The problem isn't finding a TV that does HDMI 2.0, it's finding one that does 4k@60Hz and 4:4:4.
That's not even the main problem imo. As a Panasonic plasma user, if I am buying a new TV for my living room, chances are I want it for watching shows, movies, TV/news, BluRay/4K BluRay, etc. not just games. Once we take actual IQ into account (specifically contrast and black levels), a 1080P LG OLED
wipes the floor with any 4K LED/LCD. Even my non-tech savvy friends who don't know anything about TVs had their jaws hit the floor when I showed them a 2015 Samsung 4K LED/LCD and then walked them over to the LG OLEDs. Unanimously every single one of them said the 1080P OLED is better than any 4K LED/LCD in the entire store and anyone with 2 eyes who understand IQ would agree.
And how much does a 4K LG OLED cost?
$3-
$5K US. That is the real problem. The irony here is people who are hyping up 4K LED/LCDs with HDMI 2.0 are the ones who don't know much about high quality IQ. All you end up with is a TV with more pixels but inherently inferior technology. That's about as exciting as getting a boob job and a face-lift for a 50-year-old.
In fact, in terms of pure IQ, a 65" 4K LED/LCD cannot even match a 1080P 65" Panasonic Plasma.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XWV2X9U/ref=pd_va_channel_11
So ya, 4K LED/LCD is pure marketing for now and the uninformed masses are flocking to them - putting lipstick on an outdated tech pig (yes please, give me even higher resolution of a bad looking image!) repackaging it as 4K as if it fixes any of the major flaws of LEDs (nope). This is pure irony because the people hyping up 4K HDMI 2.0 to the moon and back as a critical IQ feature and thus why underpowered 950/960 cards are good, have no freaken clue the 4K LED output is miles behind 1080P OLED/Plasma but hey, I got 4K so it must be better, right...
As you mentioned too, to reduce input lag on those 2015 4K LEDs, you put them into Game mode which has a tendency to reduce IQ even further, dropping the motion resolution to just 300 lines on some of those TVs, while reducing contrast even further. More marketing gimmicks.
It's not better, which is why NVIDIA basically has the entire mobile gaming GPU market + most of the desktop GPU market.
Yup, the sales card argument comes up. I guess that also means Bose, Beats, Crocs, Toyota Corolla, Civic, Camry, the original Wii, McDonalds, 3 series BMW are/were the best products in the world. Has nothing to do with the IQ/the average person's ability to think for him/herself and marketing and brand perception. /sarcasm
I have news for you - most people in the world are sheep, cannot think for themselves, cannot think well critically and need to have a sense of belonging. Most people in the world make consumer purchases based on emotions, not logic. That's one of the main reasons why advertising works. In a capitalist consumerist society, perception of yourself in the eyes of others and overall sense of belonging is also fed by attaching the psychological insecurities to a person from the products/services he/she consumes. Therefore, based on that alone, consumers are far more likely to purchase something that is the most popular, most recommended overall and what is perceived positively by others since it makes them feel like they made the right choice. A lot of consumers would often rule out any product based on the brand name and brand perception, even before cross-shopping competing products in the segment. I can easily find 10 people I personally know that if I were to magically produce a 2030 Android smartphone in front of them, they would still tell me iPhone 6S is better.
I wish I had the $ to produce a scientific test with GPUs to prove it. Remember how many people purchased NV's products for a decade despite NV cards having horrible 2D IQ, what about NV cards not having Full RBG over HDMI?
Marketing by its very nature is aimed at the masses, not logical thinkers. AMD could drop the Fury X to $299 tomorrow and it would still never outsell NV's current Maxwell line-up. I know you know this too
What do you say about Intel far outselling AMD during Athlon XP+, Athlon 64, Athlon X2/Opteron eras? Clearly if
most consumers were so informed and critically/technically savvy, they would not have purchased the "superior" Intel processors during those eras. What about GeForce 5 or even 7? Who in their right mind would purchase one of those? Worse 2D+3D IQ
and worse performance and yet they sold like crazy.
What about taking R9 290/290X and refreshing them as R9 390/390X? The former barely sold, had been crapped on non-stop basically while the latter is the 99.9% the same product but is somehow awesome sauce. To this date we have certain posters claiming how R9 290 is hot and loud in all forms.