Wheee!! [H] has finally managed to piss off FutureMark.
- Thread starter Ostsol
- Start date
- Status
I have a feeling you're going to really enjoy this upcoming "battle" 'tween the two Walt.WaltC said:What can I say except that [H] must be in love with lawsuits. Here's hoping the publicity generated will allow them to offset their accumulating attorney's fees, someday, maybe...
This was great:
[H said:
Now, since [H] seems to know and understand that 3dMk is not actually a game itself, but is instead a "benchmark," why would 3dMk "suck" merely because it "does not tell me anything specifically about the games I play"...?
Does HL2 "suck" because running the game tells me nothing specifically about how my box will run Stalker? Does Stalker "suck" because playing it tells me nothing about running HL2? Does Doom3 "suck" because running it tells me nothing about how Quake 3 will run on my system? Does Doom3 "suck" because running the game tells me nothing about how my system will run benchmarks like 3dMk, or the UT2K3 fly-by benchmark? And vice-versa, ad infinitum?
In short, does *everything* "suck" because it doesn't tell us how *everything else* will run?...
It seems that [H]'s enduring objection to 3dMk is simply that it isn't Doom 3. But then, Doom 3 isn't Stalker, isn't HL2, isn't Far Cry, isn't NWN, etc. and etc., forever and forever. So if the basis for [H]'s objection to 3dMk is that it isn't anything else, then what is [H]'s rationale for liking any individual piece of software? According to [H], if any piece of software isn't something else, it sucks. If you can figure that one out, clue me in, by all means...
You know, I have backed up Kyle on other things (such as IL), but I just have to roll my eyes on this one.
I think Kyle has made it very obvious that he doesn't like the synthetic benchmarks, and Futuremark has been the target of his ill-will for some time now. Editorials have been written, articles have been revised, and I really have no problem with Kyle going over to 100% game testing. More power to him. What is annoying though is the constant harranguing he gives Futuremark and any synthetic benchmark. Is it called for? I don't think so. We all know how he feels, the companies know how he feels, so why does he continue to denigrate Futuremark and others? When 3D 05 was released, nearly every comment and posting relating to it had little snipes like "silly" "useless" "dumb" "pointless" etc. in it. Now, I don't think Futuremark has a case, and it is silly by them to try to take lawyers into this. However, I will not be the first to say, "Give it a break Kyle."
I can respect what he has done with IL and standing up to them about a well researched article. What is annoying to me is that not only does Kyle knock on Futuremark, but by doing so and knocking their product, he is also knocking on the sites that utilize 3D Mark as a staple in their benchmarking routine. Any site worth their salt will have more than one benchmark to go by, and 3D Mark (in my opinion) is a useful tool for many reasons (such as what John R. said).
So, I guess my feeling is "pick your battles". If you want to use 3D Mark, then fine. If you don't, explain your reasoning once and let it go.
I think Kyle has made it very obvious that he doesn't like the synthetic benchmarks, and Futuremark has been the target of his ill-will for some time now. Editorials have been written, articles have been revised, and I really have no problem with Kyle going over to 100% game testing. More power to him. What is annoying though is the constant harranguing he gives Futuremark and any synthetic benchmark. Is it called for? I don't think so. We all know how he feels, the companies know how he feels, so why does he continue to denigrate Futuremark and others? When 3D 05 was released, nearly every comment and posting relating to it had little snipes like "silly" "useless" "dumb" "pointless" etc. in it. Now, I don't think Futuremark has a case, and it is silly by them to try to take lawyers into this. However, I will not be the first to say, "Give it a break Kyle."
I can respect what he has done with IL and standing up to them about a well researched article. What is annoying to me is that not only does Kyle knock on Futuremark, but by doing so and knocking their product, he is also knocking on the sites that utilize 3D Mark as a staple in their benchmarking routine. Any site worth their salt will have more than one benchmark to go by, and 3D Mark (in my opinion) is a useful tool for many reasons (such as what John R. said).
So, I guess my feeling is "pick your battles". If you want to use 3D Mark, then fine. If you don't, explain your reasoning once and let it go.
DukenukemX
Newcomer
I take everything back I've said before about [H]. This plus Infinium Labs makes me fell much better about [H].
I think people keep forgetting about a very important law called 1st Amendment. Sure it may impact sales for FutureMark but that's what opinions are for.
It's like saying Ford sucks and then Ford asks you nicely to stop with a lawsuit to back it up.
I'm glad I'm not the only @sshole who hates 3DMark.
From WaltC
Why it's too complicated for you?
Directly from http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark05/.
It's a benchmark for the gamer that is obviously trying to rate a PCs performance in PC gaming.
It's a synthetic benchmark with an engine not meant for gaming but meant to be a gamers benchmark.
The only reason 3DMark was important is because for a long time people didn't have many games that used new DX7, DX8, or DX9 technology. I can remember how long people used Quake 3 to benchmark DX8 and DX9 cards.
3DMark isn't needed anymore because we have FarCry, HL2, and Doom3.
I think people keep forgetting about a very important law called 1st Amendment. Sure it may impact sales for FutureMark but that's what opinions are for.
It's like saying Ford sucks and then Ford asks you nicely to stop with a lawsuit to back it up.
I'm glad I'm not the only @sshole who hates 3DMark.
From WaltC
Why it's too complicated for you?
Directly from http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark05/.
It's a benchmark for the gamer that is obviously trying to rate a PCs performance in PC gaming.
It's a synthetic benchmark with an engine not meant for gaming but meant to be a gamers benchmark.
The only reason 3DMark was important is because for a long time people didn't have many games that used new DX7, DX8, or DX9 technology. I can remember how long people used Quake 3 to benchmark DX8 and DX9 cards.
3DMark isn't needed anymore because we have FarCry, HL2, and Doom3.
... Kyle is Mister Blonde?!Ratchet said:
I think some of you are just missing the point here.
Kyle has his own opinion about 3dmark software.
Is he allowed to express his thoughts about a pc software ?
Of course yes, nobody can argue against this.
Kyle could be right or wrong about 3dmark, but that's not important at all.
I personally do not agree with him, and i think 3mark01/03/05 are valid benchmarking tools, but opinions are opinions.
Maybe all developers/publishers should sue whoever give bad reviews of their products
Kyle has his own opinion about 3dmark software.
Is he allowed to express his thoughts about a pc software ?
Of course yes, nobody can argue against this.
Kyle could be right or wrong about 3dmark, but that's not important at all.
I personally do not agree with him, and i think 3mark01/03/05 are valid benchmarking tools, but opinions are opinions.
Maybe all developers/publishers should sue whoever give bad reviews of their products
One of Kyles flaws. It's a bit like the whole Parhelia thing, he kept dissing Parhelia for a few months because they didn't send him one. But i admit that it can be funny stuff sometimes, if he manages to not let his arrogance shine through.
I do find it a bit funny though that he paints [H]ardOCP as a bastion of truth!
I do find it a bit funny though that he paints [H]ardOCP as a bastion of truth!
DukenukemX
Newcomer
I just remembered about the debate yesturday with Edwards VS Chaney. Edwards brought up Frivolous lawsuits and how he will deal with them. The idea is to have them checked out before they even make it to court and waste everyones money and time.
Both FutureMark and Infinium Labs are considered Frivolous lawsuits. That is if FutureMark goes a head.
Big companies who move their money around and bring people to court in hopes to out last them financially.
If you feel 3DMark is useful or not it doesn't matter. The lawsuit is Frivolous and a exercise in stupidity. That is if it ever happens.
If you were debating on who to vote for Bush VS Kerry now here's another reason why to vote Kerry. Besides Iraq, deficit, and other crap I don't feel like listing.
Both FutureMark and Infinium Labs are considered Frivolous lawsuits. That is if FutureMark goes a head.
Big companies who move their money around and bring people to court in hopes to out last them financially.
If you feel 3DMark is useful or not it doesn't matter. The lawsuit is Frivolous and a exercise in stupidity. That is if it ever happens.
If you were debating on who to vote for Bush VS Kerry now here's another reason why to vote Kerry. Besides Iraq, deficit, and other crap I don't feel like listing.
digitalwanderer said:....
I have a feeling you're going to really enjoy this upcoming "battle" 'tween the two Walt.
Not really. I just think this is as stupid and boneheaded a move as was all of the Internet gossip, hearsay, and innuendo about IL and its principals that [H] picked up from third parties and decided to use in an "editorial." That editorial, or anything since that [H] has published on the IL topic, hasn't had the slightest effect whatever on the ultimate fate of IL (as IL will sink or swim on the basis of whatever products it ultimately can or cannot bring to market, and that's always been true, and would still be true had [H] never once mentioned IL in the first place.)
Instead, [H] has succeeded only in entangling itself in state and Federal civil law suits, and in paying huge and ever-mounting attorney's fees in a process that could possibly drag on for years. Most egregiously, and masochistically, though, [H] has positioned itself beautifully as a scapegoat and a "whipping boy" for IL, should the company go south. If IL should go south, and even if the reasons have nothing whatever to do with anything [H] has written at any time, it's clear to me that IL intends to blame [H] if at all possible for whatever negative consequences it can, deserved or not.
In short, what I found most stupid about all of it is that [H] positioned itself wonderfully well as an ideal patsy for IL when [H] unwisely decided to interject itself into a situation about which it had no *real* clue in the first place. IMO, it will be terribly difficult for [H] to explain away in the Federal libel suit why it refused IL's invitation to tour the Sarasota facilities when invited to do so, and at a time prior to the boneheaded IL "editorial" (remember that the Texas state suit is not the libel suit, and also that state court judgments cannot legally bind or nullify Federal court rulings anyway, but if anything the reverse can be true.) It's just my opinion, certainly, but that fact alone indicates to me that [H] had no real intention of actually "investigating" anything first hand about IL or the Phantom, and was concerned instead with simply repeating negative gossip about the company and its principals accumulated through every means *except* any actual "investigative reporting" by [H] itself (which by any stretch of the imagination would never have excluded a personal tour of the IL facilities.)
This recent treatment of private correspondence from FM, though, is really interesting because it demonstrates a pattern at [H] which almost exactly follows what happened with IL. [H] prints comments and rhetoric that a company objects to; said company corresponds privately with [H] over its objections to inferences and statements [H] has made about it and/or its products; [H] responds by treating said company's objections with absolute contempt, and by reprinting on its front pages that privately intentioned correspondence, and by intensifying its ridicule of the company and the principals involved by further public ridicule, such as "3dMk sucks." It's one thing if [H] answers a private correspondence privately and says "3dMk sucks" in a private response, but quite another to replay the whole thing on the front page of a web site for public consumption. It's clear to me though that [H] is incapable of making a distinction as to the difference, apparently.
So, it certainly seems as if [H] is actively seeking litigants to sue it, doesn't it? Most sane people prefer to stay out of civil courts if at all possible, and generally don't seek to antagonize others on the front pages of their web sites or to engage in "preemptive" lawsuits, especially when it is simple as pie to avoid lawsuits of any description in the first place. I wonder what sort of "investigative reporting" [H] will reference to justify its "3dMK sucks" public remarks? I also wonder if [H] will "preemptively sue" FM in Texas state court as it did with IL? Good grief, if anything like that should happen it'll prove to me beyond a doubt that [H] is certifiable...
DukenukemX said:
It's a free country, all right. You have the freedom to "hate" whatever and whomever you want, and to express your disdain in a public or private forum. However, never forget that the party you "hate" has the same freedoms you do, and that if he feels your remarks are publicly damaging to him or his company, he has the complete freedom to sue your knickers off over it if he chooses. Freedom is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways, never forget.
No, but it is for you apparently. I quoted [H] directly labeling 3dMk as a "benchmark", quote, unquote. That indicates to me that [H] fully understands the difference between a benchmark and a game (even if you yourself are somewhat confused about it.)
What do you mean "anymore"? Hello, was there ever a time when we had no games but only had 3dMK??? Heh...
Additionally, what's the difference between saying, "Far Cry sucks because it doesn't specifically tell me how my box will run Doom 3," and saying, "3d Mk sucks because it doesn't specifically tell me how my box will run Doom 3"...? I don't see any difference at all. Both are statements likely to be made by an idiot...
(Sorry.)Get caught up in the rhetoric a bit?WaltC said:
I can't seem to access [H]'s page right now.... Pissed off Futuremark loyalists?
My opinion is that Kyles ego is getting in the way of providing a good hardware website. Each time he digs up the IL mess or is pounding his chest about how he saving the 1st amden, I find myself not wanting to visit the site less and less. Too bad I really like Brents reviews....
edit: Now this is the type of posts Kyle is getting. How sad is this? Kyle now has the power to put companies under?
My opinion is that Kyles ego is getting in the way of providing a good hardware website. Each time he digs up the IL mess or is pounding his chest about how he saving the 1st amden, I find myself not wanting to visit the site less and less. Too bad I really like Brents reviews....
edit: Now this is the type of posts Kyle is getting. How sad is this? Kyle now has the power to put companies under?
Killer-Kris
Regular
WaltC said:
I suppose you are right that they have the right to sue you, but the judge will throw it right out if it isn't a case of liable and rightfully so. If FM wants to turn around and publicly state their opinion on [H]s benchmarking practices they are more than free to, but they will get no where with a lawsuit, other than a trip to the bank to pay their lawyers for doing nothing.
What do you mean "anymore"? Hello, was there ever a time when we had no games but only had 3dMK??? Heh...
Well what DukenukemX had said (which you selectively didn't quote I noticed) was that 3DMark tries to show how games in the future will perform with new features. Such as when DX7, 8, 9 each came out and there were no games that used it at the time. Now that FarCry, HL2, and D3 all are out (or soon will be) we have games that use these features, and need to stop using 3DMark. Which hopefully at that point we get a new 3DMark that uses new features, yay cycle repeated.
But yes, no one said we used it when there were no games, just when there were no games with the shiny "new" tech toys.
Additionally, what's the difference between saying, "Far Cry sucks because it doesn't specifically tell me how my box will run Doom 3," and saying, "3d Mk sucks because it doesn't specifically tell me how my box will run Doom 3"...? I don't see any difference at all. Both are statements likely to be made by an idiot...
Please don't make an idiotic statement saying "Far Cry sucks because it doesn't specifically tell me how my box will run Doom 3," because unlike 3DMark, FarCry will tell you how well FarCry runs on that particular hardware and Doom3 will tell you how well Doom3 runs. What does 3DMark tell you about games?
While Kyle didn't state it in necesarily the best manor, what he was likely meaning was that no one plays 3DMark, it's not a game and it should not play a very large role in determining whether a piece of hardware plays a game well or not.
Now with that said, that's not to mean that 3DMark isn't with out it's uses. I for one believe that 3DMark is and will forever be infinitely invaluable to sites like B3D because it gives you a peak into a possible future, and shows hardware strengths/weaknesses that we would otherwise never see. It allows you to in a controlled environment to change settings variable by variable in order to isolate particular behavior and is just an all around excellent tool for that sort of work.
Is it really that simple? Hardocp is a business, they make money by among other things benchmarking hardware. Can Hardocp try to increase their revenue by pimping their way of benchmarking over a competing way by continually ridiculing and attacking their competitor at every chance over the course of over a year?pino said:
Competing businesses are held to different standards than private individuals expressing their opinions. Hardocp can't deny they have a financial interest in promoting their way of doing reviews and that disparaging 3dmark has been a central part of that.
Frankly Kyle has said alot of things that Nvidia has said and frankly find that they allow their partners to say these things but if anyone else says it they aren't happy.
I've lost some respect for futuremark since they continued to allow ATI drivers to be used with X800 and 9600 hardware after the filtering problems came up with when their was no option to disable it. Kyle can feel free to say he doesn't like the product but if he asserts facts that aren't true well then he can be in some trouble of course their might not be a 100% correlation between the 3dmark scores and games but I'm sure their is a fairly strong correlation.
I've lost some respect for futuremark since they continued to allow ATI drivers to be used with X800 and 9600 hardware after the filtering problems came up with when their was no option to disable it. Kyle can feel free to say he doesn't like the product but if he asserts facts that aren't true well then he can be in some trouble of course their might not be a 100% correlation between the 3dmark scores and games but I'm sure their is a fairly strong correlation.
- Status
