[dogma1138]

Yep, atm NVIDIA and AMD can only get display driver crash data directly from Microsoft. From what I've been told they not only have to pay for it, but while the data has statistical significance it has very low technical value on it's own.

So as far as things go now what happens is, new game is released, players with card X and configuration Y N P and Z complain about driver crashes over reddit/forums, NVIDIA/AMD picks up on it and then starts to try to figure what the hell is going on. Usually some initial mitigating actions would be released within a few days, and within a week to a month a full driver update will be released.

While this isn't the end of the world, it's annoying that you have issues that prevent you from enjoying a game that you paid 60$ for on a system that you likely paid at least 1000$ if not 3-4 times that.

[matt_wulfeck]

Fair enough, allow people to click "send to nvidia" upon an actual crash, and allow a permanent opt-out. Isn't this the way companies have been handling crash reports since... forever?

[dogma1138]

I agree that there should be an opt-out option (other than not installing GFE, tho considering that GFE has always phoned home I don't know if that is that important), yes in an ideal world people should opt-in, the problem is that almost no one does.

Anyone who ever worked on a crash report system knows that opt-in rates are below 10% even for corporate clients. Heck if you are lucky you get single digit % figures on "send this report" even if the checkbox is ticked by default, the vast majority of people just hit cancel.

The stats are actually pretty darn interesting, especially for image quality vs fps I had a chance to speak to a few reps from NVIDIA once and they told me that as much as PC players bitch and moan about 60fps vsync the vast majority of them would push settings at the expense of smooth(er) framerates even if they have no to very little effect on image quality.

[throwaway2048]

maybe opt-in rates are low because people dont want the data sent? Assuming they are wrong because it makes your job harder is a pretty self serving deduction.

[dogma1138]

People aren't bothered about security or privacy, they just cannot be bothered.

Giving even the slightest incentive to send data brings those numbers up extensively even if what you get is meaningless.

Basically humans need a reason to tick a box.

This is why this is under GFE which gives you value added services.

[throwaway2048]

>People aren't bothered about security or privacy, they just cannot be bothered.

Says who? You? Facebook? Microsoft? Google? You don't see the inherent conflict of benefiting from that position and declaring it, unilaterally, it to be so?

How many people do you think would be comfortable, and explicitly approve the kinds of "opt out" data collection that goes on, if you gave them the true extent of how that data can be/is used along with the impacts of it?

Frankly, fuck the attitude that you, or any other developer knows more than me, and decides that i "Just cannot be bothered", especially when its to their (often considerable) benefit.

[LordDragonfang]

> Says who? You? Facebook? Microsoft? Google?

I think you just answered your own question. "Says" the plurality or even majority of the human population who use services from the companies you just listed, despite constantly being under scrutiny for privacy concerns.

[Karunamon]

When using "people" in aggregate, this is a completely correct statement . It's why, for example, HN throws a fit[1] the moment a developer goes so far as to add anonymous google analytics to a package manager [2] even when that data couldn't possibly be used to harm them or track them in any way.

If you make $thing opt in, most people will not do $thing, regardless of what $thing is. Defaults matter.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720

[2]: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics....

[aluhut]

So would it hurt them in some way if they would ask first?

[dogma1138]

Yes and no, while opt-in is important for privacy and other concerns the problem is that virtually no one opts in.

[CaptSpify]

Doesn't that seem to indicate that people don't want it then? That sounds like an even stronger reason to have it opt-in.

[andromeduck]

Real issue here though is it doesn't seem like they have an opt out option.

[dogma1138]

There is, don't install Geforce Experience, GFE has always sent some data to NVIDIA now they are also collecting driver telemetry.

GFE requires a separate installation and for you to signup and login.

This isn't a service required for you to get GPU drivers.

The only thing you lose is NVIDIA's screen capture software and game optimization (and some deals sometimes).

You can still use your card to the fullest without it.

Source: I have the latest drivers and don't have GFE, the telemetry software is part of the update core which is currently installed with GFE.

[throwaway2048]

>This isn't a service required for you to get GPU drivers.

That is not true, beta drivers require the login. They are often needed for new games to run without crashing, or bad performance.

[dogma1138]

Beta drivers can also be downloaded from the geforce.com website.

[aluhut]

That is not a really valid "opt-out" function since they are heavily advertising GFE and most of the people who have it, because they have to, have no idea what's happening. Even after this discovery, a ridiculously small amount of new people know that there is something shady going on.

This looks bad, it smells bad and it probably is just bad for the customer. The person that has already payed for the damn product and not for whatever happens in the background and I have to look up first somewhere on the internet...This behaviour towards customers is disgusting and I really hope it'll backfire in a spectacular way one day.