Should you be compensated for the GTX 970 issues and spec changes?

[poofyhairguy]

Yet another high and mighty response.

What you call "high and mighty" I call decent and reasonable.

Seems like Nvidia agrees with me at some level or they wouldn't have settled. They knew their practices wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Keysplayr]

What you call "high and mighty" I call decent and reasonable.

Seems like Nvidia agrees with me at some level or they wouldn't have settled. They knew their practices wouldn't hold up in court.

Or, and more likely, they number crunched. And to carry on the fight to possibly win the case, could cost more than immediately settling.
I'm open to either way. Others are only one way.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Or, and more likely, they number crunched. And to carry on the fight to possibly win the case, could cost more than immediately settling.
I'm open to either way. Others are only one way.

Keys, this is pretty much what I expect happened. In the scheme of things the amount that NVIDIA will have to pay out is pretty minimal; so minimal that it didn't even come up on the company's earnings report last night. Will be interesting to see what they have to say about it in their quarterly SEC filings which should be out soon.

Mountain out of a molehill, people. Yes, this was a blunder, but in the scheme of things, we are really just sitting around wasting keystrokes about 512MB of VRAM. Ridiculous.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Or, and more likely, they number crunched. And to carry on the fight to possibly win the case, could cost more than immediately settling.

But if the case had no merit it would have be thrown out before it got to the point where Nvidia had to decide to move forward or settle.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Mountain out of a molehill, people. Yes, this was a blunder, but in the scheme of things, we are really just sitting around wasting keystrokes about 512MB of VRAM. Ridiculous.

Easy for you to say, you never bought a 970 hoping/expecting it to be your primary GPU for many years. We now have proof (via game VRAM usage) that 512mb matters.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Easy for you to say, you never bought a 970 hoping/expecting it to be your primary GPU for many years. We now have proof (via game VRAM usage) that 512mb matters.

Fortunately, NVIDIA will be sending those 970 customers $30, and resale value of the 970 seems to be holding up reasonably well. If that 512MB is such a big deal, then it shouldn't be too hard for unhappy 970 owners to dump their cards for something else.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Fortunately, NVIDIA will be sending those 970 customers $30, and resale value of the 970 seems to be holding up reasonably well. If that 512MB is such a big deal, then it shouldn't be too hard for unhappy 970 owners to dump their cards for something else.

I agree it worked out in the end (for those of us who bailed before Directx 12 made this a bigger issue). My point is it would have been nice if we could have gotten here without the need for someone to sue Nvidia, or without the arrogance they displayed about the mistake when they were caught red handed.

Minimizing how they handled the 970 situation is basically giving them a free pass to pull a trick like that again (above and beyond the leverage they get from current market conditions).

 

[Pantalaimon]

Mountain out of a molehill, people.

The problem with your logic here is that we, as consumers, find out only afterwards if it was a mountain or a molehill. Based on your logic, companies can behave dishonestly as long as the consequences are not dangerous.

Sorry, but in my book, companies need to be kept honest regardless of the severity of the consequences, and not by a company bean counter who determines if a lie is costly or not, and if not, the company can proceed with a lie.

 

[moonbogg]

This didn't work out for 970 owners in the end. The 970 replacement is $450.00 and that measly $30 (which will take forever to even receive) won't be enough to help many people replace their funky ass 3.5gb 970 when it starts stuttering, if it hasn't already. Nvidia screwed millions of people with the 970 and then raised the prices on the replacement product (GTX 1070) by over $100 from what the 970 was. If Nvidia gave a damn about making this right, they would allow people with 970s to buy a 1070 for the price they paid for the 970, plus the $30 refund.
So, they give you a proper replacement product for the price you paid originally, then the $30 on top of that. People with 970s might not be happy about being stuck with a 970, and the only replacement product magically increased in price by over $100. And no, the $380 launch price of the 1070 is a load of crap. The cost is $450. The only other option if you want the same price bracket is to go to a low end 1060 or to switch to AMD.
Nvidia hasn't made this right. They need to do more to show they really respect and care for us gamers and that they are sorry for this situation. A discounted 1070 for 970 owners would go a long way to make up for it.

 

[jackstar7]

Yet another high and mighty response.

Or just the response of a consumer who wants to have the companies trying to exchange a person's hard-earned money for their goods to be on the up and up.

When you dismiss someone's criticism without actually addressing it, that is how you come off as permissive of nV's "mistake".

 

[jackstar7]

I do not answer rigged questions. sorry. I'll be done with the thread when I'm ready. Put your ego away.

I nearly choked on the irony here.

 

[Phynaz]

Keys, this is pretty much what I expect happened. In the scheme of things the amount that NVIDIA will have to pay out is pretty minimal; so minimal that it didn't even come up on the company's earnings report last night. Will be interesting to see what they have to say about it in their quarterly SEC filings which should be out soon.

Mountain out of a molehill, people. Yes, this was a blunder, but in the scheme of things, we are really just sitting around wasting keystrokes about 512MB of VRAM. Ridiculous.

More like the wiring of 512MB of RAM. It's not like it's not there.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

More like the wiring of 512MB of RAM. It's not like it's not there.

It would better to not have than extra 512MB of ram than to have it implemented as such. It is literally a black hole.

 

[Keysplayr]

It would better to not have than extra 512MB of ram than to have it implemented as such. It is literally a black hole.

I 100% agree with this. Should have been a 3.5GB card only.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

NV's response, or lack thereof is the thing that makes them indefensible in this matter.