hedwards: Why? Best case scenario the sticker would be ignored as most people won't know what it means. Worst, and more likely, case it will confuse people.
There will be some sort of an indication placed on the software about what hardware is needed to achieve the effect and that's really all the buying public is going to care about. Knowing that it's one sort of raytracing rather than another would require educating the public about the various options in order to then explain which one it is.
I'm sorry, but that seems like an awful lot of work to go through in order to then have to specify which technology is being used. Perhaps in the future, if the same game starts to ship with different types of raytracing this might be relevant, but I just don't see this as being useful information for the buying public.
Especially, given what a mess the hardware naming conventions have gotten. It's incredibly hard to figure out if marginal hardware is going to run the latest games because the hardware companies don't seem to care about maintaining a comprehensible naming schema.
==========================
In what sense of the word are they deceiving people? In order for this to be deceiving, the buyers would have to know a lot more about the technology to even know there are other options. What they're doing isn't deceptive unless what shows up on the box and in the demos isn't what's actually delivered.
EDIT: As far as the meat in the vegan food goes, there probably is. It's not intentional, but I'd be surprised if some rat didn't wind up in there from time to time when dealing with ingredients at an industrial scale.
People already ignore the basic info on the box & some might be confused by what is already written...also if it helps some clarify what is being bought/gotten for their money then why not do it?
Heck, we put warnings on other things irregardless on how many might actually read them because it might help some make better decisions.
I agree the hardware requirements/etc should be on the box(afaik they already do this though).
==================================
Imo(I could be wrong) they are deceiving people by saying just "raytracing" while knowing many will assume it's the best kind available atm.
tomimt: This discussion is pretty amusing, really. GameRager is being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse, as it is pretty obvious he has a hard time admitting his take on the matter is not the end all discussion opinion. He has now gone from the technical definition of ray tracing to "think of the baffled consumer"-take to hammer in a nail that doesn't really exist.
Personally, I haven't followed the main bulk of the marketing speak for the RTX cards, but of the little what I've seen, it has been made clear, that the devs can control what they use ray tracing features on. There isn't some sort of huge deception going on with the tech and what is capable is in my opinion quite clear. Hell, that is one of the reasons I won't be buying into it until the 2nd or 3rd generation of cards unless my current card dies and I can get ana RTX card cheaply enough.
Really, the only issue here is, that GameRager can't admit that he might be wrong.
I never said I was 100% correct and even said before(iirc) that I didn't know much on the subject. I am merely presenting my take on the matter(s) at hand, as anyone is free to do irregardless of how much knowledge they have on an issue.