Support NeoGAF

[Ocean Dweller]

Revamping Our Membership Program

Today, we're launching an important update to our membership program, previously called Insider Access, now simply RTINGS.com Membership.

www.rtings.com

The beginning of the end. $10 a month??????

 

[Insane Metal]

I mean, I do understand but it still sucks.

 

[Kilau]

That's a site I look at once every 8-10 years lol.

 

[wipeout364]

That's too bad I liked their site a fair bit but not 120 dollars a year kind of like.

 

[Insane Metal]

That's a site I look at once every 8-10 years lol.

I visit them regularly to see the latest reviews. Makes me really sad.

 

[Artistic]

I mean, I do understand but it still sucks.

When I was big into home theater stuff and getting the best I could out of my old family 480i rear projection CRT, I was on AVSForum all the time.

So I'm not mad at this decision.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I'll sub for a month or something when I'm in the market for a device.

 

[Boo Who?]

I'll sub for a month or something when I'm in the market for a device.

This.

 

[user friendly]

Blame adblockers?

 

[The Cockatrice]

Good fucking riddance then. I dont buy devices every month to have a need to pay for a service. I get that they can't sustain stuff, but this is the worst way to do it.

 

[poppabk]

Blame adblockers?

Nope - AI.

 

[Rentahamster]

That sucks but I understand.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Nope - AI.

People trusting that AI actually properly interpreted the content it gleaned before you go spend a couple grand cracks me up lol

 

[diffusionx]

I support the idea of paying for content that you use instead

 

[ReBurn]

Good luck to them.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

It'd be nice if this keeps them from succumbing to payola (i.e., getting paid to give certain products certain ratings), but for some reason I doubt it.

 

[poppabk]

It'd be nice if this keeps them from succumbing to payola (i.e., getting paid to give certain products certain ratings), but for some reason I doubt it.

Is this a known thing or just an assumption based on them rating a product higher or lower than you would like? Because if true this would potentially destroy their whole service.

 

[LordCBH]

That's retarded.

 

[Robot Carnival]

yeah, that's understandable. I might sub for a month or so when it's time to get a new TV or something.

 

[Fbh]

I don't really mind them charging for the service.

It seems weird to me that anyone would pay for this more than like once every few years if you are looking to buy a new TV or similar product.

But if it's actually profitable then I guess good on them.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

It should be noted that not everything is paywalled:

While much of RTINGS.com remains free, our full test results and in-depth product analysis are now available only to members. We'll continue to iterate on what that looks like over time as we refine the model across different product categories.

This likely means that you will still see the full score for a tv, but not all the sub-scores that factor into it.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Is this a known thing or just an assumption based on them rating a product higher or lower than you would like? Because if true this would potentially destroy their whole service.

An assumption, but not based on them rating a product higher/lower that I can point to. I don't really get invested in toy wars like that.

It's based on them apparently needing cashflow (changing to this model), human (or more like "corporate") nature, and precedents like Gamespot, Sitejabber, LendEDU, and any number of Amazon sellers who get caught paying for positive reviews.

 

[kevboard]

that's annoying.

sadly they are the only decent PC Monitor review site.
like most PC Monitor reciews (including Monitors Unboxed) completely ignore VRR compatibility in their reviews.

they'll just list "oh it's HDMI 2.0" but don't clarify if it has HDMI Forum VRR Support, which many higher class HDMI 2.0 monitors have, but not all of them.

Rtings have a super easy console compatibility list in their reviews where they test HDMI VRR compatibility on the PS5. 1440p monitors especially are usually HDMI 2.0, but can support HDMI VRR, but don't fully advertise it anywhere because apparently it's not worth mentioning lol.

and again, even "respected" YouTube channels like Monitors Unboxed completely ignore it (or at least they have every time I watched a review of theirs)

 

[daffyduck]

Another proud Canadian company charging in USD. Get bent.

 

[Tomorrow]

Disappointing, always visited them when looking at a new monitor or TV. Definitely won't be paying. Good luck.

 

[Soodanim]

I think they're pricing way too high. Without looking into it I can assume they do what everyone else does and sets up a direct debit, so it's not like they're altruistically giving people the freedom to have a single month sub up front for their likely usage time.

Make it $2/month and you'll get more in the door. I'd wager than if they halved the fee they'd get more than double the subs. Make it $2 and people might not even notice/care about the impact on their funds and keep it running.

But $10? Many won't even consider it. I know I won't.

that's annoying.

sadly they are the only decent PC Monitor review site.
like most PC Monitor reciews (including Monitors Unboxed) completely ignore VRR compatibility in their reviews.

they'll just list "oh it's HDMI 2.0" but don't clarify if it has HDMI Forum VRR Support, which many higher class HDMI 2.0 monitors have, but not all of them.

Rtings have a super easy console compatibility list in their reviews where they test HDMI VRR compatibility on the PS5. 1440p monitors especially are usually HDMI 2.0, but can support HDMI VRR, but don't fully advertise it anywhere because apparently it's not worth mentioning lol.

and again, even "respected" YouTube channels like Monitors Unboxed completely ignore it (or at least they have every time I watched a review of theirs)

It's awful that you need a third party site to get a reliable technical specification for a product, but I don't doubt it. There are plenty of times when I've struggled to find reliable product information.

I've had a conversation with AOC's CS about a monitor that still advertised a feature only present in earlier production batches. I've also had confusion about a Sony TV's 120hz mode that wasn't in mine. I don't remember if that was a regional thing or wrong website description, but either way it was difficult to get accurate information.

 

[Von Hugh]

Lol. Good luck.

 

[moogman]

An assumption, but not based on them rating a product higher/lower that I can point to. I don't really get invested in toy wars like that.

It's based on them apparently needing cashflow (changing to this model), human (or more like "corporate") nature, and precedents like Gamespot, Sitejabber, LendEDU, and any number of Amazon sellers who get caught paying for positive reviews.

We'll see, but their reasoning for doing this gives them a chance of staying independent. AI scraping their reviews and not referencing the source, fewer visits via Google, plus buying all the products themselves isn't cheap. As they say, they had a choice between this and monetisation models which doesn't align with independent reviews.

I hope it works for them to be honest.

 

[troubledApplicant]

10...
Should start with .99 do an average guy can pay for a month and check out reviews.