GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

hexamon said:
This GPP thing sucks. Thanks Kyle for once again reporting regardless of repercussions.

Stupid Idea: The AIB's should make "Not Gaming" product lines. Introducing the MSI Not Gaming Edition, powered by AMD. Don't you dare game on this, it's too powerful.
Click to expand...
Well they could introduce the MSI Vega64 Mining Edition that can also be used to play games.
 
DukenukemX said:
Depends on how you'll see your company in the next year or two. It makes sense now because Nvidia owns the market, but that won't always be the case. Nvidia has been a sure bet for a long time now, so as a graphics card maker you can't really turn away GPP. On the other hand the market is ready to change with so much demand and so little supply. If AMD doesn't get their act together, then Intel will. If not Intel, then PowerVR or some other graphics chip maker will jump into this market. Point is, someone could release a fantastic products and suddenly someone else has the best GPU. All that marketing money and brand recognition is wasted when suddenly you can't use that brand on some new GPU chip. Of course you could break the GPP agreement and see how far Nvidia can take you to court, given that the legal fees are worth it.................
Click to expand...

Or .... you could leave the program straight up. Look, if you are going to put forth a potential situation where an outsider jumps into the market with a killer card then NVidia isn't the fast dog to beat anymore and it's not the one in crazy demand or the one that's selling hard, so what do you loose by dumping GPP per the agreement, no risk of being sued, and throwing the new card under your gaming brand?

I'm just thinking that if you are going to play "what if", you have to follow through right ;)
 
Sedriss said:
Stupid question... Would this also mean that a company (like Asus) who makes G-Sync and FreeSync monitors, could only produce G-Sync monitors?
Click to expand...

It doesn't limit what anyone can make or sell. It only limits what they can sell under a "Gaming Brand".
 
rgMekanic said:
I agree that the chances of someone wanting a 1080 and leaving with a 580 is nill, but you severely overestimate how informed someone is. My best friend plays PC games, he is a dumbass, he will certainly buy the prettier "Gaming" card no matter what. If the AMD was listed as a "Workstation" or "Productivity" card, he would pass over it for sure, as I'm sure many would
Click to expand...

I don't think anything says that the AMD cards couldn't still be marketed as gaming cards, just not under the Gaming Brand.

Oh, and I know very well what it's like to have a friend who's a complete dumbass. I had to push an old friend off once because I just couldn't take it any longer, having to always feel bad for this guy and the stupid shit he would do to himself was just too much. Might sound like I'm a jerk abandoning a friend to his own devices, but some people can't swim, and some that can't swim just can't stay out of the pool, if you get my meaning.

I just had to save my own sanity cause this guy was destroying it.

Still, if a person is this dumb, they weren't going to make a good choice regardless of branding. In fact, if this GPP, as unfair as it is, amounted to all gaming brands being NVidia only, he'd have a better chance to not fuck up.

It's hard to deny this reality, NVidia hasn't run a loosing dog since the GForce 5200 hair dryer days when the Radeon first emerged and turned the graphics card world on it's ear.
 
Mugato said:
In my experience, even IT professionals just buy whatever without really researching first. I was asked recently to help spec a build for someone at work, for her teenage son (close to 18) who already had a gaming computer and wanted a new one. He picked an Origin PC, I said whoa whoa no way. She was going to buy it. I talked with the kid because I thought maybe he knew what he was doing and was trying to sneak one past. Nope, just wanted the top of the line everything, even if it didn't make sense. People just don't have the time to comb over benchmarks and thermals, and don't know where to find "not fake news" anyway yeah? The real enthusiast market is VERY small. Out of my company of 100, roughly 8 of which PC game, I am it. One. Of the outside folks I work with, all professionals, maybe 5 total? That's just my experience.
Click to expand...


And my argument stands, someone who's clueless is clueless. If someone knows or learns enough to recognize the difference between AMD and NVidia products and chips, then they have the knowledge to learn what they want and I don't think the pretty box and fancy name would sway these people. Those who don't know any better would easily go with the fancy box if the prices are there, and as I said, as unfair as this GPP seems, at least for now, at least the pretty box would be a decent card. I'm not saying the other guy's card isn't a decent card, but the clueless person isn't actually getting fucked by anything other than their ignorance.

Now it's time for me to make sure people have me pegged for the right side of the fence. I am not championing this program, I'm not arguing for it. I'm just poking at some of the arguments against it that I find a little weak. The way I see it, there exist stronger reasons to fight this program and they are strong enough all by themselves, no need to make a big deal about "what ifs and possibles" when the others are solid and sure.
 
variant said:
You do know that gamer and hardware enthusiast are not synonymous?
Click to expand...


Yes I do.

Do you think a person who searches Youtube for "Best gaming video card", and then begins checking prices on 1080 Ti cards qualifies as a hardware enthusiast?

My point being, that just because a gamer doesn't know how many Cuda cores a specific card has or even what a Cuda core is, doesn't mean that they are completely clueless and don't know the basic pecking order from lower end cards to top tier cards.

You do have clueless shoppers, a few, that don't even recognize the manufacturers for the most part.

Then you have those that either know a little, or learn enough before buying, (they usually have a rough idea what they want to buy even if they aren't sure what they need).

Then you have shoppers who know all the basics, and the real hardware enthusiasts who get down into the weeds.

The issue I have is the argument that there are only enthusiasts and everyone else is a clueless shopper from the first category and that's just not right.

Now do you have any other stupid questions you want to ask of me?
 
Algrim said:
Of course EVGA wouldn't want another company to sign up. But if EVGA is a member how can other brands not consider signing up? That's kinda my point.
Click to expand...

I like your point, and honestly I could see younger companies looking to get their foot in the door really engaging with Nvidia to bolster their earnings potentials, but at the same time, I feel like any company that sells Nvidia is almost OBLIGATED to sign this deal since Nvidia is currently the overwhelming leader in gpu volume, why risk having Nvidia scale down your allotment, and advertising support when they are your largest market? A company like gigabyte or Asus wouldn't want to risk losing their whale to have to deal with peddling only AMD gpus. I've worked in business and just like on Mad Men, when your largest account wants you to wear a skirt and tapdance on the table, you snap your fingers and click your heels, otherwise the lights go out.
 
I don't have any confirmation that they have, but I can see ASUS and GIGABYTE signing up for the GPP. On the other hand, MSI might not. They are the largest provider of AMD GPUs according to them. MSI has no sub-branding the way ASUS and GIGABYTE do which may factor into that. Then again, they could always sign on with NVIDIA and use their dollars to help launch a sub-brand.
 
Is there anything stopping Asus from creating a new brand called RUG (republic of Ugly Gamers) and selling Nvidia under Rug while continue to sell AMD under Rog?
 
Ripskin said:
If AMD wants to win some enthusiasts back they need to deliver another one of their golden egg's. The market is ripe for it right now and this just fans the flames as it were. Longtime Nvidia die hards may be willing to switch IF AMD can deliver something. I waited a long time for them to but sorry, NVidia just had the best product in my price range 3 years straight (that I was shopping), and it is a fantastic card.

Great article. Really screws the partners. Sign up or sign out ultimatum from NVidia.
Click to expand...

The partners didn't see that this day would come eventually? They kind of deserve it for tying up two competing products into one brand, due to so many business motives: cut marketing costs, use a stronger product to carry a weaker product, and confuse the hell out of uneducated consumers and take advantage of them. If you flip this around and AMD was the successful one, they would also want distinct branding to have more control of the image of their product.

I think the exclusivity ultimatum was a misunderstanding and is now a non-issue, as NVidia has cleared up that partners can still offer competitor products, just not in the same branding.
 
Kind of interesting seeing the new posters showing up defending Nvidia and pretty much saying the same thing.

A company using their market dominance to for all intents and purposes, force their competitor to be put at a disadvantage is a huge problem that no one should be defending or happy about.

The posts about Nvidia clearing things up should really start providing links, and websites regurgitating Nvidias blog isn't clearing shit up.
 
FearTheCow said:
Kind of interesting seeing the new posters showing up defending Nvidia and pretty much saying the same thing.

A company using their market dominance to for all intents and purposes, force their competitor to be put at a disadvantage is a huge problem that no one should be defending or happy about.

The posts about Nvidia clearing things up should really start providing links, and websites regurgitating Nvidias blog isn't clearing shit up.
Click to expand...
Let them have it. Considering what a lot of people are saying, both AMD and Intel can literally fuck Nvidia out of the market. Not that it's a good thing, but people forget the position that AMD and Intel have. Nvidia has a really nice GPU there. Would be a shame of there wasn't any PCIE slots for it. While Nvidia has ~70% of the discrete GPU market, AMD and Intel have 100% of the x86 CPU market. You don't wanna fuck with that.

Not that I expect AMD and Intel to suddenly remove PCIE slots out of future PCs, but that doesn't mean that these companies can't find other means to drill it to Nvidia. God forbid that AMD and Intel don't make proprietary slots or sockets for their GPUs that gives them an edge. Or just do away with it all together for a small form factor APU. There's a reason why Nvidia is doing this, and I doubt it's what AdoredTV said because they can. Nvidia must know something about AMD or Intel about what products they plan to create.
 
I think the first thing to realize is that any anti-competitive judgements are really only invoked (and rightfully so) for things that have a real public interest, not on luxury items. As much as we might think the latest graphics card is a "must have" item, it is really a luxury item. And there are LOTS of examples of monopolies on luxury items.

Secondly, it would be much, much worse the other way where branding "transparency" (I'd really call it clarity) wasn't controlled at all. Imagine a bunch of Taiwanese and Chinese companies putting anything they wanted on graphics card boxes. That would be much, much worse for consumers. Even review sites wouldn't be able to clear it up. They would be able to switch out components under same branding, we'd have no easy way to know how brands compared, etc. The BEST thing that ever happened for consumers was for both AMD and NVIDIA to enforce both branding (like "GTX") and performance assurance. If you take NVIDIA at face value, this is about that same thing -- making it clear that you're not just getting a ROG but rather an NVIDIA-based one.

Thirdly, this isn't even close to the Intel situation. In this case, there is still a lot of competition with at least four GPU semi players and dozens of options for building gaming computers. Even if AMD went out of business, NVIDIA only has 5 years at most before discrete GPUs for gaming market evaporates -- integrated graphics is rapidly becoming sufficient. In fact, the risk (again) is Intel becoming the monopoly, not NVIDIA. At the time of the Intel stuff there was literally only two options for serious computing and one was licensing from the other. And to tie back in to my previous point, Intel wasn't just being anti-competitive on luxury computing but they were affecting every tier of product -- it was an actual public menace that needed litigation and intervention.

Fourthly, companies do have the right to compete. It is funny how competing too well becomes considered anti-competitive. Why shouldn't NVIDIA be able to ask that partners be exclusive if NVIDIA is literally going to pay money to market them? Why should NVIDIA pay to promote ROG if that helps sell AMD-based cards by association? Why should NVIDIA have to sell chips to a company that isn't loyal to them? Anti-trust laws are important for society, but are intended for key products and there shouldn't be over-regulation for luxury items. Is it fair that AMD can give discounts on CPUs and APUs sold alongside GPUs while NVIDIA can't offer that? I think it is fair, AMD just has a legitimate competitive advantage.

I'm not naive and I'm sure NVIDIA is ruthless and we should always beware because companies don't have any inherent ethics, but I don't see this as being particularly nefarious. It probably will adversely affect consumers of high-end gaming graphics cards but honestly that isn't something the courts or government should really be protecting. And I admit that I have spent many thousands of dollars on GPUs over the years.
 
mouacyk said:
The partners didn't see that this day would come eventually? They kind of deserve it for tying up two competing products into one brand, due to so many business motives: cut marketing costs, use a stronger product to carry a weaker product, and confuse the hell out of uneducated consumers and take advantage of them. If you flip this around and AMD was the successful one, they would also want distinct branding to have more control of the image of their product.

I think the exclusivity ultimatum was a misunderstanding and is now a non-issue, as NVidia has cleared up that partners can still offer competitor products, just not in the same branding.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they had thought about it for years and I have never been a huge fan of them mixing AMD / NVidia under one umbrella but a few moments on google or looking at the box clears up most of that confusion. And yeah a lot of people dont try lol.

I do not fault NVidia for wanting a distinct image for their brand, but they could go about that request in a much better way than dangling the carrot of product supply and whatnot in front of partners. I have not read anything new from anyone yet, letting it ride for a while then will play catch up when more details are public and hopefully backed up.
 
mouacyk said:
The partners didn't see that this day would come eventually? They kind of deserve it for tying up two competing products into one brand, due to so many business motives: cut marketing costs, use a stronger product to carry a weaker product, and confuse the hell out of uneducated consumers and take advantage of them. If you flip this around and AMD was the successful one, they would also want distinct branding to have more control of the image of their product.

I think the exclusivity ultimatum was a misunderstanding and is now a non-issue, as NVidia has cleared up that partners can still offer competitor products, just not in the same branding.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a non-issue. It has a real problematic impact for those partners with mixed brands.

However, I also agree that I wouldn't shed a tear for those partners anyway. All of them essentially made a lot of money free-riding on the efforts of AMD and NVIDIA. The amount of financial risk and high technology that the GPU semi companies invest and then even give reference designs to the partners means that the partners take on very little risk beyond brand recognition. Now I'm not saying it is totally easy being a card maker, but it has got to be a lot easier than being a semi maker. And like you said, without some control over the end product branding the partner companies would be going crazy creating a "confusopoly" where there would be no way to compare cards or even trust that things weren't getting swapped out under the same branding in the name of cost reduction.

Then again, it is good to be wary -- companies generally aren't making products out of goodness of their hearts. So good to see people trying to peer into the murkiness of the business.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't think anything says that the AMD cards couldn't still be marketed as gaming cards, just not under the Gaming Brand.
Click to expand...

I also like to pretend to be a lawyer (I don't really know j@ck) so here's my take: if you're "marketing as gaming cards" then I would have to believe that that is a "gaming brand". Now as posted by many here there are lots of loopholes that maybe could be used (for example, maybe you could still state "can play games" as long as it wasn't the core representation of the product), but I personally would interpret the agreement as meaning that any marketing positioning of a product line for gaming would constitute a "gaming brand". It would be interesting to see how that could be enforced though -- just because it looks like a gaming card, or because it mentions FPS for a game, or because it has a "gaming" tag in an online store, etc. all would be hard to really nail down as "branding"
 
What about current brands such as ASUS ROG Vega ones? They will be around awhile and are already selling (if you can find one) with all the box saying it is a gaming card etc. Is their a deadline when your gaming lineup most come inline with GPP?

If your gaming lineup also includes other stuff like motherboards, monitors, peripherals, I am assuming ASUS will have ROG AMD motherboards yet even selling with ROG GeForce cards. If not then this is more then just video cards. Any clarification on GPP goes to none video card items?
 
noko said:
What about current brands such as ASUS ROG Vega ones? They will be around awhile and are already selling (if you can find one) with all the box saying it is a gaming card etc. Is their a deadline when your gaming lineup most come inline with GPP?

If your gaming lineup also includes other stuff like motherboards, monitors, peripherals, I am assuming ASUS will have ROG AMD motherboards yet even selling with ROG GeForce cards. If not then this is more then just video cards. Any clarification on GPP goes to none video card items?
Click to expand...

As I understood it, the stipulation is only around GPUs, but it may go beyond that (NVidia would have surely pushed for not allowing ANY hardware positioned towards the competition on the same brand). Would need to see the docs/confirmation from [H] on that.
 
Silent Scone said:
This is exactly why this whole thing has been blown wide open prematurely. No disclosure has been made publically as to what exactly vendors intend to do about this, and ultimately, isn't that the real story here? We know vendors are joining the program, why wouldn't they? The element of hand forcing isn't a legality, it's because if we're honest, there's less justification for them not to opt in. These strong-arm tactics aren't what comes as a surprise, or at least if you've been following NVIDIA for the last 15 years at least, they shouldn't do.

For example, the ROG branding is very much vendor agnostic. Rightfully so, too. The CH6 is a hugely successful board. In no way, could you link this particular product to an NVIDIA GPU in anything other than branding. It's a reach at best. If we're going by the extract Kyle has used from the document that he's chosen not to disclose, we're lead to believe that, hypothetically, ASUS would need to remove any and all ROG branding from their AMD GPU lineup. I have no doubt that NVIDIA has already asked that GPP partners do this. In fact, it's not even the legality of it that concerns me, it's the sheer gall. It's the extent of this hypothetical situation whereby any and all AMD GPU cannot be associated with gaming products. I can't see it, and I think it's prudent of those who are breaking this story to both find out and disclose just where this line in the sand is.
Click to expand...

https://pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact

Someone beat you to it. Sanity prevails?

One version certainly makes a lot more sense...

But we’ve done our own digging into the story and from what we’ve uncovered the truth of the matter is the transparency Nvidia are chasing is about making it clear which graphics card range from a company is based on GeForce tech and which are running AMD’s GPUs. It's not about stopping a company from having a separate AMD-based gaming brand.

Graphics card companies can then have as many brands as they like, so long as they are separated along green and red boundaries. That means Asus could have a Republic of Gamers Mars brand, which only sells Nvidia, but also a Republic of Gamers Ares brand that is exclusively AMD-based. GPP isn’t going to stop any company from selling AMD GPUs as specifically gaming graphics cards.
Click to expand...
 
harmattan said:
As I understood it, the stipulation is only around GPUs, but it may go beyond that (NVidia would have surely pushed for not allowing ANY hardware positioned towards the competition on the same brand). Would need to see the docs/confirmation from [H] on that.
Click to expand...
NVIDIA G-Sync monitors are specifically mentioned in the "Gaming Brand Exclusively Aligned with GeForce."
 
Silent Scone said:
https://pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact

Someone beat you to it. Sanity prevails?

One version certainly makes a lot more sense...
Click to expand...
I would suggest that their "own digging" was exclusively dug from NVIDIA's statements to that site. I have no reason to believe otherwise as everything said in that article was said to be directly by NVIDIA. Also worth mentioning, and I said this in the PC World interview, that is site that review PC games and hardware testing is reduced to running canned benchmarks and giving a score. There is nothing in that article but NVIDIA boilerplate.
 
Silent Scone said:
You see how easy it is to discredit others when there's so much non-disclosure. So it's entirely your belief that AMD products from GPP partners won't be able to retain gaming brand names?
Click to expand...
Give it a rest dude.
Kyle has read it, you haven't.
If it turns out Kyle is wrong he will issue 1000 apologies, 17 mea culpa's and pay 25 schmeckles to offended parties.
 
Jim Kim said:
Give it a rest dude.
Kyle has read it, you haven't.
If it turns out Kyle is wrong he will issue 1000 apologies, 17 mea culpa's and pay 25 schmeckles to offended parties.
Click to expand...

Yes, Kyle has read it, we haven't, so contextually these snippets may well make more sense if they've understood it correctly (I'm not insinuating that's not the case). I think it's a pretty straightforward question given the nature of the piece.

Really, it's what the whole thing is alluding to...
 
Silent Scone said:
You see how easy it is to discredit others when there's so much non-disclosure. So it's entirely your belief that AMD products from GPP partners won't be able to retain gaming brand names?
Click to expand...
Yes, but your are ignoring my informed statements here, which is surely your right on this. Everything put forth in the article you linked/cited is NVIDIA boilerplate on GPP. I am telling you this because I am informed on these statements and you are not.

As to your second question and I have it sitting in writing in front of me as I type this, I opened up the document just so I could say that, and make sure my quote is correct. "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively with GeForce." I am going to paraphrase here as to not disclose the source of the document in this next statement.....Gaming brands that exclusively ship GeForce GTX will be considered "GeForce Premier Brands" and will be available for GPP benefits.

So, I would suggest that right there spells out NVIDIA taking ownership of premium gaming brands. It no longer allows for the sales of AMD in it top gaming brand(s).

I am not sure why you are asking that question, as I fairly well outlined that in my article. Perhaps you should read that again if you are not clear on my thoughts here.
 
Silent Scone said:
Yes, I can read the quote you've outlined - it's practically everywhere. The trouble is, it's the only thing you've outlined. These documents are pages long. You're leaving a lot open to interpretation. At no point in the piece does it say you believe NVIDIA will actively force GPP partners to stop selling AMD gaming products. In fact, the term premium gaming brand isn't even in the article, you simply use ROG hypothetically. The tone is there, but you don't state it. Probably because it's slightly ridiculous. Obviously, it will all come out in the wash. :)

Thank you for the extra snippet there, though.
Click to expand...
No, I am reading and quoting from two pages of overview documentation, not the contracts. It is literally, this is what you have to do to be part of GPP, this is what you get, this is what you don't. Very simple. You can say it is more complex than what is being put forward. You might also take into account that I interviewed folks from other companies as well that verified what I had in writing.

EDIT: And also keep in mind that I have discussed this directly with NVIDIA, and the ROG brand example that I put forth in the article, was also used in the example that I discussed with NVIDIA. So I do think I am informed on the information that I am putting forward.
 
nilepez said:
Is there anything stopping Asus from creating a new brand called RUG (republic of Ugly Gamers) and selling Nvidia under Rug while continue to sell AMD under Rog?
Click to expand...
No. It just requires the company to relinquish its current gaming brand to NVIDIA ownership.

mouacyk said:
Alone, it's a fairly vague statement and some are drawing nefarious intent from it without inquiry for further clarification.
Are there further details, such as:
Click to expand...
I would suggest that NVIDIA is leaving some of its language on this vague purposefully for legal reasons.

mouacyk said:
Does GPP limit the partner to have only 1 gaming brand?
Click to expand...
I am not sure as NVIDIA has said it has no problem with other brands being created for AMD. Again, give NVIDIA your gaming brand as we want it all to our own.

mouacyk said:
Does GPP still allow the partner to sell equally-performant products from competitors, or is the partner limited to a less-performant class of products from the competitor?
Click to expand...
Not even sure what that question means.

mouacyk said:
Does GPP require the partner to align its existing gaming brand exclusively to GeForce, or will NVidia still provide funding if the partner starts new branding for ALL products and abandon the shared branding altogether?
Click to expand...
Yes. If you don't give NV your gaming brand you would not get the previous benefits afforded as spelled out in my article.
 
mouacyk said:
If partner has brand G aligned exclusively with GeForce under GPP, can the partner still have a brand R selling competitor products that perform within 10% of brand G? There was some unclear language/mentions about product tiers, so I want to know if there is truth or details about it.
Click to expand...
I have not seen any of that discussed and am unaware of any such provision being put forward in regards to GPP.
 
Silent Scone said:
Yes, I can read the quote you've outlined - it's practically everywhere. The trouble is, it's the only thing you've outlined. These documents are pages long. You're leaving a lot open to interpretation. At no point in the piece does it say you believe NVIDIA will actively force GPP partners to stop selling AMD gaming products. In fact, the term premium gaming brand isn't even in the article, you simply use ROG hypothetically. The tone is there, but you don't state it. Probably because it's slightly ridiculous. Obviously, it will all come out in the wash. :)

Thank you for the extra snippet there, though.
Click to expand...


Wait wait wait :stop:

You are correct, Kyle never said this. Neither the GPP as we have seen it, or Kyle's article or his comments in this thread, have said that an AIB or OEM would have to stop selling an (NVidia) competitor's products. Only that they can't sell them under the company's gaming brand and that this brand must be solely GeForce regarding video cards and I believe monitors supporting G-Sync was included.

Additionally, by the strictly English interpretation of the wording in the document, the company wouldn't be able to create other gaming brands either, though most of us view that as crazy, it remains technically correct the way it is worded.

I think you have this mistaken idea in your head that this is what Kyle is claiming and it's not. (Unless I have completely gotten this wrong Kyle).

His issue isn't that these companies won't be able to sell competitor products, but that they will have to essentially devote their best current gaming brands only to NVidia. Kyle and others view this as anti-competitive and he's calling them on it, NVidia isn't responding from what I have seen.

So where is it that you get the idea that Kyle is saying that NVidia is trying to force OEMs and AIBs to stop selling the competition's products?
 
Kyle stop engaging the NV employee with 21 posts here who is obviously trying to get you to post exact wording so they can figure out who to blame for the leaks.

Kyle has made it clear why he hasn't posted the exact wording. I trust his reading, his paraphrasing of the at issue parts of the document are clear, their meaning is clear. We don't need 5 pages with specific orders and sentence structure made public right now that would lead to his sources ending up unemployed.
 
I wonder if the agreement allows for AIB partners to share designs and color schemes between Nvidia/non-Nvidia "brands" or if that might be a major faux pas.

Silent Scone said:
You see how easy it is to discredit others when there's so much non-disclosure. So it's entirely your belief that AMD products from GPP partners won't be able to retain gaming brand names?
Click to expand...

Ever since razor1 was banned from this thread last Sunday, I was just thinking the one thing we were missing in this thread was a person repeatedly berating Kyle and the AIB/OEM partners for not knowing what they're talking about, so it's good to have you show up just in time.
 
keep-calm-and-lets-get-back-to-the-topic.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top