AMD Rewards experience

[wiyosaya]

This more of an FYI for anyone buying an AMD product with a "bonus reward" and I am not expecting any feedback; I'm relaying my experience, without all the gory details, for anyone interested.

I recently purchased an AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU from B&H which came with the Starfield game as a "$100" value. The "value" was delivered to me as a code which you (I) then need to supply to the web site www.amdrewards.com
IMO, the experience with this is sub-par to say the least.

First off, one needs to allow third-party cookies and not use an ad blocker as the site P&Ms and throws weird errors if you do use those, such as telling you that you had too many login attempts even though you only tried logging in once or twice, and telling you that the "captcha" failed.

So, I worked through that crap - after submitting a support request to the site, and then when I finally submitted my code, I was presented with a download that said that I needed to run it on a Windows installation in a PC where the "eligible product" was installed.

OK, so maybe I'm the one doing the P&Ming here, but the experience, IMO, has been less than optimal. I received the code from a legitimate vendor and it is, obviously, a legitimate code. IMO, I should be able to download the game without the need to validate that I actually have the product.

To me, this smells of AMD being PO'd that they had to offer stuff like this because their new line of products was not selling. I say to AMD - TS. You, AMD, got into this situation along with your not-so-friends Nvidia and Intel because you overpriced your products relative to what the market is willing to pay. That is not the fault of your customers, the blame for that squarely rests on your shoulders - like it or not - regardless of your ability to accept that fact.

Personally, for the price I paid, I would have bought the proc without having the game download as I really did not give a crap about having the game, but I figured since they offered it as a freebie, why not?
/rant

 

[HardReset]

For start, years before today you could sell those codes because there were no check you actually owned product code came with. So yes, now AMD wants to be sure you actually own that product, not just sell code. That was problem in the past.

AMD even allows you to play game later even if you don't have that hardware any more. That's pretty huge. I remember when I had game (Descent 3 IIRC) that came with Voodoo 3 card. Guess did that game work without Voodoo 3? Right.

AMD's system could be much worse tbh. Therefore your rant is pretty much pointless although I accept rant about third party cookie requirement to be valid.

 

[wiyosaya]

For start, years before today you could sell those codes because there were no check you actually owned product code came with. So yes, now AMD wants to be sure you actually own that product, not just sell code. That was problem in the past.

I'm not sure I "buy" that excuse. Years ago, you got a CD/DVD that came bundled with whatever it was. There was nothing stopping you from selling those or using them on other systems.

There's really no difference here, IMO. You could sell the code to someone who bought a qualifying product, but did not receive the same deal. There is, apparently, nothing stopping you from doing that, is there?

I don't like the fact that AMD is essentially assuming that everyone is a fraud.

AMD even allows you to play game later even if you don't have that hardware any more. That's pretty huge. I remember when I had game (Descent 3 IIRC) that came with Voodoo 3 card. Guess did that game work without Voodoo 3? Right.

I've got the game and it was not bound to hardware, obviously. That would have been suicide for the game developer to bind it to hardware, IMO.

AMD's system could be much worse tbh. Therefore your rant is pretty much pointless although I accept rant about third party cookie requirement to be valid.

To each their own. I don't care for the experience, IMO, it makes the AMD "deal" rather empty.

 

[HardReset]

I'm not sure I "buy" that excuse. Years ago, you got a CD/DVD that came bundled with whatever it was. There was nothing stopping you from selling those or using them on other systems.

There's really no difference here, IMO. You could sell the code to someone who bought a qualifying product, but did not receive the same deal. There is, apparently, nothing stopping you from doing that, is there?

I don't like the fact that AMD is essentially assuming that everyone is a fraud.

That was years ago. Game publishers hate second hand market for obvious reasons.

You could sell it to someone what has same hardware, yes. But it very much limits on who you can sell it to. Also remember that AMD most likely did not pay 100 bucks for game publisher but instead got that deal cut off price. And if publisher wanted at least something to prevent resale, easiest solution for AMD is not to offer that game anyway.

Think about it: why would AMD bother to make any checks that you have certain hardware to claim copy of game AMD has Nothing to do with. Yeah, AMD has no reason to do that Unless game developer wants AMD to do so.

I've got the game and it was not bound to hardware, obviously. That would have been suicide for the game developer to bind it to hardware, IMO.

If I understood right, your guess is wrong. That copy was indeed tied to hardware. Without Voodoo 3 you got error message that told you must have Voodoo 3. So this type hardware check has quite long history indeed and AMD's one is much less restrictive.

To each their own. I don't care for the experience, IMO, it makes the AMD "deal" rather empty.

For $100 free game, all that doesn't sound too much. And again, AMD is probably not one to blame for hardware check.

 

[wiyosaya]

That was years ago. Game publishers hate second hand market for obvious reasons.

Since selling games second-hand is not generally illegal, that's the game developer's problem. Its part of being in the business whether they like it or not. In some cases, it is the only way to get copies of games that are no longer in production. Whether it was "years ago" or not, is irrelevant.

You could sell it to someone what has same hardware, yes. But it very much limits on who you can sell it to. Also remember that AMD most likely did not pay 100 bucks for game publisher but instead got that deal cut off price. And if publisher wanted at least something to prevent resale, easiest solution for AMD is not to offer that game anyway.

Obviously, even with the restriction, it does not prevent resale.

Think about it: why would AMD bother to make any checks that you have certain hardware to claim copy of game AMD has Nothing to do with. Yeah, AMD has no reason to do that Unless game developer wants AMD to do so.

AMD was well within their bounds to refuse that stipulation. And for offering it with the stipulation, despite any contrived arguments, AMD is as much responsible as the game developer.

If I understood right, your guess is wrong. That copy was indeed tied to hardware. Without Voodoo 3 you got error message that told you must have Voodoo 3. So this type hardware check has quite long history indeed and AMD's one is much less restrictive.

There's nothing about Descent 3 requiring VooDoo 3 in this piece on Descent 3. Your "argument" is a red-herring, and invalid.

For $100 free game, all that doesn't sound too much. And again, AMD is probably not one to blame for hardware check.

Not to you, maybe, but as I see it, it does not put AMD in a good light. As I said, that AMD agreed, IF they did agree to a hardware requirement from the game developer, makes AMD also responsible. IF the game developer insisted on a hardware requirement for the freebie, that is no excuse that absolves AMD from responsibility.

 

[HardReset]

Since selling games second-hand is not generally illegal, that's the game developer's problem. Its part of being in the business whether they like it or not. In some cases, it is the only way to get copies of games that are no longer in production. Whether it was "years ago" or not, is irrelevant.

Of course it's not illegal. But putting legal restrictions that makes it harder to resell games is also not illegal. Unfortunately that may cause some problems for you.

Obviously, even with the restriction, it does not prevent resale.

Of course not. Just like copy protections do not prevent piracy, they just make it harder.

AMD was well within their bounds to refuse that stipulation. And for offering it with the stipulation, despite any contrived arguments, AMD is as much responsible as the game developer.

AMD could have done that but then publisher probably would have wanted more money. And AMD would have put bigger price tag on CPU you bought. Or leave that free game out of deal completely. CPU costs around 250 dollars and on top of that AMD pays 100 bucks for developer and offers game for free. Does not sound great business.

There's nothing about Descent 3 requiring VooDoo 3 in this piece on Descent 3. Your "argument" is a red-herring, and invalid.

I'm talking about game that came bundled with Voodoo 3. Not about normal retail version. Retail did not have Voodoo 3 lock for obvious reasons.

Not to you, maybe, but as I see it, it does not put AMD in a good light. As I said, that AMD agreed, IF they did agree to a hardware requirement from the game developer, makes AMD also responsible. IF the game developer insisted on a hardware requirement for the freebie, that is no excuse that absolves AMD from responsibility.

Partially yes. AMD could just pay full price for game and developer probably won't have any demands over issues talked about here. But It's unrealistic to except that AMD gives 100 bucks for free when buying 250 buck CPU. Unrestricted copy would mean there are countless copies selling on second hand market. That means it's realistic to expect game to have some kind of hardware lock that in this case is very mild one.

Unrealistic expectations usually cause disappointments. Perhaps AMD should have not offered free game at all. Getting that free game is optional. I really cannot see why there is so much rant about free gift.

 

[wiyosaya]

Perhaps AMD should have not offered free game at all. Getting that free game is optional. I really cannot see why there is so much rant about free gift.

That's my point as I at least implied in my original post:

Personally, for the price I paid, I would have bought the proc without having the game download

If there are restrictions on something "free," it is not really free.

 

[VcoreLeone]

Yeah good points all, its not worth anything if you cant sell it and get some of that money back.

 

[wiyosaya]

One more note - AMD's freebie is being offered through Steam.

 

[VcoreLeone]

It's still a great freebie, but it's not reduced cost. it's just a bonus.
I don't but 60eur games anyway, I'd prefer 30eur less on the cpu than a 60 eur game.