I have seen the "maybe X should sell their product for less, and make up more money based on higher sales volumes" argument many times. Apple products come to mind, overpriced for the same tech, but with a proprietary OS and a walled garden of apps that must follow strict Apple protocols.
Maybe NVidia wants to sell 200,00 at $1200... and who is to say they are wrong. Maybe they sell 300,000 at $1200, you never know. You can be sure that the company set a price they thought they could get, based on the market as it is right now. Like any new release, cards start at above MSRP, move to MSRP, then actually sell for below MSRP. But the initial offering price is based on what the market will bear, and what is available at the time.
I also imagine that pricing has more to do with fabrication costs, parts cost, and market competition. New DDR6 VRAM costs more than the DDR5 and 5X. Who knows what kinds of yields they are getting on their dies on the initial runs at the fabs. And even with that, the cost of R&D is always factored into sales to recoup the years of costs related to advancing technology when something new is introduced.
No doubt as paying customers we all want the lowest price that we can get, but that isn't happening so c'est la vie. Lets face it, most people are pissed at the prices because in the end they are going to want one of these, and paying a premium price will suck. I know that I have some money tucked away, and was hoping to purchase a Ti this time around. Now, I am not sure that will be the case. I could afford to if I really wanted to, but I am choking on that price too. Even at the $1000 MSRP for partner cards, when they come down, is higher than I had expected or hoped.
But like I said, they are competing with themselves at that level. AMD has nothing to compete with the 1080 Ti right now, the Vega 64 is in 1080 territory, and costs more than a 1080. Disregarding the raytracing and tensor cores, I am expecting to see a 2070 perform better than the Vega 64, and still cost less.
