NVIDIA NDA & HardOCP - POLL

HardOCP Signs the NVIDIA NDA for 2080 Launch Access?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
DPI said:
Yes.

Nothing in the NDA prevents an [H]onest review.

Nvidia's main thing seems to be trying to clamp down on the baseball hat youtube bros and their "2080 Ti EARLY BENCHEZ LEAKED!" clickbait videos. For review sites like [H] it'll be business as usual.
Click to expand...
This. I say go for it.
 
DPI said:
Fun fact: Guess where all the "No, Kyle dont give up your morulz!" screamers are going to be on launch day? Off reading the reviews and benches at all the other sites that signed the NDA.

No one is actually going to change their own behavior to be congruent with their posturing here, they're simply declaring that they're fine with Kyle missing out.
Click to expand...
How many are paid by Nvidia? Not going to get a good review there.
 
Don't do it!
itsatrap.jpg
 
DPI said:
That's great you'll make your ultimate buying determination by the [H] review, but doesn't change what I said.

Problem is, nobody screaming "No!" is also committing to hiding their heads in the sand and ignoring day one reviews.

So all that a mickey mouse boycott would accomplish is chasing site traffic away to the day one sites, and costing Kyle money.
Click to expand...

You know what? You're wrong. I won't be reading other sites' reviews on launch day or days after that. The absolute first review I'll read is [H]'s review. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it. It would surprise me to find out that I am the only one. Just in case you missed it, I will ignore every single other review until I read the one on this site. One of the reasons for this is because Kyle will do something like that "Mickey Mouse boycott" you are deriding. He actually has some balls and will stand up for his principles and we've seen it quite a few times. Just because you don't care about principles and you'd sign the NDA in a heartbeat just to get some free hardware doesn't mean the rest of us are like you.

There are some issues with what some people are recommending. Kyle can't give away or sell these cards after the review is done. He's going to need them for additional reviews later. GPU reviews and roundups, motherboard reviews and CPU reviews. He simply can't take the results from the first review and paste them into another article because the testing conditions would change even for something as "simple" as a review on another GPU simply because drivers would be different.

I find the decision of whether or not to sign to be difficult. I don't want to see operating capital reduced which could lead to less content due to needing to buy shittons of new GPUs. On the other hand, I don't want to see the site's integrity and ability to report compromised by getting stuck with a shitty NDA.

Overall I think I'd prefer if Kyle didn't sign the NDA simply because it allows Kyle to be Kyle whereas the NDA could restrict him quite a bit. I don't want to see the site restricted and controlled in a way that NDA would allow.
 
It doesn't seem that bad to me, even the multi-year and post termination binding. I have similar in my ndas.

Being explicitely on the hook for liquidated damages is not ideal but is generally implied but you've always been very good about not breaking them. You'd perhaps just have to moderate the posts when dealing with reference to information that is 'known' publically. As if you know officially, and it is known more widely anyway, you can't refer to it. Otherwise 'benefit' is a bit of a nebulous weasel word but any argument would always be that you reported factual, tested information. No harm can really be attributed to that (though in 2018 it doesn't seem like it)

I think you've proved honor in your actions for the last 20 years that we know we can trust you and it's a lot of ads to serve to pay for this shit.
 
I trust hardocp reviews more than other websites, and worth the wait.

If you want to cover journalism regarding Nvidia then you might have to create a separate LLC. Use a separate content channel in the hope that someone sees it and posts it in forums, not posting under an alias for legality. Using a personal twitter account to link to content from both channels may be a gray area depending on the terms of how far the NDA reaches into personal space. Even then you get into the legality of did you share insider information with a LCC if you own both companies and signed an NDA: you would have to receive rumors through a different email address not affiliated with hardocp and post it before Nvidia informs you that it is trade secret, or have a point man for insider rumors working fully independently at the LLC and get partners and Nvidia employees to remember to use that tip line. That's quite a headache to uphold honesty in the tech industry, and increases the likelihood of frivolous lawsuits to prove you did everything legally under the company that didn't sign the NDA. If you want to have journalism on Nvidia's wrongdoings, it's cheaper to not sign the NDA, or nominate someone else to do this on their own.
 
6
pendragon1 said:
but [H] being bound by nv's nda is to nv's benefit. I would rather, ie my opinion, [H] maintain its well established integrity and credibility. as in what kyle just said:




looking at other sites only will hurt [H[. if youre still here doing what you do your fine. that's what I do.

I was just typing that. :)
Click to expand...

You are right, I wouldn't wish to see HardOCP bound by Nvidia's NDA in the negative manner, but at the same time, I really wish to see HardOCP to do well financially so they can expand their resources to more aspects of tech journalism. It's really hard to grow without sufficient funding (that's my own assumption on lack of funding part). Perhaps a short term NDA with Nvidia may be a way forward?

Spending over 4k USD on an overpriced piece of hardware for a review is really too costly but HardOCP needs to attract new visitors. Without sufficient readership, even other retailers will remove their ads from HardOCP eventually. As of now, there are total of $978 donation per month. For this 20xx review, that will require 4 months+ of donation from patreon to purchase the hardware. And we haven't even looking into the fund needed to operate the site and other hardware.

But for whatever direction HardOCP heads to, I will continue to support them for their honest journalism and integrity. ​
 
If it helps you guys and doesn't take away from your journalistic standards, I say do it.
 
Take the access. You're reviewing a product on its merits, not on the company's history.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Meh,

I'm not buying until I read the HardOCP review, either way. It's the only review site I trust these days. Everyone else is in someone's pocket, or has signed an unfavorable NDA.
Click to expand...

I said it earlier: We members of this forum are guaranteed traffic to this site regardless of when a review is posted. Day-One reviews potentially bring in new readers and those potential new readers can possibly become regular readers increasing the overall traffic to this site. People go from site to site hopping around when that first wave of reviews hit. Once things settle a few days later, the window for new readers decreases dramatically over time to nil since the interested public is satiated on content.

In my opinion, the importance of day-one reviews can't be underestimated when it comes to attracting new readers. Not singing that NDA must make overall business sense and I think it can work while simultaneously retaining journalistic integrity.
 
Last edited:
CombatChrisNC said:
My MOST important point is this: I don't come here for the first reviews. I come here for the best reviews.
Click to expand...
Nobody disputes this. What this really boils down to is allowing [H] to be both, or chasing a week's worth of site traffic and relevance away for spite - all it would really do is benefit other sites.
 
Last edited:
Hagrid said:
How many are paid by Nvidia? Not going to get a good review there.
Click to expand...

My money is on none.

Ignoring the legality of such, we're talking about a technical video card review here. People are looking for benchmarks, overclocking results, etc. Seeing as that information is based on hard numbers, not opinion, there's really nothing to be paid to fudge in Nvidia's favor. If one tech journalist came out with a review that showed different performance numbers than every other review, it would be pretty obvious. Ergo, they wouldn't do it. Really the only opinion in a video card review is that of value, and that too is really left for the customer to decide for themselves based on price and benchmark results. The opinion of the reviewer doesn't hold much weight, so what would Nvidia be paying for, exactly?

I don't know what the potential financial implications are for [H] for not signing the NDA, but at the very least we've all seen how much money they put forward on the pre-orders. How valuable is that one to two week window in advertising dollars? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. I would have to guess that major video card releases bring in more clicks than any other new hardware. Between the insane cost, lack of benchmarks, and new technology being introduced, I think more people than usual are going to weighing on reviews before making a buying decision. If Nvidia actually keeps cards in stock during the launch window, I think you're looking at a lot of lost traffic for all the people who are interested but not willing to jump on a pre-order without knowing what they are buying.

For the people voting no, I don't think they really appreciate the potential cost of not signing. If every other tech site is signing, do the same. If you can publish your findings exactly as they are without outside influence from Nvidia, sign away. If you can't, it sounds like there is a deeper legal issue to be addressed. Don't blow thousands of dollars because your users cannot appreciate what they are asking you to do by voting no. I wonder how many would vote the same if it was their money and their livelihood on the line.
 
Viper87227 said:
My money is on none.

Ignoring the legality of such, we're talking about a technical video card review here. People are looking for benchmarks, overclocking results, etc. Seeing as that information is based on hard numbers, not opinion, there's really nothing to be paid to fudge in Nvidia's favor. If one tech journalist came out with a review that showed different performance numbers than every other review, it would be pretty obvious. Ergo, they wouldn't do it. Really the only opinion in a video card review is that of value, and that too is really left for the customer to decide for themselves based on price and benchmark results. The opinion of the reviewer doesn't hold much weight, so what would Nvidia be paying for, exactly?

I don't know what the potential financial implications are for [H] for not signing the NDA, but at the very least we've all seen how much money they put forward on the pre-orders. How valuable is that one to two week window in advertising dollars? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. I would have to guess that major video card releases bring in more clicks than any other new hardware. Between the insane cost, lack of benchmarks, and new technology being introduced, I think more people than usual are going to weighing on reviews before making a buying decision. If Nvidia actually keeps cards in stock during the launch window, I think you're looking at a lot of lost traffic for all the people who are interested but not willing to jump on a pre-order without knowing what they are buying.

For the people voting no, I don't think they really appreciate the potential cost of not signing. If every other tech site is signing, do the same. If you can publish your findings exactly as they are without outside influence from Nvidia, sign away. If you can't, it sounds like there is a deeper legal issue to be addressed. Don't blow thousands of dollars because your users cannot appreciate what they are asking you to do by voting no.
Click to expand...
So there is nothing the reviewer can do to pump up or down numbers? 0?
Well if Nvidia paid them to make their reviews better. Pretty straight forward. But since you claim there is 0 possibility that a review can do that, then nothing to worry about.
 
i voted no as i trust in [H] for the best [H]ONEST reviews ..before i shop for upgrades .. they always nail down real world performance on my past 3 vid cards
 
Last edited:
if it's 2 year then when next gen comes out in 2 years will you have to sign again?
NDA or no NDA [H] will still write the truth.
 
Hagrid said:
So there is nothing the reviewer can do to pump up or down numbers? 0?
Well if Nvidia paid them to make their reviews better. Pretty straight forward. But since you claim there is 0 possibility that a review can do that, then nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read what I said? They absolutely can lie about numbers. And what do you think would happen if you had 10 reviews all showing the same numbers, and an 11th showing something completely different that doesn't line up? It will be obvious that something isn't right, and neither Nvidia or a reputable journalist would be stupid enough to not know that. I'm not denying that it could be done, I'm denying that it would go unnoticed and/or be effective. So why risk the major legal issues that come along with disguising advertisements as reviews?
 
Viper87227 said:
Maybe you didn't read what I said? They absolutely can lie about numbers. And what do you think would happen if you had 10 reviews all showing the same numbers, and an 11th showing something completely different that doesn't line up? It will be obvious that something isn't right, and neither Nvidia or a reputable journalist would be stupid enough to not know that. I'm not denying that it could be done, I'm denying that it would go unnoticed and/or be effective. So why risk the major legal issues that come along with disguising advertisements as reviews?
Click to expand...
I would rather trust the site that does not have an NDA and maybe pockets being lined by Nvidia. Just personal preference.
 
I think most nda's come with strings...that's part of the price for getting early access. I voted yes so I can get a timely review from [H]. If you have to buy the cards (like you did) there's no guarantee they'll ship in the first batch, it might be a couple of weeks after Sept. 20 until they show up, unless the order went in very quickly. The review might not get done until weeks or longer after Sept. 20. Just bite the bullet and sign unless your lawyer has a problem with something significant in the nda.
 
Viper87227 said:
For the people voting no, I don't think they really appreciate the potential cost of not signing. If every other tech site is signing, do the same. If you can publish your findings exactly as they are without outside influence from Nvidia, sign away. If you can't, it sounds like there is a deeper legal issue to be addressed. Don't blow thousands of dollars because your users cannot appreciate what they are asking you to do by voting no. I wonder how many would vote the same if it was their money and their livelihood on the line.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the potential cost of not signing. Kyle has gone over that before with other issues. The first time I specifically remember is Infinium Labs and the Phantom console. Kyle took a hell of a beating in that case due to the legal fees necessary to fight the bullshit suits against him. He mentioned it again when the GPP came around. This is specifically what he was expecting to happen when he investigated and reported on the program. He knew exactly what he was getting into and even told us what was likely to happen to him and the site.

As much as I would dislike the site going under I'd still prefer to see Kyle and the site keep their reputation and dignity by not signing. Plus there's the fact that not signing allows Kyle to report on future nVidia bullshit like GPP with less chance of being sued to oblivion. The NDA would fuck him over royally in a case such as that.
 
So you asked nvidia to be included in the RTX launch, but you want to do so in your own terms....

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Just sign the damn paper man, suck it up.

BTW the title in the news is misleading to say the least as nvidia didn't offer you anything in the first place.
 
Hagrid said:
I would rather trust the site that does not have an NDA and maybe pockets being lined by Nvidia. Just personal preference.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any proof of what you're so worried about? Or even an example of what exactly Nvidia could buy? I understand this sort of thinking in opinion pieces like a video game review, by video card reviews are not really opinion pieces. Sure it's worth reading to know what the reviewer thinks of the hardware, but reviews are really about seeing performance numbers. Seriously... how do you fake that. If every review comes out saying the 2080 Ti averages 60fps at 4K on XYZ game, and then just one review pops up and says no, it does 80 fps... you really think that would go unobserved or uncontested?
 
Stoly said:
So you asked nvidia to be included in the RTX launch, but you want to do so in your own terms....

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Just sign the damn paper man, suck it up.

BTW the title in the news is misleading to say the least as nvidia didn't offer you anything in the first place.
Click to expand...
"NVIDIA Offers HardOCP 2080 Launch Access" What is misleading about that? They did exactly that, just need to sign their NDA.
 
Viper87227 said:
My money is on none.

For the people voting no, I don't think they really appreciate the potential cost of not signing. If every other tech site is signing, do the same. If you can publish your findings exactly as they are without outside influence from Nvidia, sign away. If you can't, it sounds like there is a deeper legal issue to be addressed. Don't blow thousands of dollars because your users cannot appreciate what they are asking you to do by voting no. I wonder how many would vote the same if it was their money and their livelihood on the line.
Click to expand...

I upped the amount donated on patreon after hitting no.

Yes this is a review on a card but that NDA reach far further than this and poeple are blind to not see that. With this NDA, it limit GPP or 3.5GB talk. I want [H] to continue investigating along with doing quality review. Also that NDA may further limit [H] to give a bad review. What's the point of review if the only thing you can say are good things and not b*tch about it ?

EDIT: I also support a fundme campaign with a giveaway within the funders after.
 
Viper87227 said:
My money is on none.

Ignoring the legality of such, we're talking about a technical video card review here. People are looking for benchmarks, overclocking results, etc. Seeing as that information is based on hard numbers, not opinion, there's really nothing to be paid to fudge in Nvidia's favor. If one tech journalist came out with a review that showed different performance numbers than every other review, it would be pretty obvious. Ergo, they wouldn't do it. Really the only opinion in a video card review is that of value, and that too is really left for the customer to decide for themselves based on price and benchmark results. The opinion of the reviewer doesn't hold much weight, so what would Nvidia be paying for, exactly?

I don't know what the potential financial implications are for [H] for not signing the NDA, but at the very least we've all seen how much money they put forward on the pre-orders. How valuable is that one to two week window in advertising dollars? I don't know, but I'd guess a lot. I would have to guess that major video card releases bring in more clicks than any other new hardware. Between the insane cost, lack of benchmarks, and new technology being introduced, I think more people than usual are going to weighing on reviews before making a buying decision. If Nvidia actually keeps cards in stock during the launch window, I think you're looking at a lot of lost traffic for all the people who are interested but not willing to jump on a pre-order without knowing what they are buying.

For the people voting no, I don't think they really appreciate the potential cost of not signing. If every other tech site is signing, do the same. If you can publish your findings exactly as they are without outside influence from Nvidia, sign away. If you can't, it sounds like there is a deeper legal issue to be addressed. Don't blow thousands of dollars because your users cannot appreciate what they are asking you to do by voting no. I wonder how many would vote the same if it was their money and their livelihood on the line.
Click to expand...


Every reviewer is provided with a review kit, including a marketing brochure that essentially includes all the talking points Nvidia wants reviewers to cover in their reviews, and what spin Nvidia would prefer. If you opt to go off script and do a real review (Like Kyle does) chances are you won't be invited to review next time.

Hardware companies would prefer if you never go off script from their review kit, but that doesn't make for much of a review.

I don't know how many reviewers would be scummy enough to try to throw off benchmarks or anything like that, but, you know, if a new product performs really well in 2 popular games, but really poorly the other 15 current popular games, the company is going to want you to present only the benchmarks that make them look good, and disregard the rest. Also, don't underestimate the power of the reviewers conclusion. I seem to remember a certain HEDT Intel CPU Kyle reviewed, concluding it "wasn't for gamers" which got him cut off from Intel review samples...
 
Kyle, another option that I have not seen discussed is [H]ardOCP constructing internal barriers for the access to CI.

I don't know the mechanics of your process, but could you firewall all contact with NVIDIA CI to yourself and perhaps one/few other person(s)?

You could then maintain all NVIDIA disclosed CI from other staff writers doing non-review journalistic endeavors, while you and designated others do reviews based on NVIDIA CI.

You may want to discuss it with your attorney, but such a practice is commonly used with trade secrets.
 
"Do you want us to take a giant dick up our ass and sign off our ability to say it hurt:
Yes
No"

Am I reading the question correctly?
 
RealBeast said:
Kyle, another option that I have not seen discussed is [H]ardOCP constructing internal barriers for the access to CI.

I don't know the mechanics of your process, but could you firewall all contact with NVIDIA CI to yourself and perhaps one/few other person(s)?

You could then maintain all NVIDIA disclosed CI from other staff writers doing non-review journalistic endeavors, while you and designated others do reviews based on NVIDIA CI.

You may want to discuss it with your attorney, but such a practice is commonly used with trade secrets.
Click to expand...
That is already the way we operate.
 
I agree with any review turns that are dished out with conditions are not worthy of a read. I cast a NO

The only NDA I would agree with is releasing info before it's supposed to be released.
 
How often do graphics cards come out ? The kind that people are actually interested in. Now how many other news articles & reviews does everyone read on here everyday and join the discussion in, let alone the wider forums. Being honest who is really here superficially just for the "annual nvidia graphics cards launch" ? im just not so bothered that i can't wait a few weeks. There are many other exciting things going on in the tech world now outside of generic PC hardware.

There is more to [H]ard than an Nvidia Card.


(that rhymed)
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Every reviewer is provided with a review kit, including a marketing brochure that essentially includes all the talking points Nvidia wants reviewers to cover in their reviews, and what spin Nvidia would prefer. If you opt to go off script and do a real review (Like Kyle does) chances are you won't be invited to review next time.

Hardware companies would prefer if you never go off script from their review kit, but that doesn't make for much of a review.

I don't know how many reviewers would be scummy enough to try to throw off benchmarks or anything like that, but, you know, if a new product performs really well in 2 popular games, but really poorly the other 15 current popular games, the company is going to want you to present only the benchmarks that make them look good, and disregard the rest. Also, don't underestimate the power of the reviewers conclusion. I seem to remember a certain HEDT Intel CPU Kyle reviewed, concluding it "wasn't for gamers" which got him cut off from Intel review samples...
Click to expand...

Cutting someone off from future reviews != paid review. And of course any company providing an expensive product for review does so under the hope that it generates positive publicity. But there is a huge difference between providing talking points you'd like to see focused on and paying for a positive review. Your example of omitting poor performing games from reviews is certainly a valid one, but is there any evidence at all of that happening? And furthermore, and really the root of my point... signing NDAs is the standard in this (and similar) industries. To suggest that signing an NDA creates a dishonest review with the potential to have been paid for is silly to me when basically every professional review of a pre-release product is predated by an NDA. I trust in the journalistic integrity of [H] and they have proven year after year that they will say whatever the fuck they please. Signing an NDA won't change that.

The NDA definitely adds a layer of difficulty in regards to reporting on things like the GPP, but I don't see how it could possibly hamper journalistic integrity in a review.

MMitch said:
I upped the amount donated on patreon after hitting no.

Yes this is a review on a card but that NDA reach far further than this and poeple are blind to not see that. With this NDA, it limit GPP or 3.5GB talk. I want [H] to continue investigating along with doing quality review. Also that NDA may further limit [H] to give a bad review. What's the point of review if the only thing you can say are good things and not b*tch about it ?

EDIT: I also support a fundme campaign with a giveaway within the funders after.
Click to expand...

It would be great if everyone who clicked no backed their vote with a patreon donation, but I seriously doubt that would be the norm for most people. And I do agree with your point about the GPP and whatnot, but I think if it ever came down to litigation, Nvidia would have a hard fought battle to block journalists from reporting unfavorable reviews or articles because of an NDA signed for a review kit. At the very worst, I see them cutting off websites they deem unfavorable, which is exactly where [H] is sitting right now anyway. I see an opportunity to get back in Nvidia's good graces, which should be favorable to both parties. I am extremely confident that doing so would not dictate how and what [H] published, and that Kyle and friends would sooner end up back in the same position they are currently in than bend over and do as Nvidia says.


Bottom line is, NDA or not, I trust that anything published on [H] is free of outside influence. In light of that, I'd rather seem them make the decision that makes the most financial sense. Given the cost of not signing, what other content might we be missing out on because those dollars went to this video card review instead?
 
Last edited:
Unless I missed something, 5 years is standard NDA for confidential info.

Nothing in the NDA says anything about not being able to call out flaws in a product -- only says you will use CONFIDENTIAL information for the benefit of NVIDIA - once something is publicly disclosed = no longer confidential. I'm not a lawyer but have read / signed a lot of NDA's on both sides of the table.

edit: Also sounds like RTX isn't doing so hot..
 
Stoly said:
Didn't you ask first?
Click to expand...
Yes, I asked for access, they offered us that access contingent on HardOCP signing the NDA. The news post reads...

A moment of truth is here. We reached out to NVIDIA recently, and we asked to be included in the RTX launch.

Please consider this our request to be part of NVIDIA next-gen desktop GPU review launch. As you know we have always provided a fair and balanced review system for two decades....

Much to our surprise, this is the response we have gotten from NVIDIA this morning.

Sure, no problem. Attached is our standard NDA, just sign it and return to me. We’ll start there and get things sorted when I get back to the US.

I am still completely unsure of what you think is misleading. Please just type out what you think, thanks.
 
hes taking exception to the word "offered" as if its implying they reach out to you first. reading comprehension and all that...
 
reaper12 said:
That's a comment only a person who loves Nvidia would make.

IF he is going to ignore the fanboy talk then he should stick to the advice his lawyer gave him. Which was not to sign it.
Click to expand...

Sadly, no. It doesn't require loving Nvidia, or complex analytical insight, to know that the angry AMD bros padding the No votes would rather see [H]ardOCP go 404 than give Nvidia an inch, if given the choice. Some people take the petty brand allegiance squabbles way too seriously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top