The problem this time around was the die size.
Where GTX xx60 chips have been around 200mm2, this one is doubled up in size vs the last gen 660,960,1060. It might be cut down but even with the cut, this is still 350mm2 + chip larger than the die size of the last gen GP104.
However, what it has resulted in is a GPU that is actually closer to 60% faster than the previous gen making it the biggest uptick of the RTX lineup.
https://www.computerbase.de/2019-01/asus-geforce-rtx-2060-strix-test/2/
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html
What this has resulted in is a card that priced with superior price to performance than most cards even when compared to street pricing.
fThis has resulted in price cuts which is better than what the rest of the RTX lineup has managed so far and better than AMD has managed for the last 4 or 5 years.
The pricing isn't ideal but with the lack of competition, its better than expected given how the rest of the RTX cards launched and considering the pricing and performance of the RX590.
The problem this generation is the large build up of GTX 1060 cards along with the problem of the die size of the RTX 2060.
If your investor, do you think it makes sense to release a RTX 2060 at 250 when it's double the size, you spent a boat load of R and D and you have a gigantic pile of GTX 1060 that are unsold? Launching at 250 is impractical unless your goal is to kill AMD graphic division and with the aforementioned consequences mentioned, its potential predatory pricing. That is forgoing all or most of the profit to force the competition to sell at a loss. RX Vega 64 and VEGA 56 are a loss in the 279 to 229 range with HBM2 and the rest of the RX series has to take a price cut which kills them.
It all comes down to die size and performance potential. If Nvidia released a 250mm2 2060, the price likely would have stayed around 250 but with a 10% performance uptick given the RTX die space tax, we would basically be in the same situation we are now where price to performance doesn't really improve.
With the increased cost of transistors(or the lack of a price decrease with advancing node), technology will get more expensive for the same die size going forward. We can either get Intel's lack of performance increases with the advance in the node being used to reduce cost for Intel or we can do what Nvidia is doing and passing the additional cost onto the consumer. These are the only two outcomes when there is no competition.
I would be okay with a bit of price increase if the die size and performance uplift kept up and increased along with it.