit per employee in the US.
That's a good question TBH, I don't have the answer to that, whether it's capitalism or human problem, it could be both most likely.
After all, all economic ideologies (including socialism) have been abused at one point in time by humans, much like a lot of other ideologies and religions we have.
But then on the other hand, capitalism, especially at it's purest form is a primal "eat or be eaten" and can bring out the worst in people. Victims being blamed for being hunted by predators but have no problem or are too afraid to question the predators and their motives. To blindly accept the ideology especially at it's extremes is to submit to a lower state of consciousness.
Yeah, with Microsoft, I don't get why, I liked using their software when it wasn't data mining and advertising and I liked not paying subscriptions.
I use PayPal. No storefront ever wanted to accept my debit card. I run it through PayPal - flawless.Bought games on 4 storefronts - Steam, GoG, Humble and green crap gaming. My favorite store is Humble actually. All games are dirt cheap, more sales than steam and there is always a bundle on, that for the price is almost always worth it.
Did you really just compare a company doing what they need to do to make larger profits quarter over quarter with rape? Dude. No. Also how the hell can you call competitive price setting "Subhuman level ethics," and "participating in zombified and primal levels of capitalism,"? Yeah, they set prices to be competitive in the market. Its not 'subhuman,' to want to earn the best living for yourself. What do you want AMD and Nvidia to sell to you at a loss, or not do the best for themselves? Do you not strive everyday to do the best for yourself? Why is it not okay for them to do the same? What's evil in that principle?
Yeah, they are really making a killing as it is. People who make tons of money usually just want more, a subscription model could probably make them even more money. Make it optional at first, subscribers get priority on downloads, especially at big game launches they get pre-loads faster or earlier. You get the picture. I don't say it is something I want or even like, but I do think it would work to make them more money. Problem is that they probably has to have a some kind of customer service then, something they seem to absolutely try to avoid at all costs :-D
A) I did not ask AMD and NVidia to sell at a loss. I mean your worried about AMD selling at a loss and yet at the same time you want them to be more competitive, you better pick, cause most likely, you are NOT getting both.
B) "It's not subhuman to want to earn the best living for yourself" It's subhuman when you push everyone out of your way towards it and hoard it all to yourself. Heck, it would be an insult to animals if anything. Life is short compared to the grand scheme of things, having the most toys mean nothing when you are dead and if everyone else is dead, what use are those toys and money?
This isn't about striving to have the best for yourself, they already have the best for themselves, why can't they stop is the real question? Forget stopping, why can't they decelerate? There is a limit you know, or their should be, especially in a finite world with a finite amount of time left. To mindlessly consume and mindlessly hoard everything is having lower level of consciousness, hence I loosely use the term "subhuman".
C) "Did you really just compare a company doing what they need to do to make larger profit quarter over quarter with rape. Yes, I did, and I do it boldly, cause that's what the idea of capitalism at it's extreme maximas is, taking advantage over the other competition in every possible way and beating them at it and erasing them out of the picture. The practices involved in the process can be as unethical as rape as well when you look at oil companies for example as they essentially rape the environment. Good thing we have a thing called protesting.
I said this before, I am saying this again, how fucking long are you going to play "Devil's Advocate"?
As far as NVidia and AMD goes, they are lightweights in this regard, they aren't nearly as much of an issue, they just make GPUs and CPUs and other goods, but you should see how damaging the idea is to strive for the best even if it means destroying the world.
Let me rephrase this, because it is one of the most utterly disgusting ideas in my mind. I read this as, "How long are you going to interrupt our echo chamber?" Because that is what you are asking me to stop doing. Let the echo chamber be and let me have everyone agree and nobody challenge our ideas, because that's how we advance. Through zero discussion or counter argument, but by patting ourselves on the back and telling ourselves we're right. Yeah. Fuck no.
Do you get that this is a paradox and in itself defeats the core argument? The idea that following your core instinct of self-betterment at the expensive of others is sub-human, is a fucking paradox because that instinct is a basic human instinct, on the level of humans beings. We live our entire lives out in the pursuit of betterment for ourselves and those around us, but YET when it is a company that is striving with the obvious same goal in mind your first action is to attempt to patronize and demean them for this effort? When it is an individual trying to do better for their family can you look at them and say they're wrong in that pursuit? Is there any difference when a company does that? I think its completely ridiculous to assert that either is wrong in the continual pursuit of self betterment. To say that it is okay for one and wrong for the other is hypocritical.
Who the fuck are you to claim that they have everything? Have you lived the life of every Nvidia employee trying to do best? How the fuck are you going to claim that. Its so fucking baseless and ridiculous that it hurts. There is no obligation from them to do less for themselves so others can come up. It is not their job to do that, it's the job of the competition to elevate themselves. Its not Nvidia's job to knee-cap their efforts so AMD can come up.
It is not the same thing. Rape is too force yourself onto someone, it is the most disgusting thing that a human can do. It is to forcefully strip someone of something very valuable. It is not the same as competing in a market and taking every advantage at your disposal. It is a gross and fundamentally incorrect assertion to conflate such a disgusting act as rape with the pursuit of the best. Capitalism is competition. It is two or more companies operating independently, both with the goal of doing better than the other. Yes a company goes out if they can't hang, but that's competition. There is a winner and a loser on any day, and if AMD can't keep up then they go under. Yeah it fucking sucks for the consumer, but that's the nature of the system. If Nvidia tmo swapped places with AMD, then AMD would be doing the same. Yeah it fucking sucks that there aren't two winners, but its not the competitors to blame for that. And frankly this IS the best system. Would you rather have a socialist system? Where there are only losers? Nobody benefits in a system void of competition. That's what's beautiful about capitalism. If AMD fails tomorrow, someone will come up and buy them. Samsung or someone would be in a prime position to buy out AMD's tech and go compete in that void. There's money to be made in a capitalistic system, so it always will make sense for someone to come and be that competitor.
I'm going to make this my last post in this thread, its derailed enough and I'll end my part here. Thread = Muted for me. :P
If company Y was ahead of company X, let that lead slip and failed to catch up again, it's entirely company Y's own fault. Back in 2008 I bought my 4870X2 because Nvidia simply had no answer to it. AMD was the big dog back then, but they blew it, failed to recover and are now getting trampled. That's what happens if you don't make good products. If AMD would be making enthusiast level GPUs, we'd be buying them en masse.
As for setting prices, do keep in mind that AMD and Nvidia were fined for fixing prices between 2002 and 2007. They're no white knights. I'd almost give AMD the benefit of the doubt here because they only bought ATI in 2006. But then again they didn't do anything about it until it was being investigated.
Then there's The whole Gainward debacle from 2009, where the company was not allowed to make custom boards until a certain amount of time after ATI's "preferred partners" (Sapphire and EVGA) released theirs. Failure to comply would result in Gainward not getting an ATI chip ever again. That's not just anti-competitive behavior towards consumers, but also towards their own business partners. Gainward's mother company Palit ceased all dealings with AMD as a result, meaning that all their brands (Galax, Gainward etc) now make Nvidia cards only. And before you think that they're just small brands, Palit as a group is huge in Asia and one of the largest graphics card manufacturers worldwide. It's AMD's own anti-competitive practices that almost completely wiped them out of the Asian market
Again, NVidia picked those prices. I am not talking about how AMD has not delivered cause aside from that being an obvious fact right now (that's going to be up for debate when Zen and Vega releases though), it has little to do with NVidia's decisions.
So they pulled off an anti-competitive stunt, like that's suppose to rationalize other companies behavior because AMD pulls crap. They ain't the one making software right now such as Gameworks that hinders performance on their competitors and their own hardware (although recently, I heard something suspicious about the older GCN architecture regarding AMD). AMD isn't creating proprietary software on benchmarking software that hinders the competitor's CPUs (Intel got a "yuge" lawsuit on that).
Saying AMD is anti-competitive because they haven't made a good product isn't a good enough reason btw. This did not apply to Intel when their CPUs got smacked by AMD's Athlons way back then when AMD actually had good CPUs before they fucked up on Bulldozer. Losing the competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.