We never thought we’d utter the phrase RTX 5060 review restrictions, but here we are. From YouTube channels to review sites, independent tech media has always played a huge role in the launch cycle of a new graphics card. With early access to hardware and drivers, these outlets conduct their own, thorough tests and give buyers an objective view on performance – the full picture, so to speak.

With the launch of NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 5060, that could all change.

According to a report from VideoCardz, NVIDIA has switched up its preview model before the card’s launch. Where it used to provide pre-release drivers to media outlets in exchange for comprehensive reviews, it’s instead now limited early access to outlets that agree to publish ‘previews’. 

Adding insult to injury, NVIDIA has a set of conditions that these outlets must agree to, meaning they’re in charge of what information consumers receive, rather than the outlets themselves.

NVIDIA ‘has apparently handpicked media who are willing to share the preview, and that itself was apparently the only way to obtain the drivers.’

This selective approach could mean we as consumers can expect less diverse perspectives prior to launch. Tom’s Hardware explains that this means day-one impressions ‘will largely be based on NVIDIA’s first-party metrics and the few reviewers who aren’t traveling.’

NVIDIA’s RTX 5060 Review Restrictions Limit Game Choices and Graphics Settings

So, what are NVIDIA’s parameters for the early testing and reporting during the ‘previews’? They want to:

• Limit the games allowed for benchmarking
• Only permit the RTX 5060 to be compared to specific other graphics cards, and 
• Specifying individual graphics settings

Though we don’t have a full list of the games allowed by NVIDIA, judging from already-published previews from Tom’s Guide and Techradar, the approved titles include Cyberpunk 2077, Avowed, Marvel Rivals, Hogwarts Legacy, and Doom: The Dark Ages – all games which have been optimized for NVIDIA GPUs.

According to Tom’s Hardware, NVIDIA won’t allow the RTX 5060 to be compared to the RTX 4060, only permitting comparisons with older cards such as the RTX 2060 Super and RTX 3060. 

Speaking to VideoCardz, GameStar Tech explained: “What’s particularly crucial is that we weren’t able to choose which graphics cards and games we would measure and with which settings for this preview.”

Should a card’s manufacturer really have such control over this type of content? Anyone who values independent journalism says a resounding ‘No.’ 

First Party “Tests” Can’t Always Be Trusted

Taking control of the testing environment in this way and dictating points for comparison means NVIDIA is steering the narrative. It wants these early previews to highlight the strengths of its latest card, while keeping under wraps any areas where it may fall short or fail to provide significant improvements over the last generation.

Cards are typically tested by playing a diverse array of game titles and at different graphical settings and resolutions, with many factors such as thermal performance, power consumption, and more taken into account to provide a balanced overview that should help consumers decide if the latest release is worth an upgrade.

NVIDIA has come under suspicion from tech outlets for its shady behavior in the past. During a previous round of reviews, the manufacturer intentionally didn’t launch the RTX 5060 with the 5060XT. It was thought this was to promote and receive positive reviews for the 16GB variant, while quietly putting the 8GB variant onto store shelves.

Overly positive early glimpses of the latest NVIDIA products could prompt consumers to purchase if they’re desperate to upgrade, but for those who want more in-depth analysis, the RTX 5060 review restrictions are stifling independent media coverage

Consumers Deserve Comprehensive Reviews and Competitor Comparisons

Constraints put in place by a manufacturer mean we’re not getting a full, comprehensive review of a product’s pros and cons. The ‘preview’ of the RTX 5060’s capabilities is distorted by these constraints, meaning we’ll never see how the card really compares to competitors from rival AMD, or previous generation cards from NVIDIA itself. Any negatives, like performance bottlenecks when playing specific tiles, also won’t be initially apparent.

Furthermore, NVIDIA’s latest move opens up a can of worms surrounding ‘access journalism.’ This is where media outlets feel they need to comply with demands from manufacturers so they can keep receiving samples for future reviews, exclusive interviews, and so on. It’s a valid and growing concern, according to a report by NotebookCheck.

NVIDIA seems like it’s trying to turn independent journalism into a PR effort for its own purposes. Controlling reviews in this way has many asking the question: Why doesn’t NVIDIA simply take a more ethical approach by paying for coverage and marking it as sponsored? 

Gamers Nexus Raises Ethical Concerns Over NVIDIA Pressure

In the NotebookCheck report, Gamers Nexus claims NVIDIA pressured them for over six months to include Multi-Frame Generation 4X (MFG4X) performance figures in their reviews, even when the graphics cards being tested didn’t support this feature. Understandably, Gamers Nexus found the request unethical and misleading for its reviewers and declined to comply.

Gamers Nexus then says that NVIDIA threatened to remove access to interviews with its engineers. Since GN isn’t paid by NVIDIA for their coverage, this is the best way to penalize them as this unique, expert content and technical insight helps them stand out from the competition and has proven popular with subscribers.

According to the report, ‘their continued availability was apparently made conditional on GN complying with NVIDIA’s editorial demands.’

Stephen Burke of GN spoke about this in more detail on a recent YouTube video, likening NVIDIA’s demands to ‘extortion.’

The alleged behavior is shocking, if true. Manufacturers behaving in this way bring the entire integrity of the review process into question and raises several ethical questions. Should manufacturers be using sanctions to influence how their products are covered?

Making this the norm could mean other media outlets are afraid to stray from the approved narrative and may not publish honest analysis, which is the whole point of reviews in the first place.

Part of the appeal of independent testing is just that: it’s independent. Some feel that makes it more credible than testing carried out by companies that have a financial stake in the matter. Whatever your views on it, there’s no denying that these controlled previews only benefit the chosen outlets and have the potential to harm the credibility and reputation of others.

FTC and Google Would Disagree with Nvidia’s Review Restrictions

Not to mention the fact that controlling coverage in this way expressly goes against Google’s EEAT guidelines for publishers. The EEAT guidelines, standing for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness, are designed to ensure content is helpful – but most importantly, that it can be trusted. NVIDIA’s move to influence reviews goes directly against this.

Moreover, the FTC in the US also has strict guidelines surrounding reviews, prohibiting businesses from “providing compensation or other incentives conditioned on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative.” This doesn’t have to be monetary – and could apply in the case of NVIDIA only providing outlets that comply with its demands with drivers.

It’s not the first time GN has raised questions about the way NVIDIA does business. In May 2024, they posted a video surrounding the manufacturer’s entrenched market dominance and how the ‘mere exposure effect’ could subconsciously influence consumers to buy NVIDIA products. 

Consumers May Need to Wait For Trusted, Independent Reviews

This move by NVIDIA could mean we all take a more critical view of the first wave of reviews when a new GPU is launched. If other manufacturers follow NVIDIA’s lead, we will likely all need to wait a week – or more – for independent reviews from trusted sources, carried out without any restrictions imposed by manufacturers. It’s that or rely on previews that don’t provide a full picture.

This ‘preview paradox’ surrounding the launch of the RTX 5060 is undoubtedly concerning. It’s something new – a dangerous shift towards a less transparent product launch. 

Influencing independent coverage at launch raises ethical questions and places a greater onus on consumers to ensure the reporting they’re reading is unbiased and comprehensive. 

There’s also pressure on media outlets to remain committed to providing the full, honest picture, even when faced with the risk of losing access to products or interviews in the future.

This practice has the potential to harm publishers’ ability to operate – particularly smaller independent outlets. There’s enough evidence available for a consumer to claim an outlet is going against best practices for reviews, as laid out by Google and the US FTC, opening them up to legal ramifications.

Ultimately, consumers deserve to be able to make informed choices. This puts that right at risk.