The cost of monitors in 2017

Chaoss · 2 May 2017 at 09:10

I'm appalled by the cost of monitors in 2017 for what you get, it seems as though the quality has gone way down (backlight bleed, firmware issues and flickering) and the cost has gone waaay up. Let's take a 27" 2560x1440 display for example, in 2011 I bought a Hazro 27" 2560x1440 display that worked up to 100hz, response time was almost nothing as it was a pass-through display and there was no backlight bleed or dead pixels, the colour was uniform and if I didn't drop it and break it like the clumsy oaf I am I'd still be using it today, this cost me £275.

Now for the same display today only with backlight bleed quality control issues and locked to 60hz it costs over £350. I just don't get it, where everything else in the market has moved forwards the cost of displays has gone up while the quality and features have dropped.

Sorry for the rant, I'm in the market for a new monitor and it feels like the quality and features have gotten really bad.

DragonQ · 2 May 2017 at 09:25

Generally agreed, the market is pretty poor right now at anything but the low-end. Remember though that £275 in 2011 is ~£325 now, and that the USD/GBP exchange rate is much worse now.

Nexus18 · 2 May 2017 at 09:56

Yup the monitor market is the biggest joke of the PC/gaming industry now followed by the CPU market (should improve now though thanks to AMD giving intel the kick up the ass they need) and the GPU market in 3rd place.

The price increase is down to 2 things:

1. Brexit, great decision UK......
2. People RMA'ing/CCR'ing monitors due to all the issues and as a result, the retailers putting the prices up all round to cover the cost of these:

Gibbo said:
Backlight bleed within reason like dead pixels is not a fault, so I guess it depends how they are feeling, LOL. Of course CCR can be used but legally if they believe it is used and cannot be resold they can essentially charge you a restocking fee (upto 25%).

I suspect the monitor price increases at etailers across the board is coming from increased returns on CCR due to backlight bleed, some people have good reason, the bleed is beyond acceptable, others returning for IPS glow and doing it several times over.

We keep CCR restocking charges to an absolute minimum, but it means we end up with a huge amount of B-grade monitors sold a big losses to the company, so we either increase upfront margin to cover it or we start implementing more CCR restocking fees.

On another note we have also applied huge pressure on certain manufacturers to start taking returns on monitors for excessive bleed so the retailer is not the ones getting stung.

With the lack of progress, the prices and the general **** show of monitors now, it's not a wonder so many are jumping to TVs to use as their main monitor and personally I am going to be doing the same soon, a 55" 4k HDR OLED for £1500 will be leagues better than anything the monitor industry will provide in the next few years and even then, you can be damn sure if a monitor ever provides similar specs, even in a much smaller form, it will cost far more lel....

DragonQ · 2 May 2017 at 10:20

Yep, manufacturers making crap products and then pushing RMA burdens onto the retailers. Higher prices for us and bigger profits for them, whereas they could instead just have half-decent quality control to begin with to avoid the high number of returns in the first place.

Greebo · 2 May 2017 at 10:26

DragonQ said:
Yep, manufacturers making crap products and then pushing RMA burdens onto the retailers. Higher prices for us and bigger profits for them, whereas they could instead just have half-decent quality control to begin with to avoid the high number of returns in the first place.

Agreed. I would happily pay £50 more a for monitor if the quality control was there and you didnt have to go through 4 monitors to find one half decent one.

TNA · 2 May 2017 at 10:43

Agreed. If they made better products in the first place, then less people would need to return it. BLB was never so bad before and monitors were cheaper... At least in my experience anyway.

eddiew · 2 May 2017 at 11:05

Brexit maketh a weak pound :/

But I agree that quality control is shockingly lax and features that we want aren't really appearing. My money goes to the first manufacturer to have the balls to put a BLB-free guarantee on their panels.

Panos · 2 May 2017 at 13:05

TVs as monitors eg 40ku6400 are much better when comes to picture quality. Shame the 20-28ms input lag.

And I will agree. Two years with the XL2730Z and already on third replacement due to flickering every 6-8 months. If goes with the same issue now, I will have to buy a new monitor. While even the ancient old crt I have to play old games with, is going strong 17y later.
Same applies to the xl2410t working like new since I bought it

eddyr · 2 May 2017 at 13:50

Greebo said:
Agreed. I would happily pay £50 more a for monitor if the quality control was there and you didnt have to go through 4 monitors to find one half decent one.

Trouble is they would probably mark up by £200+ if they implemented quality control. Also claim that poor sales compared to cheaper competitor products makes it unfeasible to adopt the practice across their lines - and to conveniently back their premium for their 'quality' range.

I struggle to understand how what appears to be an assembly issue has not been engineered out and instead is getting worse over time. They make themselves victims of their own race to the bottom.

ChrisD. · 2 May 2017 at 14:19

Just have to hope OLED becomes more mainstream I guess.

DragonQ · 2 May 2017 at 14:38

ChrisD. said:
Just have to hope OLED becomes more mainstream I guess.

I bought a 2012 plasma in early 2013 thinking it would last me around 3 years before I could buy an OLED replacement. Even in 2017 the cost of a similar OLED is twice as much as I paid back then. Basically, when it comes to OLED, just don't expect anything otherwise you'll be disappointed.

If I knew a great OLED FreeSync 2 monitor would be out later this year I'd return my MG279Q and just stick with a cheap 1080p monitor until then, but for all I know that could be another 3 years away, particularly for one without quality control issues.

eddyr said:
Trouble is they would probably mark up by £200+ if they implemented quality control. Also claim that poor sales compared to cheaper competitor products makes it unfeasible to adopt the practice across their lines - and to conveniently back their premium for their 'quality' range.

I struggle to understand how what appears to be an assembly issue has not been engineered out and instead is getting worse over time. They make themselves victims of their own race to the bottom.

I dunno, I think the first manufacturer to offer mid/high-end gaming monitor with a quality guarantee will do a lot of business.

ChrisD. · 2 May 2017 at 14:44

DragonQ said:
I bought a 2012 plasma in early 2013 thinking it would last me around 3 years before I could buy an OLED replacement. Even in 2017 the cost of a similar OLED is twice as much as I paid back then. Basically, when it comes to OLED, just don't expect anything otherwise you'll be disappointed.

Oh I know, I paid £2500 I think for my 1080p OLED TV just over two years ago, if I want the equivalent 4K screen now then it's over £3k I think. Meh.

Rroff · 2 May 2017 at 14:52

I've been fairly lucky on the quality control side but it seems ever since G-Sync/FreeSync have appeared it has also influenced the other panel prices upwards a bit - maybe the manufacturers think it will make the G-Sync panels look less expensive on top and/or encourage people to spend the extra for the G-Sync variant.

The quality control really is getting beyond a joke though - as I mentioned before a year or so ago I walked through a newly setup office with like 80 brand new of the same monitor all sitting there running a mostly black screensaver and the BLB was incredibly varied and like 60% I would have sent back if I'd have received that panel.

Nexus18 · 2 May 2017 at 15:18

Well I now have a 55" curved 3D 2016 LG OLED 4K HDR TV in my basket for £1449 and the finger is hovering over the buy button.... This is what happens when monitor manufacturers and/or retailers take the ****!

The way I see it:

- it will be at least 2-3 years until OLED becomes mainstream for the monitor industry, until then we are just going to get a **** ton of "fake" HDR displays coming in at £800-1000 and any that have proper HDR support will be at least £1200, more than likely costing at least £1500+ especially if the likes of acer and asus will be the only ones pushing those FALD monitors.....
- when OLED monitors do arrive, it is going to be costing more than £1449 for a 27-34" version, just look at the dell screen, £3k for a 60HZ 4k 30" screen with no free/gsync sync....
- And lastly, quality control..... OLED TVs aren't great as it it atm (mainly uniformity issues) but I imagine OLED for the monitor industry will be an even bigger joke

smilertoo · 2 May 2017 at 15:22

My Hazro 27" cost me over £400, did you get yours 2nd hand?

eddiew · 2 May 2017 at 15:56

Rroff said:
The quality control really is getting beyond a joke though - as I mentioned before a year or so ago I walked through a newly setup office with like 80 brand new of the same monitor all sitting there running a mostly black screensaver and the BLB was incredibly varied and like 60% I would have sent back if I'd have received that panel.

To be fair, office bulk-buys are usually some cheap tat that a manager decided they would save 100x £20 on, then discovered they only have VGA ports and everyone ends up with USB-VGA adapters... :/

But it does take the mick when you can see the BLB even in a well-lit environment like that. I'm just frozen with fear on screens at the mo. I do want a bigger one, but the 24" I have is flawless (zero BLB as far as I can tell), so it's really hard to motivate myself to buy another ticket on panel lottery after the last three were all losers. I'm happy to pay a premium, but only if the product has a premium level of QC

Cromulent · 2 May 2017 at 16:12

Buy decent monitors like Dell UltraSharps and you'll be fine. I have 3 Dell UltraSharps at the moment and no problems at all.

Rroff · 2 May 2017 at 16:13

eddiew said:
To be fair, office bulk-buys are usually some cheap tat that a manager decided they would save 100x £20 on, then discovered they only have VGA ports and everyone ends up with USB-VGA adapters... :/

But it does take the mick when you can see the BLB even in a well-lit environment like that. I'm just frozen with fear on screens at the mo. I do want a bigger one, but the 24" I have is flawless (zero BLB as far as I can tell), so it's really hard to motivate myself to buy another ticket on panel lottery after the last three were all losers. I'm happy to pay a premium, but only if the product has a premium level of QC

Been there seen that :s worked in a call centre where one of the managers over-rode buying decent (appropriate) monitors and made them buy some low refresh (totally inappropriate for long sessions) CRT junk that were being sold off cheap.

These weren't cheap cheap monitors - can't remember the model off the top of my head but they were fairly middle of the road.

Cromulent said:
Buy decent monitors like Dell UltraSharps and you'll be fine. I have 3 Dell UltraSharps at the moment and no problems at all.

Been going back to Dell lately - the odd glitch aside they are the best monitors I've owned to be fair.

Aberfala · 2 May 2017 at 16:30

Chaoss said:
I'm appalled by the cost of monitors in 2017 for what you get, it seems as though the quality has gone way down (backlight bleed, firmware issues and flickering) and the cost has gone waaay up. Let's take a 27" 2560x1440 display for example, in 2011 I bought a Hazro 27" 2560x1440 display that worked up to 100hz, response time was almost nothing as it was a pass-through display and there was no backlight bleed or dead pixels, the colour was uniform and if I didn't drop it and break it like the clumsy oaf I am I'd still be using it today, this cost me £275.

Now for the same display today only with backlight bleed quality control issues and locked to 60hz it costs over £350. I just don't get it, where everything else in the market has moved forwards the cost of displays has gone up while the quality and features have dropped.

Sorry for the rant, I'm in the market for a new monitor and it feels like the quality and features have gotten really bad.

That was a bargain for a 27" 2560x1440, my Dell U2711 cost me £750 in 2010.

eddyr · 2 May 2017 at 16:44

DragonQ said:
I dunno, I think the first manufacturer to offer mid/high-end gaming monitor with a quality guarantee will do a lot of business.

Quite probably, at least from enthusiasts, making it a small market. But yeah the status quo definitely leaves people hesitant. I am unwilling to part with 4/5/600+ in pursuit of a monitor with desirable but ultimately non-essential features and get stuck with a poor quality product that does a bad job at its primary function. Most monitors are a feature compromise already so it stings when that happens. So I don't and they don't get the money. I doubt this kind of online discussion helps regular folk who just want a nice screen make that purchasing decision either.

A brand that develops a good rep across their range should do quite well over a longer term. Its why as above I am quite happy to consider purchasing a Dell monitor but with just 1 brand, options are limited.

eddiew said:
To be fair, office bulk-buys are usually some cheap tat that a manager decided they would save 100x £20 on, then discovered they only have VGA ports and everyone ends up with USB-VGA adapters... :/

But it does take the mick when you can see the BLB even in a well-lit environment like that. I'm just frozen with fear on screens at the mo. I do want a bigger one, but the 24" I have is flawless (zero BLB as far as I can tell), so it's really hard to motivate myself to buy another ticket on panel lottery after the last three were all losers. I'm happy to pay a premium, but only if the product has a premium level of QC

I am unwilling to pay a premium if it just means an excuse for marketing to promote silly pricing for select products that meet what should be a basic standard of quality.