Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial

[FrgMstr]

The thing I have seen here on [H] is if Kyle and his team do not like something in the PC gaming industry, they will then do whatever they can to try to change it or influence the direction. A good example is around 4 years ago give or take Kyle went on this "canned benchmark" crusade basically calling 3dmark and every other benchmark to be useless and not real world. I actually jumped in and created a thread defending synthetic benchmarking which caused 25 pages of posts! So to me this is just another [H] crusade that will eventually fade away...

The thing that Kyle ignores and always has actually is the fact that for the most part his site caters to a small minority to begin with regardless of how many hits he gets on this site. I have always found it funny y Kyle puts no weight in steams hardware spec database because simply put, this is what is "real world" not some rich kid with 3 1080P monitors with high end sli...

/rant over

I would have to suggest that we did very much influence the industry when it comes to synthetic benchmarks, and if you talked to the people in charge at major tech companies, they would confirm that. We hardly faded on that one.

And yes, we cater to hardware enthusiasts and you hardly have to have three 1080P displays with high end SLI to be considered an enthusiast. But do we cater to the guy still playing CS on a 9700 at 1280 rez? No, not at all. We cater to people interested in new computer hardware technology mainly leveraged for gaming.

Honestly, you sound like you have a personal issue with all of this rather than a difference of opinion.

 

[MuriMuri]

Ouch, it seems I've struck a bit of a nerve! Again, I really don't mean to issue any personal attacks, and have attempted to stay professional -- apologies if that hasn't come across as well as intended!

Fair enough that you don't consider yourself a journalist -- although it takes no formal training or education to qualify one as such. I believe my interpretation of HardOCP was somewhat mistaken -- as a personal blog, this editorial is acceptable, if a bit heavy handed. On a news site, I simply think it's a bit over-the-top.

I'll just try to clarify my points in case I didn't deliver them as effectively as intended.

I feel the general point of a news organization is to provide new stories, along with insightful, but non-biased, discussion of those stories. Editorials, on the other hand, are free to express the point of view of the author, however, fair and effective editorials hew to certain bounds of expression. I simply think this editorial in particular crossed those bounds. Hey, it happens, we all have our favorite horses, and sometimes we go overboard supporting or defending them. Eyefinity happens to be one of HardOCPs -- fair enough.

Now, as to how I believe this editorial is irresponsible? Let me elaborate:
First, too little information is issued on the main page -- please, please make sure your readers understand this is a multi-monitor issue. Simply plastering 'Don't Buy This Game' is a little heavy handed.
Second, the discussion of multiple resolutions misses the field of view point -- this is central to HiRez's decision. If you're going to criticism and boycott their game, please at least properly and fairly evaluate their claim. The truth is, Eyefinity support DOES represent a potential unfair advantage. But, you can absolutely make the case that this alone does not mean it should not be supported. I simply ask that you give HiRez's stance a fair shake. This is an FOV, not a resolution issue. The funny thing is, I actually partly agree with you! I think HiRez should allow user FOV adjustments on any display, thereby ensuring Eyefinity support and allowing other users to match that FOV -- and any advantage. Still, there is a basis for their stance, and I feel that isn't fairly represented.

This quote from your article also demonstrates the potential legitimacy of HiRez's claim:

And let's face it, if that poor bastard setting up the turret in the video would have had some Eyefinity loving, that purple dude with the sword would not have cut his head off.

Third, the claim is made that this is an effort to "stifle your gaming experience" or in some capacity hold back the adoption and proliferation of new technology. This is precisely why I bring up 3D, as the rest of the gaming industry -- and entire TV/console industry, evidently -- would hold that this technology is the future of gaming, not Eyefinity. As an equally promising new piece of tech, why isn't HardOCP pushing for this? (Because you personally don't like it? Why? Many people do -- just look at Avatar's box office... no, I didn't like it ) Surely if we want our gaming experiences maximized, we ought to push for this adoption as well -- regardless of your personal opinion on the matter! Personally, I quite dislike 3D, it makes me nausea -- and am a big proponent of Eyefinity. Why stop at Global Agenda, why not boycott all games that don't support Eyefinity? (Mass Effect 2, I'm looking at you) But, I'll say the same thing about any other new tech -- why don't we boycott games that don't support tessellation? How about no DX11 support? What about no rumble feedback? Where do we stop? Eyefinity is simply your horse in this race, and undermines the overall credibility of the new technology argument. (and *ahem* but a more conspiracy minded observer might think your overwhelming support for Eyefinity might be tantamount to shilling for ATI...)

If we want to push new technology to the forefront, we should do it for all new techs, and particularly the ones with the greatest potential for proliferation. Eyefinity is not likely to revolutionize the industry, and stuffing three displays on one desk is likely to be problematic for most users. Not to mention the increasing shift toward single, large screen console gaming. That said, I reaaaally want me some Eyefinity, but let's be realistic here. Let's support it, nurture it, help it grow, but let's not pretend that not supporting is like slapping us all in the face. It's also worth noting many people are not impressed by the tech, but that's still largely irrelevant.

Finally, in regards to overall professionalism, this paragraph is really what brought me into the board:

If you don't want game developers telling you how you can and cannot use your hardware, don't buy its games. Hi-Rez Studios is singling out Eyefinity and other multi-display users and not allowing us guys to use the enthusiast computer hardware that we worked hard for. Do not buy its games. Pass along that message! Post it on forums. Post it in blogs. Put it on Facebook. Totally bitch out and Tweet it. But for god's sake don't buy games from companies that try to stifle your gaming experience.

Is this response really necessary? Have you even evaluated the game on any of its other merits before calling for this semi-nuclear response? This is tantamount to declaring war on both the dev and it's game, simply because it fails to support ONE new piece of technology. No effort is made to evaluate the quality of the game itself. "bitch out"? Really? There are better, more effective ways to address this. I don't especially like HiRez's decision either, but I understand it, and don't wish to bury their game because of it. This strikes me like a personal vendetta, and that I find disappointing.

Again, absolutely nothing against you or the site in general, I just feel this was an over the top swipe at a relatively small developer.

Edit: here's a link to part of the BBC's guide on editorial integrity, specifically regarding impartiality, but other topics in the guide are relevant as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/ Worth reading, for anyone interested in online commentary (Full disclosure: I was the Literary Editor for a university publication, hence my stance in regards to journalism ethics and professionalism -- perhaps I'm holding the web to too high of a standard?)

 

[eric_bazile]

Here's my take.

A developer has the right to do whatever they want to in regards to supported technologies. Hey! If it doesn't float your boat..... DON'T BUY IT. It's not an obligation of the developer to support "certain" technologies to conform to a specific "niche" of individuals. No one forced you to set up eyefinity, just like no one should be forced to make a game that supports it.

I like when developers take advantage of new technologies, but if they don't do so I don't bash them for it. A good game is a good game, just like good programming is simply good programming. You don' like the soup? DON'T EAT IT!

One of my favorite PC games of all time is C&C Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge, it doesn't support HD, doesn't take advantage of Multi-core CPU's and is sprite based (plus many more). Doesn't make me any less of an enthusiast hardware wise because of it. Whether or not the whole "player advantage" argument is just PR crap to cover up a shortened development time etc. I can't bash the hell outta a game for not supporting Eyefinity. Here's a fun fact...... DX11? does the game support that? Does it support Direct Compute based physics off the GPU? Wow! It lacks Eyefinity support. Am I supposed to be surprised or get a headache looking at the bezels while playing?

 

[Modred189]

I left this thread for a while, and coming back, I am confused why people are so fixated on eyefinity as the only users being harmed by this locked horizontal FOV issue...
Maybe because that's what spurred on the article, but here's the basic fact:

Anyone with a screen resolution ratio wider than 4:3 (i.e. 16:10 and 16:9) is being harmed by this practice. How many users here have a 4:3 monitor? I'd say less than 8-10%. So all you people whining about Eyefinity users being too sensitive need to look closer to home to realize that this kind of FOV/hardware control crap harms almost everyone, and for every game you buy that has it, you're feeding it in the future.

Now, GA is no AAA title, but what if it were the next COD, or BF? You'd be pissed then...

 

[nilepez]

people, lets please call an orange an orange, not an apple.
It is not LACK OF SUPPORT of eyefinity... it is intentional SABOTAGE of it.
The developer COULD have said "we are sorry, but we do not believe this niche market necessitates the funds to support it". Instead they are explicitly spending effort to sabotage it because it is "unfair advantage" in their words. This makes a whole WORLD of difference.

You don't want to support it, don't. But damn you if you try to sabotage it!

No, they're saying that it gives the few people that run an Eyefinity rig an unfair advantage in their game.

I don't see how any one game could possibly sabotage a technology (unless they went out of their way to create an implementation that made that technology look like shit.

 

[SmokeRngs]

There is no need for the developer to explain itself. It said it is an unfair advantage and you agree or disagree by your purchasing or not purchasing the product. End of discussion. You have no say in the matter other than if you buy the game or not. No proof is needed because the developer made a decision. Justified or unjustified by data at hand, the decision is made. How is this misinformation?

16:10 vs. 4:3 WAS an issue when widescreen monitors were first becoming popular. You gain an advantage by having a larger FOV. Competitive gaming notes this and places limits on the FOV. If you alter the FOV, Punkbuster will kick you out of servers for some games per discussions on Widescreen Gaming Forum. I can't really believe you don't see this as being an advantage when it seems like everyone else does. You can argue how much of an advantage, but it is still an advantage.

You obviously still don't understand logic. Look up the definition, apply it to your argument and you'll see that the basis of your argument is incorrect.

So, widescreen aspect ratios are no longer an unfair advantage? They still allow a larger field of view than non-widescreen aspect ratios. Please, explain how they are no longer an unfair advantage since you are claiming they were before but not now. Then, after you have done that please explain how multi-monitor setups are unfair in the light that regular widescreen is no longer unfair. It's the exact same situation as before.

I wonder if you can even see that your argument against multi-monitor setups is actually proving the premise that multi-monitor setups aren't an unfair advantage.

Kyle, I apologize if my comments have seemed overly harsh or in any capacity a direct personal attack (and I do appreciate your responses in the thread, even if I do not agree with them). I absolutely mean no personal disrespect, however, I do feel HardOCP, in this case, has bruised the bounds of proper and effective journalism.

But, that's to assume HardOCP was ever intending to uphold those bounds in the first place (no, this isn't meant expressly as criticism). If a site like Engadget, for example, had issued the same editorial -- and titled the same way -- I imagine criticism of the article would be more direct and incisive. But that's because Engadget purports to be a news organization, first and foremost. If HardOCP does not intend to represent such an entity, than alright then. After all, you're absolutely free to post whatever opinion on a personal blog -- which perhaps HardOCP is more akin to.

The point here is really that the whole Eyefinity thing is somewhat tangential -- I'm concerned more with the bounds of ethical journalism. You see, regardless of the HardOCP intent, it has thousands upon thousands of readers who place great stock in your opinions, and the site's view as a whole. To abuse that relationship in support of a boycott on a game that fails to support a pet technology is disappointing at best. The popularity of this thread is indication enough of the weight of your opinion -- I implore everyone in the public sphere not to abuse that weight, and instead shift in more positive directions. Instead of a boycott, why not encourage users to write to HiRez studios to implement a change? Why not direct users to excellent implementations of Eyefinity? Nevermind the fact that HiRez does have a legimitate concern with the technology -- whether misguided or not, this is not some flippant, luddite 'banning' of new tech for no reason whatsoever.

You're right, this is absolutely your site (though the ads suggest some form of revenue stream and/or perks for operating it beyond pure benefits to the reader), and you are indeed free to express your opinions in whatever manner you choose. But, I think it's also the responsibility of the readers to point out when perhaps the limits of proper editorial expression are breached. Your claim that this is endemic of a 'stifle techology' phenomenon is problematic at best with your refusal to promote 3D -- which, like it or not, is clearly the technology with more momentum. If indeed this is an effort to support the unrestricted proliferation and utilization of new and better PC gaming technology, than that's fantastic -- but let's open it up beyond Eyefinity.

Let me just add that I think HardOCP, in general, is an excellent site with extremely informative views on the computing industry, hardware in particular -- and the reason I regularly read both the site itself, and the forums! I also believe, for better or worse, this creating quite a buzz for Global Agenda, and may ironically result in more individuals actually giving the game a shot to see what all the fuss is about! Ah, irony...

Like Kyle, I have no formal training in journalism and I definitely don't consider myself a journalist. However, you don't seem to have the first clue about journalism at all. The article Kyle wrote is an editorial. Look up the definition of an editorial and you'll find your statements here make absolutely no sense. If you have one handy, pick up a local paper and look at the editorial page. You'll find letters from the editor and they will be full of personal opinions from the editor.

I've never understood why people try to attack editorials on the basis that they harm "journalistic integrity" or that editorials somehow harm the argument of the person writing them. I can think of only two reasons this would happen Either the person is totally ignorant of what an editorial is or the person is not ignorant of it but instead acts that way in the hope of drumming up emotional responses from other people in support of the person's own emotional bias. I will give a simple definition of an editorial for the ignorant: an editorial is an opinion piece written by the editor expressing the editor's own ideas and opinions. Furthermore, this is a well known and long running part of many publications. I'm not sure of the actual age of editorials but I would guess they have been around for at least a few hundred years now.

 

[Phoenix333]

I'm concerned more with the bounds of ethical journalism.

Kyle stated up front that this was an editorial. An editorial is an opinion piece by definition. This has nothing at all to do with journalism. I see nothing underhanded going on here on Kyle's part. I may be a forum newbie, but I've been visiting [H]ardOCP for almost a decade and I've never seen anyone pull their punches. They're upfront and direct with their opinions. If they think something sucks, they say so. They were the first site to throw out artificial benchmarking (3DMark) in favor of actual game play testing, and the only site I've seen to torture test power supplies that stands up to my own standards from an engineering standpoint. That's been a huge boon since nobody else was doing this.

The only real ethical boundary in any of this is honesty. I cannot see anywhere that Kyle is being dishonest in representing his opinion here, since it is his to represent. I have never seen dishonest representation of test results during reviews. You either agree with his opinion, or you do not. What's important in all of this regarding Global Agenda is whether or not this will start an industry trend if left unchecked. I think that's the larger issue that a lot of people are missing.

 

[Xyvotha]

(snip)
Finally, in regards to overall professionalism, this paragraph is really what brought me into the board:
(snip)
Again, absolutely nothing against you or the site in general, I just feel this was an over the top swipe at a relatively small developer.

Perhaps some [H] readers are just like me, bored about "politically correct" sites wasting online space on the worries of not to offend anybody in the industry. That's why I like this stubborn texan's articles, even if many times I don't agree with him on some issues. A different opinion enhances your knowledge of the world, not the contraire.

If I would like Kyle/the [H] staff sipping chardonnay while praising the iPad's great hardware I would go to another site, there are plenty of those.

(All this comes from an nVidia fanboy btw, and excuse my mediocre english)

 

[nilepez]

The 'unfair' advantage excuse is pretty silly in my opinion. It's a game. Gamers who play for fun won't care that other people's rigs are better than their "good-enough" computer while people who want to seriously compete will naturally want the best setup they're willing to pay for. Every hobby is like this.

Have you ever played an MMO. Those folks constantly whine about others having an unfair advantage.

I can understand if they didn't support it because it was going to cost too much money to benefit very few people. But to actively lock it out? What do they think this is: major league sports? Will we also need to take drug and stimulant tests just to play?

Again, it's an MMO. They do that type of stuff all the time.

 

[MuriMuri]

Re-posting part of my above post to indicate that editorials, like all aspects of journalism, are subject to guidlines and standards as well. Simply because many editorials are poorly written and heavily biased doesn't mean they all ought to be. Slapping 'editorial' in front of something doesn't exempt it from certain ideals of fairness and respect.

]Here's a link to part of the BBC's guide on editorial integrity, specifically regarding impartiality, but other topics in the guide are relevant as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/edit...e/impariality/ Worth reading, for anyone interested in online commentary.

Further, as the Editor-in-Chief of the site, Kyle's views in editorials do carry significant weight, and reflect on the values and standard of HardOCP as a whole. I would think, especially due to this, his editorials would be even-handed and fair. Editorials ought not to be misleading, disingenuous, overly reactionary, or compel individuals to do something that may be unjustified. Make no mistake about it, Kyle is calling on all HardOCP users to deliberately and decisively inflict economic harm on Global Agenda and it's developer and publisher. Is this response justified?

(Full disclosure: I was the Literary Editor for a university publication, hence my stance in regards to journalism ethics and professionalism -- perhaps I'm holding the web to too high of a standard?)

 

[SmokeRngs]

Re-posting part of my above post to indicate that editorials, like all aspects of journalism, are subject to guidlines and standards as well. Simply because many editorials are poorly written and heavily biased doesn't mean they all ought to be. Slapping 'editorial' in front of something doesn't exempt it from certain ideals of fairness and respect.



Further, as the Editor-in-Chief of the site, Kyle's views in editorials do carry significant weight, and reflect on the values and standard of HardOCP as a whole. I would think, especially due to this, his editorials would be even-handed and fair. Editorials ought not to be misleading, disingenuous, overly reactionary, or compel individuals to do something that may be unjustified. Make no mistake about it, Kyle is calling on all HardOCP users to deliberately and decisively inflict economic harm on Global Agenda and it's developer and publisher. Is this response justified?

(Full disclosure: I was the Literary Editor for a university publication, hence my stance in regards to journalism ethics and professionalism -- perhaps I'm holding the web to too high of a standard?)

First of all, you link seems to be broken.

As far as impartiality goes, there is no such thing in an editorial. An editorial is by definition an opinion piece which means there is no impartiality. I have no idea of where you are getting the idea that an editorial is supposed to be impartial. Editorials were started just because they aren't impartial by definition. An editorial is the means for an editor to put forth an opinion while keeping it out of news articles.

 

[kirbyrj]

I'm going to ignore your jabs about my logical reasoning ability because 1). I've actually had classes in formal logic as a philosophy student, and I haven't taken the time to contruct a whole logical form about what I said vs. what you said because it's not that important to me. It very well might be that if I diagrammed what I said, I am completely illogical. I doubt it, but whatever. 2). We are arguing from different sets of presuppositions which neither one of us has clearly explained to the other. I think my point of the developer's ability to determine what is fair and unfair for a game they developed is valid and seems to fit with other gaming examples (e.g. I play by the rules of Monopoly as written by Parker Brothers...I don't change the values of properties, etc., nor do I argue that it isn't "fair" to Go Directly to Jail, nor do I ask them to defend why I think it isn't "fair" to pay $2000 if I land on Boardwalk with a hotel when I have no money).

My point with the widescreen monitors is that it WAS considered an unfair advantage. People have adopted it and changed, but it was considered "cheating" by some back in the day as not everyone could afford a widescreen monitor. This is just the next iteration of that debate. A larger FOV gives an advantage whether it be 48:10 vs. 16:10 vs. 4:3.

FWIW, I don't care about the advantage any FOV gives. I rarely play video games anymore. I think people's (or developers) perception of what is fair/unfair over time evolves. It is now accepted that 16:10 is a "fair" aspect (as opposed to say 5 years ago), but Hi-Rez felt like 48:10, etc. was an "unfair" aspect in this particular game. 5 years from now some other technology will be "unfair" and Eyefinity resolutions will be accepted as "fair." And the arbiter of fair vs. unfair should be the developer of the game.

You obviously still don't understand logic. Look up the definition, apply it to your argument and you'll see that the basis of your argument is incorrect.

So, widescreen aspect ratios are no longer an unfair advantage? They still allow a larger field of view than non-widescreen aspect ratios. Please, explain how they are no longer an unfair advantage since you are claiming they were before but not now. Then, after you have done that please explain how multi-monitor setups are unfair in the light that regular widescreen is no longer unfair. It's the exact same situation as before.

I wonder if you can even see that your argument against multi-monitor setups is actually proving the premise that multi-monitor setups aren't an unfair advantage.

 

[MuriMuri]

Odd, the link works fine for me. I'll just post the most relevant item from that link just to clear up the 'impartiality' bit:

"due impartiality". It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.

What that means, is simply taking a fair and even-handed approach to an editorial (as stated). Obviously there are numerous factors that go into a well constructed editorial, beyond level of impartiality. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Anyway, here's the link to the general guide, just to ease the focus off impartiality above other factors (though not diminish it's importance):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/

Again, there are several other editorial guides, I just happen to like the BBC's one, and it's nicely organized!

Again, I just really, really want to be clear I in no way mean any disrespect to Kyle or any other posters on this board, as maybe that isn't quite getting across.

 

[cygnusx-1]

While I don't agree with the devs reasoning I think it's out of line to call for a boycott for a feature that really only impacts a small percentage of gamers (see Steam Hardware Survey). State your opinion, but don't call for a boycott. I've lurked here for years, and this is really a new low and we all know how the mainstream press loves to point out what bad shape the PC gaming side of the industry is in, now when a leader of the enthusiast community calls for a boycott of a small dev over a feature that barely impacts any PC gamers?

 

[FrgMstr]

While I don't agree with the devs reasoning I think it's out of line to call for a boycott for a feature that really only impacts a small percentage of gamers (see Steam Hardware Survey). State your opinion, but don't call for a boycott. I've lurked here for years, and this is really a new low and we all know how the mainstream press loves to point out what bad shape the PC gaming side of the industry is in, now when a leader of the enthusiast community calls for a boycott of a small dev over a feature that barely impacts any PC gamers?

Let's wrap it on on this post. Been fun, I got work to do and do not have the resources to further monitor this thread.