This solves a pain point that is not being addressed at the consumer level. Magma has a successful product line that is designed to alleviate the pain point of expanding I/O.
The Razer Core is not designed to expand I/O. It's designed to improve graphics performance on laptops, and more specifically it's designed to
improve gaming performance. Nobody's putting anything other than a graphics card in this, the markets are different (Magma for pros vs Core for consumers), etc.
Also, your own use cases are hardly "consumer"-oriented, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Replacing I/O might be fine and dandy for casual use and for strictly gaming (emphasis mine), but those of us who have to travel and have software or output that does not lend itself to being replicated easily to transfer from system to system would like to be able to have enhanced abilities without being separated from our day to day tools.
Sure. That's why I said this:
...the utility from it, to me, is basically limited to people who already have a Razer Blade and don't have an external monitor.
So we aren't disagreeing there. If all you care about is exclusively using a laptop, and specifically don't want multiple systems, and specifically want to maximize performance only when at your desk, and you're specifically targeting a professional use case that isn't gaming, and you specifically are willing to pay any price... then this is probably your only real choice. But that's a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of people.
Most people who see this will exist outside of that group. Most people will just want better gaming performance. Most people fall under that broad "casual use and gaming" bucket you called out. And, thus, my point is that most people are better served by building a desktop.
For someone to make the claim that this product is overpriced, I challenge that and say you have to compare it to a less expensive product that does the same job.
No, I don't have to do that. I just have to demonstrate that I can create a substitute that does the same or better job, for as much or for less money. Outside of the highly specific exception I stated above, I have demonstrated that
people who want to use the Core to improve gaming performance (which is what the preponderance of Razer's own promotion specifically calls out) are financially better off just building an entirely new system - which, you'd agree, provides exceptionally more utility for that majority of use cases than the Core.
Put it this way: I live in Boston, and although you can't "directly compare" the T (our subway system) to a sedan, guess what - the T is better at what the car does for the majority of people. To that majority, the car is overpriced for what it provides.
Your solution is messy and complicated and does nothing for me who spent 6 hours setting up a show on my laptop in studio and wants to work on it at home. If you work in 3D you know how long it takes to setup a program to suit your workflow, let alone the scores of plugins and settings that you require and media assets you can use for a project. No way do I have time to mess with that one TWO computers when I just need one to be beefier for certain tasks. My friend who manages networks for a major airline has to travel constantly and desires a super sleek, easy to transport, laptop at any cost. He could build a couple new PCs for his offices and home, but how much more complicated is that then purchasing several I/O expanders and having the days work at his fingertips but have the muscle he needs for his 4k monitor setups.
I think you're overstating the effort of setting up software - which you should only ever have to do once, I'd imagine? - but we can just agree to disagree there. I don't have experience in 3D modeling/rendering, either, so I won't claim that I know that struggle
Still, anything is arguable with the caveat of "at any cost", so that's not really a good argument in support of doing something. At that point, the discussion is no longer about value, because you've removed the constraint of cost, and that's
all that I'm talking about here - that, for the vast majority of enthusiasts, this product is a terrible
value. Most people considering this would be better off building a system.
We would all love to have these products cheaper, that is coming, but compared to the industry this is not overpriced. It is actually competitive.
By that logic, a $500 rock isn't overpriced in a market that only has $2500 rocks. That's just silly.
Something is overpriced not as a function of other prices for the same thing, but as a function of the utility it delivers in comparison to a reasonable substitute. For most people, an entirely new system is a reasonable substitute, and the Core compares
terribly to that.
Maybe that doesn't include you, but we're not talking about you, we're talking about the "consumer" - your average enthusiast. Who can't afford things "at any cost", and isn't doing 3D modeling, and mostly wants to have the best gaming performance possible for the money.
...Anyways, for the most part, I don't think we really disagree. This can be a fantastic value for
you, given your needs and workflow, and that's all that matters for you. All I was trying to say - though I probably wasn't direct or clear enough - is that I feel that this is a terrible value for almost anyone else, and especially for the population that Razer itself is targeting, which is laptop-toting gamers.
