More word salad, nom nom nom.
Still banging on the "models proves it" trope. Which still proves nothing except how cheap it is to implement freesync, not how well it is selling.
Still trying to evade every single question and request for clarification, I see... If you think those "word salad" sentences somehow work as a defense, then I can tell you now that you're wrong. On the contrary, it always tells me that I've hit the bulls-eye, and you have nothing more to add.
Also, as long as you keep trying to sneak in false information, I'll keep refuting them one-by-one. Like I said, my Ctrl-C fu is strong. There are plenty of discussion paths that have just simply stopped because you chose to ignore them. Then at later point you've tried to sneak some of them back in, without success. It's not my fault you don't want to defend your position with anything but "Nuh-uh!".
This also applies to the 6:1 ratio (or what you call "models proves it" trope, apparently). As to what it "proves", what it doesn't, and what it indicates, please read my earlier comments. If you want to present counter-arguments, you'll indeed need to propose something more besides "no it doesn't", or even worse, insisting on anti-proofs to things nobody claimed to be the case. For example: I never said that the ratio PROVES FreeSync monitors are selling better -- actually, I haven't said that it would even INDICATE it. There is PROBABLY a correlation, but whether the ratio is higher or lower, there are too many factors to say anything that could be more accurately rationalized. Personal guess would be that on average, for the whole market on new monitor sales, the ratio would be around 8:1, with brick-and-mortar stores definitely keeping it high on FreeSync's favor. Whereas on enthusiast-focused retailers (like OcUK), the ratio would probably be closer to 4:1, or maybe even 3:1. It's a shame Steam Hardware Survey doesn't ask for this, so we could at least get the gaming community's ratios.
Actually, now that we're on the topic of "A proves B" and unnecessary anti-proofs, how about we do this:
You list ALL the claims I've made of something "proving" something (with quotes!), and then we'll see where we stand at? In my view, you're the one that keeps saying "stuff A proves stuff B" -- and like said before, I also think you're using that word a little too willy-nilly. Using some logic, market theory or even facts/statistics as a counter-argument doesn't necessarily PROVE anything, but they can indeed undermine the original claim.
Freesync monitors have had to have big discounts all over the place, not just this weekend. Yawn.
I haven't seen any abnormally high discount sprees among FreeSyncs. Nor does the price aggregate site I'm using as a source show any such out-of-the-order activity. Maybe you're just confusing them because there is indeed the 6:1 ratio to consider, so by design the discounts should be more frequent, as well?
Nice to see you finally admit that your conclusions are completely made up though.
... Conclusion by definition is "a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration". My words are indeed mostly interpretations of various factors and aspects, as they should be. Why, are you copying your conclusions from a book or something? If you copy someone else's words, it would be encouragable to give credit where credit is due, instead of presenting them as your own thoughts.
I never said choice was a bad thing, I just said it doesn't prove gsync is about to die off.
In fact if anything I am being pro-choice, people have the choice to buy an AMD GPU and monitor to have cheaper freesync, or nvidia GPU and gsync to have a more curated experience with actual specifications to stick to.
Well, you've been presenting lack of choice (or as you call it "curated experience") as some sort of great positive aspect for G-Sync. And frankly, if you yourself consider that as a positive aspect for G-Sync, then that's OK. But, and while not directly saying it, you've also been insinuating that FreeSync is instead for "low-end monitors" (example quote:
by slapping it on any old tat), so it kind of needs to be pointed out that FreeSync is indeed for low-end, mid-end AND high-end.
And actually, no, I don't think you've yet said that it doesn't prove that G-Sync is about to die off. You said that the "models prove it" -trope doesn't prove anything. Which I took as referencing to the 6:1 ratio. While connected to the topic, it actually is indeed a separate issue from model variance and requirements.
And just as a pre-emptive notion: I don't think anybody is actually saying that more choice WOULD prove that G-Sync is dying off, either. But we, or at least I, am saying that it's a contributing factor, all the same.
As for "actual specifications":
It's not that FreeSync doesn't have spec requirements, they are just more lax, so manufacturers can choose to make monitors for a larger audience, and give the choice to the customers.
The fact that people are actually not choosing AMD and freesync seems to be completely irrelevant to the discussion though so lets hope we have less choice in the future.
I'm not sure whether you are trying to be witty or something, but that sentence doesn't make any sense.
