Computer Hardware, Video Games and the Rights of Consumers
The computer hardware and video game market is a dumpster fire of flagrant consumer rights abuses, anti-competitive behaviour, and both markets operate with little to no scrutiny, accelerating the decline of consumer rights. That is why I believe CHOICE must assist consumers in navigating these markets hellbent on misleading and ignoring the rights of consumers in a concerted campaign to sell overpriced and junky products.
These states may appear verbose or exaggeratory but they are not. Hardware companies such as Nvidia, Intel, AMD and more have made themselves comfortable profits with extremely anti-consumer behaviour and insane price hikes with no scrutiny as the ACCC begs for reform and the American FTC performs surprisingly well but does not go far enough.
The most expensive component of a computer today is the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) also called a āgraphics cardā is vital as it is responsible for visual performance during games. GPU prices are not just inflated today, but historically, and are extremely likely to grow in the future. If I said that Coles had 75% of milk sales, it would rightfully be called monopolistic. However, what you call the GPU market does not matter because recent quarterly market analysis pegged 94% of all GPU sales on NVIDIA. 94% of anything is not a share, it is total domination and market annihilation.
As a result, this market has been home to misleading MSRP listings, fake promotions, Misleading consumers, bottlenecking supply to increase prices and anti-competitive behaviour featuring monopolistic acquisitions and corporate espionage. Who pays for all this greed? You, me and all other consumers who had the audacity to enjoy a game or two after work.
Video Games and Zero Accountability
The same goes for modern triple A game developers such as Activision, EA Games, Gearbox and companies with better reputations such as CD Project Red. These are just a few of the many developers who increasingly release games in borderline broken, unusable states and then maybe fixing them much later.
This started in 2016 with the release of No Mans Sky, a highly anticipated game that had poor performance and many vital missing features promised in the advertising by the developers. Cyberpunk 2077 was another highly anticipated game which was also broken on release with poor performance and many bugs that made the game unplayable. The developers of these games have since made well on their promise, fixing their games through multiple patches and free updates so that these are now great playable games but they forever changed the industry and set a horrible precedent; you can release a horribly broken game, fix it later and there will be next to no repercussions.
In 2016 and 2020, these games were examples of unacceptable and poor practice. In 2025, it was odd that they went as far as they did to fix their broken games after release. The new rule is that every single major developer must release their games broken and possibly, eventually fix them far later. Battlefield 2042, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor and so many more prove that developers release broken games and can decide whether they fix their mess later.
The developer Gearbox recently released Borderlands 4 and whilst the game narratively is amazing, the performance for the game is unbearable. The poor performance has tarred user reviews for the game and this is not because consumers have outdated or malfunctioning computers, the game simply does not run well and is poorly optimised for many modern computers.
However, CEO of Gearbox, Randy Pitchford, is to the rescue stating that the consumer should ācode your own engine and show us how itās doneā, that the āgame is actually pretty damn optimisedā and āwe make premium games for premium gamersā among many other statements justifying the games performance at the expense of consumers. Basically, ādonāt believe your lying eyes or anybody elseās, believe me because I am rich and you better be too. You arenāt? Too bad, make your own gameā.
Putting elitism aside, we know that the game is poorly optimised because other comparable games with far more impressive visuals perform far better and with harder settings than Borderlands 4 such as Cyberpunk 2077. Today, Mr Pitchfordās confidence despite Borderlands 4ās performance issues not only displays what is wrong with the industry but that this common mindset has been left unchecked for far too long.
Aside from Mr Pitchford, these patterns are typically justified by saying how competitive the industry is, that the developers will release patches that fix the game or sometimes that consumers need to improve their hardware. But these excuses are a mere guise to put a 2025 veneer on unfair 20th century market tactics. This is like buying a dishwasher online to receive a broken rice cooker at your door with the company saying they might send someone to repair it in 6 months and that you just donāt understand how difficult it all is.
The Reviewers and Upholding Accountability
Unfortunately, this problem intensifies as sources for informative video game or hardware reviews are rare, especially reviews that are not sponsored by the same industry to promote their products. One of the best companies and YouTube channels doing informative hardware reviews is Gamers Nexus. However, they serve as an example of how hardware reviewers have messy and potentially conflicting relationships between the products and their manufacturers while providing accurate and necessary information to their audiences.
For example, Gamers Nexus did a highly informative and extremely positive review of the Lian Li Lancool 217 case. 3 months later, Gamers Nexus did a sponsored advertisement for the same product. The same channel has also discussed how Nvidia pressured themselves and others to say certain things about their product whilst threatening to restrict access to review these products.
This post is not here to say that Gamers Nexus does a poor job. These gaming and/or hardware YouTube channels and websites require early access and sponsorships in order to be viable and it makes the relationship between reviewer and manufacturer messy when their expressed goal is to inform us as consumers. The only remedy is for non-profit, member sponsored reviews such as the ones provided by CHOICE.
CHOICEās Role in the Solution and Why It Is Important
Every day people do not have the time to wait for a patch in 6 months that fixes everything, we do not have days and months to dedicate on researching which GPU will rip us off the least and we definitely do not have thousands of dollars to spend just so that we can reasonably play the newest game on systems with relatively fresh components.
It can be niche work and the infrastructure costs can be sizable but the Australian video game market and industry is large and only growing. According to the IGEA in collaboration with Bond University;
- 82% of Australians play games,
- 51% of us are women,
- 81% of all players in Australia are above the age 18,
- 74% of Australian households have 2 or more game devices and
- 58% of Australian households own a PC to play games.
It is important to recognise the reality that most Australians today purchase video games and hardware and then have to navigate this market wrapped with anti-consumer behaviour that damages our ability to make informed decisions at the checkout.
We already have an amazing organisation in CHOICE which helps navigate difficult to understand markets like insurance and already covers a wide plethora of technology based services and products such as laptops, internet providers and even VPN software. Computer hardware and video games are not far away from these topics at all.
This post is not asking for CHOICE to tell me whether the story of a game is great or if the art direction is inspiring. I only need to know if the game is functional, what products should I avoid when making a computer or which GPU is going to give the best performance per dollar.
I have slowly noticed the gaming space become increasingly unaffordable, difficult to navigate and anti-consumer since I was first introduced to computers and gaming at age 8. I believe the only way it can change is if entities such as Choice get involved to help inform consumers which would also expand the base of membership of the organisation.
If you are reading this post thank you for your time. I had links for all my sources but since I am new user I cannot link anymore than twice but I am more than happy to post sources in reply. I would also love to read what you have to say and I hope we can all encourage Choice as a member-lead organisation to continue and expand upon providing accurate, informative reviews that are not swayed by sponsorships.
