If you can't see it, it's not cheating. [Archive]

View Full Version : If you can't see it, it's not cheating.

K.I.L.E.R

12-Jul-2003, 05:07

Sorry for bringing this up but I would like to know how many people believe in that comment.

So if I am in an Olympic game and I take drugs, I have escaped the drug tests undetected but since I am not caught taking drugs it isn't considered cheating.

Can anyone see a flaw with that?

Evildeus

12-Jul-2003, 06:22

K.I.L.E.R

12-Jul-2003, 06:51

I think the difference is:
When you enter the olympic games, there's a rule saying: you shouldn't take "list of drugs", whereas there's no rules to say, you should render this game as it is supposed to. Then everyone think what they want :wink:

Sorry, I should point out that I am talking about synthetic benchmarks.

Synthetic benchmarks are ment to be run without optimisations or modifications to compare system components and/or the entire system up against other systems.

Doomtrooper

12-Jul-2003, 09:13

Let me guess the one vote for true is none other than Mr. One liner himself...Kyle :lol:

K.I.L.E.R

12-Jul-2003, 10:03

Let me guess the one vote for true is none other than Mr. One liner himself...Kyle :lol:

2 votes now. Must have been Kyle using someone elses PC. ;) :lol:

martrox

12-Jul-2003, 11:01

Any guesses who else voted it true? :wink: Could it be someone who thinks ATI smoking something hallucinogenic? :roll:

Exxtreme

12-Jul-2003, 11:26

My opinion:

"optimizing" for games -> good for the customer
"optimizing" for benchmarks -> cheating

jvd

12-Jul-2003, 11:32

I dunno to me its just like Fat.... when i eat icecream can i see the fat ? No.... but it goes strait to my gut....

So the end result is bad. If they cheat on benchmarks . I can't see it . But in the end i get screwed. And its not by a hot girl so that is bad too .

K.I.L.E.R

12-Jul-2003, 11:55

My opinion:

"optimizing" for games without changing the original output -> good for the customer
"optimizing" for benchmarks -> cheating

Freak'n Big Panda

12-Jul-2003, 12:46

omg 3 ppl voted true! I wonder who they were.... anyway I totaly agree with killer.

My opinion:

"optimizing" for games without changing the original output -> good for the customer
"optimizing" for benchmarks -> cheating

martrox

12-Jul-2003, 12:48

Ok, for all those voting yes, please answer the following questions:

It's not cheating IF I can't see:

1) My significant other having sex with other people
2) The management of my workplace skimming profits off the top
3) The management of my investments buying Enron stock - from themselves!
4) Adding 30 lbs of lead ballast to the leading contender in a horserace.
5) Removing half the sparkplugs from Micheal Schumacker's Ferrari
6) Dating a transvestite
7) Voting against Dubba in Florida......

:roll: :wink: :shock: :lol:

mat

12-Jul-2003, 13:13

My opinion:

"optimizing" for games without changing the original output -> good for the customer
"optimizing" for benchmarks -> cheating

make that

optimizing without changing the original output -> good for the customer
optimizing with changing the original output-> cheating

and i'll agree.

Just think of the C Compiler optimizations. are those cheats? no, the just make youe app faster. If the Graphics driver can do this, than i'm happy as long as the Software does what the Programmer specified

nyt

12-Jul-2003, 13:35

optimizing without changing the original output -> good for the customer
optimizing with changing the original output-> cheating

and i'll agree.

The big issue with this reasonning is that you assume that all outputs are equal to the default rasterizer, which is not the case due to FP nature. Moreover, you have to consider the output not only in terms of image quality but also frame rate, or the result will be different as well. If fps weren't important, you wouldn't have so many benchmarks around, perf/quality settings in the drivers, etc.
The original poll doesn't specify context, it should have a third choice :'depends' :D
Me thinks, it's time specs include a performance index for critical parts of the API. The FX5200 should not be DX9 compliant if all you get is a slideshow using DX9 features. But if you can have it run below DX9 specs with an acceptable output quality actually close to a true DX9 compliant adapter, would you still can this cheating?

K.I.L.E.R

12-Jul-2003, 13:59

...
optimizing with changing the original output-> cheating
...

In a synthetic benchmark only general D3D/GL optimisations are acceptable.
If 3dmark was made by me I would be even more pissed what Ati and nVIDIA have done to MY software. Ati removed the optimisations in 3dmark03 (even though they never changed the output) because they knew it was WRONG!

If it wasn't wrong then they would not have removed them.

FM built the software to run one way for all cards. Inserting clip planes on a fixed camera position IS changing the way the software is run because if FCP were meant to be used, FM would have implemented it.

In games, as long as you don't change the IQ it's acceptable.

digitalwanderer

12-Jul-2003, 14:30

Hanners

12-Jul-2003, 16:17

I still can't fathom the kind of mind it would take to not see the inherent problems with the whole "If you can't see it, it's not cheating." attitude.

My example: If I'm an ostrich and I stick my head into the sand.... :roll:

Well, I guess when it comes to rendering something on screen, what you see is the most important (only important?) part of the end-user experience.

The rules change substantially once you start talking synthetic benchmarks though, which is why I voted false. Had the question been 'in games', I would be inclined to vote 'true'.

nelg

12-Jul-2003, 16:37

4) Adding 30 lbs of lead ballast to the leading contender in a horserace.

Where would you put it. :shock: :shock: :shock:

martrox

12-Jul-2003, 18:15

4) Adding 30 lbs of lead ballast to the leading contender in a horserace.

Where would you put it. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Maybe that should have been ON the racehorse...... :wink:

Evildeus

13-Jul-2003, 12:47

Synthetic benchmarks are ment to be run without optimisations or modifications to compare system components and/or the entire system up against other systems.
Well, all depends on the benchmarker not on the benchmark. If you want to be on the ORB of FM, sure you shouldn't, but if you want to be compare on, let say, [H] reviews, optimisation is accepted, and what is not seen is considered ok, then it's not cheating.

It's like some rules on the NBA and on the french basketball chanpionship are not equal, and what is considered cheating in one place is not in another place.

It's the reviewer who put the rules on what is cheating or not. Like i could make an international chanpionship saying that all drugs are accepted, so there's no more cheating in taking some ;).

martrox

13-Jul-2003, 14:25

Geez, ED, talk about your circle logic......
The bottom line is that there is a right and a wrong here, and what nVidia has and is doing is wrong, period. The ones that they are really cheating are their customers. And, by the way, you might check out the review at XBT, because, even though they are slanted to nVidia, they had this to say:
It's clear that the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra can't be called a single 3D king (the difference between the 5900 and 5900 Ultra is demonstrated above, so you can estimate whether the 5900 Ultra is able to outscore even the 128MB version of the RADEON 9800 PRO). We admit that we were wrong giving the crown to the new NVIDIA product because of the deceitful 3DMark scores.
So, I guess we are still waiting to see just who is smoking something hallucinogenic? :wink:

Evildeus

13-Jul-2003, 14:56

Well martrox, if you think it's circle logic good for you, but can you point me where it is? Unfortunately, it's not because Xbt says that what Nv did is wrong, that it's good for all reviewers.

I'm not saying that Nvidia didn't cheat in my point of view, but that the determination of "cheat" depends on the rules people makes, and reviewers/benchmark company can put rules where what Nv did/is doing is not cheating, as any championship can make a rule where taking drugs is not cheating also.

Sorry if that disturbs you.

PS: I thought that the world was not black or white ;)

WaltC

13-Jul-2003, 15:11

What I found so amazing and comical about the original "cheating you can't see isn't cheating" remarks was that in 3DMk when you took the camera off the track you could then see the cheating in all its glory...;) So the original premise of the sentiment was incorrect to begin with. That statement should have been:

"I can't see the cheating so I say, 'What cheating?'" I guess the originator of the sentiment read the ET article but never got around to looking at the screen shots--or if he did, was unable to correlate the two intellectually...;)

Also, "a general goal of all cheating is that it go undetected." Ethics for 1st-graders by R.M. Nixon IV, Bantam Press, 1998.

Hanners

13-Jul-2003, 17:16

Chris123234

13-Jul-2003, 18:22

So if I am in an Olympic game and I take drugs, I have escaped the drug tests undetected but since I am not caught taking drugs it isn't considered cheating.

Can anyone see a flaw with that?

Not insulting you but that analogy sucks. You cant use the ethics for an Olympic game and stick them to video card optimizing. Drugs would only benifit the athlete but optimizing benifits the gameplayers. That is if your talking about games and not benchmarks. If it is about benchmarks just ignore this then.

Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

13-Jul-2003, 19:02

Not insulting you but that analogy sucks. You cant use the ethics for an Olympic game and stick them to video card optimizing. Drugs would only benifit the athlete but optimizing benifits the gameplayers. That is if your talking about games and not benchmarks. If it is about benchmarks just ignore this then.

There's nothing wrong with optimising games (as long as you don't alter the output). What *is* wrong is when you optimise the "benchmark mode" of those *same* games with techniques that cannot be used in-game (clip planes, no buffer clears), or that changes the output (low quality precision or low quality shaders) in order to convince people that your card is faster than it actually is when playing the game.

Those same techniques when extended to synthetic benchmarks create the same problem - they mislead the buying public by presenting performance that cannot be duplicated in games themselves.

This is why so many people are unhappy with Nvidia's recent behaviour. What they are doing *does not* benefit the gamer, but misleads gamers instead, by convincing them to buy products that do not deliver the performance that the Nvidia "optimised" benchmarks say they will.

Evildeus

13-Jul-2003, 19:04

I'm not saying that Nvidia didn't cheat in my point of view, but that the determination of "cheat" depends on the rules people makes, and reviewers/benchmark company can put rules where what Nv did/is doing is not cheating, as any championship can make a rule where taking drugs is not cheating also.

Well, FutureMark made their rules, and nVidia broke them.

Any review/benchmark that states that 'cheating is okay' is going to be about as popular as any sporting body who says 'cheating is okay'. Nobody in their right mind would do it if they want to keep their credibility intact.
FM said that, but they can't have enforcement on what other people think/decide to be the rule on their reviews. You can't use some cheating drivers on ORB, but you can in any review...

That's why i say, there's no cheating if you don't break a rule, and the rule is provided by the one enforcing it. FM can't stop a hardware site using the Nv drivers cheating on FM basis, but not on this hardware basis (which says if i don't see it it's not cheating).

Still, i think you are confusing between cheating and doing the same thing if there's no rule against it...

*edit* And i don't see why you all make a difference between benchmark and games.

martrox

13-Jul-2003, 20:24

And i don't see why you all make a difference between benchmark and games.

You don't? Why am I not suprised! Most all of us here do understand the difference.

Evildeus

13-Jul-2003, 21:14

Really? That's why all people are asking themself if they need to do home-made benchmarks? :roll:

There's no difference. In your way of thinking, things should be done in a way, if it isn't then it's cheating, but when it's game it's ok? Then if someone (say me), think like the 1 of the 2 following statement, there's an issue? :roll: :
- There's no difference between game and benchmark, if i don't see the optimisation, it's ok
- There's no difference between game and benchmark, if it's "optimized" then it's cheating

PS: I'm still waiting proof of my "circle logic" ;)

WaltC

13-Jul-2003, 23:23

.....
Still, i think you are confusing between cheating and doing the same thing if there's no rule against it...

*edit* And i don't see why you all make a difference between benchmark and games.

How about "rules" like this: Thou shalt not dishonestly represent thy products.

E, I think this is the "rule" broken that upsets most people.

There's a major difference between benchmarks and games for several reasons:

1) It's possible to cheat benchmarks in ways you cannot cheat games

2) Benchmarks are meant to compare and investigate hardware; games are meant to be played

3) Benchmarks are designed to show average-case performance for 3D software running under an API. The great majority of games are average-case, meaning there is no application-specific, performance optimization for them at all in 3D card drivers. Therefore, a benchmark which is is either cheated or optimized for will return performance values incongruent with the product's performance in the majority of 3D software available. This means it will return a *false* performance picture.

The difference is as clear as the difference between a benchmark and a game.

Tridam

13-Jul-2003, 23:43

Evildeus -> You can't compare games and benchmarks. A game could be a benchmark. You have to compare synthetic benchmarks and games benchmarks. Optimising in synthetic benchmark is cheating. Global optimisation in games benchmark can be good if the quality don't suffer too much and if these optimisations are not just timedemo related.

IHVs should change to way they optimise. They have to make it optional. If they don't make it optional, the quality will incessantly go down.

One quick example: IHV1 drop a little the filtering quality. It improves performances. IHV2 with full quality has a marketing problem because performances of its product are not as good. IHV2 knows of course how to boost performances. So IHV2 will quickly drop the filtering quality to be competitive with IHV1. Some weeks after, IHV1 want to improve performances one more time. He decides to drop quality a little more… … … it's a vicious circle…

Unfortunately, IHVs don't want to be honest with optimisation because it's the only way they have to make a 'bad product' look good. They know that reviewers will use the full quality option (or show number with and without optimisations). They know that performances in full quality are very important. So they don't want to make available a full quality option if they know that their products won't look good with it. They call a medium quality mode "High quality mode". And they drop the full quality possibility (NVIDIA do exactly this. With earlier drivers it was possible to have a better quality with GeFFX than today. Now this option has gone and the quality mode has more compromises. Of course NVIDIA can say "Hey ! Here are some new drivers, we have greatly improved our full quality performances!")

It's really boring… When I buy (it's been a while :p) a card which costs 300-400-500 $/€, I want to have the possibility to play with full quality. I don't want filtering tweaks. If I pay a card like that, I pay for quality ! Of course, high end cards have just a goal : help IHV selling as much full trucks of low end cards as possible (it's a little caricatured but not too much). High-end cards have not to respect one of the main rules of luxurious products : the quality. The high-end video card has just to show great numbers and have some great new techmarketing vocabulary. Right now, it's enough to help marketing teams to sell low-end parts. I hope this will change ;) Compromises are good but they have to be optional. If IHVs don't want to have a not-good-number mode by default, they could have the honesty of making available a no compromises mode.

If I can't see an optimisation when playing a game, it's a good optimisation.
If I see a little quality drop in game and a big performances boost, it's a good compromise.

I think that a benchmark like 3Dmark has to provide a no-optimisations mode, an IHV optimised mode and a fly mode to everyone. In the middle of the benchmark it has to provide everyone the possibility of ending the bench and flying in the scene. It's the only way to see if the IHV's optimisations are good or not. Example: procedural texturing. An IHV could use a simpler algorithm. This new algorithm could look good at the standard viewing point. But what happen when we zoom on the procedural texture ? With a fly mode, it's very easy to check this.

Evildeus

13-Jul-2003, 23:53

How about "rules" like this: Thou shalt not dishonestly represent thy products.
Yes, but then it depends on what is honest representation ;)

1) It's possible to cheat benchmarks in ways you cannot cheat games
Disagree, depends on the game and bench. If the bench is randomly rendered, whereas the game is on trail (some race games for exemple) you can do more on games than on benchs. It's not a general statement.

2) Benchmarks are meant to compare and investigate hardware; games are meant to be played
Great, thus you never bench a game don't you? And to compare and investigate, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do "optimisation"? To bench is to have an idea on how your hardware will run on games (as far as i know) and then you it would compare on games (otherwhy it's not relevent to someone buying a game card), thus know how good it would be to play with this card over this other one.

3) Benchmarks are designed to show average-case performance for 3D software running under an API. The great majority of games are average-case, meaning there is no application-specific, performance optimization for them at all in 3D card drivers. Therefore, a benchmark which is is either cheated or optimized for will return performance values incongruent with the product's performance in the majority of 3D software available. This means it will return a *false* performance picture.
Well for this, the "average-case performance" doesn't exist, there's different path give some or or less optimised applications. And for a bench to be representative of "the majority of 3D software available" it should use the "average-case" of available softwares not being future proof isn't it?
The difference is as clear as the difference between a benchmark and a game.
Let's take a far fetched exemple ;)
If a card is optimised for all current games but not for a specific benchmark, that this card has the best performance on games at equivalent IQ, but far less in the specific benchmark, what would you say? Optimising for the benchmark is cheating because it will "return performance values incongruent with the product's performance in the majority of 3D software available"? :)

PS: If the drivers are optimised for games, then to show the "average-case performance" it should be also on benchmark ;)

Althornin

14-Jul-2003, 05:42

Let's take a far fetched exemple ;)
If a card is optimised for all current games but not for a specific benchmark, that this card has the best performance on games at equivalent IQ, but far less in the specific benchmark, what would you say? Optimising for the benchmark is cheating because it will "return performance values incongruent with the product's performance in the majority of 3D software available"? :)

At least you recognize that it is far fetched.
However, you use this as an argument in your favor, while the non far fetched cases (ie, the common ones) are completely agaisnt you. Try again please.
You dont "win" by ignoring the many holes in your reasoning to poke a single worst case scenario through someone elses. you win by fixing the holes in your argument...which your post fails to do.

K.I.L.E.R

14-Jul-2003, 05:54

Does anyone know a good point about 3dmark 2003?

The way it purely tests your vidocard with little CPU overhead compared to the previous versions of 3dmark.

If I want to test how fast a certain architecture is against another architecture using a standard path or specific paths as long as the developer has implemented them I should be allowed to run the test knowing that the results I get have not been manipulated in any way by anyone other than myself.

Inserting pre-set clip planes and other "optimisations" will manipulate that test and I will get manipulated results which I never intended.

3dmark03 runs the way the developer intends it to run. For an IHV to sneak cheats into the drivers will manipulate the results from what I would normally get.

Hence, it's cheating.

Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

14-Jul-2003, 10:59

Does anyone know a good point about 3dmark 2003?

The way it purely tests your vidocard with little CPU overhead compared to the previous versions of 3dmark.

I agree completely. 3DMark 2003 is designed to produce a metric of performance by placing different types of heavy load on the graphics card. This is signifcantly different from what games do.

For Nvidia to say this is irrelevent to them is akin to them driving (instead of running) around a marathon course, and then claiming that no one would actually *run* the 26 miles when we have cars. To make such a claim is to (deliberatly) not understand the point of such a test, or the context of it's results. To cheat on them is to lie about your performance, just as finishing the marathon in a car is a lie.

K.I.L.E.R

14-Jul-2003, 12:00

nVIDIA have been claiming superior video cards to the competition and when a benchmark that tests just that, nVIDIA fail to put the money where their mouth is.

Instead they revert to manipulation and trickery to make it look like they have superior hardware.

14-Jul-2003, 14:52

Evildeus, perhaps you'd agree to the idea that an optimisation that helps only a specific visual path is a cheat? If a certain game demo is optimised, but that doesn't help actual gameplay in that game, then the optimisation is just meant to give people the wrong impression of the card (that is, that it's faster than it really is).

That said, I've pretty tired of this discussion of NVIDIA's cheating. Okay, they cheated, don't buy their products. Tell your friends, if you want. But discussing it over and over in a forum where everybody already knows about it and has their opinion is a waste of time, IMO.

WaltC

14-Jul-2003, 15:16

Yes, but then it depends on what is honest representation ;)

Yes, sort of like claiming to have tried pot without inhaling it...;)

Honest: Your drivers approach the benchmark just as they approach the majority of 3D games on the market.

Dishonest: Benchmark is special cased (either though optimization or workload-reduction cheats) in your drivers and provides a performance picture incongruent with what your hardware does in the majority of shipping 3D games (sometimes any 3D games.)

1) It's possible to cheat benchmarks in ways you cannot cheat games
Disagree, depends on the game and bench. If the bench is randomly rendered, whereas the game is on trail (some race games for exemple) you can do more on games than on benchs. It's not a general statement.

How can you say "I disagree" and then say "it depends"...;) nVidia proved how it could cheat a benchmark in a way impossible with a 3D game (I get weary of talking about inserted clip planes, etc.) In a game those characteristics would be considered bugs and be fixed.

Great, thus you never bench a game don't you? And to compare and investigate, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do "optimisation"? To bench is to have an idea on how your hardware will run on games (as far as i know) and then you it would compare on games (otherwhy it's not relevent to someone buying a game card), thus know how good it would be to play with this card over this other one.

Still doesn't change the fact that you can't "play" benchmarks...;) The purpose of games is that they be played--regardless of what else you do with them. The purpose of benchmarks is to investigate and compare hardware--and you can't play them even if you want to. Heh... you can certainly play *with* them if you want to...

Well for this, the "average-case performance" doesn't exist, there's different path give some or or less optimised applications. And for a bench to be representative of "the majority of 3D software available" it should use the "average-case" of available softwares not being future proof isn't it?

Average-case = the way your hardware runs most 3D games--ie, without driver-related performance optimizations.

Special-case = the way your hardware runs a tiny handful of all of the 3D games available, with driver-related performance optimizations, vendor paths, etc.

There is no such thing as future proof.

Let's take a far fetched exemple ;)
If a card is optimised for all current games but not for a specific benchmark, that this card has the best performance on games at equivalent IQ, but far less in the specific benchmark, what would you say? Optimising for the benchmark is cheating because it will "return performance values incongruent with the product's performance in the majority of 3D software available"? :)

Actually, as I've said before, if an IHV includes performance optimizations in its drivers for > than 50% of all shipping 3D titles, then optimizing in a similar fashion for a benchmark would present the average case.

However, no IHV's do this--even get close to this--and so it's a moot point. "Far fetched" as you say...;) The current state of IHV driver development is such that "average case" = no optimization for benchmarks (and of course certainly no cheats.)

Himself

14-Jul-2003, 16:39

martrox

14-Jul-2003, 19:41

Let's see, if a 10 year old is asked to make up his room and he just tosses everything under the bed, what would that be? Cheating or optimizing? :)
Never mind the rotting pizza crusts and dirty clothes, if you can't see the mess then everything is good right? :)

But....after 2 weeks you wonm't need to see it....the smell will tell you it's there......

Hmmmm....maybe nVidia needs to add the feature "Smell-o-rama" to their FX line of cands! :wink:

WaltC

14-Jul-2003, 20:10

Evildeus

14-Jul-2003, 20:44

Let's see, if a 10 year old is asked to make up his room and he just tosses everything under the bed, what would that be? Cheating or optimizing? :)
Cheating, but the rule is "to make up his room " that he didn't. Now if it was i don't want to see anymore this mess, what would that be? cheating or optimisation? ;)

The point is, you are trying to make me say that there only one rule, i.e. FM rule, which is wrong. Under FM rules, Nv cheated (well before the PR thing), but under Kyle's rules, Nv didn't cheated.

Well, i think it's enough, i don't have anymore to say, if you disagree, ok, but i think my way is valid (ie under the rules that people makes we can say if there're cheating or not). Thx.

Tridam

14-Jul-2003, 21:54

The first problem when talking about this is vocabulary.

Optimising : find a way to do the same work faster (no quality drop.. under the bed and everywhere)
Cheating : mislead people about performances in real world gaming (where you can look under the bed)
Compromising : increase performances with a quality decrease (of course there are good and bad compromises and this is subjective)

Optimising is always good, cheating is always bad, and compromising can be both.

NVIDIA has made some good compromises, some bad compromises, some very good optimisations and some really weird cheats. These last are the main problem (the impossibility to optionally disable some bad compromises is another one). It's very easy to cheat in public benchmarks because you can use predictability and forget about what we can't see (under the bed). The only way to avoid this is to be confident about the honesty and the integrity of IHV :D Sorry there's another more practical: make the benchmark to look under the bed ;)

andypski

14-Jul-2003, 22:16

Let's see, if a 10 year old is asked to make up his room and he just tosses everything under the bed, what would that be? Cheating or optimizing? :)

I suppose it would depend on whether his parents look under the bed...;)

What's really good is that his parents come in and catch him the first time, and then the next time they come back he's glued boards around the bed so that they can't see under it.

He tells them that there's no junk there any more...

Himself

14-Jul-2003, 22:47

WaltC

15-Jul-2003, 16:37

LOL :)

ED:

Wasn't trying to get you to say anything. :) However, there is such a thing as common sense, and NVIDIA doesn't have a staff of 10 year olds working there. Could be wrong though, would explain a lot. :)

Surprisingly, I think there's more to your tongue 'n cheek remark than you might think. I think that some of these companies really believe that it's only "10 year olds" who are very interested in "3d games" in the first place. Heh...I remember looking at the product box some company used for a $400 3D card a couple of years ago--it featured a kid on the front, male, no more than 10 years of age, whose hair was blown back and standing on end as if he'd placed a finger in a light socket...;) Man, oh, man...that was one case when I could truly say the picture on the box was so offensive and insulting to me that it would have put me off that company's version of the product entirely...;) There've been lots of companies over the past few years who have used some really childish marketing tactics for expensive 3D cards--go figure. I felt the same way a few years ago with Matrox and its Mystique marketing efforts--which seemed basically geared to pre teens. I guess it depends on your point of view, but over the years I've seen several marketing campaigns for expensive 3D cards geared to 10 year olds, literally. It just seems as if some of these companies have no clue as to the markets they serve.