I think a lot of people would like a review where the reviewer did not collaborate at all with the manufacturer.
I think we would be well served by having both reviewers who sign NDA, so we can have day 1 coverage, and reviewers that don't sign NDAs, so they can be hyper critical if they want to be. But not because I think this NDA gags reviewers for 5 years, but because once you go down the hyper critical review option, you probably won't be invited to take part in the next launch.
As far is the NDA itself. I believe this is what is being discussed:
https://www.hardocp.com/image/MTUyOTk1MDM5M3R6ZzJzcDU1ZnFfMV8xX2wucG5n
The 5 year period is kind of bizarre, but that is seems to only be for confidential info that was revealed to you, and then NEVER made public.
Section 3 (Termination of Obligation) indicates that
once the information is public, the obligation is over. NVidia no longer has any hold on you.
So I don't see this as any kind of long term "control" unless it is for some Confidential info that was revealed, but then never made public. You would basically not be allowed to use that information for a period of 5 years.
Bottom line:
I think NVidia was dumb for writing 5 years into the details, as it has potential to freak people out, and now some people are freaking out and overreacting to something that will almost certainly expire on Sept 14 when the embargo lifts.
Also HardOCP has turned into DramaOCP in recent years. Before the recent NVidia spat, I remember an AMD Spat.