FutureMark vs. [H]

You would think that some people would know how vigourously Kyle will defend [H]ard|OCP, and not try to go after them. This time ol FutureMark isn't happy with the [H]'s opinion of the 3DMark series.

Right off the front page...
You know what I mean. Your articles have consistently discredited 3DMark for years now and the few justifications there have sometimes been have been without merit. It seems to us as if you have something against our product personally and are using your popular website as a platform to attack and trying to discredit on purpose and with baseless claims and sometimes also with erroneous information.

Personally, I'm sick of companies trying to get websites to pull articles or opinions that criticize their product. I am confident that if there truely were some error in the statements, they would be changed without a problem.

Hey, FutureMark, you should check other websites too, as the folks at [H]ard|OCP aren't the only ones not putting stock in the 3DMark series.

 

And here is an e-mail I sent to FutureMark about it, expressing my concern. I encourage you to do the same, as FutureMarks threats just have me steamed.

 

And the reply:

I know that this is about some article [H]ard|OCP has not yet published, but will do so very soon.

 

This reply is BS imo. Everyone knows the reasons why some people think 3dmark isn't suitable,. nobody has to tell them, they know it as well, if not better, than any of us.

 

I've seen the same response to other people who e-mailed Taro. Benchmarks are helpful in the sense that they let you know if something is amiss with your setup by comparing it with other similar rigs. The problem lies with any program that isn't based on a real scenario.

What I would really like to see is the specific points that Taro is taking issue with. I don't think Taro will follow up with legal action, but if he does, the way it stands now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, even with really good lawyers. Right now, the best thing he can do is either make public the specific points he sees as inaccurate or libel or issue a formal apology.

Yes, it was a rash move, but continuing to try and justify something without providing basis for it is downright insulting.

Also, I'm not willing to use benchmarks that people have to pay to use, and that's the route Futuremark is going. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm considering it less essential for testing, and the fact that I haven't done a video card review in close to two years (hopefully this will change). Benchmarks are only part of a review, and I think it's something that everybody sometimes pays far too much attention to.

 

Looks like this was over with pretty quick, as Tero has posted an apology:

 

Damage control !

He must have received tons of "replies" (flaming), and probably not as polite as yours was, so he decided to back off.

 

I know there was at least one website that came out and said "We won't use 3DMark anymore until there is a formal apology". Not to mention the number of people that came out and said they were uninstalling 3DMark.

Kyle also told Tero to never contact him again, and any issues he had he would have to take up with the lawyers. I find it hard to believe that most judges would've taken the case anyway.

 

Yeah I know, it might seem to be an issue for us, but for the general population....it's a different thing.