I don't think they're conspiracies. I'm relatively new to DF, and subbed their channel because I find their technical analysis interesting. I can pick and choose what I care to believe from it, but the content is good IMO.
However, I think their critics have justification for feeling their system of choice is unfairly treated, as there are legitimate inconsistencies in the videos. PS reveal videos got wacky zoom, and speculation on framerates. The showcase demo of the MS show didn't get that same level of detail. We can all agree the game looked disappointing, but you don't need DF to tell you that. The zoom and framerate talk was expected to the same degree as the PS show, even if it meant picking apart a turd. That stink isn't supposed to be DF's concern, they'd merely be consistent in quality of analysis.
this is because as mentioned the showcase didnt have the games running on an xbox... PS showcase had the games running on PS5 so there is actual point to digging into it
Similarly, there were no mentions of what made FF16 look so underwhelming, along the same lines as Halo. FF clearly suffers from poor lighting, among other missing effects, but while Halo got an entire video dedicated to pointing out how the poor lighting impacted the overall visuals, FF received no such treatment.
I mean this is obvious... Halo is a huge 1st party game where it was supposed to be next gen showcase for MS, it got enourmous backlash so it makes sense for them to cover it. FF, until recently, was never a great looking game so its not a shock nor was there huge outcry... it needs to be mentioned that they can't make videos on everything! so priorities
In the Hitman2 analysis, the worst portion of the benchmark shifted from the easy-to-read frame counter to a percentage based readout, which could be inferred as masking how bad the framerate truly was for an extended portion of that scene. IIRC, that section was also sped up, making the duration of those framerate drops seem less.
again, this percentage thing is something they have done alot recently, especially in the 3080 video. Its a way to show percentage improvement, they showed raw numbers for a very long time too so i dont see problem again... this sounds like "they didnt shit on it long enough", i could tell hitman didnt run well in that neighborhood map, i dont need to see it for 20mins
These aren't conspiracies so much as these are notable inconsistencies in presentation. I mentioned how trusted review/analyst sites make a point of creating standards when generating their content, as to provide comparable results, and to avoid the impression of bias. DF isn't some upstart review site trying to gain its footing, and establish its reputation. They've been around long enough to know better, and these are grown men who should be open to constructive criticism in order to allow themselves to improve. They don't seem to be heeding any of the feedback, which isn't helping to improve their standing with their critics. They might not care to do so, and that's their prerogative. However, I don't think you can write off criticism of their methods as just conspiracies, because I think that diminishes the claims of bias, that DF themselves have opened themselves up to with their continued sloppy approach to graphics analysis. It is what it is.
anything thats not post launch, they dont have any obligation to cover... most of what you said is for pre released games so videos arent consistent and they cover whats new and hot, it wil get consistent when these systems launch and they have concrete and fair comparisons they can do