[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

[Silent_Scone]

Mars and Ares are both ROG cards. it looks like nvidia want ROG itself and would be fine for asus to spend the money building another brand themselves.....as long as it's not gaming orientated. That's the impression, anyway - we dont have enough information.

It would have been put forward (I know it has). This is my argument with how Kyle has handled this. It's all well and good saying things like we've had multiple people speak off the record, but that doesn't help us. Nobody really knows how product branding is affected.

The whole thing is a shambles. The state of the tech media included.

 

[Geck0]

if i were an aib i wouldnt associate radeon with my premium brand.. i would rather start a new range with a different brand identity.
got my first pair of radeons - pretty sure the software maturity is so bad that the hardware doesnt make sense for people with little time on their hands.
the hassles with stability, incompatibility and even simple functionality like uninstalling/reinstalling drivers clearly indicates that radeons should be exclusively targeted at teenagers.. the working class should look at geforce.. thats until intel comes with a nvidia killer

So what you are saying is that people too stupid, inexperienced or with insufficient attention span required to competently install an add in board and driver suite should buy an nVidia product?

 

[D.P.]

Mars and Ares are both ROG cards. it looks like nvidia want ROG itself and would be fine for asus to spend the money building another brand themselves.....as long as it's not gaming orientated. That's the impression, anyway - we dont have enough information.

But ASUS would be free to have a new brand, e.g. ASUS Annihilator, powered by AMD Radeon" and that would be permissible under Nvidia's agreement as long as ASUS didn't sell "ASUS Annihilator" branded Geforce cards. The only complexity that isn't clear comes to things like monitors. I suspect ASUS could sell a ROG gsync monitor, but perhaps not a ROG Freesync. But they could certainly sell an "ASUS Annihilator" Freesync monitor.


Nvidia just seem to be concerned about keeping marketing of gaming products separate between AMD and Nvidia. Perhaps they are afraid that people see great reviews of a AUS ROG 1080ti, and get confused and buy an ASUS ROG Vega.

 

[Geck0]

It would have been put forward (I know it has). This is my argument with how Kyle has handled this. It's all well and good saying things like we've had multiple people speak off the record, but that doesn't help us. Nobody really knows how product branding is affected.

The whole thing is a shambles. The state of the tech media included.

Anonymity is the cornerstone of whistle blowing. If an individual became known to have leaked details they would be fired on the spot. Most of the tech "press" are terrified of nVidia and others to report negatively because their business models rely on hits from day 0 release reviews so yes, it's deplorable but without a truly united front it will continue.

All nVidia has to do is release copies of the agreements and the steps they have taken to ensure that companies not signed to the agreement will not be unduly dealt with to clarify the situation. Where is it?

 

[Kaapstad]

Mars and Ares are both ROG cards. it looks like nvidia want ROG itself and would be fine for asus to spend the money building another brand themselves.....as long as it's not gaming orientated. That's the impression, anyway - we dont have enough information.

So what would stop Asus having a brand for AMD cards call ROG2 for example.

 

[D.P.]

So what would stop Asus having a brand for AMD cards call ROG2 for example.

Nothing

 

[Geck0]

But ASUS would be free to have a new brand, e.g. ASUS Annihilator, powered by AMD Radeon" and that would be permissible under Nvidia's agreement as long as ASUS didn't sell "ASUS Annihilator" branded Geforce cards. The only complexity that isn't clear comes to things like monitors. I suspect ASUS could sell a ROG gsync monitor, but perhaps not a ROG Freesync. But they could certainly sell an "ASUS Annihilator" Freesync monitor.


Nvidia just seem to be concerned about keeping marketing of gaming products separate between AMD and Nvidia. Perhaps they are afraid that people see great reviews of a AUS ROG 1080ti, and get confused and buy an ASUS ROG Vega.

HAHA really? "Hey Asus, we know you spent 100 million building ROG, but we'd like it now. Feel free to go spend some more millions creating a different brand for others"

The argument that someone might buy the wrong product inadvertently is truly in potato territory, and more than covered by the generous return for no good reason laws you have in the UK and wherever else potatoes are grown, presumably. In the real world gamers are well aware of WTF they are clicking "add to cart" and buying. Perhaps OCUK could provide some statistics on this issue and tell us the rate of returns due to buying a Radeon when they wanted a GeForce? (apart from red vs green logo and packaging).

 

[james.miller]

So what would stop Asus having a brand for AMD cards call ROG2 for example.

Well, firstly we dont know exactly. However, i would assume nothing is stopping them but this might be a rather large deterent:

HAHA really? "Hey Asus, we know you spent 100 million building ROG, but we'd like it now. Feel free to go spend some more millions creating a different brand for others"

Additionally, what's not to say that nVidia want to control a partners only gaming brand? That's certainly how the article is worded. The inference from the article is that all gaming orientated brands owned buy the GGP partners must be using nVidia hardware - if that's the case then ASUS contractually couldnt go and create ROG2 unless it wasnt aimed at gamers. Republic of Gamers but not Really for Gamers doesnt have much of a ring to it

 

[Silent_Scone]

Anonymity is the cornerstone of whistle blowing. If an individual became known to have leaked details they would be fired on the spot. Most of the tech "press" are terrified of nVidia and others to report negatively because their business models rely on hits from day 0 release reviews so yes, it's deplorable but without a truly united front it will continue.

All nVidia has to do is release copies of the agreements and the steps they have taken to ensure that companies not signed to the agreement will not be unduly dealt with to clarify the situation. Where is it?

That's a little cute. We don't live in a world where corporations hand out contracts willy-nilly. You simply get media and consumers posturing as if it makes any difference to the outcome, and then the very thing those people are arguing against happens anyway. Furthermore, they still buy the cards. We're best off waiting to see how this truly affects consumer choice rather than just throwing the words out there.

Look how long people have been talking negatively about Greenlight. Yet overclocking becomes more restricted every release.

 

[D.P.]

HAHA really? "Hey Asus, we know you spent 100 million building ROG, but we'd like it now. Feel free to go spend some more millions creating a different brand for others"

The argument that someone might buy the wrong product inadvertently is truly in potato territory, and more than covered by the generous return for no good reason laws you have in the UK and wherever else potatoes are grown, presumably. In the real world gamers are well aware of WTF they are clicking "add to cart" and buying. Perhaps OCUK could provide some statistics on this issue and tell us the rate of returns due to buying a Radeon when they wanted a GeForce? (apart from red vs green logo and packaging).

ASUS could leave ROG for monitor, peripherals etc. and even AMD GPUS, and create a new brand for Nvidia geforce. nvidia is not forcing AIBs to give their brand names to nvidia,. Nvidia only seems to want a clear differentiation between a Nvidia and AMD GPU.

 

[D.P.]

Well, firstly we dont know exactly. However, i would assume nothing is stopping them but this might be a rather large deterent:


Additionally, what's not to say that nVidia want to control a partners only gaming brand? That's certainly how the article is worded. The inference here is that all gaming orientated brands owned buy the GGP partners must be using nVidia hardware.

That is inference not provided officially by Nvidia, would make absolutely no sense for the IAB, and would likely be illegal.

The chances of that interpretation being true is slim to none. What is much more likely is what Nvidia have indicated publicly, that gaming brands cannot be shared between different GPU IHVs. This has some obvious advantages to Nvidia, is perfectly legal, and the AIB would find it less objectionable.

 

[Geck0]

That's a little cute. We don't live in a world where corporations hand out contracts willy-nilly. You simply get media and consumers posturing as if it makes any difference to the outcome, and then the very thing those people are arguing against happens anyway. Furthermore, they still buy the cards. We're best off waiting to see how this truly affects consumer choice rather than just throwing the words out there.

Look how long people have been talking negatively about Greenlight. Yet overclocking becomes more restricted every release.

nVidia can publish an unsigned contract. THEY are the ones that spewed on about transparency, yes?

Greenlight doesn't require you to forever sign your brand to them, it's worse than a flawed comparison. How about Pirelli tell Mercedes Benz that they can't use any other tyre on an AMG and they should create a new performance brand if they do? - Never happen because there are at least 5 tyre companies willing to step in and say "use whatever you like, thanks for selling our tyres on some of your vehicles".

If you are willing to wait and see how screwed you are then you are truly bereft of reason.

 

[james.miller]

That is inference not provided officially by Nvidia, would make absolutely no sense for the IAB, and would likely be illegal.

This is why the article exists.

That inference might not be straight from nVidia but then most of it isnt anyway. It's from Kyle and we have to assume that he's telling the truth when he said this:

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

It's an assumption that GPP partners are free to create more than one gaming brand just as it's an assumption that they can't. The difference being the article doesnt mention anywhere that they can go and do that but again we don't have enough information (yet) to know either way. The point is right now, you dont know for sure whether GPP partners can create additional gaming brands to get around this or not.

 

[Geck0]

ASUS could leave ROG for monitor, peripherals etc. and even AMD GPUS, and create a new brand for Nvidia geforce. nvidia is not forcing AIBs to give their brand names to nvidia,. Nvidia only seems to want a clear differentiation between a Nvidia and AMD GPU.

Not going to happen that way and you know it. Apart from that why should it? Why should an AIB or ODM incur millions in losses and increased marketing, packaging and R&D costs differentiating products and creating duplicate brands just because nVidia says they should? You guys sit there saying "Well just make a new brand" - You have no idea how expensive that is in time, materials and everything else - it negatively affects the brand nVidia hijacked because you lose efficiencies and scale in production, effectively losing margin on that brand too unless you pass it on to you losers. I can scarcely believe you guys have put so little thought into what the trickle down is to you even if you get your "own" GeForce brand.

 

[Silent_Scone]

nVidia can publish an unsigned contract. THEY are the ones that spewed on about transparency, yes?

Greenlight doesn't require you to forever sign your brand to them, it's worse than a flawed comparison. How about Pirelli tell Mercedes Benz that they can't use any other tyre on an AMG and they should create a new performance brand if they do? - Never happen because there are at least 5 tyre companies willing to step in and say "use whatever you like, thanks for selling our tyres on some of your vehicles".

If you are willing to wait and see how screwed you are then you are truly bereft of reason.

It's a flawed comparison because it doesn't suit your argument when in reality it's a perfect comparison as both are strong-arm tactics that directly affect the consumer.

Don't use car analogies, they're dumb.

 

[D.P.]

This is why the article exists.

That inference might not be straight from nVidia but then most of it isnt anyway. It's from Kyle and we have to assume that he's telling the truth when he said this:



It's an assumption that GPP partners are free to create more than one gaming brand just as it's an assumption that they can't. The difference being the article doesn't mention anywhere that they can go and do that but again we don't have enough information (yet) to know either way. The point is right now, you dont know for sure whether GPP partners can create additional gaming brands to get around this or not.

From what Nvidia have said, they absolute can have different gaming brands. Until we have publicly released information form Nvidia on the contrary then that is all we can believe in. Especially since Kyle is not providing any kind of evidence, and the quote he says does not eman what he then implies.

"Gaming Brand aligned exclusively with Nvidia". That means Nvidia wants an exclusive gaming brand, not that an AIB can only have 1 single gaming brand.

No where is there any information to support what Kyle claims, and his own quotes seem to indicate he is misinterpreting.

 

[D.P.]

Not going to happen that way and you know it.

WHY not?
Any AIB will want to be part of the Nvidia GPP and still sell AMD GPUS and other gaming peripherals. Seprate brands are cheap and easy for an AIB to set up.

Apart from that why should it? Why should an AIB or ODM incur millions in losses and increased marketing, packaging and R&D costs differentiating products and creating duplicate brands just because nVidia says they should?

Why would there be millions in losses? And if there were the AIB is free to make their own choices about what is the most profitable course of action.

You guys sit there saying "Well just make a new brand" - You have no idea how expensive that is in time, materials and everything else -

For GPUs it is really not that expensive. The AIB themselves change their branding and marketing all the time.

it negatively affects the brand nVidia hijacked

Nvidia is not necessarily hijacking any brand. It is up to the AIB if they create new brands for Nvidia or AMD

because you lose efficiencies and scale in production, effectively losing margin on that brand too unless you pass it on to you losers. I can scarcely believe you guys have put so little thought into what the trickle down is to you even if you get your "own" GeForce brand.

Scale of production, What rubbish is this? A ROG branded AMD GPU has to ahve very different packing and boxing than a ROG branded Nvidia GPU. There is no scaling issues here.


Clearly some of us have put much more thought in to than others who are taking in by click bait titles and without properly reviewing he known facts.

 

[Geck0]

It's a flawed comparison because it doesn't suit your argument when in reality it's a perfect comparison as both are strong-arm tactics that directly affect the consumer.

Don't use car analogies, they're dumb.

You have not responded with anything remotely approaching a compelling rebuttal or argument influencing my position on the matter. You sir, have run out of steam in the debate.

 

[Geck0]

From what Nvidia have said, they absolute can have different gaming brands. Until we have publicly released information form Nvidia on the contrary then that is all we can believe in. Especially since Kyle is not providing any kind of evidence, and the quote he says does not eman what he then implies.

"Gaming Brand aligned exclusively with Nvidia". That means Nvidia wants an exclusive gaming brand, not that an AIB can only have 1 single gaming brand.

No where is there any information to support what Kyle claims, and his own quotes seem to indicate he is misinterpreting.

Then let nVidia pay to establish, market, package and distribute it. No, that would be fair and cost way too much when you can take what others have created by proxy.

 

[D.P.]

Then let nVidia pay to establish, market, package and distribute it. No, that would be fair and cost way too much when you can take what others have created by proxy.

Why on earth should nvidia do any other that? Nvidia lets AIBs profit from their GPUs, what Nvidia gains is outsourcing all those costs. nvidia would be better off not bothering with the AIBs at all and just sell GPUs directly to consumers.

You are really not making any sense.