NV: Everything under control. 512-Fermi may appear someday. Yields aren't under 20%

[Lonyo]

So requiring NV graphics for hardware PhysX isn't anti-competitive? Because it sure seems like it would be considered so.

And if it's not anti-competitive, explain how (without parroting NV marketing/PR speak).

 

[NIGELG]

So requiring NV graphics for hardware PhysX isn't anti-competitive? Because it sure seems like it would be considered so.

And if it's not anti-competitive, explain how (without parroting NV marketing/PR speak).

Why bother??Just let the market takes it course.I have yet to see GPU PhysX take off in any significant way,but if it does you can bet there will be competition for it from somewhere if it's that good.Maybe it sucks ass and that's why no one is challenging it or maybe ATI is just plain lazy or extremely smart and waiting and waiting on a standard while Nvidia pumps their money into propriety PHysX which will die anyway.Maybe ATI is just focusing on making a smaller,quieter,cooler gaming card in the meantime while Nvidia churns out so called 'infernos' with features hardly anyone uses.
​

 

[BenSkywalker]

So requiring NV graphics for hardware PhysX isn't anti-competitive?

Absolutely not. Go down to GameStop and pick up Unchartered2, it requires a Playstation3 to play it. Is that anti competitive? Stating it is seems outright moronic honestly. If you own a PS3 and a 360, is it anti competitive that Sony won't let the game run on the 360? Seriously, it is hard to comprehend how anyone can seriously consider it anti competitive. I can only assume people who think that way have no clue about business outside of the graphics card market at all.

And if it's not anti-competitive, explain how (without parroting NV marketing/PR speak).

On a legal or ethical basis? Actually, either one- nVidia does not even have a plurality of their market, let alone a majority. They aren't capable of conducting themselves in a way that is legally anti competitive; and are the smallest player in the mainstream market by a decent amount(their biggest competitors are AMD and Intel, nV is the little guy here). How do you compete with larger companies? You offer your customers something the others don't. That is exactly what nV is doing. Stating they should be forced to allow their code to run on someone elses hardware- that would be anti competitive- the larger companies forcing the smaller play to conform.

Just let the market takes it course.

This is actually a better point- to be anti competitive you need to be capable of stopping the natural course of the market. nVidia isn't capable of that.

 

[Keysplayr]

So requiring NV graphics for hardware PhysX isn't anti-competitive? Because it sure seems like it would be considered so.

And if it's not anti-competitive, explain how (without parroting NV marketing/PR speak).

Like I said, folks have their minds made up. There's no point Lonyo. Really.

 

[Lonyo]

Absolutely not. Go down to GameStop and pick up Unchartered2, it requires a Playstation3 to play it. Is that anti competitive? Stating it is seems outright moronic honestly. If you own a PS3 and a 360, is it anti competitive that Sony won't let the game run on the 360? Seriously, it is hard to comprehend how anyone can seriously consider it anti competitive. I can only assume people who think that way have no clue about business outside of the graphics card market at all.


On a legal or ethical basis? Actually, either one- nVidia does not even have a plurality of their market, let alone a majority. They aren't capable of conducting themselves in a way that is legally anti competitive; and are the smallest player in the mainstream market by a decent amount(their biggest competitors are AMD and Intel, nV is the little guy here). How do you compete with larger companies? You offer your customers something the others don't. That is exactly what nV is doing. Stating they should be forced to allow their code to run on someone elses hardware- that would be anti competitive- the larger companies forcing the smaller play to conform.

If I buy a PS3 game, the code is different to if I buy an Xbox 360 game.
If I buy an ATI graphics card, will NV PhysX not work on a secondary NV card specifically for PhysX because there's a difference, or because NV says no?

Are you going to say that a game engine running on a (we'll assume Windows) PC has different physics depending on your graphics card? The reason that PhysX won't run on an NV secondary card when ATI is doing the graphics is because NV turned it off.

What's the reason an Xbox 360 game won't run on a PS3? Is it because the developer turned off that functionality, or because the game code is different?

But then, maybe it's like the car market!

(Also, I don't think it's illegally anti-competitive, but it is anti-competitive to disable a feature in the presence of a component from another company when said feature is unrelated to what said component does. I don't see how you could argue otherwise).

 

[nismotigerwvu]

It boils down to this, nVidia made the decision that drumming up ANY PR (including backlash) is better than PhysX wasting away in complete obscurity. They are trying to leverage the whole "want what you can't have" angle as well as moving it up as a debating topic. The likely outcome is a short-term gain but in the end, vendor-agnostic physics will win out, just like the whole glide story played out.

 

[Attic]

nVidia's attempt to isolate game effects that can easily be enabled for all gamers solely enabled on nVidia hardware is bad for gamers, it doesn't take a huge intellect to see that. It might be good for nVidia, or nVidia employees in short term, however even that is unclear.

The analogies Ben is using to Defend nVidia continue to get worse. We are not talking about console exclusives here, it has no relevance on the argument at hand. Uncharted 2 being a PS3 exclusive has no bearing on the argument concerning nVidia splitting the PC gaming market by locking out game effects from running on it's competitors hardware, game effects that can be easily run on it's competitors hardware. PC owners aren't complaing about not being able to play Uncharted 2, they realize it was made for the PS3, but if Uncharted 2 was a PC title, you can damn well expect PC gamers would expect to run the game to the full potential of what their PC is capable of without artifical limitations struck in back room deals between developers and GPU makers.

In this thread you've got a nVidia Focus group member and a few nVidia loyalists defending nVidias recent moves to isolate gaming effects that can and should be run on all hardware soley on nVidia GPU's. I find it hard to imagine an honest gamer with any integrity taking that stance. However, given that nVidia is a company that pays people to spread guerilla marketing on internet forums, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that nVidia's stance is in fact being defended. Perhaps if nVidia spent less resources on questionable tactics they wouldn't need to relie on harming PC gamers who don't buy their GPU's in an attempt to secure market share.

 

[evolucion8]

I understand nVidia's PhysX approach, and their actions condemned the wide adoption of PhysX in the PC gaming market. But adding standard features like Anti Aliasing on an engine with propietary code is provoking a split in the gaming PC market. The users might had made up their minds, but so the developers like Ubisoft, Assassin Creed 2 is now a DX9 tittle which will run fine in any platform, other developers just uses PhysX sparingly, why? Because they don't want to make a game too exclusive to a hardware vendor in which will stagnate the game sales.

Bear in mind that games currently run in a propietary platform driven by Microsoft called DirectX, not NVAPI or PhysX or CUDA, adding more standards will simply split the market affecting the PC gaming platform more. ATi created standards which were adopted by Microsoft like 3dc known now as BC5, Truform aka Tessellation, Fetch4 known as Gather4, stuff that benefits everybody including nVidia and not only a single vendor. If you want competition, do your best with the DirectX API, optimize it, tweak it, add more features, not propietary crap.

 

[Madcatatlas]

nVidia's attempt to isolate game effects that can easily be enabled for all gamers solely enabled on nVidia hardware is bad for gamers, it doesn't take a huge intellect to see that. It might be good for nVidia, or nVidia employees in short term, however even that is unclear.

The analogies Ben is using to Defend nVidia continue to get worse. We are not talking about console exclusives here, it has no relevance on the argument at hand. Uncharted 2 being a PS3 exclusive has no bearing on the argument concerning nVidia splitting the PC gaming market by locking out game effects from running on it's competitors hardware, game effects that can be easily run on it's competitors hardware. PC owners aren't complaing about not being able to play Uncharted 2, they realize it was made for the PS3, but if Uncharted 2 was a PC title, you can damn well expect PC gamers would expect to run the game to the full potential of what their PC is capable of without artifical limitations struck in back room deals between developers and GPU makers.

In this thread you've got a nVidia Focus group member and a few nVidia loyalists defending nVidias recent moves to isolate gaming effects that can and should be run on all hardware soley on nVidia GPU's. I find it hard to imagine an honest gamer with any integrity taking that stance. However, given that nVidia is a company that pays people to spread guerilla marketing on internet forums, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that nVidia's stance is in fact being defended. Perhaps if nVidia spent less resources on questionable tactics they wouldn't need to relie on harming PC gamers who don't buy their GPU's in an attempt to secure market share.

+1

 

[Madcatatlas]

If I buy a PS3 game, the code is different to if I buy an Xbox 360 game.
If I buy an ATI graphics card, will NV PhysX not work on a secondary NV card specifically for PhysX because there's a difference, or because NV says no?

Are you going to say that a game engine running on a (we'll assume Windows) PC has different physics depending on your graphics card? The reason that PhysX won't run on an NV secondary card when ATI is doing the graphics is because NV turned it off.

What's the reason an Xbox 360 game won't run on a PS3? Is it because the developer turned off that functionality, or because the game code is different?

But then, maybe it's like the car market!

(Also, I don't think it's illegally anti-competitive, but it is anti-competitive to disable a feature in the presence of a component from another company when said feature is unrelated to what said component does. I don't see how you could argue otherwise).

+1

 

[blanketyblank]

Absolutely not. Go down to GameStop and pick up Unchartered2, it requires a Playstation3 to play it. Is that anti competitive? Stating it is seems outright moronic honestly. If you own a PS3 and a 360, is it anti competitive that Sony won't let the game run on the 360? Seriously, it is hard to comprehend how anyone can seriously consider it anti competitive. I can only assume people who think that way have no clue about business outside of the graphics card market at all.



On a legal or ethical basis? Actually, either one- nVidia does not even have a plurality of their market, let alone a majority. They aren't capable of conducting themselves in a way that is legally anti competitive; and are the smallest player in the mainstream market by a decent amount(their biggest competitors are AMD and Intel, nV is the little guy here). How do you compete with larger companies? You offer your customers something the others don't. That is exactly what nV is doing. Stating they should be forced to allow their code to run on someone elses hardware- that would be anti competitive- the larger companies forcing the smaller play to conform.



This is actually a better point- to be anti competitive you need to be capable of stopping the natural course of the market. nVidia isn't capable of that.

That is exactly the problem. If NVidia has its way we will have a split for all PC game titles just like we do for game consoles where all developers will be selling several versions of the same game for different consoles. Or worse have exclusive games released on only one console. NVidia however unlike Microsoft is being cheap about it, and instead of buying developers outright to make exclusive games is paying only a small amount through TWIMTBP and adding a few minor(read not widely adopted) features.

Unless NV comes out with a must have feature that they can restrict the competition from adopting, all this strategy does is delay the adoption of new features since developers don't want to lose a good chunk of their market for the pittance NV pays now. Otherwise they should just bite the bullet and buy out developers and produce their own games like MS and Nintendo are doing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If I buy a PS3 game, the code is different to if I buy an Xbox 360 game.
If I buy an ATI graphics card, will NV PhysX not work on a secondary NV card specifically for PhysX because there's a difference, or because NV says no?

Are you going to say that a game engine running on a (we'll assume Windows) PC has different physics depending on your graphics card? The reason that PhysX won't run on an NV secondary card when ATI is doing the graphics is because NV turned it off.

What's the reason an Xbox 360 game won't run on a PS3? Is it because the developer turned off that functionality, or because the game code is different?

But then, maybe it's like the car market!

(Also, I don't think it's illegally anti-competitive, but it is anti-competitive to disable a feature in the presence of a component from another company when said feature is unrelated to what said component does. I don't see how you could argue otherwise).

Don't bother. For some of these guys, Jen-Hsun could fly out to their mother's home and punch her in the face on mother's day and they'll still defend Nvidia.

 

[Skurge]

Don't bother. For some of these guys, Jen-Hsun could fly out to their mother's home and punch her in the face on mother's day and they'll still defend Nvidia.

lol, brilliant.

 

[evolucion8]

Don't bother. For some of these guys, Jen-Hsun could fly out to their mother's home and punch her in the face on mother's day and they'll still defend Nvidia.

One of the most impacting posts ever!! It will be tagged to my signature!

You are one of the very few members of this forum along with others like Lonyo which are very neutral in terms of vendor preferences and love the facts and truth without loyalism or justifications.

 

[ZimZum]

Don't bother. For some of these guys, Jen-Hsun could fly out to their mother's home and punch her in the face on mother's day and they'll still defend Nvidia.

Hey, the old lady had it comin.

 

[extra]

So requiring NV graphics for hardware PhysX isn't anti-competitive? Because it sure seems like it would be considered so.

And if it's not anti-competitive, explain how (without parroting NV marketing/PR speak).

It's not anti-competitive. PhysX is like Glide was back in the day kinda. Slightly useful, but it wasn't really relevant to most PC gaming--but did help push 3d mainstream. Was it anti-competitive because only 3dfx had glide? No. Simply due to the market realities of the situation. PhysX is slightly useful in some games, not relevant to most, but it is helping the push for better physics along!

If Microsoft said DX12 will only work on Nvidia (or ATI) hardware...that WOULD be anti-competitive--completely different market reality if that happened. Buyers would be forced into one or the other to play games released for the PC, etc. It'd make it so companies *could not* compete.

PhysX isn't like that at all. It's like a small added bonus to a very small number of things. Hell, has anyone even played a game where PhysX did something that even mattered? I haven't. lol. It doesn't stop ATI/Intel/Microsoft/whoever from coming up with a competing physics processing system (and in fact there are some that are much more widely used than PhysX is!)

However, nvidia blocking PhysX if you have ati card in your system was really immature of them and will cost the company sales in the long run (hopefully Keys and other Nvidia forum reps have given them some feedback on what a poor move that was--companies do listen to their customers and I wouldn't be surprised if enough negative feedback caused them to rethink their position there).

 

[SlowSpyder]

One of the most impacting posts ever!! It will be tagged to my signature!

You are one of the very few members of this forum along with others like Lonyo which are very neutral in terms of vendor preferences and love the facts and truth without loyalism or justifications.

Thanks, not sure if I've ever been quoted in a sig before.

To be 100% honest I've always preferred AMD processors, but I have absolutely no problem recommending Intel or stating that they make some very nice hardware... it's hard to argue with how good the i series processors are.

When it comes to video cards, I really can't complain about either company (other than some very minor GeForce driver issues with the 7 series) and have no problem recommending either depending on what someone wants. I just honestly feel that right now AMD has a more well rounded part, though both camps have certain unique strengths.

Anyway, I get fanboyism to some extent, but I just wish more people could see past it when they post. < shrug >

 

[YBS1]

However, nvidia blocking PhysX if you have ati card in your system was really immature of them and will cost the company sales in the long run (hopefully Keys and other Nvidia forum reps have given them some feedback on what a poor move that was--companies do listen to their customers and I wouldn't be surprised if enough negative feedback caused them to rethink their position there).

You're correct on this point I would have to believe. This type of behavior from nVidia is the reason I don't have SLI'ed GTX 480's in my system right now. Simply a distaste for the way nVidia conducts themselves has me waiting on the next gen ATI products.

 

[BenSkywalker]

We are not talking about console exclusives here, it has no relevance on the argument at hand.

In legal terms it has everything to do with it. nV's hardware, they decide what it runs on and what doesn't. IIRC the case deciding these elements was Tengen vs Nintendo, but it has been ~25 years since that case went through the court systems. Someone that creates their own hardware is allowed to determine what code will run on it and is legally allowed to lock out code when run on a system that isn't matching their standards. Furthermore, bypassing such standards is on a legal basis illegal even if possible on a technical basis(the original case was revolving around a third party creating carts that could run on the 8bit NES but were not producced by Nintendo).

The comparison to console games I used because it has determined as a point of fact that nVidia's actions are not anti competitive and have been explicitly spelled out in a court of law. I apologize if this contradicts certain members beliefs, I know He that is divine has told you to think a different way and you are so required to do so, but the law is the law. By explicit definition it is not anti competitive.

But adding standard features like Anti Aliasing on an engine with propietary code is provoking a split in the gaming PC market.

ATi could have written code themselves so their users could have the same benefit. ATi decided that their customers weren't good enough to spend money on. I understand again, He that is divine told the faithful that that is somehow nVidia's fault. ATi was too cheap to support its' customers period. nV spent the money, ATi didn't. It is 100&#37; ATi's fault that they don't have the exact same level of support that nVidia does in that game. You can all praise Him and demand that welfare is handed out so they can be cheap, but reality is that They had the option and They said to hell with you all.

 

[waffleironhead]

I think the real focus of all these actions regardless of legal/illegal, anti-competitive, etc. is somewhere else. Did these actions help to increase revenue and brand loyalty or did they end up turning people off? I agree they can do whatever they want with code/hardware/whatever that they produce, but i question whether it was smart to do it. They could have easily just left the feature off by default and allowed users to turn it on at their own risk. They could have gotten past the whole incompatibility issue and avoided any negative feelings from current and potential customers.

 

[Skurge]

ATi could have written code themselves so their users could have the same benefit. ATi decided that their customers weren't good enough to spend money on. I understand again, He that is divine told the faithful that that is somehow nVidia's fault. ATi was too cheap to support its' customers period. nV spent the money, ATi didn't. It is 100% ATi's fault that they don't have the exact same level of support that nVidia does in that game. You can all praise Him and demand that welfare is handed out so they can be cheap, but reality is that They had the option and They said to hell with you all.

This post CLEARLY shows your bias.

AMD wanted to add their own AA code into the game, before and after release. Eidos or nV made sure it wouldnt apear in the game.

So nV doesnt think its customers are worth the money to add DX11 effects to COP, DIRT2, Battleforge, AvP, BC2. and AMD should lock those effects from working on nV hardware?

 

[evolucion8]

This post CLEARLY shows your bias.

AMD wanted to add their own AA code into the game, before and after release. Eidos or nV made sure it wouldnt apear in the game.

So nV doesnt think its customers are worth the money to add DX11 effects to COP, DIRT2, Battleforge, AvP, BC2. and AMD should lock those effects from working on nV hardware?

To underscore what you already posted, What nVidia think of it's customers? Fooling them making rehashes the same GPU so many times, delaying DX10.1 adoption and shovering down propietary stuff a'la Apple instead of DX11 for the future?

 

[Outrage]

ATi could have written code themselves so their users could have the same benefit. ATi decided that their customers weren't good enough to spend money on. I understand again, He that is divine told the faithful that that is somehow nVidia's fault. ATi was too cheap to support its' customers period. nV spent the money

ATI spent there money helping devs implementing DX 11 in there games. Features that everyone benefits from, not only users of there own GPU's. I dont know about you, but me as a gamer thinks my money is better spent at a company that don't spend my money developing features trying to force me to buy there products in the future also.

Nvidia is trying to split up the pc gaming market, my money wont help there cause.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Absolutely not. Go down to GameStop and pick up Unchartered2, it requires a Playstation3 to play it. Is that anti competitive? Stating it is seems outright moronic honestly. If you own a PS3 and a 360, is it anti competitive that Sony won't let the game run on the 360? Seriously, it is hard to comprehend how anyone can seriously consider it anti competitive. I can only assume people who think that way have no clue about business outside of the graphics card market at all.

The PC is a platform just like the PS3 is. I think a more apt analogy for what Nvidia did with PhysX would be having a game like Uncharted 2 play on new, slim PS3's but not the old fat ones. While Nvidia's reversal of allowing PhysX to run alongside other graphics hardware after having bought the company may not be legally anticompetitive, it's a disingenuous way to treat their customers, and a slight to the PC platform altogether. PC gaming is fragmenting itself further and further, in a time when console gaming is continuing to gain marketshare. Creating more Nvidia or ATI-exclusive features isn't exactly great for PC gaming as a platform.

ATi could have written code themselves so their users could have the same benefit. ATi decided that their customers weren't good enough to spend money on. I understand again, He that is divine told the faithful that that is somehow nVidia's fault. ATi was too cheap to support its' customers period. nV spent the money, ATi didn't. It is 100&#37; ATi's fault that they don't have the exact same level of support that nVidia does in that game.

OK, I don't think that you have a pro-NV or anti ATI slant, Ben, but statements like this are really treading that line. You make it sound like ATI just doesn't give a crap; obviously it was a question of resource allocation, and ATI felt that their money was better spent in other areas. I seriously doubt they had a board meeting and decided "You know what, we can easily implement this feature, but F-it, our customers just aren't good enough to deserve this feature!"

 

[Madcatatlas]

OK, I don't think that you have a pro-NV or anti ATI slant, Ben, but statements like this are really treading that line. You make it sound like ATI just doesn't give a crap; obviously it was a question of resource allocation, and ATI felt that their money was better spent in other areas. I seriously doubt they had a board meeting and decided "You know what, we can easily implement this feature, but F-it, our customers just aren't good enough to deserve this feature!"

you "dont think that he has a pro NV and anti ATI slant"?

Whats it gonna take? the atlantic splitting to let you see france?

Its a free world mate, you can think and stand for whatever you belive in, not what others want you to think or belive in.