Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial

[tannat]

Well, I just changed my eyfinity setup to vertical 3xportrait. So much for level playing-field in this game. Now I will rule!

OT: Heart of PC gaming development is pluralism and extension of immersion over time. If you reactionares don't want to Kyle to take his personal stand for this so be it. But don't buy the hair splitting about fairness and advantages.

 

[Phoenix333]

casual gamers want a level "fair" playing field

I'm a casual gamer, and I don't agree that "fair" results from turning off hardware capabilities. Fair results from keeping cheaters using aimbots and program hacks off of gaming servers. I want more flexibility to adjust a game to work best on my hardware. Give me more control over my gaming experience, not less. Give me more of an experience for my money, not less.

 

[maleficarus]

Even regardless of FOV; larger monitors should be considered cheating to.

A 30" monitor allows you to more easily see people further out in an FPS game more so than 30 extra degrees of peripheral vision.

No it dosen't common now. You sit closer to a smaller monitor within a few feet. A 30 inch you would be forced to sit back or you would be overwhelmed by the screen.

 

[Olaf16]

*Without reading this Thread*
Like alrdy said on the HardOCP site: 1600x1200 vs. 2560x1600... How about the 1600x1200 (4:3) to 1920x1080 (16:9)... Isn't it unfair to lol?

 

[Brackle]

Wow, a lot of panties getting in a wad around here...

look, it's simple: casual gamers want a level "fair" playing field, the fact that they now know others can't see more then they might very well give them MORE of a reason to buy and play the game.

We all know the "enthusiast" folks are getting less and less attention lately... YAWN... just deal with it already, find another hobby if it really gets you upset.

And it's totally "fair" that they fuck over people who have multi-monitor gaming which shows more on screen then someone who runs at 2560X1600? You do realize they are fucking over the FOV which almost everyone nowadays has a widescreen monitor?

When I play a game on my PC I want the best of the best. I dont settle for "casual".

They need to let people who wanna game at higher resolutions play with a proper FOV that is my only gripe.

And I am sorry. You can get 19inch LCD's for around $120 (sometimes $99), 3 of those would be higher rez then a 28 incher @ 1920X1200.....You cannot tell me a Casual gamer could not afford that?

 

[Hooligan]

When I was 13 I used to race go-karts. This article reminded me of the spoiled kids at the local gokart track after they were told they wouldn't be able to use electronic driving aids in races.

Sure, it's not their fault that some of us couldn't afford those gadgets that would tell you the perfect setup. But the organizers had to draw a line of FAIRNESS somewhere.

How does this relate to this game? I'm not saying that everyone should be limited at 800x600... but setting a 1920x1200 limit does not sound unreasonable.

Have better hardware? Good for you - go play another game.

 

[kledar586]

Wow, a lot of panties getting in a wad around here...

look, it's simple: casual gamers want a level "fair" playing field, the fact that they now know others can't see more then they might very well give them MORE of a reason to buy and play the game.

We all know the "enthusiast" folks are getting less and less attention lately... YAWN... just deal with it already, find another hobby if it really gets you upset.

wow, another person telling us to go sit in the back of the bus and like it.

 

[nilepez]

I think that is precisely the right message -- just not a full fledge boycott. If full Eyefinity support in game is a prerequisite for you, then you absolutely shouldn't buy it. But, to call for a straight boycott for all users is overkill. I think you pointing out that Global Agenda doesn't support Eyefinity is totally fine, but calling for a whole boycott isn't helpful.

Also, while I can certainly understand trying to make the argument more accessible, it is a little disingenuous not to directly address the FOV consideration, which is really the crux of HiRez's argument.

I agree 100% with this quote. And I wouldn't mind an eyefinity setup, but in an Online game, I understand their concerns, especially given how few customers are likely to have an eyefinity rig (or the ability to buy the hardware for said rig).

 

[END]

Yea i got to agree with kyle this day and ago you support higher res and multi monitor stuff period. they are taking a step backwards. so i wont buy either.

 

[ROCKETR]

I am glad that we have sites like this still that have the nerve to stand up for what they believe in and not just cower down so as to not offend anyone. Another thing is that, us as gamers, PC gamers mainly, should stand up for what we want and not give into this crap. If a company is doing something you do not like, don't support them! It's that simple. Too often people give in just because they don't want to deal with it yet they still complain.

I understand where Kyle is coming from in saying that the fact that they are calling Eyefinity as an unfair advantage is a bit too far. Just don't support it rather than purposely blocking it out.

I'm someone who doesn't have Eyefinity or an multi-display setup for gaming, but that does not bother me as I know FOV isn't everything in a game. I don't feel any less capable than others.

I'm a casual gamer, and I don't agree that "fair" results from turning off hardware capabilities. Fair results from keeping cheaters using aimbots and program hacks off of gaming servers. I want more flexibility to adjust a game to work best on my hardware. Give me more control over my gaming experience, not less. Give me more of an experience for my money, not less.

Agreed.

 

[phide]

I really don't understand how an adjustable field of view is an unfair advantage. If the developer lets everyone adjust the field of view, a person with only 1 monitor could just as easily adjust the FOV if they wanted to. 2560x1600 resolution (single monitor) actually has more pixels than a dual display setup of 2 1600x1200 monitors.

Exactly. There would be nothing stopping people from buying Eyefinity or TH2GO setups to play the game more competitively. It's not as certain regions or players will be simply unable to buy the hardware they need for a multi-display setup based on factors other than their personal financial situation.

Like I said, in Quake, you could run with a 180 degree FOV, but the point was that everyone could run with an 180 degree FOV. This is no different.

If you want a competitive advantage, you rock an Eyefinity setup. You don't limit a player's immersion to provide the illusion of a level playing field.

 

[newster]

When I was 13 I used to race go-karts. This article reminded me of the spoiled kids at the local gokart track after they were told they wouldn't be able to use electronic driving aids in races.

Sure, it's not their fault that some of us couldn't afford those gadgets that would tell you the perfect setup. But the organizers had to draw a line of FAIRNESS somewhere.

How does this relate to this game? I'm not saying that everyone should be limited at 800x600... but setting a 1920x1200 limit does not sound unreasonable.

Have better hardware? Good for you - go play another game.

So fair is only what you can afford or less? I am by no means rich, and probably never will be, but that doesn't make it right to hate on them. If it wasn't for all the early adopters who bought LCDs when they were 3 times as expensive, we would all still be gaming on CRTs. I don't own the cutting edge technology, but I wouldn't even have my mainstream technology if it wasn't for all the people with money to spend on pushing forward progress.

 

[tempo*]

game looks rubbish anyway.

It is silly of developers not to accommodate the latest tech, but then again if you have spent 3+ years developing a game, have it ready for production, and then have to go back and change some of the source code - i can imagine thats a bit annoying

 

[conscript]

game looks rubbish anyway.

I initially thought so too, but I may be a bit swayed by this review. MMORPG is usually pretty critical of their reviews, so I tend to put alot of stock into what they have to say.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/...d/109/Global-Agenda-Global-Agenda-Review.html

 

[lostinseganet]

With those kind of developer relations, I'd think this development company was a subsidary of Failcom.

Just imagine if this mentaily continued to real-world racing. 'Hey, no fair! His motorcyle is faster than my tricycle'.

"Alright, listen up! New rule. Nobody can use anything more powerful than a tricycle with training wheels."

I read that it is done in racing. The top people are winning too much. I thing Ferrari was threating to quit f1 a while back. I also read that under nascar cars it is pretty much the same car.

 

[B^gD^ddy~CF~]

Let me say I see a lot of people saying that multi-mon is an unfair advantage, yet ALL of those people seem to not have an multi-mon setup. NONE of those people have actually spent time with one, that I can see. Let me just say as someone who DOES have experience with multi-mon that it is not the advantage that most of you seem to think it is. ANY advantage that multi-mon might give you gets lower and lower, as the threshold time for reaction gets lower. Having played hundreds of hours of Modern Warfare 2 in EyeFinity I can definitively say that since reaction times have to be so fast in this game(and other games of it's type), that by the time that you react to something in one of your peripheral vision screens its usually too late if that combatant isn't pointed in a direction that is 90 degrees or more away from your person. I can only think of 1 count em 1, instance where I was able to get a kill, and I could chalk it up to Eyefinity alone.

In a game that is a 3rd person shooter instead of first person any possible ADVANTAGE goes down even more, since you can inherently see off to your sides from that perspective. The only place I can think of where Eyefinity gives players a definitive advantage in any game type is where the player would normally have to commit a specific action(look out left or right window in flight sims or racing games comes to mind) to see what's on their left or right while consistently moving forward. However those types of games have a much less narrow reaction time window than either FPS or third person shooters do, and depend much more on the correctness of your actions over time, instead of the spead of your actions second to second.

All else being equal I don't think your going to see multi-mon user's dominating single screen users in shooters due to their higher field of view. I would say Random luck has a much greater impact on the score than mulit-mon gaming does. Multi-mon gaming is still more immersive than single monitor gaming in almost every title I've played, but the circumstances needed to give the advantage to the multi-mon user in shooter titles(entirely due to the fact that they are using multiple monitors) are so rare as to be nonexistent. The exact 1 case I can point to where I got the kill because of EyeFinity happened in Modern Warfare 2 Mercenary Death-match in the map Rundown in the field in between the Stable and the Church. Here's is how me and the other player were arranged. My player being blue, and the opposing player being red.

in short due to the narrow reaction time window for shooters, and the ratio of closed versus open space in shooters. It's just not gonna happen very often that the opposing player can't see you while scanning back and forth, but you saw them in your peripheral vision, and were able to connect for the kill.

I can think of an extreme scenario as well to prove my point. If you could surround yourself with 360 degrees of monitors would that actually give you an advantage? I think the answer is no the majority of the time again, because even though you might be able to see more the only place where your actions are directly affecting the game happen on your center monitor. The time it takes you to react to what's in your peripheral vision is often greater than the time it takes the opponent in your peripheral to pull the trigger first. It often breaks down to who's cross-hair was closest to the enemy. It doesn't mean that multi-mon gaming isn't more immersive, which I would say is the main advantage of multi-monitor gaming in the first place. Having more of your vision filled with the game world makes it that much easier to suspend disbelief that your in the world which is defined by the game, and not sitting in your apartment .

 

[Kowan]

Seeing more of the gaming world is one of the advantages to Eyefinity. Whether or not a player can make use of that, is based on the player.

 

[sweetreddyd]

No it dosen't common now. You sit closer to a smaller monitor within a few feet. A 30 inch you would be forced to sit back or you would be overwhelmed by the screen.

Wow the hits keep coming from you don't they. You've never actually used a 30 inch monitor for anything, have you? Likely never even seen one in action. They have about the same dot pitch as your average 1600x1200 display. You don't need to sit 6 feet back from one or 'be overwhelmed', I know it may sound good in raw theory, but looking at a 30" monitor in practice isn't like staring into the ark of the covenant sport.

 

[kirbyrj]

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're the one missing the point even after I indicated exactly what it is. Just because something is said doesn't make it true. Just because the developer says it's unfair does not make it true and the burden of proof falls on them when called into question. The statement has been called into question and so far I have seen no proof. If you don't understand that, that's not my problem, but it is your problem when you are misinforming people.

You did dodge the question because you didn't answer it at all. You went out on a tangent which avoided the question and even hurt your standpoint. You're bringing up 4:3 and 16:10. Widescreen monitors have been out for years now and many games, competitive games even, have had support for widescreen aspect ratios and I don't hear complaints about them having an unfair advantage over people using 4:3 aspect ratio monitors even though that was the justification for some companies blocking the use of widescreen aspect ratios in their games. The argument held no merit then and it still doesn't hold any merit now.

 

[Kowan]

I sit about two and half feet from my 30inch. The same distance I sit back from my 24inch.

 

[nilepez]

So fair is only what you can afford or less? I am by no means rich, and probably never will be, but that doesn't make it right to hate on them. If it wasn't for all the early adopters who bought LCDs when they were 3 times as expensive, we would all still be gaming on CRTs. I don't own the cutting edge technology, but I wouldn't even have my mainstream technology if it wasn't for all the people with money to spend on pushing forward progress.

I respectfully disagree that LCD was a step forward. CRTs had better PQ. LCD won because it was thin, not because it was better. The same is true in TVs. LCoS looks better, but you can't hang it on the wall (unless you bought a front projector).

Multi-monitor setups will become more mainstream some day, but that doesn't mean that every game has to support the technology today.

And as many have pointed out, if the designers feel those with a wider FOV will gain an advantage, and thus make the game less balanced, then it's a good reason to forgo support. I think the technology sounds AWESOME, and I want to see it succeed, but in an MMO environment, balance is one of the most important design factors.

I just don't get why this is such a big deal. Every piece of software doesn't support all the latest technologies. It's not like Games supported DX10 right away (or DX9 or DX8 for that matter).

Just wait for Duke Nukem, it'll have the best Eyefinity implementation ever.

 

[kirbyrj]

So what you are saying is if we don't like something we should simply do nothing? If we do not get actively involved with helping change the pc industry, how can we sit back and justify the decline in pc gaming. The only reason we play pc games are to enhance our gaming experience be it keyboard and mouse to triple monitor gaming. If we are to stifle the technology we have, we are no better off than playing on the consoles.

I'm not saying that at all. I do doubt how much of the PC industry you and I are going to change or stiffle by choosing or not choosing to buy this game. This issue will take care of itself. In 3 years every game will have Eyefinity (and Nvidia's version of it) support.

This is not an issue of stiffling technology. Eyefinity support will increase regardless of what Hi-Rez does with this game. This is an issue of a developer making a decision on what is fair or unfair to play their game. You agree or disagree by buying the product or not. The merits of the editor of the website "ranting" is a separate issue.

 

[taltamir]

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!

 

[MuriMuri]

Here comes the science!

So, while I think it is slightly tangential to the real issue here (whether lack of Eyefinity support is enough to justify a full fledged boycott), here's a bit of information on the human visual system and how it might relate to Eyefinity.

While the human field of view can extend to +180 degrees horizontally, your peripheral vision is limited primarly to movement and light changes. Your sterescopic field of (both eye overlap) is roughly 100 degrees. The closer you move to the center of your field of view, the better your eyes are at detecting fine detail. While it's difficult to pin down an exact number for maximum detail FOV, it certainly does not exceed 60 degrees, and is likely somewhere below 24 and certainly not higher than 30 degrees -- though of course this focus area can rapidly shift across a larger area. Note this is not the whole area of effective response, simply maximum detail. It also matters how far you sit from your screen, as this modifies the amount of your visual field the screen takes up. A great way to check this for yourself is extend your arm out fully and put your thumb up. the width of your thumb is roughly equal to two degrees of your field of view. By putting your thumbs across your visual field, you can calculate the visual angle of any object in your FOV. For reference, the ideal visual angle for home cinema, a passive viewing experience, is a minimum of 24 degrees and a maximum of 36 degrees. This number is increasing quickly with IMAX display technologies, however. A single 23 inch monitor, from about 2-2.5 feet away occupies a visual angle of approximately 26-28 degrees. An Eyefinity setup would occupy roughly ~80 degrees at the same distance, though you'd more than likely be seated slightly farther back. So, this is absolutely beyond the FOV of maximum detail, but still entirely within sterescopic range.

Now, gaming is an active medium, not passive. This is a crucial distinction, as the human visual system is extremely adaptive to active stimuli -- especially at a subconscious level. And THIS is precisely one of the major reasons why Eyefinity is so invigorating -- and potentially unfair. We can respond rapidly and effectively to stimuli in this whole range, even without being expressly consciously aware of it. Effective field of view use can also be heavily adaptable and improved via practice and training. Numerous studies have demonstrated this effect in athletics, and yes, even video games. There's a reason there's a subspeciality in vision science directly addressing increased FOV use for athletics! Therefore, the more one uses an Eyefinity setup, the better they become at detecting and responding to peripheral stimuli -- regardless of conscious awareness! So, in short, not only does Eyefinity expand your view to occupy the whole maximum detail FOV range, it also effectively engages your peripheral vision in a manner consistent with notable improvements in response time and stimuli detection.

Whew! In conclusion, Eyefinity (or any multimonitor setup) absolutely offers an inherently more advantageous platform than a single monitor setup -- and I would hope so for the expense (yeah, you can get cheapy monitors, I'll be going with at least IPS screens thank you very much). Now, whether this advantage is so great as to justify the banning of Eyefinity is debatable, but clearly HiRez believes this to be so. They have therefore chosen to disable the feature, for the foreseeable future.

The point is, the science backs up the decision. You may not agree with it, and indeed it may not even be the overriding reason (perhaps it is partly a time or money issue), but this is sound basis for the notion that Eyefinity represents an inherent advantage. This is no different than banning aluminum bats in baseball, or certain golf clubs in golf (as mentioned). Both present an inherent advantage, yet are currently disallowed to level the playing field. Anyway, all of that is why Eyefinity is so awesome, because it really does offer a better experience, more effectively engaging your visual system and immersing into the game (yes, I have used multimonitor setups before, despite not currently owning one).

I just don't think we should be heavy handedly boycotting a whole game simply for failing to deliver one new tech that some people deem revolutionary (and totally include me in that group)! Again, I have NEVER seen a boycott on HardOCP for dev failing to include any other feature, or pushing ridiculous DRM on us. The action does not justify the response, and it is unprofessional journalism and a terrible example of web personas abusing their influence because a game isn't crafted exactly the way they want it

And, seriously, what about 3D? That is arguably a more revolutionary technology than Eyefinity, yet I don't see any effort made to boycott games not supporting 3D, let alone even actively encourage 3D support.

Please, we can express our displeasure with development decisions without plastering the tagline "Don't Buy Global Agenda" on the main page. What about all of those who don't even have or never intend to have multimonitor displays? Should they not buy the game simply because the dev's decision annoys some people? A better title? "Lack of Eyefinity Support in Global Agenda Deeply Disappointing" or even would be much better "Don't Buy Global Agenda If You Want Eyefinity Support."

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ Thank you...that's what I was thinking .

 

[FrgMstr]

The merits of the editor of the website "ranting" is a separate issue.

Well, I have written "bad" editorials before and I have yet to see one of those pull a conversation that went to 400 posts in less than 48 hours. It is obviously something you want to talk about since you keep posting. It was something that I wanted to talk about. To hint at it being without merit is sort of confusing. It there was no concern on this issue, it would not garner the attention it has and died on page one.

Now maybe above you are suggesting that I as the editor I personally have no "merits" which is what you typed. And if that is the case you think you would stopped posting on this some while ago as well given that a worthless person is writing a worthless article. But we all know that is not the truth of the matter.

 

[FrgMstr]

And, seriously, what about 3D? That is arguably a more revolutionary technology than Eyefinity, yet I don't see any effort made to boycott games not supporting 3D, let alone even actively encourage 3D support.

Please, we can express our displeasure with development decisions without plastering the tagline "Don't Buy Global Agenda" on the main page. What about all of those who don't even have or never intend to have multimonitor displays? Should they not buy the game simply because the dev's decision annoys some people? A better title? "Lack of Eyefinity Support in Global Agenda Deeply Disappointing" or even would be much better "Don't Buy Global Agenda If You Want Eyefinity Support."

I don't find the value in 3D gaming that you, sorry. But you are more than welcome to write articles about it on your own site or here in the forums. I do not see the value in it on my desktop and therefore I am not going to actively promote something I do not believe in is a value for our readers.

I recently ran this quick poll to see if I was off base. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1493621

There are other sites that cover 3D, and until I see really good implementation of it, I am not going to get behind it. I think it costs too much and has too many limits currently.


I am sorry you are unhappy with my approach on the topic at hand and apologize if I have negatively impacted your sensibilities for made you unhappy or angered. It was not my intent. My intent however was to get my opinion published on the front of the web site that I own and operate, and that is what I did. I said what I meant, and meant what I said. If you don't like that, the little red X on your browser will stop all your issues with HardOCP and my personal opinions.

And still after typing it over and over and over, you still don't get it.

I want NO ONE to buy Global Agenda, not just Eyefinity owners. If I had wanted that, I would have titled it as such. I want no PC gamers to buy this game. Stifling technology in our industry is bad bad bad. Hi-Rez has the right to do whatever it pleases in its games and try to sell them to you. I have every right to tell HardOCP readers that I think Hi-Rez actions are bad for the gaming and hardware industry and suggest that people do not purchase the game for that reason.

Now to top all that off, I will let you come into the forums that I own and operate and PAY to run so that you can come in here and tell me how wrong I am and then take the time for two days to try and pay attention to every post I think deserved to be addressed. If I am still the bad guy in your book, so be it. Beyond that, well, tough shit. I am sticking to my guns on this one.

 

[Phoenix333]

I had to cackle when I read comparisons to pro sports and go-kart racing. Online gaming as a whole is not a pro sport played for money. It is a recreational activity and needs to be considered as such. The few, very few pro gamers have always used config files to force games to be as simplistic as possible to gain advantages. Ever hear of picmip 5 or brightskins? In actual tourneys some rules can be enforced. It's called a cvar. If you want a pro league you can use server-enforced cvars to prevent the use of stuff like Eyefinity if you don't want it in your tourneys. If this was a classic shooter this wouldn't even be an issue. The leagues would have set rules, and you followed them or you're out.

Since it's not a straight-up shooter, comparing it to a professional sport is even more laughable because there's no such thing as a pro league if it's MMO. Everyone is just lumped together. You're going to have a mix of hardware across the board from high-end gaming rigs to barely playable laptops. The hardcore cheaters are still going to be there, along with the newbies, and every other category of gamer. All you're doing is excluding gamers that want to use a specific newer tech. I can remember when Microsoft and Digital Anvil decided to not code in flight control support for Freelancer, to make it more friendly to the moust+keyboard gamer. Every single Wingnut went ballistic, especially since Chris Roberts was on the project prior to this, and Wingnuts had high expectations for the game. Joystick jockeys were being punished for being good at flying in favor of people who did not typically play flight games. It even went so far as a boycott. What was worse is that the support originally was there, but like in this case, it was coded out in order to force gamers to play one way and one way only. They lost a whole market segment because of this. Apparently that lesson hasn't been learned.

I do have to wonder if the whole declaration about fairness isn't just a sham PR move anyway. Perhaps the developers simply don't have support for Eyefinity and did not want to be troubled to add it, and are using the "fairness" line to try to make it sound more gamer-friendly as opposed to sounding like the developers are lazy or not savvy to new tech? If so then this whole discussion is moot.

 

[sweetreddyd]

I remember the freelancer fiasco They went from starlancer, which was basically freespace:new, to some kind of, bizzare diablo in space, and completely alienated a whole slew of people. edit: Myself included, I'm still a wingnut and have a very well maintained usb / serial saitek x36. Hi-rez has obviously done similar here. Say what you like about kyle, the article, it's tone, [H] in general, but having followed this thread since it dropped, people who were otherwise interested in the game have obviously been alienated by a developer being ignorant.

 

[MuriMuri]

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...

 

[Climber]

Yet again, if you like it go crazy. Doesn't bother me. If you think developers shouldn't ban it as "cheating", I agree with you. However, it isn't the next generation savior of gaming, and those of us that don't like it aren't "anti-enthusiasts". We just, ya know, don't like black lines on our displays. I think at best this will slightly outpace those 3d gaming displays in a year or so.

It isn't meant to be a "savior" of gaming. It is meant to provide a deeper sense of immersion for which it does. By limiting this technology and by developers telling us, as well as other developers, that this is cheating and we let it happen, more and more developers will go along with this line of thinking and rationale and not produce games that supports multi monitor gaming.

With no reason for multi monitor gaming there will be limited growth in the monitor department and we'll continue getting single monitor solutions with large bezels around it instead of developers looking at ways to make make multi monitor setups without bezels or single monitor solutions with larger resolutions and fov.

Every company has a right to develop and market a product as they see fit. However, we as consumers also have a right to dictate the market and how we want it to grow. That is we can be proactive instead of reactive. This is one area that gamers, both console and pc, should be in unison on and that is growth in any area that makes gaming more immersive is better for all.

Take the table top touch screen D&D table. Provides a whole new immersion factor for table top players. Even if you dont play D&D progress in those areas should be encouraged and fueled by our support. Also on the flip side, when we have companies that actively go out of their way to stymie or halt the growth of an emerging technology that company should not be supported, especially when said company is being sponsored by the rival corporation of the technology it is claiming gives unfair advantages to players.

 

[FrgMstr]

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

That would imply that I have passed those bounds. Please explain specifically what I have done that is unethical? And for the record, I don't consider myself a journalist. I have no formal education as a journalist or previous experience.

To abuse that relationship in support of a boycott on a game that fails to support a pet technology is disappointing at best.

How specifically have I abused "that relationship?"

Instead of a boycott, why not encourage users to write to HiRez studios to implement a change?

That would get no attention and get nothing accomplished.

Why not direct users to excellent implementations of Eyefinity?

We have been doing that, but not in this article, as that was not the focus of this simple to the point one page article.

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.

That is your view.

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.

I have made my living from HardOCP and ad content since February 29th, 2000.

But, I think it's also the responsibility of the readers to point out when perhaps the limits of proper editorial expression are breached.

You got a list for me on the limits of proper editorial expression? This would help me out dramatically when I am formulating my opinions to make sure they adhere to your limits.

And I would suggest that you have zero "responsibility" in that realm, but we listen to everything you guys have to say and let you type it out here free of charge.

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.

That fact that you keep coming back to 3D to make your argument is somewhat disturbing. I spelled out my stance on the technology already and the fact is that we are dealing with different subjects here. You keeping bringing it up only weakens your argument and makes me take what you say a lot less seriously. Honestly, you sound like you are on NVIDIA's PR team. "3D is awesome." Not everyone sees it that way.

 

[KOOLTIME]

Originally Posted by Goronmon View Post
It's the developer's game, their rules. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy the game."

___

The fact is the DEV's never specified prior to sales we dont support eyefinity, check their web site selling this crap, nope at no place does its state no eyefinity support.

So how is it ( us consumers gamers fault ) for buying the game then we find out after the fact our hardware is not supported ??

At no time do they disclose any eyefinity or any other large screen format display restrictions to play their game ??

So we in good faith buy the game, and then find out our hardware is cheating ( aka "Unfair advantage") ,


Your comment of if you dont like a game dont buy it is rediculous, as this story is nothing about if the game is fun or not, its about hardware failure to disclose to consumers.

We buy a game, its our fault for having a RIG not supported, when the company doesnt disclose that ????

Basically when they do the "Unfair Advantage" on hardware to consumers line, the company is basically saying we took your cash, and now we call you a cheater to get out of giving you a refund, from our negligence of disclosure.

 

[Troz]

Why is it I see no "Boycott ATi editorial" when if you would look there are a ton of people having problems with their 4xxx and 5xxx series card "gray stripe" crashing? You talk about Hi-Rez stifling things. How about the fact ATi blamed the problem on a Microsoft issued patch to Windows 7. Despite the fact people on Vista have the issue. Some people on a fresh install not even patched.

Yet all I see is Eyefinity and how anything that doesn't support it is bad! Problem is even if I wanted Eyefinity I can't have it, my damned video card doesn't work properly and I am still waiting on drivers to fix the issue.

Instead we impose a boycott. Everyone, don't buy GA because the developers feel it is an unfair advantage to have Eyefinity!

I think the main problem people are having is that is seems biased. ATi FTW, Eyefinity is awesome! Yet no word on the major issues people are having with the GSOD. (Currently 544 posts and 28 pages long) It seems like it is doesn't impact *your* gaming you don't give a shit.


Yes, it is your website. End of the day you have final say, people don't like it, tough shit they can start their own site. But while you love to trumpet the cause of Eyefinity not even word one has been said about the issues others are having.

 

[Climber]

Why is it I see no "Boycott ATi editorial" when if you would look there are a ton of people having problems with their 4xxx and 5xxx series card "gray stripe" crashing? You talk about Hi-Rez stifling things. How about the fact ATi blamed the problem on a Microsoft issued patch to Windows 7. Despite the fact people on Vista have the issue. Some people on a fresh install not even patched.

Yet all I see is Eyefinity and how anything that doesn't support it is bad! Problem is even if I wanted Eyefinity I can't have it, my damned video card doesn't work properly and I am still waiting on drivers to fix the issue.

Instead we impose a boycott. Everyone, don't buy GA because the developers feel it is an unfair advantage to have Eyefinity!

I think the main problem people are having is that is seems biased. ATi FTW, Eyefinity is awesome! Yet no word on the major issues people are having with the GSOD. (Currently 544 posts and 28 pages long) It seems like it is doesn't impact *your* gaming you don't give a shit.


Yes, it is your website. End of the day you have final say, people don't like it, tough shit they can start their own site. But while you love to trumpet the cause of Eyefinity not even word one has been said about the issues others are having.

Someone didn't read the article. It isn't just about ATi it is about all multi monitor solutions. But if you actually read the article you would know that and therefore give you no cause to go off on a totally asinine viewpoint which no one but yourself was probably thinking.

Never even heard about gray stripe crashing until just now, none of the earlier eyefinity articles mentioned this, don't think it was seen at all during the eyefinity challenge at least that I know of and I'm not having any issues.

 

[Stellarcrash]

Decided to check this game out since you brought it out of oblivion for us and it is a whole lot of fun! Thanks!

 

[SockMan!]

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.

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?

To be a little fair (though no less inexcusable), several games have already been released with gimped hardware support or controls in an attempt to level the playing field. This seems to indicate that people take these games a little too seriously - perhaps even many of us 'whiners' considering that many others consider this a trivial matter.

 

[maleficarus]

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

 

[KOOLTIME]

'
Originally Posted by Troz
Why is it I see no "Boycott ATi editorial"
"Yes, it is your website. End of the day you have final say, people don't like it, tough shit they can start their own site. But while you love to trumpet the cause of Eyefinity not even word one has been said about the issues others are having."


Troz,

its not related to this article is why he doesnt post issues with other items, if the atricle blog lets everyone grip about every different topics other then this article, aka ATI vid isues or nvidia vid issues, then it would end up a 10,000 page cluster f--k of unrelated topics.

If you want to off topic discuss, im sure a new thread for ati bashing can be easily open for you to start one.

This discussion is about this game and the company and how it effects us gamers, and our comments on this company and its games to such with our various opinions with the article.

 

[FrgMstr]

Yes, it is your website. End of the day you have final say, people don't like it, tough shit they can start their own site. But while you love to trumpet the cause of Eyefinity not even word one has been said about the issues others are having.

We have never experienced the issue in any of the testing we have done for months now and are simply not qualified to write and editorial about the issue.

But you can find LOTS of discussion about this issue already on the pages of our forums. Also, I have discussed this issue with AMD. It is aware of it and it is working on it.

Now given that, I also see me writing editorials about it would not do any good. I do lots of things that impact the enthusiast hardware industry that you are not aware of. And the fact of the matter is that writing an editorial will do nothing to solve the problem.

So I use my resources where I see fit. Unlike the GSOD, which is very well known, this issue was not.