Originally Posted by Atavax
well, you see it in the gaming industry as a whole, marketing towards the lowest common denominator. CSS and GO being inferior to 1.6 and pre 1.6. Quake 3 and Quake Live being way more skillful than modern shooters. If we're going to continue with the sports car analogy, seems like using an old mouse on the shooters being developed now would be like driving a Ferrari in rush hour traffic.
So lets imagine a mouse manufacturer wants to make a Ferrari of mice. I think its a reasonable assumption that the profit margin on a Ferrari is significantly larger than your compact car because the quantities that will sell are much smaller. So would you be ok with paying significantly more for a mouse that doesn't try to get high dpi? Assuming a mouse manufacturer needs to make $30 more than they do on their average mainstream gamer mouse to justify not appealing to the masses, what would you need to justify the added cost other than simply a flawless sensor with 800 dpi steps?
Is it not possible to have ONE setting that will perform to the highest level of what the sensor can do while still offering the "casual" options? Can we not have great firmware and circuit design? Is higher CPI and flashy LEDs worth high latency (of the entire design) on a so called high performance gaming product?
If a company focused on the performance of their design they could continue to sell that product long term. People still use and buy WMO, IMO, IME mice. High performance will still be high performance when all the other designs are catering to artificial CPI, name plates, LEDs, 19 buttons, scripts/macros, graphics/branding, etc. They can use that design in different shaped mice to expand earning potential. Since we are talking about established companies, they can and will have different offerings for each type of consumer, nothing says they must have one product only.
In theory. What if having a mouse with a 900-1000 count sensor running at (least) 9000 FPS, with an additional halved setting, a small/portable configuration tool, saves settings on the mouse, low component latency, is cheaper to bring to market? There wouldn't be all this R&D to create a SROM/sensor that can scale to higher CPI. Nor would there be a need for driver development for that product. The mouse wouldn't be dirt cheap because it would use high quality components, but it shouldn't be as expensive as most products.
You can also offer a middle ground mouse. Having a similar sensor (as mentioned above) with selectable angle snapping on or off. The native resolution as default, one halved setting and one 2x setting. One configurable indicator LED. One configurable CPI button. Saves the settings on the mouse. High quality components. Low component latency.
Then you can offer a feature rich product for the casual consumer. Same sensor but with configurable CPI. You can utilize drivers for macros and other features. Whatever else kids like these days.