AMD GPU might get their own gaming brand under GPP

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I was editing my post, you are mixing up legal terms that should not be mixed together. 

Still not what I was pointing out.

 

I'm literally talking about needing to have dependent prior knowledge of AMD re-branding to come to the statement you gave that I originally quoted. That is all I'm pointing out nothing else. How on earth are you supposed to misinterpret the Nvidia GPP contract like that, as AMD re-branding?!?!?!

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Still not what I was pointing out.

 

I'm literally talking about needing to have dependent prior knowledge of AMD re-branding to come to the statement you gave that I originally quoted. That is all I'm pointing out nothing else. How on earth are you supposed to misinterpret the Nvidia GPP contract like that, as AMD re-branding?!?!?!

 

The contract is stating an agreed upon gaming brand, it doesn't matter if its Rog or Dog for that matter, what ever is agreed up on nV's brand will be its own for its cards.

 

The contract doesn't state it has to be ROG or the premium brand, like what Kyle stated in his article, not only that it seems like it doesn't stop AMD having another gaming brand (if these new gaming brands are made), something he stated too as well in his article, that gaming is now only associated with only nV cards.  There can be no AMD gaming cards, and yeah he definitely believed that, I talked to him on his own forum about that, he said he read the contract and has it in front of him and I really didn't know what I was talking about because I didn't have the contract in front of me.  I stated to him he probably read it wrong.  This was all prior to the Full Herd interview.  To that effect he stated there are likely lawsuits pending, and to that I stated so where are the injections?  Then he pretty much banned me lol.  Yes I am fully aware of what Kyle was thinking and what he has written in his article, its clear as night and day.

 

The only person that was "misrepresenting" I wouldn't go so far to say that, I would go so far to state read things incorrectly, was Kyle and the article misrepresented what was on the contract. That is Libel.  Libel by definition doesn't not need the person doing the action to fully understand his actions.  But by association of reputation, its libel.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

The contract is stating an agreed upon gaming brand, it doesn't matter if its Rog or Dog for that matter, what ever is agreed up on nV's brand will be its own for its cards.

 

The contract doesn't stated it has to be ROG or the premium brand, like what Kyle stated in his article, not only that it seems like it doesn't stop AMD having another gaming brand (if these new gaming brands are made), something he stated too as well in his article, that gaming is now only associated with only nV cards.

 

The only person that was "misrepresenting" I wouldn't go so far to say that, I would go so far to state read things incorrectly, was Kyle and the article misrepresented what was on the contract.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this but I suggest you go back and read that sentence you wrote because as it's written it is saying that the AMD re-branding has something to do with Kyle's interpretation of the GPP contract which are two unrelated (tenuously) things that also are happening at different times. I just don't see how you can draw a parallel between the two, that is all.

 

Edit:

Future event influencing past thoughts.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm not disagreeing with any of this but I suggest you go back and read that sentence you wrote because as it's written it is saying that the AMD re-branding has something to do with Kyle's interpretation of the GPP contract which are two unrelated thing that also are happening at different times. I just don't see who you and draw a parallel between the two, that is all.

hmm no no I didn't mean AMD re branding has anything to do with Kyle's interpretation of the GPP.

 

I think AMD's re branding is something they could have done anyways with the GPP in place.  The GPP doesn't stop them from re branding is my take on it.

 

GPP only stipulates for a specific gaming brand what ever that is, must be nV cards only.  That is what it looks like.

 

Kyle's article stated otherwise.  Pretty much stated the premium brand must be nV and no AMD cards can be branded as gaming either.  Pretty much pushing AMD out of the gaming market entirely by removing advertising "gaming" for their products.

 

That was his crux of the problem.  I even stated to him that isn't the crux of the problem lol.  He took something insignificant and attached emotions to it. 

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The absence of a response does not imply that it is true.

 

I think you should have said that in your post then, because as it is written right now you are saying something very different (that Nvidia has in the contract that AMD are not allowed access to existing brands, and you would be OK with GPP if it was Nvidia got new brands and AMD kept the old).

 

Absolutely agree with you there.  Never said the opposite.

 

First you say it doesn't simply marketing, then you go on to explain why it does... Make your mind up.

 

I am pro consumer too. I don't think GPP is a good thing. The difference is that I want people to fully understand what is going on, so that they can understand why it is bad on their own. I don't think exaggerations and deceit are a good way to make people join your side, even if it is the correct side.

No, but Nvidia could put this to bed easily if they've been misrepresented. From what I can gather, they've only tried to stop the story (Streisand effect?). I realize that PR is an art form but I personally don't see (in this instance) what Nvidia has to gain by remaining silent if the media has portrayed their new program in a false light. You could argue that they don't have anything to gain by remaining silent or that nothing they say will erase doubts which may very well be true. 

 

I did say that. Multiple times. I've called it anti consumer but people keep saying legal this or morals that; essentially confusing it with antitrust. Let's call it a a confusion of de facto and de jure. I have only spoken from a de facto standpoint. I don't understand where I've made points to the contrary. I may have explained my points as how I see Nvidia actually conducting themselves or perhaps their intentions would be more accurate (actions vs intentions). Is it fair to say you're arguing actions and I intentions?

 

I have made up my mind but you seem to misunderstand the idea of elaborating a scenario and then refuting it. It's a good idea to present an understanding of the subject before saying why you think it's wrong or to repeat your understanding of the other side so there are no misunderstandings but I guess that was futile. I'm merely saying I can see why one would think it a streamlining of advertisement but so far advertisement haven't failed or proven difficult so why would one change it now? At best I'd say you could argue Nvidia is responsible for the strength of those brands and AMD are riding the coattails of that and Nvidia wants to end that. I'll give you that.

 

Are you really calling what I'm saying exaggerations and deceitful or do you mean other people? Extrapolating the implications of an initiative isn't deceitful. Otherwise any analysis of a text is deceitful because it doesn't take it at face value. The analysis may be wrong, sure, but haven't we established that this is so murky that it's impossible to be sure how things will play out? You could easily be right or I could or we could both be wrong. That's why I wish Nvidia would put the cards on the table. Of course they won't though. That would be uncharacteristic. 

 

That's one of the reasons few reputable outlets don't run the story: they don't know enough so they can't be sure. You could do an editorial but you could easily land in hot water if it turns out untrue. I know Anandtech said they wouldn't because they don't know enough concrete and I'm guessing their sources aren't talkative. They also said it isn't uncommon for companies to tattle to the media when stuff like this happens. Stuff that's technically legal but is unsavory business. While a court may do nothing, swaying public opinion can get things back on track - free of charge too. So why am I ranting about this? I don't have any relationships to maintain so I'm a free agent and I can call it as I see it. Worst case scenario I'm wrong. We're all adults here. We should be able to be graceful about it. 

Actually scratch that. Worst case scenario I'm right. That's bad for us all.

[Razor01]

58 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

No, but Nvidia could put this to bed easily if they've been misrepresented. From what I can gather, they've only tried to stop the story (Streisand effect?). I realize that PR is an art form but I personally don't see (in this instance) what Nvidia has to gain by remaining silent if the media has portrayed their new program in a false light. You could argue that they don't have anything to gain by remaining silent or that nothing they say will erase doubts which may very well be true. 

 

I did say that. Multiple times. I've called it anti consumer but people keep saying legal this or morals that; essentially confusing it with antitrust. Let's call it a a confusion of de facto and de jure. I have only spoken from a de facto standpoint. I don't understand where I've made points to the contrary. I may have explained my points as how I see Nvidia actually conducting themselves or perhaps their intentions would be more accurate (actions vs intentions). Is it fair to say you're arguing actions and I intentions?

 

I have made up my mind but you seem to misunderstand the idea of elaborating a scenario and then refuting it. It's a good idea to present an understanding of the subject before saying why you think it's wrong or to repeat your understanding of the other side so there are no misunderstandings but I guess that was futile. I'm merely saying I can see why one would think it a streamlining of advertisement but so far advertisement haven't failed or proven difficult so why would one change it now? At best I'd say you could argue Nvidia is responsible for the strength of those brands and AMD are riding the coattails of that and Nvidia wants to end that. I'll give you that.

 

Are you really calling what I'm saying exaggerations and deceitful or do you mean other people? Extrapolating the implications of an initiative isn't deceitful. Otherwise any analysis of a text is deceitful because it doesn't take it at face value. The analysis may be wrong, sure, but haven't we established that this is so murky that it's impossible to be sure how things will play out? You could easily be right or I could or we could both be wrong. That's why I wish Nvidia would put the cards on the table. Of course they won't though. That would be uncharacteristic. 

 

That's one of the reasons few reputable outlets don't run the story: they don't know enough so they can't be sure. You could do an editorial but you could easily land in hot water if it turns out untrue. I know Anandtech said they wouldn't because they don't know enough concrete and I'm guessing their sources aren't talkative. They also said it isn't uncommon for companies to tattle to the media when stuff like this happens. Stuff that's technically legal but is unsavory business. While a court may do nothing, swaying public opinion can get things back on track - free of charge too. So why am I ranting about this? I don't have any relationships to maintain so I'm a free agent and I can call it as I see it. Worst case scenario I'm wrong. We're all adults here. We should be able to be graceful about it. 

Actually scratch that. Worst case scenario I'm right. That's bad for us all.

Nvidia already stated they have been misrepresented by the first article ;), which they did tell other tech press.  They don't need to go any further than that.  And the GPP contract is not for public eyes.  Everyone that thinks business deals are for public consumption, should have their head evaluated because this is exactly what happens, people write articles about things they don't know about and make mistakes.  If you really believed what you just stated, if nV opened their mouth, which they did, the rest of that rant, is just that.

[pas008]

funny thing this topic still going

but no one is talking about why?

nondisclosure maybe? asus contract might be differing from gb/msi/evga/etc

why?

cause technically it none of our business

and technically they are a manufacturer, if doritos wants to move their manufacturing to wisconsin and do whatever its none of our business

[Daniel Z.]

MSI: RX 5xx Gaming

 

GTX 10x0 Gayming

 

(Don't take offense to this, just a joke.)

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

No, but Nvidia could put this to bed easily if they've been misrepresented. From what I can gather, they've only tried to stop the story (Streisand effect?). I realize that PR is an art form but I personally don't see (in this instance) what Nvidia has to gain by remaining silent if the media has portrayed their new program in a false light. You could argue that they don't have anything to gain by remaining silent or that nothing they say will erase doubts which may very well be true. 

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last part.

I don't think anything they say will erase the doubt some people have for it. We already have people writing hit pieces on them, taking parts of sentences and presenting that to the readers.

I don't think Nvidia making some detailed explanation of their private agreements would benefit them, because people will still doubt it or do mental gymnastics around it. I am not saying that they are innocent and have nothing to hide or whatever, but what I am saying is that even if that was the case, they would still not gain anything but potentially bad publicity. Remember, we had a thread with 647 replies, mostly just bashing Nvidia, and that was when there was no solid information about it whatsoever. All those replies are 100% based on speculation, and it's mainly people assuming the worst.

 

You can't reason with people who didn't reason themselves into the position they hold.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I did say that. Multiple times. I've called it anti consumer but people keep saying legal this or morals that; essentially confusing it with antitrust. Let's call it a a confusion of de facto and de jure. I have only spoken from a de facto standpoint. I don't understand where I've made points to the contrary. I may have explained my points as how I see Nvidia actually conducting themselves or perhaps their intentions would be more accurate (actions vs intentions). Is it fair to say you're arguing actions and I intentions?

Well I did only read that specific post I replied to. You might have been more clear in your position in earlier posts, but I have missed them.

I read your post (the one I replied to) as you saying Nvidia had in their contract that they would get exclusive access to existing brands such as ROG. That's why I replied the way I did.

 

And yes I think it's fair to say that I am talking about their actions and you're talking about their intentions. As I said earlier, the outcome is the same regardless of how the contract is structured, but it has very different legal and moral implications. That is also why I think the contracts are on the less extreme side (the extreme being the contract saying existing brands should be handed over and AMD excluded). It doesn't make sense to open yourself up to a ton of legal issues when the outcome is the same.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I'm merely saying I can see why one would think it a streamlining of advertisement but so far advertisement haven't failed or proven difficult so why would one change it now? At best I'd say you could argue Nvidia is responsible for the strength of those brands and AMD are riding the coattails of that and Nvidia wants to end that. I'll give you that.

Yes that was kind of my argument, but you put it a lot better. Here is how I formulated it:

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Right now, if Nvidia does a campaign endorsing ROG, then they are inadvertently endorsing all ROG products, including those that might not have anything to do with Nvidia.

I don't think we can definitively judge how much easier marketing could become for Nvidia though. They might be able to save millions of dollars by doing advertisements for the entire brands rather than individual products. Of course they could have done those types of campaign before GPP too, but then they would have given free ads to AMD as well, which I think they want to avoid for obvious reasons.

 

And look, I get that this can harm AMD and I have no doubt that Nvidia thinks that too. However, I think it is foolish to look at this as a strictly "let's fuck with AMD" play instead of the more reasonable "let's make it easier for us to differentiate and market our products" play.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Are you really calling what I'm saying exaggerations and deceitful or do you mean other people? Extrapolating the implications of an initiative isn't deceitful.

It was aimed at you to a lesser degree (but I have seen people far more religiously attack Nvidia and GPP in particular). I found the post I was replying to deceitful and exaggerating because it was written as if everything you said was fact. Maybe it was not intentional since you believed that you included disclaimers, but as you can see if you go back and read the post that was not the case.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Extrapolating the implications of an initiative isn't deceitful. Otherwise any analysis of a text is deceitful because it doesn't take it at face value. The analysis may be wrong, sure, but haven't we established that this is so murky that it's impossible to be sure how things will play out?

It entirely depends on how you present your analysis.

[Razor01]

20 hours ago, pas008 said:

funny thing this topic still going

but no one is talking about why?

nondisclosure maybe? asus contract might be differing from gb/msi/evga/etc

why?

cause technically it none of our business

and technically they are a manufacturer, if doritos wants to move their manufacturing to wisconsin and do whatever its none of our business

Of course there will be NDA around this contract and yeah there could be differences based on vendor too.  Contracts are two way streets, so each AIB is going to ask for different things based on their experiences, interests, and goals.

 

I was in GDC 2005, showing off a game demo, EA came up to us and wanted to talk about a publishing deal. Later that week we went their hotel where their executive producer was staying, and had a meeting.  Things looked really great.  So we told them we want this this and this in the contract.  They agreed to them.  Later that month when we finally got the final draft of the contract, we showed it to our attorneys.  To us it looked fair btw, but when our attorneys read it there were some stipulations in there if we didn't meet them, they would be putting the game as a B level game.  Mind you we weren't taking any money upfront from this deal so we also kept our IP rights because of this (from my view point that is fair, but from theirs they didn't see it that way), which both of these are unusual for that to happen with a publishing deal when its a new company coming into such an industry.  Which is yeah bargain bin crap.  Things like that are normal in contacts, if you want gold, the ramifications of having gold can be coal if expectations or goals aren't meet.  And it all came down to how you read the contract. if you read the addendum before the full contract or at the same time as you read through the contract that comes out, but if you read it after the contract, then you don't get that meaning. It was carefully written since we get to keep our IP, if those (10 or so) expectations weren't met, they had other plans for selling the product which cut their losses, by not needing to spend as much in advertising promoting.

[Notional]

So Gigabyte has given AMD a new gaming name:

It's own god damn name. #GPP #scummyNvidia

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Notional said:

It's own god damn name. #GPP #scummyNvidia

It has a tiny Windforce logo on the bottom left too, could they made it any smaller?

[Notional]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It has a tiny Windforce logo on the bottom left too, could they made it any smaller?

*Windforce is not affiliated with gaming or our Auros gaming branding. This is due to our forced GPP participation by scummy NVidia.

[Ashaira]

"If the rumor turns out to be true, then it's awesome as Nvidia does not have the rights to control any future gaming brands, created by video card manufactures. "

Except Nvidia will still have taken over a well known and establish brand while any new one for AMD will have to start building street cred from scratch.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

It has a tiny Windforce logo on the bottom left too, could they made it any smaller?

That's about normal, here's one from a while back:

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's about normal, here's one from a while back:

Oh shit! There is no gaming branding on that card!

Maybe Nvidia has invented a time machine so that they can not only erase all AMD cards from gaming brands in the future, but also in the past!

God damn Nvidia and their devilish tactics.

[Arika]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

snip

and here's one from Asus. also no meantion of gaming, but released before GPP

 

It's almost like manufactures just dont put "gaming" on the box

 

OMG MSI TOO?

 

it's time to remove the tinfoil hat

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

it's time to remove the tinfoil hat

Great thing about tinfoil hats is that they are reusable.

[Drak3]

17 hours ago, pas008 said:

cause technically it none of our business

and technically they are a manufacturer, if doritos wants to move their manufacturing to wisconsin and do whatever its none of our business

When dealing with anti competitive practices, such as extorting third party partners into making established, and well recieved brands exclusive, it is the consumer's business.

 

37 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

it's time to remove the tinfoil hat

1. Those are lower tier cards (that aren't gaming branded) which aren't and weren't affected by GPP.
2. Every tier had both AMD and Nvidia options prior to GPP. Now, that'd not exactly the case.

[asus killer]

4 hours ago, Notional said:

So Gigabyte has given AMD a new gaming name:

It's own god damn name. #GPP #scummyNvidia

if you think about it a RX580 is hardly a gaming card today, it's mostly a miners card 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

if you think about it a RX580 is hardly a gaming card today, it's mostly a miners card 

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

and here's one from Asus. also no meantion of gaming, but released before GPP

 

It's almost like manufactures just dont put "gaming" on the box

 

OMG MSI TOO?

 

it's time to remove the tinfoil hat

It's not like they don't exist though, thing is they still do so I dunno.

 

https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Graphics-Card/GV-RX580AORUS-8GD-rev-10-11#kf

[Arika]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

 

1. Those are lower tier cards (that aren't gaming branded) which aren't and weren't affected by GPP.
2. Every tier had both AMD and Nvidia options prior to GPP. Now, that'd not exactly the case.

Yes. Not affected by GPP and yet still have no gaming branding at all from 2 other manufacturers. Doesn't matter if they are not the top their, the fact that they are not branded as gaming makes the point of gigabytes new 580 not branded with gaming a moot point and to blame the 580s branding on GPP when other manufacturers did the same this with cards not relevant to GPP is retarded.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Oh shit! There is no gaming branding on that card!

Maybe Nvidia has invented a time machine so that they can not only erase all AMD cards from gaming brands in the future, but also in the past!

God damn Nvidia and their devilish tactics.

It worked so well Nvidia cards don't have gaming brands, a Gigabyte gtx1070 that doesn't have gaming on it. Scummy Nvidia! GPP CONFIRMED!

 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It worked so well Nvidia cards don't have gaming brands, a Gigabyte gtx1070 that doesn't have gaming on it. Scummy Nvidia! GPP CONFIRMED!

I actually like the look of that box and the branding style of it.

 

All of them should be like that with the bottom section having the logo on how advanced the version of the card is in that brand's product stack and if you are going to use something like Aorus limit that to a single product for each model only. That way you can easily show off your very best card, Aorus/ROG etc, while maintaining clear consistency.