UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”

[MageTank]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

 

 

Well I also have an unreasonable switch I can turn on when I feel the other side is being so too, but I strongly suspect you already know that 

 

True that, data is king and while we can all have different interpretations from sources of data at least there is a solid basis to discuss from.

I think the biggest shock for me on this forum is that I've been here for several years now and have not received a single warning point, in spite of my extremely aggressive early trolling and borderline harassment of a certain individual. If anything, the relaxed attitude of the mods is what kept me on this forum for so long and inspired me to clean up my act. I also prefer that you people get involved with these discussions and get as riled up as we do without the conflict of interest that comes with having to moderate, as it makes you people more approachable in the long run. The majority of people can often forget that forum mods and staff are normal people too and tend to treat them differently, especially when they have the personality of a robot.

 

As for providing data with claims, I was always told growing up that it's not what you know, but what you can prove. This was my fathers reasoning behind why I needed a high school diploma despite my certainty that I already knew it all, lol. Without that piece of paper proving I know what I am talking about (same for any degree or trade certification), I am essentially blowing smoke at that point. Same goes for any discussion on this forum or any discussion for that matter. Without evidence to back up your claims, they might as well be made up.

[Taf the Ghost]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nothing quite like abusing Send As rights to get yourself fired lol.

 

It's pretty well common practice for the personal assistant of someone like this to have Send As rights to their mailbox and if I was a betting person the source employee of this likely got verbal approval to send the email via the personal assistant.

Something along those lines seems like the closest thing to a consensus to the chain of events. It also explains the weird excuse. Both emails read like someone having to clean up a mess they're responsible for but didn't cause.

[Racxie]

So glad to hear they've back tracked on this, though I expect Linus's scathing video/stream had a lot to do with this.

[tech.guru]

Back tracking means nothing,

 

how about a policy published online to settle any fear and make more clear and transparent about the program

 

what the program is for?

Who is eligible? 

What are the conditions?

 

Otherwise we all in the dark. We lost faith... we all aint going to forget it.

NVIDIA please make a change and make the whole program public for everyone to see

[mwagen]

7 hours ago, Racxie said:

So glad to hear they've back tracked on this, though I expect Linus's scathing video/stream had a lot to do with this.

I'm confident this had everything to do with it. Guess I'm a bit late to the discussion but this whole ordeal is one massive cringefest, both on nvidia's part and the outrage from tech reviewers.

[D13H4RD]

19 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Because Bryan wrote it. From the very beginning, it was clear that he hadn't wrote it. There was enough of his formal and normal writing around that it didn't fit his style. Early thoughts were someone above the Head of Global PR ordered it. Some VP/Jensen saw something they hated and it was ordered. It now looks far more like someone below BDR got him to approve an email that he'd never normally approve.

I think that's exactly what happened, looking back at Linus' rant and his statement about the email not looking like it was actually written by Bryan and HUB Steve mentioning that his discussions with Bryan indicated that it wasn't him who wrote it but a lower-level staff member on his PR team writing it under his name. 

[deak91]

wow I've been a nvidia user for a while now. use to always buy ati cards but after AMD bought ATI  i moved to Nvidia.... after the email if this is just a PR save face move i dont think i could support them any more on my next pc build.   

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

I think that's exactly what happened, looking back at Linus' rant and his statement about the email not looking like it was actually written by Bryan and HUB Steve mentioning that his discussions with Bryan indicated that it wasn't him who wrote it but a lower-level staff member on his PR team writing it under his name. 

It's a standard practice in any large organization. Not so often with emails. That's where the "lockdown fatigue" was probably accurate. Someone pulled a stunt and he missed it.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's a standard practice in any large organization. Not so often with emails. That's where the "lockdown fatigue" was probably accurate. Someone pulled a stunt and he missed it.

yes, but again, arguing that simply makes it look like damage control, what we should look at is what a 'scummy' company Nvidia really is and why we give them money (this is actually a bit deeper than it seems) or "benefit of the doubt"... it doesn't really matter "who" wrote these emails... tho I'm also not arguing 'Bryan' should resign, I'd rather see leather jacket go if anything tbh...

 

edit:

14 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Something along those lines seems like the closest thing to a consensus to the chain of events. It also explains the weird excuse. Both emails read like someone having to clean up a mess they're responsible for but didn't cause.

this is actually my biggest issue with this all, you can definitely tell this apology wasn't really sincere at all (even though he probably *is* sorry) 

 

1 hour ago, deak91 said:

wow I've been a nvidia user for a while now. use to always buy ati cards but after AMD bought ATI  i moved to Nvidia.

Lol same, ATi were the best! Rip

[SAVE-12-HK]

do you have the balls to blacklist nvidia as a gamer?

[Video Beagle]

6 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

looking back at Linus' rant and his statement about the email not looking like it was actually written by Bryan

Jay also said it didn't sound like the guy.

[Taf the Ghost]

9 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes, but again, arguing that simply makes it look like damage control, what we should look at is what a 'scummy' company Nvidia really is and why we give them money (this is actually a bit deeper than it seems) or "benefit of the doubt"... it doesn't really matter "who" wrote these emails... tho I'm also not arguing 'Bryan' should resign, I'd rather see leather jacket go if anything tbh...

 

edit:

this is actually my biggest issue with this all, you can definitely tell this apology wasn't really sincere at all (even though he probably *is* sorry) 

 

 

Lol same, ATi were the best! Rip

Oh, it's definitely damage control, but that should be Nvidia's first priority, frankly. Some moron with an axe to grind in Nvidia PR pulled the pin on a grenade and tossed it into a room. The "grenade" is clearly the first issue of importance. That email could have caused serious legal issues for reviewers in a lot of locations, which is part of why Linus went ballistic. I'm sure it'd have been a long running issue where a lot of the big reviewers just didn't have a Day 1 launch review, at which point Nvidia has a PR disaster at every new GPU release.

[Nex6]

On 12/14/2020 at 7:43 PM, MageTank said:

I wanted to, but I dislike the notion of tag-teaming someone. I myself enjoy it, but others might not enjoy responding to several people at once. Since you've extended the invitation however, I'll take you up on the offer.

 

As echoed by others in the thread (myself included), marketing does not dictate how a product is used by a consumer. The notion that because the R in RTX stands for Raytracing means that the card is designed for Raytracing and must be used for said purpose is silly. If this logic were applied universally, developers would not be allowed to use "gaming" hardware for their software development or workloads that benefit greatly from the hardware acceleration offered by these "gaming" GPU's. We could go much deeper with several more analogies on this subject, but I'll settle with the low hanging fruit for now.

 

If your issue is with the test suite or quality of the testing methodology, I'd love to hear your opinion on the subject. Part of my daily activity at work involves testing hardware with a methodology that I've developed, so I never shy away from insight on this subject. If your issue stems from reviewers deviating from reviewing a product as it is marketed, I am afraid you'll find no quarter from me on this subject. I have an extreme distaste for marketing and how they pervert what is given to them by their engineering teams, as does anyone that has worked in this industry for any amount of time. I do not blame the individuals that work in marketing, as it's their job to make the product as appealing as possible, but for most of us, we see it as predatory towards consumers. If my interpretation of your posts thus far are accurate, I'd say the predatory nature of marketing in this context is well founded, given that you've come to believe in the narrative they've created around these GPU's in spite of how consumers intend to use them. If the majority of consumers intend to use these GPU's for rasterized-based gaming (as evidenced by the polling Hardware Unboxed did beforehand), then no amount of marketing and buzzword placement in the product name/feature list can change that.

 

As for the rest of your claims, I'll tackle those individually.

This depends entirely on the terms of the NDA. If it is the blanket NDA that we all sign when Nvidia releases a new product, no such publication deadline exists. There is the usual embargo date that specifies the exact date and time that a review can go live, however it does not state that it must go live by any given point in time. With that said, I am not sure if HWUB signed something different to what the rest of us get, and if they did, that is between Nvidia and themselves.

Nobody can (or should) argue against a subjective opinion. If you believe the review is unfair, you are well within your right to believe so. Anyone that disagrees with you are also well within their right to believe so. I am pretty sure we all understand this, so I won't really go into details on how this works.

Your choice of words here is interesting, and I respect your understanding that the difference in opinion could stem from a simple miscommunication. This is why we have to clarify as best we can when dealing with written text as emphasis is often difficult to convey in this medium. That said, I do side with Leadeater on this part as stated in my reasoning above. Manufacturers can list features and market those features as selling points, but those selling points do not dictate how a product should be used. I won't bore you with repetition of the same point I already attempted to make, so I'll leave it at that.

 

While I myself have signed a few Nvidia NDA's in my time, none of them have come with any terms or clause in regards to how their products are to be used or reviewed. My NDA's also come with a reviewers guide, despite me not being a hardware reviewer. I also do not know if reviewers sign another agreement outside of the blanket NDA that dictate terms of the review, but I can say that such a document would largely defeat the purpose of sourcing independent third party reviews in the first place if you wanted to control and dictate what could and couldn't be discussed as well as the volume of coverage a specific feature got during the review. A paid ad or sponsorship would make more sense in that situation. If a manufacturer believes strongly in their product, then they need to have enough faith in it that it can stand on its own merits without their intervention. The last thing they want to do is pervert the integrity of reviewers and the trust consumers have in them by trying to control everything during the review process.

Car analogies, a man after my own heart. I've used my truck in a few (even in this very thread). On the surface, your analogy seems pretty sound and dare I say, downright reasonable. The problem with it is that it falls victim to the same issues I've highlighted previously. The manufacturers intent behind the product / marketing of the product does not dictate how consumers will use or view the product. The reviewers job is to put themselves in the shoes of consumers. This requires a level of empathy that companies (as a corporate entity) cannot possess. This is why the company/reviewer relationship is symbiotic and why we as consumers benefit from both coexisting in harmony. A company might feel their product is better geared towards X audience and markets it as such, prices it as a premium, and forecasts it to perform well in said market. The reviewer might disagree based on actual user feedback and a connection with the community that the product was originally marketed for, and instead highlight the pros and cons of the product and offer their personal insight of the product and why it may better serve Y community instead. I quote Past MageTank often, but he is right when he said:

I believe all of this is applicable to your analogy, and explains why a reviewer might deviate from how a company may feel about their product, and why third party reviews are important to consumers as a result.

 

As for your perception of @leadeaterand whether he was being reasonable, I'd say he was given the context of both of your posts. I've had quite a few discussions on this forum with him, not all of which involved he and I coming to an agreement on a given matter, but I've never once considered him unreasonable. Often times, it's easier to dismiss others as unreasonable or "stubborn" simply because they cannot see things your way, but it's often ironic that the issue stems from oneself. I'd say you might find him more reasonable if you entertain the thought that there might be more to his point and that he might be right about some of the things he is discussing with you. 

 

If you do firmly believe that you were right in your discussion, yet are failing to understand why it is people are not gravitating towards your way of thinking, let me give you some advice from a man that has been as abrasive as you currently are on this very forum. People in this community respond better to sources and information to corroborate claims. This can be difficult when arguing things of a superfluous or subjective nature, but your points could have absolutely used some data to bolster the claims made. Lead with that next time. If you feel that the person(s) with whom you are speaking are not convincing you, then kindly ask that they provide some sources to help better educate you as well. It works both ways, and is extremely effective. You'll find that when others cannot back up their claims, they are left to admit that they may not be seeing the entire picture, or they'll look foolish in the court of public opinion. Either way, it's a lot better than going on a crusade against everyone and expecting to come out on top.

Excellent post.

 

The arguments related to empathy did sway my opinion slightly towards your view. I can appreciate that Nvidia should have and keep high capacity for empathy towards the reviewers, maybe even more than it would be reasonable, as a mega corporation. There is however a problem with apparent lack of empathy from the other side, the reviewer. I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards Nvidia's position and their view of what their product represents. That doesn't mean he should blindly follow it, he could come to a conclusion that their view is false.

 

The most important part of my car analogy is that the car is being marketed as one of the fastest in the world. I don't think it's reasonable to not test this claim at least to some extent. Now if you are an institute that is specifically testing carbon footprint of the car - sure.

 

Your gaming hardware analogy is of course valid in most cases. But I can find counter examples. Let's say that you are testing a mouse that is specifically marketed as top gaming mouse. It's made of some amazing special materials, the texture is made after 15 years of research and its colour is stimulating your brain to be the best gamer you can be. If you test it in Excel and watch a few Youtube videos, and then claim that the mouse is way too expensive, because you can find mice that can serve you as well for half the price, I would say you haven't done your job properly.

Most people (not saying that's you) misunderstand what empathy means. They usually start talking about their feelings. But it's the other way around, it's about recognizing what others feel. You get an RTX card, marketed heavily as Ray Tracing (D)X 3080 - I would check ray tracing very closely, in my first review. But that's just me. In this case I believe there is lack of empathy towards Nvidia's position and the goals of the entire operation where they are sending samples to reviewers prior to release. And again, I'm saying this as someone who is not particularly fond of Nvidia.

 

Also, I have not seen any similar issues with other reviewers. That's not to say that this automatically disqualifies HU, but still it makes me wonder, why. Why are other reviewers doing their reviews I would expect them to be done and HU not? I think other reviewers are fair, regardless of whether they criticize the product or not. Not so for HU. It's not very relevant for the discussion, I know. But it helps keeping myself in check. I don't think I have unrealistic expectations.

 

As for your advice regarding manner of discourse - I appreciate it, but I would hope I don't need it. I think I have learned throughout all my years to recognize when a discussion could be fruitful and when there is no such possibility. I recognize a bit of myself in leadeater's posts directed at me, myself from 20 years ago that is. And that was a much more abrasive and combative online persona, I can assure you. In fact some people admitted that they argued with me just because they couldn't stand me being right all the time. They argued with me even when they knew they were wrong. I really wanted to win every discussion... even if I was wrong. It made me change my view on discussing things with people. It is not my goal to "win" every discussion and it's not my goal to be always "right". When I see people telling me "you are wrong" in every second sentence and phrases like "big no" - I admit I lose interest and I might close the discussion with a less than stellar one-liner. My thinking being, if you are not interested in honest conversation, I'm not either. I am much more interested in discussing with people who say "I agree with you on this. I disagree with you on that". It is much more productive and more likely to lead to a good discussion. I learned that the hard way. I have no interest in keyboard wars. Also, I am not looking to win a popularity contest, otherwise I wouldn't be sharing my opinion here. I knew that I would get some quite hostile responses, even though I'm quite certain that I didn't deserve those. But unfortunately people online these days are way too aggressive when they meet opinions they disagree with.  

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Nex6 said:

When I see people telling me "you are wrong" in every second sentence and phrases like "big no" - I admit I lose interest and I might close the discussion with a less than stellar one-liner

Well honestly when someone is wrong what else is someone supposed to say. Some of what you were saying wasn't opinion it was present as fact or required process someone must follow to do a review which presented with your arguments is dangerous to the review industry itself. I could change the words but the message itself wouldn't change so I don't see any reason to not say something is wrong when it is wrong.

 

Nvidia claims about Ray Tracing were already thoroughly tested and known during the RTX 20 series release, reviewers had already formed their own opinions of it from performance data and visual quality analysis so RTX 30 series was not coming in with a new claim and new technology that needed to be tested in depth day 1 because Nvidia wasn't saying anything new about it other than it is faster than RTX 20 series.

 

Do you honestly think Hardware Unboxed did not do some Ray Tracing performance verification during their review process and conclude no significant change and an increase improvement not important enough to change their minds and their viewers minds, that it still wasn't fast enough to change those minds. You have already acknowledged that Ray Tracing did have some coverage in their day 1 review and complained it wasn't enough but you haven't actually articulated how it would have been better with more or that the performance increase was likely enough to actually change opinions. It's one thing to say something needed more coverage and another if it was actually important and meaningful in the first place.

 

I have no doubt if Ray Tracing performance was double or more than RTX 20 series it would have featured much more in their review, it wasn't so it didn't get that coverage. So if you want to convince me or get me to agree that it should have had more coverage prove to me that the performance increase was enough to merit this.

 

You'll notice I never said you were wrong or disagreed with your opinions on Ray Tracing itself, only your demands to require reviewers to do in accordance with companies marketing. This is a fundamental misunderstand of who the reviews are for, not the company. 

 

1 hour ago, Nex6 said:

I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards Nvidia's position and their view of what their product represents. That doesn't mean he should blindly follow it, he could come to a conclusion that their view is false.

As explained above that had already been done during RTX 20 series. Hardware Unboxed dedicated a lot of time during the RTX 20 series product lifecycle to test DLSS 1.0 and then DLSS 2.0 as well as Ray Tracing. From what I can see you're arguing on the basis nothing was known about Nvidia's Ray Tracing technology and performance coming in to the RTX 30 series review and these were all new marketing claims however that was not the case. Hardware Unboxed has given Nvidia significant amounts of content time on their channel specifically testing each of their technologies and for RTX 3080 did the promised follow up Ray Tracing content 2 days after the initial review, so if you wish to do so explain to me how this is unreasonable and how this negatively impacts consumers and their ability to make an informed decision around a product because this really is the key factor to your position as far as I can tell and I don't think you have covered it at all, largely due to misunderstanding who and why a review is done for I suspect.

 

P.S. Also you could do me a favor and explain how you think your response was appropriate given what you are now complaining about in this post of yours: https://linustechtips.com/topic/1279721-update-nvidia-backtracks-hardware-unboxed-blacklisted-from-receiving-geforce-fe-review-samples-over-“focus-on-rasterization-over-ray-tracing”/?do=findComment&comment=14300650

 

Nowhere in my post to you did I lead with "No" or "Wrong" or anything and I asked you about specific things and your opinions and you came back with pretty well irrelevant 2 liner so you only have yourself to blame for getting a terse response but at least I gave you the time out of my day to actually give you a fleshed out response in the same post as well, a courtesy you were unwilling to give to me.

 

[MageTank]

13 hours ago, Nex6 said:

Excellent post.

 

The arguments related to empathy did sway my opinion slightly towards your view. I can appreciate that Nvidia should have and keep high capacity for empathy towards the reviewers, maybe even more than it would be reasonable, as a mega corporation. There is however a problem with apparent lack of empathy from the other side, the reviewer. I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards Nvidia's position and their view of what their product represents. That doesn't mean he should blindly follow it, he could come to a conclusion that their view is false.

 

The most important part of my car analogy is that the car is being marketed as one of the fastest in the world. I don't think it's reasonable to not test this claim at least to some extent. Now if you are an institute that is specifically testing carbon footprint of the car - sure.

 

Your gaming hardware analogy is of course valid in most cases. But I can find counter examples. Let's say that you are testing a mouse that is specifically marketed as top gaming mouse. It's made of some amazing special materials, the texture is made after 15 years of research and its colour is stimulating your brain to be the best gamer you can be. If you test it in Excel and watch a few Youtube videos, and then claim that the mouse is way too expensive, because you can find mice that can serve you as well for half the price, I would say you haven't done your job properly.

Most people (not saying that's you) misunderstand what empathy means. They usually start talking about their feelings. But it's the other way around, it's about recognizing what others feel. You get an RTX card, marketed heavily as Ray Tracing (D)X 3080 - I would check ray tracing very closely, in my first review. But that's just me. In this case I believe there is lack of empathy towards Nvidia's position and the goals of the entire operation where they are sending samples to reviewers prior to release. And again, I'm saying this as someone who is not particularly fond of Nvidia.

 

Also, I have not seen any similar issues with other reviewers. That's not to say that this automatically disqualifies HU, but still it makes me wonder, why. Why are other reviewers doing their reviews I would expect them to be done and HU not? I think other reviewers are fair, regardless of whether they criticize the product or not. Not so for HU. It's not very relevant for the discussion, I know. But it helps keeping myself in check. I don't think I have unrealistic expectations.

 

As for your advice regarding manner of discourse - I appreciate it, but I would hope I don't need it. I think I have learned throughout all my years to recognize when a discussion could be fruitful and when there is no such possibility. I recognize a bit of myself in leadeater's posts directed at me, myself from 20 years ago that is. And that was a much more abrasive and combative online persona, I can assure you. In fact some people admitted that they argued with me just because they couldn't stand me being right all the time. They argued with me even when they knew they were wrong. I really wanted to win every discussion... even if I was wrong. It made me change my view on discussing things with people. It is not my goal to "win" every discussion and it's not my goal to be always "right". When I see people telling me "you are wrong" in every second sentence and phrases like "big no" - I admit I lose interest and I might close the discussion with a less than stellar one-liner. My thinking being, if you are not interested in honest conversation, I'm not either. I am much more interested in discussing with people who say "I agree with you on this. I disagree with you on that". It is much more productive and more likely to lead to a good discussion. I learned that the hard way. I have no interest in keyboard wars. Also, I am not looking to win a popularity contest, otherwise I wouldn't be sharing my opinion here. I knew that I would get some quite hostile responses, even though I'm quite certain that I didn't deserve those. But unfortunately people online these days are way too aggressive when they meet opinions they disagree with.  

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I want to clarify the point of empathy, as I believe there may be some miscommunication here. I do not believe Nvidia should be empathetic towards reviewers or vice versa. My point on empathy was that companies typically lack the level of empathy required to understand the needs of individual consumers, which is why it's up to reviewers to shoulder that burden and help put themselves in the shoes of Joe Everyman. Nvidia does not need the empathy of reviewers or customers because as a business, Nvidia should put the needs of their company above all else. This includes customers. I've been vocal on this forum that the notion that the customer always comes first is a false one, and that in business, companies should prioritize their own survival first and foremost in order to provide jobs and maintain the livelihoods of those under their employ. This also extends to their ability to provide products and services to consumers. If a company puts customers above themselves, they are either lying, or they simply aren't in it for the long term. At the end of the day, it's Nvidia's job to offer a compelling product to consumers and win them over with said product. If Nvidia cannot do that on their own merits, it's not up to reviewers to do that job for them, even if reviewers are getting product for "free". Reviewers are not working on behalf of the companies, they serve the consumers. Now there is still that symbiotic relationship where their critical feedback can be used to offer product improvements and that in turn benefits the companies, but that is simply an added benefit, not the primary goal in this context. I believe the main issue with this entire ordeal was Nvidia (or whomever the individual was that sent the email) missed the opportunity to use HWUB's survey to their benefit. HWUB did the legwork and determined 70% of his audience didn't care about raytracing. Nvidia could have offered to pay for a promotional ad spot specifically for those features in an attempt to reach that untapped/uninterested market. This would have benefited all parties involved, but hindsight is 20/20...

 

As for the car analogy, I don't disagree that reviewers should test more. Part of why I choose not to consume HWUB's content is that I find their testing methodology and product coverage to be lacking compared to those that I do watch (GamersNexus, Der8auer, Buildzoid, etc). That said, I will not fault them for their conscious decision not to test something if they firmly believe their audience has no interest in it, regardless of what the manufacturer claims. I touched upon it slightly before, when I said such an attitude may be considered shooting themselves in the foot, but it's still their decision to make, and the consumers decision to make as to whether or not the review offered enough insight to inform their purchase decision.

 

As for checking raytracing closely, I feel like this horse has been thoroughly beaten by pretty much everyone in this thread, though I'll give my brief feelings on the subject. Raytracing isn't a new concept, and we've had our mainstream introduction with last generations Turing cards. The performance has improved dramatically with the architectural redesign that allows concurrent graphics, RT and tensor operations simultaneously, but the actual technology itself is still very much the same. I didn't watch their RTX 3080 review, but if they covered this in said review, it's safe to assume this cards raytracing performance would see a similar uplift over the previous generation minus the scaling from it being cutdown compared to a 3080. Now I personally don't care about raytracing as I don't do a lot of work that would benefit from raytracing nor do I have the time for gaming much these days, but I do recognize that the technology itself is quite important and is likely going to be the future. His audience choosing to be more interested in rasterization performance isn't a bad thing either, nor would I fault a reviewer for giving his audience what they want. In fact, if given enough time, he would probably go back to test raytracing performance anyways because in this digital review age, content milking is how one survives. I don't think your feelings on this are wrong, nor do I disagree with the idea that more facets of a product should be covered if possible, but understand these are merely our personal opinions, and others may (and likely will) feel differently.

 

I can't really speak as to why reviewers review products differently, short of saying they are different people with potentially different audiences. It's possible other reviewers didn't survey their target audience prior to performing the review, or their audience is double-dipping with reviewers and would rather get their in-depth information from a different personality and trust this particular reviewer for their rasterized gaming results? I genuinely do not know the answer to this, though I am not certain if it matters all that much in the end. There is always going to be a difference in the quality of reviewers, the coverage of a product and production quality of the videos themselves. Take LMG for example. I consider their production quality to be the best in the industry, but I personally do not consume their content because I find their testing methodology to be limited and caters more to Joe Everyman rather than someone that is an enthusiast in this industry. That isn't a bad thing per se as it reaches a far broader audience, and I would recommend LMG's content to someone getting into tech over a hyper analytical reviewer like Steve at Gamers Nexus, or the lunacy that is Der8auer and his "modifications". There are times where reviewers get it wrong (take Linus' old videos on memory speed not mattering and my holy crusade on this forum to try to disprove that) but those are very few and far between. Luckily we've seen reviewers be far more open to public opinion and reviewing their old content and applying their improved testing methodologies to revisit those claims.

 

I'll end this by saying the piece of advice I offered you was not meant in a manner of disrespect, nor would I say you "need" to change here. You do have a manner of arrogance about you, but I do too, and I can respect that. It tends to come from those that are passionate about a topic and often finds themselves refusing to yield when they are firm in their resolve. My advice was offered as someone that has taken the time to look back and reflect on some of my older posts and cringe about the times I openly refused constructive feedback and information that could have better served me at the time. The people on this forum can be weird at times. You'll find some that have their quirks of irrationality when it comes to specific topics, yet they'll be extremely kind to you in a completely unrelated subject. You'll also find those that are far more interested in learning and will happily put their ego aside in pursuit of knowledge and others that have to win the e-debate by any means necessary. I am not asking you to back down when you are right or renege on your words when you feel you've conveyed honest information to the best of your abilities. I only ask that you consider alternative approaches when you reach a point of impasse. Use those aforementioned links to verified sources, ask for the opinions of others (as you did in this very thread) to determine if you're seeing the entire picture.

 

Oh, and one more thing. You will see the post directly above mine and get the strongest urge to respond in a defensive manner. My best advice would be to read everything, summon the empathy you spoke of before, then determine if how he interpreted your posts was accurate to how you intended them to be perceived. If the answer is no, perhaps offer an apology for the misunderstanding and re-explain from a more nuanced point of view. If you want to kill this man with kindness, I am down for the tag-team of a lifetime.

[Egg-Roll]

On 12/16/2020 at 2:22 AM, SAVE-12-HK said:

do you have the balls to blacklist nvidia as a gamer?

Blacklist? No, but everyone should be looking at their needs vs promotional nonsense. 2/5 gpus for gaming have been amd.

 

However I bought the 640 for nvidia shield instead of the next one up because at the time they were saying 600 series and only mentioned the 650 or higher elsewhere and limited.

Their support page still claims 600 series today:
https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3198/~/what-exactly-is-the-shield-portable%3F

Now because of all the BS they have done, I've always since compared them to AMD and if they are better at a price to performance based on my needs I'll gladly go Red, so long AMD keeps up with nvidia I'll be staying with them.

13 hours ago, Nex6 said:

There is however a problem with apparent lack of empathy from the other side, the reviewer. I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards Nvidia's position and their view of what their product represents. That doesn't mean he should blindly follow it, he could come to a conclusion that their view is false.

Empathy? From a reviewer? At all times by the sounds of it? So much for freedom of speech, freedom of press, and have access to unbiased and/or disinformation. You know the 3 or 4 major things everyone should be allowed to have, especially right now of all times.

 

Simply put nvidia sends cards in hopes of a good review, if they don't like the review they don't have to send another one esp if that one reviewer continuously hates on them for anything/everything, and not because of one silly perk that breaks the ability of gaming w/o using another silly perk. However you are clearly supporting nvidias actions basically demanding the press to remove their right to freely speak their opinions, that's a very dangerous territory to go threw.

 

To do what you state would quickly become suppression of speech, because if their product truly sucked and not one should ever buy it to follow your words they can't do that.

 

Note the word you used was empathy/empathetic which means: showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another. - Oxford

The press has no such obligations, nor do I or anyone else here, even if they gave us free products to talk about said product. Equally if they threw money at the person, that person still has the rights to do their own thing so long as they approve, don't approve? simply return the money and product, simple.

[MageTank]

16 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

Simply put nvidia sends cards in hopes of a good review, if they don't like the review they don't have to send another one esp if that one reviewer continuously hates on them for anything/everything, and not because of one silly perk that breaks the ability of gaming w/o using another silly perk. However you are clearly supporting nvidias actions basically demanding the press to remove their right to freely speak their opinions, that's a very dangerous territory to go threw.

 

To do what you state would quickly become suppression of speech, because if their product truly sucked and not one should ever buy it to follow your words they can't do that.

 

Note the word you used was empathy/empathetic which means: showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another. - Oxford

The press has no such obligations, nor do I or anyone else here, even if they gave us free products to talk about said product. Equally if they threw money at the person, that person still has the rights to do their own thing so long as they approve, don't approve? simply return the money and product, simple.

I am not certain how you made the jump that empathy leads to suppression of speech, I personally don't see that happening. The notion that a company needs to be empathetic towards a reviewer (or vice versa) is silly (I've mentioned this in my post) but I would not consider that concept harmful to freedom of speech. There is a difference between understanding and communicating ones feelings, and forcing one to act upon that understanding to your benefit.

 

I don't disagree with the core of what you are trying to convey, but the manner in which you arrived here is problematic in the sense that you are putting words in someone's mouth and likely twisting their point to arrive at your conclusion. 

[Egg-Roll]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I am not certain how you made the jump that empathy leads to suppression of speech, I personally don't see that happening. The notion that a company needs to be empathetic towards a reviewer (or vice versa) is silly (I've mentioned this in my post) but I would not consider that concept harmful to freedom of speech. There is a difference between understanding and communicating ones feelings, and forcing one to act upon that understanding to your benefit.

 

I don't disagree with the core of what you are trying to convey, but the manner in which you arrived here is problematic in the sense that you are putting words in someone's mouth and likely twisting their point to arrive at your conclusion. 

I gave the definition of empathy. Here is more:

Dictionary.com: the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Webster: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Vicarious:

Spoiler

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicarious(I can't be bothered to C&P it)

 

Simply put the basic understanding of empathy is basically the ability thinking like them to a degree which is fine (that's the ability to understand where a person is coming from), some definitions like the original one goes to extremes, however in every definition has that variation in it that can impose one agreeing to said person. The proper word would be understanding, however you don't have to understand their position either, there is no requirement. The fact that they put it as a requirement is what makes it suppression, because they see it as a requirement.

 

Neither the reviewers or nvidia have to be understanding sympathetic or empathetic towards either party, for a review there is no requirement for either parties to be grounded on any aspect with one and another, the second you start requiring any of those or anything else that can be conveyed as words towards the public you are in fact suppressing the rights of the press to freely speak their minds.

 

They stated "I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards nvidia", however nvidia has never been empathetic towards a reviewer who has stated negative things about their product. So stating similarly in that sense would be a requirement then as it would no longer matter what nvidia has done in the past, present or future towards them or others.

 

Think of it like this, when donating money to a cause will you donate to a cause you understand but don't stand behind, or will you donate to a cause that you understand and willing to stand behind?
You'll choose the cause you are willing to stand behind correct? That's basically empathy. A reviewer can understand (and not understand, when their claims become overdrawn) where nvidia is coming from but in no ways would ever (or should be) be required to be empathetic towards nvidia esp when they are not being empathetic towards the reviewer. The letter nvidia send to hardware unboxed was not a letter of empathy it was a letter of ridicule. So if they do this to one how can anyone claim nvidia is willing to be in anyway understanding (bases of empathy) let alone empathetic towards any media outlet that basically doesn't read or agree to their script?

 

Now the last line actually contradicts empathy: "he could come to a conclusion that their view is false"

First off they should have used "then can", not could, could can imply that they shouldn't but they "could". Now to be empathetic you can not come to the conclusion of ones perception to being false, that would just be understanding, look back at the donation aspect of this post.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

I gave the definition of empathy. Here is more:

Dictionary.com: the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Webster: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Vicarious:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicarious(I can't be bothered to C&P it)

 

Simply put the basic understanding of empathy is basically the ability thinking like them to a degree which is fine (that's the ability to understand where a person is coming from), some definitions like the original one goes to extremes, however in every definition has that variation in it that can impose one agreeing to said person. The proper word would be understanding, however you don't have to understand their position either, there is no requirement. The fact that they put it as a requirement is what makes it suppression, because they see it as a requirement.

 

Neither the reviewers or nvidia have to be understanding sympathetic or empathetic towards either party, for a review there is no requirement for either parties to be grounded on any aspect with one and another, the second you start requiring any of those or anything else that can be conveyed as words towards the public you are in fact suppressing the rights of the press to freely speak their minds.

 

They stated "I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards nvidia", however nvidia has never been empathetic towards a reviewer who has stated negative things about their product. So stating similarly in that sense would be a requirement then as it would no longer matter what nvidia has done in the past, present or future towards them or others.

 

Think of it like this, when donating money to a cause will you donate to a cause you understand but don't stand behind, or will you donate to a cause that you understand and willing to stand behind?
You'll choose the cause you are willing to stand behind correct? That's basically empathy. A reviewer can understand (and not understand, when their claims become overdrawn) where nvidia is coming from but in no ways would ever (or should be) be required to be empathetic towards nvidia esp when they are not being empathetic towards the reviewer. The letter nvidia send to hardware unboxed was not a letter of empathy it was a letter of ridicule. So if they do this to one how can anyone claim nvidia is willing to be in anyway understanding (bases of empathy) let alone empathetic towards any media outlet that basically doesn't read or agree to their script?

 

Now the last line actually contradicts empathy: "he could come to a conclusion that their view is false"

First off they should have used "then can", not could, could can imply that they shouldn't but they "could". Now to be empathetic you can not come to the conclusion of ones perception to being false, that would just be understanding, look back at the donation aspect of this post.

You need not define the word, I am well aware of what the word means. Further defining it won't make your reasoning any less of a leap in this context. Also, you are wrong by implying that empathy requires agreeing with whomever you are empathetic towards. I can understand someone on a psychological/emotional level whilst still disagreeing with them. @Nex6's use of the word empathy was not wrong by any means nor was it inaccurate in the context of which he spoke. Your interpretation of it was a reach given the narrative you were trying to spin it towards, which is where I take issue. 

 

Where you and I do agree however, is that both Nvidia and the reviewer have no obligation to feel empathetic or understand one another in order for a product to be reviewed. Interpretation does not require two parties to come to an agreement as ones feelings are subjective and entirely their own. Now despite the subjective nature of ones feelings when reviewing the product, the purpose of the review is very objective, in that the goal is to inform potential buyers/consumers of your feelings on the product to make sure they are better informed prior to making a decision/purchase.

 

I'll also ask that you not cherry pick his wording to fit your narrative. His quote in it's entirety was:

15 hours ago, Nex6 said:

The arguments related to empathy did sway my opinion slightly towards your view. I can appreciate that Nvidia should have and keep high capacity for empathy towards the reviewers, maybe even more than it would be reasonable, as a mega corporation. There is however a problem with apparent lack of empathy from the other side, the reviewer. I believe that the reviewer should similarly be empathetic towards Nvidia's position and their view of what their product represents. That doesn't mean he should blindly follow it, he could come to a conclusion that their view is false.

Context is important, and it is never okay to omit context when it is convenient to the point you are making. In his exact words, he is expressing that he (Nex6) personally believes that the reviewer should consider Nvidia's thoughts and feelings in regards to what their product represents when they review the product. He goes on to state that they do not have to blindly follow those feelings, and that their review may even contradict or disprove Nvidia's marketing of the product. This was not represented in a manner to restrict the freedom of speech nor was the intent of his post to intentionally deceive reviewers by saying the manufacturer of the product under review should have a heavy hand in what is said/written about the product. His point was contrary to that, and was more bolstering his main claim that he (Nex6) would rather see the inclusion of additional testing (including claims made by the manufacturer) to see if they are in fact, true.

 

You saw one part of the post, read too far into it, and neglected the entirety of the remaining context which why I found it disturbing. Again, I disagree with Nex6's notion that reviewers/companies should be empathetic towards one another, but I also did not see the blatant conflict of interest that you are painting it out to be either. Empathy in and of itself is not harmful, nor would I consider it a bias for an objective review. I am empathetic to the homeless people on my local street corners, but I am objective enough to know that giving them money directly likely won't aid them in the long run, so I make the difficult decision to move forward and give my money/time to the various shelters that try to feed and employ them. This analogy is best taken from the viewpoint that reviewers can still understand and empathize with a company while still calling them out on their mistakes and shortcomings.

 

My point is simple. Don't read too far into what people say, especially if there is even a slight chance that you may misinterpret it. In this situation, it would be far better to ask him to clarify what he meant instead of falsely assuming the intent behind his post and twisting his words, potentially causing an unnecessary uproar. 

[Egg-Roll]

11 minutes ago, MageTank said:

My point is simple. Don't read too far into what people say, especially if there is even a slight chance that you may misinterpret it. In this situation, it would be far better to ask him to clarify what he meant instead of falsely assuming the intent behind his post and twisting his words, potentially causing an unnecessary uproar. 

Fair enough, that was my mistake. I either didn't read it properly or sped threw it because of it being a wall of text overall.

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

Fair enough, that was my mistake. I either didn't read it properly or sped threw it because of it being a wall of text overall.

No worries, I'll take part of that blame as I've been guilty of erecting these walls of text in this thread. Could be worse, we could send each other a scathing email and threaten to revoke each others posting privileges over our perceived disagreements, lol.

[tech.guru]

now you had a bro hug, what are your thoughts @MageTank @Egg-Rollat the topic that started this thread?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Well then... now I certainly don't feel any less conflicted...

 

The recent topic of mutual empathy is an interesting one, and it highlights how important it is to take a step back, remove yourself from any emotional attachment to people or companies, and to try to look at the bigger picture of what is actually happening.

[Moonzy]

 

Derbaur's take on this is that Nvidia is simply telling the truth, and we're bashing them for it

 

As I've mentioned before, the issue is the fact that we have to rely on day 1 review to get information, and cards aren't available publicly before then, so there's no other way to obtain it than from the manufacturers, plus the fact that Nvidia prohibits AIB cards from being reviewed on day 1.

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

As I've mentioned before, the issue is the fact that we have to rely on day 1 review to get information

No we really don't, there's a thing called patience, few seem to have it. And Nvidia created the problem also, they used to provide samples and allow reviews before sales so yea, not a great foundation for Nvidia to be standing on or anyone else if going down the day 1 review necessity. Nvidia is perfectly capable of solving these issues by going back to giving samples before sales and allowing reviews to be published before then, that gives everyone time but can you guess why Nvidia would not want this? Probably think you can.

 

Like I mentioned before, a game was covered in the day 1 review for Ray Tracing, it had pretty well the average difference between it an RTX 20 generation and if there was anything of major noteworthiness it would have been mentioned.

 

We can and should apply some hindsight to this, because we know what the difference is between RTX 30 series and RTX 20 series for Ray Tracing now and it is not a major improvement. It's a significant architectural improvement however RT cores were removed so performance gain was counteracted by that.

 

There's this long standing assumption, or at least appears to be the case, that the people arguing against Hardware Unboxed or such similarly aligned point of view that Ray Tracing testing was not conducted. Just because little was covered in the day 1 video doesn't mean a decent amount of testing hadn't actually been carried out but it just wasn't ready yet or was felt to be better done in a follow-up video.

 

We have a wealth or reviewers to choose from, nobody was information deprived because Hardware Unboxed did not have more coverage of Ray Tracing in their first video. If the generational performance gain for actual products isn't that good that's completely on Nvidia, if they want more coverage of it make it better or you know, accept it's just not that good still.

 

TL;DR Nvidia: Put up or shut up. You failed to deliver noteworthy Ray Tracing performance increase so you got all the coverage it deserved, a passing mention it's a bit better.