davis.anthony
Veteran
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
That's reviewing a single item, the method of procurement is relevant if an outlet gives an exceptionally glowing review to a singular product.
This however, is a roundup of 4 separate products, with plenty of critique - none of them were exceptional from DF's review. So if DF were given the products for review, as the vast majority of outlets covering products are, that would mean...what, exactly? What is the implication for the review content?
Again, this is like pulling teeth with you for some reason. Is this another example of DF's 'absence of information speaking loudly", as you put it previously? if you think DF has an ethical problem, they just say so - don't do this silly dance. For example, I think DF's 1/2 hour 'tech reviews' of individual games can certainly be interesting and worthwhile, but they also fly a little too close to infomercial territory for my taste, and have said so previously. Otherwise, it's just a weird critique - the overall thrust of the conclusion is that every one of these products have significant flaws and are held back by tying themselves to Windows. What influence do you think was potentially bought here?
So again, just say what you mean.
Surely that’s a joke question. What kind of question is that? Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, people would disclose it? It matters because as an interpreter of the content, it provides context on how to interpret the content. In fact, it’s weird if you don’t provide that context.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
In the context of 4 simultaneous reviews, what is the interpretation then? Do you think some of them were unnecessarily praised? All of them? The content of the review is a part of the context.
If the content of the roundup was "All of these products are exceptional and provide a great experience", then you would have a point. But the content was clearly not that, heck some of the products have already been reviewed (with also mediocre conclusions), this is largely just catching up to see how most of them have improved. Did you even watch the video?
Like if you watch that video and want to insinuate influence was bought, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that is was bought - by Valve, as they all suffer from the same flaws every Windows handheld does.
If partial transparency is ok for you, that’s fine. However don’t assume it’s ok for others. Being a modern reviewer poses a serious conflict of interests issue. You sometimes receive products from the manufacturers who have the ability to cut off till your access to future products. Inherently, by design the system is already flawed. Which makes it more important to be 100% transparent with the audience.
I watched the video and could not understand which units were purchased and which ones were not. That bothers me personally and I’ll call it out. When I watch other reviewers, I can understand how they acquired the product.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
The criteria you determine for what unit would be 'purchased' vs. 'gifted' is then...what?
Again...and again...just say what you mean. This statement that you 'couldn't understand what units were purchased' implies strongly that you believe there is a 1:1 correlation between units donated for review. vs self-purchased in content, so just have the courage to say "I don't think any review which relies on donated equipment is valid", as that's effectively what you're saying here.
If you can't discern by the content alone, then that completely invalidates any argument of 'context' - there is none. Donated hardware for review = invalid. And that's absolutely fine! I think in the context of a comparative review that's a little weird, but it's a stance that's not completely invalid in general. But just at least have the courage to come out and say so.
Last edited:
Actually, if you are professional, it makes no difference. The transparency is for when you get a glowing review, you want to know it's genuine or not. If the article isn't a glowing review, it doesn't matter how the product was received. Does the DF content smack of overly positive opinion influenced by a freebie? If not, if there's no reason to think the reviews are biased in favour of a free gift, it doesn't matter where the product came from.
Read the article/watch the analysis. Is it a fair and balanced assessment with good pros/cons comparisons? If yes, that transparency you are after is irrelevant, no?
davis.anthony
Veteran
It only matters to those who are trying to imply something and we can all see what you're trying to get at.
So just come out with it already.
Nah I disagree and so does the FTC. If you were actually a professional, you’d do so without being queried because you’re confident that your review wasn’t affected in anyway. I seriously question those who pose arguments against transparency. This idea that I should interpret content without context is unacceptable to me. The part that’s even more annoying is that they’re inconsistent. Sometimes the clearly state it and sometimes it’s ambiguous like in this video.
Last edited:
Well, do you personally think DF’s coverage on this is biased? If such is the case, I think it’d be more productive to come clean with it so we can talk about it rather than the ethics of the FTC.
I hate the term biased. Everybody is biased and anyone pretending not to is telling a tall tale. Every single member of DF is biased. John likes retro consoles, Richard likes Sega, Alex likes pc, etc. We all have things that we like that influence how we perceive different things.
So, now to answer your question, I don’t know if the video is biased because context was not provided to how the units were acquired. I can’t tell if a particular unit was undeservedly over/under represented because of a lack of context. That’s the whole point. You provide this information to the audience to provide transparency and context. They annoyingly fail to do this from time to time and I’ll call it out every single time. If you’re not paying for all the products you review, please let the audience know. I shouldn’t have to guess when going into a video if there are any existing conflicts of interest I should pay attention to while interpreting the review.
Sure, but given the context is a product review, I do think that it’s possible to be objective. We’re not talking politics or religion here where it’s almost impossible to divorce one’s stance and arguments from one’s beliefs.
This is strange, I don’t see the creators mention every single time they have purchased a product with their own money. I do hear them mention when they were given a review sample, however.
But how can you tell whether a product is undeservedly over/under presented if the article is balanced and not obviously one-sided?? Just knowing how it was acquired doesn't tell you the objectivity of the content. eg. You might have someone get a product for free and rave about it when it isn't any good, as you'd expect. But you might also get someone who is refused a free product who then dumps on it unfairly and says, "I bought this myself," while all the other content says it's amazing (which it is) and "we got it for free" so you ignore them as adversely influenced.
You can't tell the bias from the content just from how the product was acquired. That info over time only helps you learn whether a source is reliable or not.
I appreciate your position on journalism, but this is the DF Technical Discussion with its own rules.
If you have reason and evidence to question DF's findings on the handhelds and can show they they are over/under-representing a piece of hardware, that's relevant. If not, everyone in this thread is okay accepting DF's opinions (they're just personal opinions) as presented and don't feel the need to know the specific ins and outs of where the hardware came from for the purposes of this discussion. Wanting consistency from DF is a job for messaging them directly, not posting here.
Mod: Let's return to Technical Discussion please.
it never ceases to amaze me the excellent things interesting people can achieve in a platform where freedom is key, long live freedom and talent
davis.anthony
Veteran
What's interesting is the performance drop with the stock settings.
Add in a denoiser or even ray reconstruction and you should end up with a very performant PT implementation compared to CP2077 and AW2.
Add in a denoiser or even ray reconstruction and you should end up with a very performant PT implementation compared to CP2077 and AW2.
Right? I was shocked at how good the performance was, considering it wasn't even a feature they intentionally shipped. I was also sad that there wasn't an option to increase the samples per pixel. Rather than crank the bounces up to 7, I wanted 8 or even 16 spp, since the 4090 was coping okay with just 4.
As a side note, I'd love to see every game leave in a hidden 'reference renderer' like this just for fun, even if they don't provide any 'official' support. Even if at its highest settings it can only manage single digit FPS on current cards, there's always 5 and 10 years from now, and one day we will have a rig that will happily power through it.
DavidGraham
Veteran
0:01:57 News 01: Fallout 4 gets mixed current-gen upgrade0:22:14 News 02: Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora gets 40fps mode
0:38:07 News 03: Lords of the Fallen receives performance boost
0:49:12 News 04: Alex dives deep into game tech
1:11:56 News 05: ROG Ally updated with AFMF tech
1:22:08 News 06: Paper Mario preview!
1:29:31 Supporter Q1: Could frame gen be used to scale a game from 40fps to 120fps, and then decimate it to 60fps?
1:34:07 Supporter Q2: Why are some Microsoft games exhibiting different settings on PS5 relative to Series X?
1:42:49 Supporter Q3: Do you prefer Doom 1993 or Doom 2016?
1:47:11 Supporter Q4: Is sampler feedback the Series S savior? And is the PS5 API better than Microsoft’s?
1:53:07 Supporter Q5: Is the PS4’s continued developer support a problem for Sony?
2:00:13 Supporter Q6: Could the Switch 2 have an image quality advantage over PC gaming handhelds?
2:05:35 Supporter Q7: Are 13900K and 14900K processors really unstable?
2:10:54 Supporter Q8: What would a Republic of Gamers look like?
Last edited:
Similar threads
