And when you do give them the money and buy the new monitor (or modify your old one) keep in mind that you won't be able to change to AMD without changing your monitor. Even if you wanted an AMD card you'd have to figure additional cost of changing your monitor in. That will almost always lock you in to staying with nVidia, stifling competition. IF it's unnecessary, I think it stinks and is purely anti-competitive.
What's worse is that people won't care and will go with the flow. Imagine if your car maker made it where if you installed a different brand oil filter or battery, your car wouldn't run, and they did it for no other reason but to force you to buy their proprietary products.
Why would you have to change monitors by switching to AMD? Where has anyone said that a G-Sync monitor is REQUIRED to run G-Sync? You, along with anyone solidly in a single camp are blowing things out of proportion and creating a situation that is black and white when really it's a shade of grey.
First of all, this is an additional PCB that will mod into a monitor. It isn't a physical change to the boards at all, thus you can install it in monitors you already own like the Asus VG248QE. If you run an AMD card you just won't be able to use G-Sync, that isn't anti-competitive at all.
Second of all, everyone tries to make something proprietary and then license it to their competitors. Look at cell phones, lawsuits all over the place over "touch function" that anyone with half a brain would realize was a logical step for EVERYONE. nVidia has even said they would be open to licensing so if AMD ends up not supporting this it is 100% on AMD.
Finally, If you run a 120hz monitor at 120 frames per second this entire concept is pretty much moot because at that framerate the visual negatives created by low framerate are virtually eliminated anyway. The point of this is that you can get better visuals at ANY framerate. The more exciting development is the inclusion of Lightboost support without having to use a driver hack.