TechReport chimes in on the HL2 benchmark

[bdmosky]

The saddest part about all of this is that there are a ton of people out there who still defend Nvidia and their actions to the very end. They blame Valve, they blame ATI, they blame Microsoft etc.... Everyone but the culprit who is pulling such nasty deeds as raising IQ only in screen grabs. If that isn't outright fraud I don't know what is.

Or outright blame Nvidia without proof positive? I don't see the difference.

 

[Pete]

But a pretty reputable source, or at least one that you would figure would not want to alienate the IHV that produces the majority of cards that run Half-Life, is making the accusations. I really don't think Valve would make baseless or hasty accusations.

As they say, haste makes waste. I'm waiting to see benchmarks on public Det50's before spending more time speculating on who's holding the bag. We don't have long to wait, so it shouldn't be too difficult to hold back.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Or outright blame Nvidia without proof positive? I don't see the difference.

Actually, there is a difference.

The difference is, nVidia has (quite rightly, IMO) earned the distinction of NOT being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to performance increases, or accusations from developers. In other words, AFAIC, any significant performance increase in nVidia's drivers is to be assumed it's a cheat, until it can be investigated and "cleared."

That's the price one pays for doing things like manual clip-plane insertion, z-clear shenanigans, and replacing shaders with your own that don't give the exact same results.

So while I agree that it has not been "proven" that nVidia's det 50's cheat wrt half-life...the legitimate assumption is that they do...through no fault of anyone but nvidia.

 

[Quitch]

Either it's another cheat, or nVidia has the buggiest POS drivers since the early Radeon days. Whichever may be, it's not good for nVidia.

 

[bdmosky]

Actually, there is a difference.

The difference is, nVidia has (quite rightly, IMO) earned the distinction of NOT being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to performance increases, or accusations from developers. In other words, AFAIC, any significant performance increase in nVidia's drivers is to be assumed it's a cheat, until it can be investigated and "cleared."

That's the price one pays for doing things like manual clip-plane insertion, z-clear shenanigans, and replacing shaders with your own that don't give the exact same results.

So while I agree that it has not been "proven" that nVidia's det 50's cheat wrt half-life...the legitimate assumption is that they do...through no fault of anyone but nvidia.

Damn... remind me to fear you ever being placed in my court system...

I'm just disappointed to see such immediate negative reactions from such a forum as Beyond 3D. Perhaps I'm also a little disappointed with the lack of clarity of the allegations "implied" by Gabe Newman, on the behalf of Valve as well. I find it just a little irresponsible to imply cheating by Nvidia without positively identifying the driver version or offering absolute proof of the misbehavior. I realize that Valve may have not had much time with the new drivers either, but why even put yourself in such a precarious position without supporting evidence. It's stupid and irresponsible. Not only does it lay Nvidia's credibility on the line (whatever you may think is left of it), but it also put's Valve's and Gabe's credibility on the line if whatever allegations may exisit, end up false.

All it did was create a polar environment where words and accusations are carelessly thrown around.

*edit grammar*

 

[Tahir2]

Mmmm.... where is Derak Smart on this issue?
Should be worth a read at least.

Yo, DS let's hear what you got to say!!!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Damn... remind me to fear you ever being placed in my court system...

Heh, well, as I said, I wouldn't say they are definitely "guilty" before there is proof. But their "punishment" for being a repeat offender in the past, is the presumption of shenanigans. Because up until now, I'd say they've largely gotten away with it.

I certainly wouldn't trust a new nVidia driver further than I can throw it. If it gets run throguh the mill, the developers say "it's fine", and we (B3D testers) find no wrongdoing, then that's great, and we'll give nVidia the credit they deserve.

I'm just disappointed to see such immediate negative reactions from such a forum as Beyond 3D.

Well, I'm been very disappointed in nVidia's PR ever since the NV30 launched. And up until this point, I'd say nVidia PR was doping whatever it could to cloud the truth.

I realize that Valve may have not had much time with the new drivers either, but why even put yourself in such a precarious position without supporting evidence.

Probably because nVidia really pissed Gabe off....because Gabes customers are being put at risk of disssatisfaction because of what he sees as wrongdoing from nVidia. Does Gabe not have a right to call it as he sees it?

It's stupid and irresponsible.

What's stupid and irresponsible, is not giving your potential customers the information they need to make the correct buying decision to get the most out of your game.

Not only does it lay Nvidia's credibility on the line (whatever you may think is left of it), but it also put's Valve's and Gabe's credibility on the line if whatever allegations may exisit, end up false.

Perhaps. But it just might also nudge nVidia to do the right thing. I call it guts.

All it did was create a polar environment where words and accusations are carelessly thrown around.

I disagree. The polar environment was always there. what this did was put the TRUTH out there, as seen by Gabe.

Gabe has NO vested interest in seeing poor performance on nVidia's cards. He has LOTS of vested interest in not having to deal with "fragile" driver optimizations where if Valve decides to tweak a shader, all hell will break loose for his customers that happen to have nVidia hardware.

 

[WaltC]

But a pretty reputable source, or at least one that you would figure would not want to alienate the IHV that produces the majority of cards that run Half-Life, is making the accusations. I really don't think Valve would make baseless or hasty accusations.

As they say, haste makes waste. I'm waiting to see benchmarks on public Det50's before spending more time speculating on who's holding the bag. We don't have long to wait, so it shouldn't be too difficult to hold back.

Well, since Valve's already seen the 50's, and was impressed to the degree that they officially asked that no web sites run them with their software--I see little reason to think much will change--except that hopefully whatever "optimizations" are in them which Valve finds degrading to its software nVidia will remove. Valve has been working with nVidia for *months* and so there is nothing "hasty" here at all. Don't you think Valve would have loved it if nVidia's cards were just as fast as ATi's under DX9???? As it is, they are pissed because nVidia's blatant "DX9" claims all...year...long...about nV3x, have put them in this position of having to explain why nV3x is really a DX8.1 part with some cruddy, non-DX9-compliant fp pipelining bolted on.

My goodness--this is FutureMark all over again. It's just really, really sad to see that at this late date anybody is falling for the "but, oh! That's unfair because we haven't had a chance to optimize our drivers yet!" routine that nVidia has been pulling all....year....long....

Heh...what I'm waiting on now is an announcement that nVidia has quit Microsoft's DX9 program on the basis of its opinion that DX9 is not the future of 3d-gaming--but rather that DX8.1 is, instead!... (Wouldn't surprise me at this stage.)

 

[WaltC]

Or outright blame Nvidia without proof positive? I don't see the difference.

Seriously, man--where have you been since last December when nVidia quit FutureMark and floated statements and whitepapers arguing that hardware support for DX9 was superfluous to the future of 3d gaming? That's when all of this began, and it's been going on all year long. It's taken many different forms--from encrytped D3d drivers, to cheating in benchmarks, to a whole bunch of talk from nVidia about "real 3d games"--and lo and behold we've got real DX9 3d games coming down the pike--and nV3x is not competitive--nor is it compliant. That has been demonstrated over and over again all year long...

Valve's commentary is merely icing on the cake--is merely the *last* such incident to happen this year on this very same topic. You ask for proof and I say what more proof do you need? And when you get it--as is inevitable--will you still need more? Seriously if the events of the past 10 months or so mean nothing to you then you simply aren't open to "proof."

For anyone who has been following the events this year--what happened with Valve should have been *expected* and be no surprise at all. Gird yourself for more of it. Do you really think developers *like* being put in the position of having to explain to their customers why their DX9 software runs like a dog on nV3x--in light of the fact nVidia's been promoting and selling their "DX9" hardware line all year long? I mean--for gosh sakes--the 5200--which nVidia's been touting as "DX9 driven to the low end of the market" won't even run the darn game at a playable frame rate on the generic DX9 path! I'll tell you that they *can't stand* being put in that position--they don't *deserve* to be in the position--and they aren't going to stand for it. Was I in their shoes I would be furious about having to make such explanations--because it wasn't me who misrepresented the hardware and I didn't make a dime from it. But because of what nVidia's done, the companies investing large sums of money and time in the creation of DX9 software are having their livelihoods threatened by this. You better believe they are hot about it.

Think about it--this isn't an opengl game requiring all kinds of exotic and off-the-wall extensions Valve is talking about--it's a DX9 game--and all they should have to do is to program on the DX9 path and everybody's "DX9" products should be getting the kind of DX9 performance the respective IHVs have been SELLING TO THE PUBLIC all year long. That didn't happen with nVidia's "DX9" hardware--and Valve has bent over backwards and spent 5x as much time trying to coax performance out of the nV3x hardware when all it should have had to do was to code for it on the same path they coded for ATi--the DX9 code path. It's not Valve's fault nVidia misrepresented itself--but they see it as affecting their pocketbooks in more ways than one--and of course they aren't happy about it.

WHAT is so hard to understand about that?

 

[cthellis42]

I'm just disappointed to see such immediate negative reactions from such a forum as Beyond 3D.

It's not like it's immediate. It's been brewing ever since the first benchmark twiddling's been going on, and while ATi backed off and said "oops, sorry, we know you guys don't want this and it's just a bad idea in general" (even for a very minor change that kept all the instructions in 3DMark03 the same) nVidia has been sticking its thumbs into more pies and doesn't seem to be backing away from anything right now, even following their "optimization guidelines" release.

There's a possibility that Gabe simply wanted to ENSURE nVidia not try anything foolish in the 5x.xx drivers by speaking publicly and brazenly, since pussy-footing around hasn't seemed to slow them down much. (And I certainly don't think nVidia is willing to risk getting caught at this stage when everyone is watching and alert right now.)

Basically, I suppose we DON'T have undesputible proof of what exactly is going on, but considering nVidia's track record of late, I learn more towards comments from Valve--especially considering this is one of the titles nVidia would be most desperate to NOT be swamped in.

 

[nonamer]

I'm just disappointed to see such immediate negative reactions from such a forum as Beyond 3D.

Don't be, or at least try to not to. Beyond3d has gone way downhill in forum quality and etiquette to nearly that of a mindless fansite. Set your sights lower.

Perhaps I'm also a little disappointed with the lack of clarity of the allegations "implied" by Gabe Newman, on the behalf of Valve as well. I find it just a little irresponsible to imply cheating by Nvidia without positively identifying the driver version or offering absolute proof of the misbehavior. I realize that Valve may have not had much time with the new drivers either, but why even put yourself in such a precarious position without supporting evidence. It's stupid and irresponsible. Not only does it lay Nvidia's credibility on the line (whatever you may think is left of it), but it also put's Valve's and Gabe's credibility on the line if whatever allegations may exisit, end up false.

All it did was create a polar environment where words and accusations are carelessly thrown around.

This is indeed my biggest grippe about this whole situation. On one hand you have a forum like this that immediately assumes the worse about nVidia, and then have these unclear accusations from Valve, as well as the weird request to not use 5*.** drivers. I won't won't make any guesses about this whole issue, IMO there's just too much FUD make a reliable conclusion.

Not saying that this is entirely untrue, there's certainly a lot of truth in what Gabe is saying; nVidia's PS's are a lot weaker than ATI's, about half the power IIRC. For a heavily pixel shading game like HL2, the ATI card would be expected to run faster. However, there's some serious discrepancies and unknowns among various benchmarks of HL2. A real logical person will go with the wait and see approach.

 

[bdmosky]

Valve's commentary is merely icing on the cake--is merely the *last* such incident to happen this year on this very same topic. You ask for proof and I say what more proof do you need? And when you get it--as is inevitable--will you still need more? Seriously if the events of the past 10 months or so mean nothing to you then you simply aren't open to "proof."

I need proof that isn't based on your damn speculation or anyone else's. Speculation is what it is... and if that's all you've got to show, then you can either call it what it is, or keep it to yourself. YES, Nvidia cheated in 3DMark 2003 with certain drivers. This was proven through systematic testing procedures. Now, whether or not Nvidia is willing to admit that is a whole different matter. Is Nvidia still cheating in 3DMark 2003 with current drivers? I don't know! Why? Because as far as I've read, it can no longer be systematically shown it is doing this. Same thing goes for the detonator 50 series. No proof was offered and that is what is pissing me off. I really, really hate how many people will abuse this word. To prove something as fact, it takes systematic reasoning. You keep skirting the issue here by throwing in all sorts of marketing gimmicks and personal emotions, but isn't proof so stop pretending it is. I expect more out of the Beyond3D community than this crap and I should hope you would too. If Valve isn't willing to offer proof for us, then I think we as a community need to test these drivers in Half Life 2 so that the issue CAN be resolved despite Valve's opinion on the matter just like the Reverend already said.

 

[Vince]

All it did was create a polar environment where words and accusations are carelessly thrown around.

I disagree. The polar environment was always there. what this did was put the TRUTH out there, as seen by Gabe.

Gabe has NO vested interest in seeing poor performance on nVidia's cards. He has LOTS of vested interest in not having to deal with "fragile" driver optimizations where if Valve decides to tweak a shader, all hell will break loose for his customers that happen to have nVidia hardware.

While I should have learned my lesson when questioning anything that could possibly be construed as not pro-ATI , I find your comment to be quite obtuse. Particularly the latter paragraph concerning itself with the hardware "his" customers "happen" to "have".

His customers don't "happen" to have that hardware as if God created it on the 8th day and destined them to have it as if some determinist means were responsible. "His" customers bought that hardware and if he wants to sell "his" product to them - then he can do "his" job by catering to "his" audience. If he really wants the sales - then making it playable on nVidia, regardless the cost, should be a high-priority "vested" interest.

I don't see automobile mechanics complaining that "their" customers don't all drive 2004 BMW's and Mercades's which they have a vested interesting in working on. Or that they have to spend 10X as much time on a POS Ford as my Lexus. And they don't complain because they're smart people who realize that the long-term benefit of taking the extra time will yeild them a far greater proportion of the marketplace. Which brings me to my underlying point:

If Gabe doesn't want to invest the time on "fragile" products or just wants to bitch, then don't cater to that audience and pay for it by alienating that 100 Million people. It's that simple. This is his job afterall (remember the thing he gets payed for) - He can earn his salery like the rest of us. And just maybe he can get a haircut and clean himself up with the money he'll make.

 

[OpenGL guy]

YES, Nvidia cheated in 3DMark 2003 with certain drivers. This was proven through systematic testing procedures. Now, whether or not Nvidia is willing to admit that is a whole different matter. Is Nvidia still cheating in 3DMark 2003 with current drivers? I don't know! Why? Because as far as I've read, it can no longer be systematically shown it is doing this. Same thing goes for the detonator 50 series. No proof was offered and that is what is pissing me off. I really, really hate how many people will abuse this word.

Just because you erase the tape from the surveillance camera doesn't mean you didn't rob the bank.

Let me put it another way. Score X was acheived on version 320 with driver Y. Then on version 330, driver Y scored << X (that means much less than X). Driver Z (> Y) is released that acheives the same results on version 330 as driver Y on 320. Coincidence? What about the results that showed even more shenanigans in driver Z than driver Y? Coincidence?

Some of the evidence may seem circumstantial. But sometimes if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it really is a duck.

 

[Vince]

And your post didn't address the core issue. Without empirical evidence, everything you stated could be applied to any vendor in any of a plurality of individual cases caused by a plurality of conditions. And this [fallicious] case could be made, just as you did, without direct evidence that can prove or disprove it - based just off a handfull of cases that support your preexisting opinion.

Not to mention your post started off under the mentality of presumed guilt and cover-up; definitely a good start. Between this comment and the above logic concerning guilt - I'm amazed you're not a lawyer.

If they cheated, then show verifiable and reproducable proof and we'll all support it. But just making half-assed assumptions is low and highly unprofessional.

 

[demalion]

What are you talking about, Vince? An automechanic charges more for the person whose car requires extra work, to the person whose car requires the extra work. Valve doesn't have this option. Also, if you tried to get them to tune a stock pinto for high speed racing, I'm pretty sure they would indeed comment about it to you if you bought a car thinking it was suitable for this, but you were actually wrong. Which would support what Valve did, actually.

Your analogy is just all kinds of broken, AFAICS.

Valve did spend the effort to optimize for nVidia hardware, specifically to make it playable. Where did all the discussion of this specific issue get lost on the way to your commentary?

The limited success they had relates to full featured rendering, and being forced to back off from it for specific hardware for playability....and that is a result of the hardware in question. Is the actual hardware irrelevant somehow?

...
Which brings me to my underlying point:
If Gabe doesn't want to invest the time on "fragile" products or just wants to bitch, then don't cater to that audience and pay for it by alienating that 100 Million people. It's that simple. This is his job afterall (remember the thing he gets payed for) - He can earn his salery like the rest of us. And just maybe he can get a haircut and clean himself up with the money he'll make.

Astoundingly nonsensical, and contrary to reason and observation. But you do succeed remarkably in the personal and insulting commentary on Gabe, though.

Of course, it is your statements not being "pro-ATI" that elicits a negative reaction, and not any of these observations. Sure.

 

[Vince]

What are you talking about, Vince? An automechanic charges more for the person whose car requires extra work, to the person whose car requires the extra work. Valve doesn't have this option.

Valve has the option to do whatever they please. Especially since the intoduction of Steam. So, please.

Also, if you tried to get them to tune a stock pinto for high speed racing, I'm pretty sure they would indeed comment about it to you if you bought a car thinking it was suitable for this, but you were actually wrong. Which would support what Valve did, actually.

If Valve want's the sale, then they should take the consumer and their position into effect. If they want nVidia's userbase, then they need to do what's necessary to make it playable. That is what they get payed for.

Valve did spend the effort to optimize for nVidia hardware, specifically to make it playable. Where did all the discussion of this specific issue get lost on the way to your commentary?

It was lost due to the fact that Gabe went out of his way to criticize an IHV for making him do his job wrt making a product that is usable for consumers. He is the conformer, not the consumer. He is targeting the consumer, and he has the choice of who or what to target. If you do not like these choices, then don't and take the repercussions. But, if you do take the path of conforming, don't criticize.

Astoundingly nonsensical, and contrary to reason and observation. But you do succeed remarkably in the personal and insulting commentary on Gabe, though.

Your right, it's nonsensical to ask why he's criticizing an IHV for making him work to produce a product that allows him to expand his userbase by 100million. And I will continue to tell him he needs a haircut looking like that. heh.

PS. The 'not pro-ATI comment' was directed towards Joe, who I replied to, in a tongue-in-cheek manner due to an earlier conversation. Believe me, I do my best to avoid you like the plague.

 

[LeStoffer]

Yep, I think Nvidia was betting this time around that DX8 games will be the norm, and that true DX9 games wouldn't arrive till the second generation of DX9 products (was the case with DX6, 7,8 )

They clearly thought that like Quake3, Doom3 engine was going to be used for a lot of games, so they targeted that. Nvidia did well in the past by focusing on ID. I guess they underestimated Valve and no one expected a "killer app" DX9 title to arrive only 9 months after DX9 hit the market.

A simple, yet very clever point to make, DemoCoder!

This is also in line with my own feeling about nVidia having to much focus on OpenGL (over DX9) with the NV3x architecture and thus prefering to keep as much as possible of the good old NV2x register combiners and built the fancy DX9-kinda-experimental stuff on top.

And finally they didn't just underestimated Valve: They also underestimated ATI and overestimated their market leader force to keep developers from going beyond DX8-level games.

Bad judgement or a conscious gamble?

 

[OpenGL guy]

And your post didn't address the core issue. Without empirical evidence, everything you stated could be applied to any vendor in any of a plurality of individual cases caused by a plurality of conditions. And this [fallicious] case could be made, just as you did, without direct evidence that can prove or disprove it - based just off a handfull of cases that support your preexisting opinion.

No, not "fallicious" at all. Preexisiting opinion? Let me see why. Caught red-handed in public cheating in 3D Mark 2003 with several driver revs. Caught red-handed in public cheating in UT2003. Why might I have an opinion that they cheat? Oh yeah, and continued cheats in 3D Mark 2003 (texture compression is easy to see, you know as are low quality shaders). None of this is new.

Let's not forget how insignificant changes to the shaders in ShaderMark dramatically affected the results of some drivers. Or the fact that behavior changes depending on what the name of the application is. Do I really need to continue?

Not to mention your post started off under the mentality of presumed guilt and cover-up; definitely a good start. Between this comment and the above logic concerning guilt - I'm amazed you're not a lawyer.

So you're telling me they didn't cover-up the cheating? Prove it. My position is much easier because the cheating never stopped.

Let me show you. You take a driver that was shown to be cheating. Then you encrypt it to make it difficult to decompile. Does that mean it suddenly stopped cheating? Or how about the fact that these new fangled drivers just "happen" to get the exact same results as the cheating drivers. Do you suppose that legitimate optimizations and cheats always give the same performance? Do you suppose that "just enough" optimizations were put in to acheive the same results as the cheating drivers? I choose to apply Occam's Razor: The simple answer is the correct answer, and this corresponds with reality in this case.

If they cheated, then show verifiable and reproducable proof and we'll all support it. But just making half-assed assumptions is low and highly unprofessional.

I make no assumptions whatsoever: I've seen the cheating, yes even with the 45.23 drivers. The only assumption I make is that you have done your reading and your own research. Do you think Unwinder is the only person who can decompile drivers?

Also, who was it that said that 3D Mark 2003 was irrelevant? Who was it who said that 3D Mark 2003 was not a valid DX9 benchmark? And who was it who has continued to optimize for this "irrelevant" and "invalid" benchmark at the expense of image quality? Now, who is it who claims to have the fastest cards around based on this very same "invalid" benchmark? Must be all coincidence and circumstantial evidence.

You claim that everyone is biased (I can quote numerous posts): Sometimes biases exist for a good reason. Also you're always quick to point out that people don't have facts. In this case you are wrong.

P.S. I also like how you resort to personal attacks to support your position. My degrees are in mathematics, not law.
P.P.S. Since you brought it up: Many cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone. You don't always need habeus corpus, sometimes means, motive and opportunity are enough.

 

[demalion]

What are you talking about, Vince? An automechanic charges more for the person whose car requires extra work, to the person whose car requires the extra work. Valve doesn't have this option.

Valve has the option to do whatever they please. Especially since the intoduction of Steam. So, please.

Charge more to nVidia card owners specifically? First: are you serious about that being feasible, or are you just avoiding recognizing a problem with your analogy?

For myself, I still don't think Valve has the option of charging more to nVidia customers specifically, and your proposition otherwise continues to seem nonsensical to me. This still leaves your analogy "all kinds of broken" AFAICS.

Also, if you tried to get them to tune a stock pinto for high speed racing, I'm pretty sure they would indeed comment about it to you if you bought a car thinking it was suitable for this, but you were actually wrong. Which would support what Valve did, actually.

If Valve want's the sale, then they should take the consumer and their position into effect.

They did. It just isn't compatible with full feature exposure, because of the hardware's capabilities. This point is still lost on you, I see?

If they want nVidia's userbase, then they need to do what's necessary to make it playable. That is what they get payed for.

So, they didn't make it playable within the limits of the hardware? Or does the hardware not have any limits?

Valve did spend the effort to optimize for nVidia hardware, specifically to make it playable. Where did all the discussion of this specific issue get lost on the way to your commentary?

It was lost due to the fact that Gabe went out of his way to criticize an IHV for making him do his job wrt making a product that is usable for consumers.

"making him do his job"? OK, so it really does boil down to simply considering hardware limitations as an irrelevant factor, and ignoring that they specifically did make the product usable for consumers, because they couldn't make the hardware usable while doing full features. What about limitations in hardware capabilities not lining up with what consumers think, and dealing with that eventuality?

He is the conformer, not the consumer.

Heaven forbid consumers buy hardware because it is actually better. No, they shouldn't conform to performance capability recognitions, simply their brand loyalty and ignorance of such information. Shame on a developer for challenging that, and seeking to inform contrary to consumer ignorance.
In short: hardware can't actually be better, people should be able to pick the brand name they want?

He is targeting the consumer, and he has the choice of who or what to target. If you do not like these choices, then don't and take the repercussions. But, if you do take the path of conforming, don't criticize.

I can't make sense of this with relation to what has actually been discussed about what Valve did. Is this your goal, or do you really think you communicated something logical here? Perhaps you could characterize how Valve did not do what you suggested with regard to working for the most consumers to have a playable game?

Astoundingly nonsensical, and contrary to reason and observation. But you do succeed remarkably in the personal and insulting commentary on Gabe, though.

Your right, it's nonsensical to ask why he's criticizing an IHV for making him work to produce a product that allows him to expand his userbase by 100million.

Actually, he seemed to be criticizing an IHV for specifically working to make consumers unable to evaluate how well a card can handle advanced shader effects, and placing the burden of work, cost, and perception of wrong doing on him and other software developers, when this is not why this happened. Sort of like if a car dealer sold you the pinto and told you that you could race it stock. A mechanic wouldn't tell you otherwise when you went in to tune it up for that, but would accept the blame and cost for doing the work actually necessary for that?
Why an IHV can make consumers "conform" by deception, and an ISV cannot by what seems to be accurate information, I don't quite get.

Hey, but maybe he could convert the software business to resemble the mechanic business, right at this moment, through Steam. And there wouldn't be any issues of consumers being misinformed and directing hostility for this act, that you propose is logical by the mechanic analogy. And there wouldn't be a financially disasterous backlash.
I don't think this supposition is reasonable, but I do agree that if he could do this as you propose, it would be an alternative to complaining and informing about their effort and actual hardware issues through the means taken. Maybe we could hold a discussion about why this option is the more viable alternative?

And I will continue to tell him he needs a haircut looking like that. heh.

OK, you're entitled to that opinion fully, I just don't think it is relevant at all. I try to avoid indulging myself in wholly irrelevant personal attacks, even when it comes to mind for someone I'm discussing or holding a discussion with. My main point was that your deciding differently on the matter might more accurately be what you "should have learned your lesson" about, at least in my opinion and for my understanding of your comment along those lines.