What most defenders of this situation don't get is it came to light because PC gamers playing at 1080/1440/multi-monitor noticed issues like stuttering and poor performance in games. They then ran the synthetic VRAM apps to verify. If this issue didn't affect in-game performance in rare cases, it wouldn't be a big deal. While the performance in games for a 970 hasn't changed, the price/performance did. In the last 4 months 290/299X have fallen in price and gained performance relative to the 970 in modern titles, on average. What we have now is a $240-250 after-market 290 within 5% of a 970 at 1080p, and tied at 1440p and above. 290X is within 9-11% of a 980 only.
The VRAM issue only put 290/290X vs. 970/980 into the spotlight again and many are finally realizing that 970/980 no longer provide good price/performance that they did at launch. When I see that MSI Lightning 290X costs less than any 970, and you can buy almost 2 of them for the price of a 980, it's not even just about the VRAM issue, but highlights to me how NV charges huge premiums for its products. If most of the market is OK with paying these NV premiums, they will not care about the VRAM issue either since it means they would never consider AMD cards anyway.
For brand agnostic gamers, the way NV handled the 970 fiasco and their existing stance on 970/980 pricing is disappointing. If people defend NV's actions, it just continues to justify NV's pricing premiums and "a company that can do no wrong".
I am not defending Nvidia, but I must say, I do find the stance that their prices are unjustified rather one-sided and unrealistic.
They launched at prices more competitive than AMD's current generation lineup. That is a significant fact to bring up, as the 970 undercut AMD prices by a decent margin. What we are comparing now are post-cut-prices from AMD, and, I don't find it justified for Nvidia to drop prices. Do I want them to, and would everyone prefer they do? Sure, especially in light of recent events. That said, they are the newest product on the market. Companies cut their prices of older stock to compete with the new item, and Nvidia's sales have apparently given Nvidia justification that, no, in fact we don't need to cut our prices now that the competition cut theirs. And really, in no market have I ever seen the "underdog" cut prices to see the newer product from the dominant player also have the price cut.
It's backwards to assume Nvidia would, or even should. Would it be nice? Hell yes. But it won't happen. I don't think the 970 will even drop in price until new product from either company changes the performance and price benchmarks.
Now, in a more recent most, you described the Nvidia chip practice of going with their typical mid-range part, as fabricated, and launching it as their high-end brand to compete with the high-end product of AMD. I wish they wouldn't do this, but really, can you blame them? This is a market where they want to get the most money from the product. AMD is making great products, no lie, but until they challenge the very best Nvidia can produce (big chip vs big chip), then Nvidia can continue to coast along in this fashion. There is no market justification for Nvidia to launch their expensive to produce GM200 at the then going-rate for flagships around the $600 mark.
Don't get me wrong, I personally WANT them to do just that, I too am tired of this ho-hum Nvidia approach, but if I were in charge, intent on making money for my company, I cannot say I would make a different decision.
I do hope they will keep all future Maxwell chips in the 900 series and drop prices of the rest of their cards, and hopefully, if AMD comes out swinging with their 300 series, I think Nvidia will do just that.