[H}ardocp MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z review

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

noun

 

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

 

 

Everything you've posted has looked to me like a clear case of confirmation bias. To quote you "I call it as I see it". You've already established that there is no need of anything other than feelings to make bold claims.

 

You think I am intentionally trying to misinterpret what's happening rather than appraise it for what it is?  I have actually qualified my reasoning.

 

When I state facts, they are not misinterpretations, they are facts. Kyle did not sign the NDA, that is a fact. it was his choice not to, that is a fact.  lawyers have explained that his reasoning and his explanation of the NDA was wrong, that is a fact. he is still using that rhetoric to validate his decisions, that is a fact.  he chose to release the benchmarks early, also a fact. he chose to do it knowing it would hurt other reviewers and earn him more money, also a fact.  This makes him a cheap prick, that is my opinion based on the facts.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

You think I am intentionally trying to misinterpret what's happening rather than appraise it for what it is?  I have actually qualified my reasoning.

 

When I state facts, they are not misinterpretations, they are facts. Kyle did not sign the NDA, that is a fact. it was his choice not to, that is a fact.  lawyers have explained that his reasoning and his explanation of the NDA was wrong, that is a fact. he is still using that rhetoric to validate his decisions, that is a fact.  he chose to release the benchmarks early, also a fact. he chose to do it knowing it would hurt other reviewers and earn him more money, also a fact.  This makes him a prick, that is my opinion based on the facts.

You're taking the word of one lawyer over another despite an explanation being out there as to why both are correct for the specific situation that they relate to.

 

And other people chose to sign the NDA. This is also a fact. No one is going to delay their reviews because other people chose not to sign the NDA despite the fact that it would hurt those people that didn't, nor should they. However, the same reasoning applies the other way. If people chose not to sign the NDA they have no obligation to wait on those that did make the choice to do so. What you are demanding is a double standard. You want one group to abide by the restrictions of another but see nothing wrong with that other group not giving the same courtesy to the first group. Everyone involved made their own choice. I refuse to feel pity for any of them. If not signing the NDA hurts Kyle, so be it. He made his choice, he lives with. If signing it hurts other reviews, so be it. They made their choice, they live with it. Or, to put it more bluntly: If someone's fucks them over, too bad.

Edited October 16, 2018 by leadeater
Updating quote due to edit

[mr moose]

48 minutes ago, Derangel said:

You're taking the word of one lawyer over another despite an explanation being out there as to why both are correct for the specific situation that they relate to.

Actually, it's not just one lawyer, you your self said Kyles lawyer agreed with Steve's.  The industry as a whole said basically the same thing, the only person still trying to misrepresent the NDA is Kyle.

Quote

And other people chose to sign the NDA. This is also a fact. No one is going to delay their reviews because other people chose not to sign the NDA despite the fact that it would hurt those people that didn't, nor should they.

That is different because that is the industry standard, reviewers know that when the NDA is up the reviews will be published. New reveiwers have to prove themselves to get review samples. So that is vastly different to being able to release a review before the NDA as no one else who is playing fair has that option.

 

Quote

However, the same reasoning applies the other way. If people chose not to sign the NDA they have no obligation to wait on those that did make the choice to do so. What you are demanding is a double standard.

Huh?  If you don't sign the NDA you are not supposed to be able to get the hardware to review.  Kyle has undermined the system by releasing his review first. Steve at GN understands the system is best for consumers and everyone and so when he was in that position he didn't release early.  If reviewers can get hardware and release when ever without NDA then companies like Nvidia and AMD can release hardware to "favorable" reviewers early.  With the current system they can't.   That is why what Kyle did was a cheap pricks act, he obtained hardware he wasn't supposed to have access to and undermined the system that ensures consumers get fair independent reviews.

Quote

You want one group to abide by the restrictions of another but see nothing wrong with that other group not giving the same courtesy to the first group. Everyone involved made their own choice. I refuse to feel pity for any of them. If not signing the NDA hurts Kyle, so be it. He made his choice, he lives with. If signing it hurts other reviews, so be it. They made their choice, they live with it. Or, to put it more bluntly: If someone's fucks them over, too bad.

There is no point in debating the rest of this,  him obtaining and releasing early hurts consumers, other reviewers and compromised the whole process that ensures favoritism doesn't occur.  Fuck man, even Nvidia was willing to send him the RTX stuff after his rants about GPP but he was too focused on the perceived injustice or getting clicks and early reviews that he chose to sell out his audience in stead.

 

Yes I said that, he did sell out his audience, when any journalist misrepresents an industry standard that has a proven reason for being he does an injustice to all journalists and his audience.  I really hope they are smart enough to move onto another publication

[Derangel]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually, it's not just one lawyer, you your self said Kyles lawyer agreed with Steve's.  The industry as a whole said basically the same thing, the only person still trying to misrepresent the NDA is Kyle.

That is different because that is the industry standard, reviewers know that when the NDA is up the reviews will be published. New reveiwers have to prove themselves to get review samples. So that is vastly different to being able to release a review before the NDA as no one else who is playing fair has that option.

 

Huh?  If you don't sign the NDA you are not supposed to be able to get the hardware to review.  Kyle has undermined the system by releasing his review first. Steve at GN understands the system is best for consumers and everyone and so when he was in that position he didn't release early.  If reviewers can get hardware and release when ever without NDA then companies like Nvidia and AMD can release hardware to "favorable" reviewers early.  With the current system they can't.   That is why what Kyle did was a cheap pricks act, he obtained hardware he wasn't supposed to have access to and undermined the system that ensures consumers get fair independent reviews.

There is no point in debating the rest of this,  him obtaining and releasing early hurts consumers, other reviewers and compromised the whole process that ensures favoritism doesn't occur.  Fuck man, even Nvidia was willing to send him the RTX stuff after his rants about GPP but he was too focused on the perceived injustice or getting clicks and early reviews that he chose to sell out his audience in stead.

 

Yes I said that, he did sell out his audience, when any journalist misrepresents an industry standard that has a proven reason for being he does an injustice to all journalists and his audience.  I really hope they are smart enough to move onto another publication

At one point or another every big tech pub is going to get hardware outside of NDA. It's a common practice. If companies don't sample them a product and another source is willing to, they're going to take it. Can't remember which product it was off hand, but AMD didn't want to sample GN some product for launch so they found someone who would. The only difference is he didn't release his review early.

 

The ONLY way Kyle's review would hurt consumers is if it wasn't a fair review. So unless you're going to change your stance and claim the review wasn't accurate your argument holds no water. The only people it has a potential to hurt are the people who signed the NDA (and I've already established that I don't care) and Nvidia (I REALLY don't care). As for consumers? They have good information to look at.

 

I've been visiting [H] for over 16 years (maybe 17, don't remember exactly when I first found them), but if I even thought for a moment that Kyle wasn't expressing his honest thoughts on something I'd leave in an instant and never look back. I've done it with dozens of publications over the years and I imagine there will be dozens more as time goes on.

[Fixall]

23 hours ago, sazrocks said:

NDAs also allow for every reviewer to have time to make a full and thorough review of the product. The correct way to publish early is for all reviewers to do it together, not screw each other over for clicks. 

 

Are you just as pissed off at Linus Tech Tips for the bullcrap they pulled to produce the Intel Larrabee video?

 

A forum member from Hardforum won auction on ebay fair and square only to have Linus Media Group contact the buyer and talk him into selling to LMG instead.  Seems like a case of LTT screwing over a fellow GPU enthusiast for views to me.  I don't see you throwing a fit about that.  Shill.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Derangel said:

At one point or another every big tech pub is going to get hardware outside of NDA. It's a common practice. If companies don't sample them a product and another source is willing to, they're going to take it. Can't remember which product it was off hand, but AMD didn't want to sample GN some product for launch so they found someone who would. The only difference is he didn't release his review early.

Yep, it's sop common it's only happened twice.  

 

14 minutes ago, Derangel said:

The ONLY way Kyle's review would hurt consumers is if it wasn't a fair review. So unless you're going to change your stance and claim the review wasn't accurate your argument holds no water.

Except that my argument isn't that his specific review is going to hurt consumers, my argument is his practice of releasing early and avoiding NDAs will.  If that becomes common practice then you can kiss goodbye the relative surety we have that most reviews are thorough and independent.

 

14 minutes ago, Derangel said:

The only people it has a potential to hurt are the people who signed the NDA (and I've already established that I don't care) and Nvidia (I REALLY don't care). As for consumers? They have good information to look at.

They only have good information because the way the system with NDAs and a fair playing ground for reviewers sees to it.  Once you make it open slather first in best dressed you can kiss that "good information" good bye.

14 minutes ago, Derangel said:

 

I've been visiting [H] for over 16 years (maybe 17, don't remember exactly when I first found them), but if I even thought for a moment that Kyle wasn't expressing his honest thoughts on something I'd leave in an instant and never look back. I've done it with dozens of publications over the years and I imagine there will be dozens more as time goes on.

You are suffering cognitive bias then.

[Derangel]

Just now, mr moose said:

Yep, it's sop common it's only happened twice.  

 

Except that my argument isn't that his specific review is going to hurt consumers, my argument is his practice of releasing early and avoiding NDAs will.  If that becomes common practice then you can kiss goodbye the relative surety we have that most reviews are thorough and independent.

 

They only have good information because the way the system with NDAs and a fair playing ground for reviewers sees to it.  Once you make it open slather first in best dressed you can kiss that "good information" good bye.

You are suffering cognitive bias then.

Its 2:41 in the morning where I am. That was the one I could think of off the top of my head. Who did or didn't comment on getting products outside of NDA is not exactly information I bother to retain for well over a decade. The only reason I even remembered it with GN was because I saw it get brought up and then it triggered a memory.

 

I think I may be giving the impression that I don't like NDAs. I have no problem with NDAs. I agree that they can level the playing field. However, I also have no problem with people choosing not to sign them and doing reviews anyway. As long as the reviews are well done, not rushed, and correct then so be it. I agree, having no NDAs would be a bad thing. Doesn't change the fact that NDAs are a marketing tool and they exist more for the benefit of companies. Nor does it change that companies don't care about reviewers or if NDAs are fair to them. It gives them more control over marketing and helps prevent issues that were prevalent before NDAs were common place among reviewers.

 

I'd have problems with the review if it was a poorly done one. In fact, I'd be right with the crowd calling [H] out if it was. I get the concern, but I don't deal in "what if" and "maybe" based arguments.

 

Can we agree to stuff the personal attacks? We're both getting a bit out of line here and I'd rather not continue down the personal drama bullshit rabbit hole.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Can we agree to stuff the personal attacks? We're both getting a bit out of line here and I'd rather not continue down the personal drama bullshit rabbit hole.

Absolutely.

[bitsandpieces]

 

[Tristerin]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

Big problem I see with what they are doing, that will effect us more, is that if others follow suit the bigger reviewers have a far bigger upper hand. They will be able to source products early while others can't, that will pretty much block entry in to the reviewer scene.

 

Level playing field has a lot of advantages for us too, not just the reviewers.

 

I see that differently, I don't trust just any reviewer.  I actually only watch a handful of reviewers (and if you cant figure out whos pitching products and whose reviewing I cant help that, this isn't pointed at you but the masses in general).  I also do not pre-order products based on reviewers.  I only pre-order things (games only) based on my desire to have them. 

 

So HARDOCP is getting a hard time here because of a backdoor practice giving them an advantage.  However you aren't going to boycott, stop watching, or change how you support them - so do you REALLY care, or are you virtue signaling?  My virtue signal are these forum posts, my care for this topic is HARDOCP is now on my favorites list because I do care to support them now because I approve of their tactics.

 

Its simple, if you don't like something someone is doing don't support it.

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's like calling a bribe the same thing as a sale, sure money changed hands but not the same thing.

Its the same thing.  Its your morality making you think its different.  A bribe is a sale of information or securing information in exchange for money.  Please don't try to convolute a meaning to match what you want it.

 

I think the word you are looking to define is "Payola" - and it still doesn't fit the definition of what happened. 

 

Someone "A" bought a GTX 2070 from Someone "B".  Someone A IS legally bound to not purchase illegal goods by law, knowingly or not.  In this instance Someone B sold an item illegally by definition if they signed the NDA but the Someone A has no legal bearing on its lawfulness to acquire the *not illegal to own* item.  (it was only unlawful, due to an NDA, for Someone B to be apart of this transaction because its not illegal to own a GPU in the US of A)

 

 

 

 

[Tristerin]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

makes so much money he cries about purchasing products all the time?

always thought of him a a crybaby back around 2010 and still do

he thinks businesses should operate how he wants them to

I will read his reviews like I do everyones to make my own conclusions

but what he did was a dick move and hope many other companies start cutting ties too

But do you REALLY care what he did, had done, and is doing?  I mean REALLY?  Cause the answer is no based off what you just said.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Tristerin said:

So HARDOCP is getting a hard time here because of a backdoor practice giving them an advantage.  However you aren't going to boycott, stop watching, or change how you support them - so do you REALLY care, or are you virtue signaling?  My virtue signal are these forum posts, my care for this topic is HARDOCP is now on my favorites list because I do care to support them now because I approve of their tactics.

Well so far I have refused to read their review and I'm unlikely ever to, even an updated one after general NDA lift of the product. Granted I don't often read theirs but I tend to view all the major ones for important products like this, just to see how each does it etc, not theirs this time.

 

So I care enough to refuse to read it.

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well so far I have refused to read their review and I'm unlikely ever to, even an updated one after general NDA lift of the product. Granted I don't often read theirs but I tend to view all the major ones for important products like this, just to see how each does it etc, not theirs this time.

 

So I care enough to refuse to read it.

Than you are standing up for what you are espousing on the forum.  I commend you for that.  Most people just talk to have their peers assume they are more virtuous than they are and never actually do the things they want to be virtuous for.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

But do you REALLY care what he did, had done, and is doing?  I mean REALLY?  Cause the answer is no based off what you just said.

cared enough to stay away from there most of the time and havent used the forums for long while after I seen posts disappear on refresh or pages shrinking

and I also believe people make mistakes but if they continue to fuck up you drop them

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Its the same thing.  Its your morality making you think its different.  A bribe is a sale of information or securing information in exchange for money.  Please don't try to convolute a meaning to match what you want it.

No, most bribes tend to be illegal. Money exchanging hands doesn't generally define 'a sale'. Not just ethically, but legally it is in fact different. I doesn't matter how much one might try and justify it with all manner of reasons, an asshole is still an asshole, whether one has the ability to recognize that they are being one is a different story, many assholes exist in the world and a lot have no idea they are one or have been one.

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

cared enough to stay away from there most of the time and havent used the forums for long while after I seen posts disappear on refresh or pages shrinking

and I also believe people make mistakes but if they continue to fuck up you drop them

Understandable - my opinion is you should never peruse his site, his videos, anything that would put a penny in his pocket.  If you and all our peers did that he would disappear in a couple months.

[Derangel]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No, most bribes tend to be illegal. Money exchanging hands doesn't generally define 'a sale'. Not just ethically, but legally it is in fact different. I doesn't matter how much one might try and justify it with all manner of reasons, an asshole is still an asshole, whether one has the ability to recognize that they are being one is a different story, many assholes exist in the world and a lot have no idea they are one or have been one.

There is a lot of assumption involved in discussing how things went down. For all we know the source made the sale offer themselves after Kyle reached out to contacts. A retail source breaking street date is ethically (and legally, due to to it being a breach of contract) wrong, but buying the product is neither. I have no idea if its true or not, but I've heard that it isn't entirely uncommon for popular hardware to get sold early in some parts of Asia. We don't know where Kyle got his card, but my mind immediately went to places like China or Taiwan when I read the comment about how he got the card.

[Nowak]

Oh, you guys. I bet this wouldn't fly if it was an AMD NDA being broken.

[Derangel]

20 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Oh, you guys. I bet this wouldn't fly if it was an AMD NDA being broken.

Can't speak for anyone else, but my opinion would remain unchanged if it was AMD. Only difference would be I wouldn't need to harp on the NDA.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

There is a lot of assumption involved in discussing how things went down. For all we know the source made the sale offer themselves after Kyle reached out to contacts. A retail source breaking street date is ethically (and legally, due to to it being a breach of contract) wrong, but buying the product is neither. I have no idea if its true or not, but I've heard that it isn't entirely uncommon for popular hardware to get sold early in some parts of Asia. We don't know where Kyle got his card, but my mind immediately went to places like China or Taiwan when I read the comment about how he got the card.

I have no problem with them being able to source the card themselves, even early or any reviewer. I would hope that if a reviewer decides to go their own path that they would be able to use their reputation and industry contacts to source the product for review rather than paying for it, unless it's just a normal purchase, but if money does change hands for it outside of a normal sale then I wouldn't at all call it a product purchase or sale, we have better words for that kind of thing.

 

When I say he was being an asshole that specifically refers to releasing his review early before any other reviewer can. I've already covered many reasons for why these current NDAs do have value, if anyone thinks that the reviewers themselves can all somehow work together on a global scale to co-ordinate a review release date in substitute of vendor NDAs I will quite simply point to this as to why that will never work.

 

Vendors are the ones that are in the position and have the capability to co-ordinate that type of activity, reviewers do not. The products also happen to be their's, I can object to the ways in which they want to market and sell their products, reviewers can too, customers can as well but the vendor can still do it they way they want to. I'm all for informed purchases and informative reviews, we can still achieve that without starting a free for all pissing contest of who can get their review out first because they have the best contacts or biggest wallet.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I have no problem with them being able to source the card themselves, even early or any reviewer. I would hope that if a reviewer decides to go their own path that they would be able to use their reputation and industry contacts to source the product for review rather than paying for it, unless it's just a normal purchase, but if money does change hands for it outside of a normal sale then I wouldn't at all call it a product purchase or sale, we have better words for that kind of thing.

 

When I say he was being an asshole that specifically refers to releasing his review early before any other reviewer can. I've already covered many reasons for why these current NDAs do have value, if anyone thinks that the reviewers themselves can all somehow work together on a global scale to co-ordinate a review release date in substitute of vendor NDAs I will quite simply point to this as to why that will never work.

 

Vendors are the ones that are in the position and have the capability to co-ordinate that type of activity, reviewers do not. The products also happen to be their's, I can object to the ways in which they want to market and sell their products, reviewers can too, customers can as well but the vendor can still do it they way they want to. I'm all for informed purchases and informative reviews, we can still achieve that without starting a free for all pissing contest of who can get their review out first because they have the best contacts or biggest wallet.

It doesn't really fit as being a bribe either. It's not really an easy situation to classify. I'd put the fault more on the end of the retailer "selling" the card early than the person buying it. I look at it the same as if you or I went to a game store and bought a copy of the game from them before the street date. Shitty and unethical on the side of the store, much less so on the side of the person buying it.

 

I've made my thoughts on the early review pretty clear and don't really feel like going down that road again. I will say that I agree with you on the benefits of NDAs, most of the time. Nvidia pulled some serious shit with the 2080 and 2080 ti NDAs though, not releasing drivers until a couple days before the embargo date, but, in general, they do keep a level playing field.

 

Interestingly, I wonder if this wouldn't even have been a problem if Nvidia didn't force AIBs to abide by their "approved reviewer" list. Without that stupidity Kyle could have contacted MSI, for example, for a card. MSI could agree to sample him a card and ask for him not to release his review until the embargo date. I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like that happens when reviewers go directly to AIBs for cards instead of AMD or Nvidia.

[Efilnikufesin]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I have no problem with them being able to source the card themselves, even early or any reviewer. I would hope that if a reviewer decides to go their own path that they would be able to use their reputation and industry contacts to source the product for review rather than paying for it, unless it's just a normal purchase, but if money does change hands for it outside of a normal sale then I wouldn't at all call it a product purchase or sale, we have better words for that kind of thing.

 

When I say he was being an asshole that specifically refers to releasing his review early before any other reviewer can. I've already covered many reasons for why these current NDAs do have value, if anyone thinks that the reviewers themselves can all somehow work together on a global scale to co-ordinate a review release date in substitute of vendor NDAs I will quite simply point to this as to why that will never work.

 

Vendors are the ones that are in the position and have the capability to co-ordinate that type of activity, reviewers do not. The products also happen to be their's, I can object to the ways in which they want to market and sell their products, reviewers can too, customers can as well but the vendor can still do it they way they want to. I'm all for informed purchases and informative reviews, we can still achieve that without starting a free for all pissing contest of who can get their review out first because they have the best contacts or biggest wallet.

No offense, you are quite a knowledgeable poster, but this whole waiting for other reviewers to get the same chance and time to review is a load of nonsense. They run a business doing these reviews, end of story. He did not sign the NDA, he did not get a free sample to review, and is under no obligation to wait for his "competition" to beat him or match him to the punch. He acquired the product through his own means, and put out the review (haven't read it, have no interest in any RTX products.)

 

It's business, simple as that. He got the scoop.

 

As they say in Russia...tough Sh**ski.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

It doesn't really fit as being a bribe either. It's not really an easy situation to classify.

Well yea I wasn't literally saying it was a bribe, that was just an example of money changing hands that isn't 'a sale'. Only a very lose definition of sale would make it apply but we have other words on offer with more specific meanings to classify things.

 

When something is obtained using money that has no record of sale, no sales tax collected, is generally hidden, none of the consumers laws that protects the buyer would apply then being sold or purchased isn't really the best description of the action. Money changing hands is an extremely lose definition, and I would in this instance not say the RTX 2070 was sold.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

but this whole waiting for other reviewers to get the same chance and time to review is a load of nonsense. They run a business doing these reviews, end of story.

 

You might say it's nonsense but my opinion is it is not for the reasons I have listed before. I'm not saying he can't do what he did but he's still an arse for doing it. He in some way leveraged his position to gain an advantage, by obtaining something that he should not have and no other consumer could get, he is a consumer when not part of the NDA and part of Nvidia reviewer briefings.

 

14 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

He did not sign the NDA, he did not get a free sample to review, and is under no obligation to wait for his "competition" to beat him or match him to the punch. He acquired the product through his own means, and put out the review (haven't read it, have no interest in any RTX products.)

 

So even putting the review ethics aside he still used his position to get a product no other consumer could get, as I said before I don't necessarily object to doing that but what you do after that is what counts. I also wouldn't condone all the people in the world who are also able to use their positions when they can to get products early before others, people that work in the industry or are part of the supply chain network. That sort of thing is actually illegal in my country anyway, employees in retail stores have been fined here for that before.

 

If he doesn't want to sign the NDA then he can buy the product like everyone else or have a bit of business ethics. If someone acts like a dick I'll call em a dick.

 

17 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

It's business, simple as that. He got the scoop.

I'll shame any publication that wants to go back to race to publish and puts that above quality of information, hence I have not and will not read that review.

[adadk]

On 10/15/2018 at 3:30 AM, sazrocks said:

NDAs also allow for every reviewer to have time to make a full and thorough review of the product. The correct way to publish early is for all reviewers to do it together, not screw each other over for clicks. 

 

18 hours ago, Fixall said:

 

Are you just as pissed off at Linus Tech Tips for the bullcrap they pulled to produce the Intel Larrabee video?

 

A forum member from Hardforum won auction on ebay fair and square only to have Linus Media Group contact the buyer and talk him into selling to LMG instead.  Seems like a case of LTT screwing over a fellow GPU enthusiast for views to me.  I don't see you throwing a fit about that.  Shill.

C'mon sazrocks....a bunch of us are waiting for your reply....