• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Isn't what NVIDIA is doing an abuse of market power?

goot

Member
By placing their logo on the opening scene of just about every game (ie, "the way it's meant to be played"), isn't that anti-competitive?

I mean, it's like saying if you buy this game you "should" or "must" use NVIDIA. There is absolutely no mention of ATI.

Someone who is naive will probably think ATI won't work with the latest games and purchase NVIDIA. I'm surprised ATI haven't sued NVIDIA over this.

 
LOL
Goot, you're a nut.
What exactly do you think ATI would sue for? What law has nVidia broken by partnering with the game developers?
I've got news for you: if you give them enough money, there could be a game that says: "Goot Graphics- the way it's meant to be played".
 
While there is nothing wrong with what nVidia is doing, I think Goot's point is that this may sway people toward nVidia and away from ATI simply because they don't know any better and the game is saying you need, or "should have" a nVidia card. This is like 3dfx putting stickers on game boxes back in the day saying you needed a 3dfx card to run the game in 3d. They had to back off that one and replaced them with stickers stating that the game would run "best" on a 3dfx card. Once more we may be seeing the ugly head of the old 3dfx marketing department rearing up out of nVidia's belly. Still, it is perfectly legal. :evil:
 
ATI does the same thing. I forget which game it is, but I have a game that displays a big ass ATI logo when it starts up.
 
Halle Berry doesn't drink diet pepsi on camera because she really likes it, she does it because she's paid to. Same with nike swooshes on athletes, STP / penzoil stickers on race cars, Scooby-do on candy boxes. Paid endorsements like these are all perfectly legal. The fact that weak-minded fools think buying nike shoes will let let play better than with other brands is their own stupidity.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Halle Berry doesn't drink diet pepsi on camera because she really likes it, she does it because she's paid to. Same with nike swooshes on athletes, STP / penzoil stickers on race cars, Scooby-do on candy boxes. Paid endorsements like these are all perfectly legal. The fact that weak-minded fools think buying nike shoes will let let play better than with other brands is their own stupidity.

But Britney Spears does... doesn't she?
 
well then I'll never drink pepsi again..

It isn't abuse of market power, its just advertising. And many games with the label run faster on ATI cards, which is pretty ironic..
 
By placing their logo on the opening scene of just about every game (ie, "the way it's meant to be played"), isn't that anti-competitive?
The developer chooses to put that logo there, not nVidia.
 
it's called aggressive marketing, and like rollo said they're not breaking any laws , but like others said it would sway newbies to computers thinking that company is the best choice for that game while infact it could be the opposite.
Although ati does it too but it's only in a minority of games. It's all about money and aggressive marketing ,if one company is willing to spend more money on certain advertisement than their competitors ,that may sway new buyers to buying their products. I have to give it to nvidia on this one they're much better at marketing than ati's
 
"The developer chooses to put that logo there, not nVidia. "

Where did you get that idea or info sir. your right in a way, that the developer does choose which company they want , usually after being offered more money by their competitors or being sponsored by them in some way
 
The developer owns the application and therefore nVidia would require powers of mind control to force them to bundle such a logo against their will.
 
Where I feel it's an abuse of market power is if NVIDIA and the game developer enter into an agreement such that the developer agrees every game it develops in the future will be customised for NVIDIA.

Surely that would constitute exclusive dealing or 2nd line forcing?
 
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: goot
At least from an advertising perspective, why doesn't ATI do the same?

I'd guess it has something to do with money, or the lack there of.

they have no problem blowing bux on a game that they ended up not being able to ship with the card and who knows how long till it actually hits
 
"The developer owns the application and therefore nVidia would require powers of mind control to force them to bundle such a logo against their will. "

let's say you have a new low budget game company and wanted to develope a game just as good as let's say half life2 or doom3, but you don't have enough $$ to do so. Then ati came along and offer you let's say $1000 to place their logo in your game ,but that doesn't even cover pen and pencils for your company and will not help you in any way. then came nvidia offering you $ 50,000 to advertise their logo,that
surely will help you develope a much better game . Than what would you do ?

a) take ati's offer ,but then you'll develope a bad low budget game

or

b) take nvidia's offer and have money to develope a better game

it doesn't take mind control or brute force to sway your decisions , it usually takes$$$$$$
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: goot
At least from an advertising perspective, why doesn't ATI do the same?

I'd guess it has something to do with money, or the lack there of.

they have no problem blowing bux on a game that they ended up not being able to ship with the card and who knows how long till it actually hits

Well you can't do everything. And if some form of that deal sticks around, it could end up paying itself back.
 
Back
Top