Nvidia for Better Or Worse

[Dribble]

Saw this link on [ H ], for all those that don't visit that site or pcper this is worth a read:
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=791

 

[Lonyo]

In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

So he's comparing vendor specific implementations of things to vendor neutral use of DirectX versions that one vendor has chosen not to support as of yet. That's a bit silly.
Whether you agree with the NV decisions or not, getting people to use DX10.1 or DX11 stuff isn't going to hurt the consumer in the long run since you can be sure that both ATI and NV will (eventually) support everything up to DX11.
That one side is currently behind isn't working against the consumer, in fact if anything it pressures the company that's behind to catch up.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

So he's comparing vendor specific implementations of things to vendor neutral use of DirectX versions that one vendor has chosen not to support as of yet. That's a bit silly.
Whether you agree with the NV decisions or not, getting people to use DX10.1 or DX11 stuff isn't going to hurt the consumer in the long run since you can be sure that both ATI and NV will (eventually) support everything up to DX11.
That one side is currently behind isn't working against the consumer, in fact if anything it pressures the company that's behind to catch up.

Agreed. Delaying a game to incorporate niche Nvidia only features is not comparable to delaying a game to incorporate new features that are part of a standard that any card can run.

 

[Keysplayr]

Excuse me? I thought that Eidos offered to implement the same feature Nvidia did, but AMD declined? Then they have the brass balls to become Nvidias accuser. I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy. I mean come on. For all the things you complain about Nvidia, for sh*t sure you can't say they aren't the innovators out of the two. But you will anyway.

 

[MarcVenice]

Kinda offtopic, because I think the whole batman thing has become a he said, no he said thing, but I dare say Nvidia aren't the innovators. Open standards bring about innovation. Closed standards don't. I'd infact say Nvidia is stalling innovation to some degree. They are trying to innovate with gpgpu-apps, yet they stop said innovation dead in it's tracks, by using closed standards. Man, what would public perception be if Nvidia just was doing things FOR gamers, instead of agains them. Oh, and, this is my opinion, nothing more of course ...

 

[Munky]

In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that.

I really find this hard to believe, and it doesn't even make sense. Who licensed UE3 tech, Eidos or Nvidia? Does Nvidia know something about UE3 that Eidos doesn't? Who's the friggin developer FFS, Eidos or Nvidia?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Excuse me? I thought that Eidos offered to implement the same feature Nvidia did, but AMD declined? Then they have the brass balls to become Nvidias accuser. I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy. I mean come on. For all the things you complain about Nvidia, for sh*t sure you can't say they aren't the innovators out of the two. But you will anyway.

Yes they are super lazy.

They should already have a program in their website so ppl could change their vendor information from ATI to nVidia and then be able to use those so vendor specific features like AA...

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Kinda offtopic, because I think the whole batman thing has become a he said, no he said thing, but I dare say Nvidia aren't the innovators. Open standards bring about innovation. Closed standards don't. I'd infact say Nvidia is stalling innovation to some degree. They are trying to innovate with gpgpu-apps, yet they stop said innovation dead in it's tracks, by using closed standards. Man, what would public perception be if Nvidia just was doing things FOR gamers, instead of agains them. Oh, and, this is my opinion, nothing more of course ...

I don't think closed or open standards have that much impact on innovation. Take OpenGL for example -- it's open (input open to many in the public, voted by some board), yet it's slow in the innovation front. On the other hand, DirectX is closed (input given only to select people chosen by Microsoft), yet it's pushing and setting the pace for graphics. I'm not going to argue if MS is going in the right direction or not, but I think it's clear that there are many cases for and against each.

As a PC developer, open or closed standards don't mean anything. The only thing that matters is your bottom line and support costs. If you can't hit enough of an audience with a particular rendering feature that only runs on small set of cards (due to driver issues and/or hardware support), you're sh*t out of luck no matter if it's open or closed.

As a console developer, you don't really care if it's open or closed. As long as you can do what you want to do fast enough on whatever hardware is handed to you, then that's the best hardware for you. More importantly, if you do choose to use some open standard, you'll end up with a game that runs a magnitude slower than the competition (no kidding...but maybe it's less now).

Obviously, I'm just writing the counter examples. I'm sure there are numerous examples where open standards are good, such as TCP/IP or what not. Really, it all depends on the standards committee, how fast it can push things, and how they can get hardware vendor/software developers to adopt their models (and probably many other factors I've missed). If they suck at that, then that standard is dead in the water. If they're good, then, well, I don't need to say much more. =)

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: munky

In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that.

I really find this hard to believe, and it doesn't even make sense. Who licensed UE3 tech, Eidos or Nvidia? Does Nvidia know something about UE3 that Eidos doesn't? Who's the friggin developer FFS, Eidos or Nvidia?

If we're talking about the AA support on the pushbuffer level, then I think it's possible that nVidia did go out of their way to expose certain hardware commands for Eidos. That or he could've simply mistyped NVIDIA for Epic. *shrugs*

On the other hand, who licensed UE3 tech doesn't really matter. I'm sure Epic got a sh*tton of support from nVidia when they were making their engine. nVidia probably knows a lot of the hardware interactions that Epic needed to get decent performance out of the engine. So no, nVidia probably didn't license the engine from Epic (because they don't need to), but they probably know a lot more about it than anyone else other than Epic themselves.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy.

Fanboyism. Lulz.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Kinda offtopic, because I think the whole batman thing has become a he said, no he said thing, but I dare say Nvidia aren't the innovators. Open standards bring about innovation. Closed standards don't. I'd infact say Nvidia is stalling innovation to some degree. They are trying to innovate with gpgpu-apps, yet they stop said innovation dead in it's tracks, by using closed standards. Man, what would public perception be if Nvidia just was doing things FOR gamers, instead of agains them. Oh, and, this is my opinion, nothing more of course ...

Right, how is Nvidia this amazing innovative company? They make solid products, I'm not trying to take that away, but what has been their 'omg!' innovation?

StereoVision? That was available on my Sega Master System.
Physx? No, they bought a company that innovated that.
Well, at least they push the the envolope by supporthing the latest DX releases and process technologies. Oh, wait.
Opening cans of whoop ass? Yea.

Other than GPGPU I guess I don't see it.

*Edit - For the record, I'm sure Nvidia has to innovate to create their GPU's in time to be competitive. But they seem pretty arrogant as if it's still the 8800 vs. 2900 days, and they can say or do whatever they want without backlash.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Excuse me? I thought that Eidos offered to implement the same feature Nvidia did, but AMD declined? Then they have the brass balls to become Nvidias accuser. I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy. I mean come on. For all the things you complain about Nvidia, for sh*t sure you can't say they aren't the innovators out of the two. But you will anyway.

I swear to God I have no idea why they (NV) are paying you - most of the time you only post ludicrously childish and nonsensical excuses in defense of Nvidia...

... you are more of like a liability for them, at least from here where I sit.

PS: it is rather insulting when you think you can fool anyone with these really cheap excuses, y'know.

 

[dguy6789]

PhysX is not innovation, PhysX is closed standard garbage.

 

[Schmide]

Keysplayr. Just wondering.

Does it at all matter how they implemented it, DirectX standard calls/capabilities or direct card communication?

Same argument in the other tread. Do standards count for anything?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Excuse me? I thought that Eidos offered to implement the same feature Nvidia did, but AMD declined? Then they have the brass balls to become Nvidias accuser. I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy. I mean come on. For all the things you complain about Nvidia, for sh*t sure you can't say they aren't the innovators out of the two. But you will anyway.

I swear to God I have no idea why they (NV) are paying you - most of the time you only post ludicrously childish and nonsensical excuses in defense of Nvidia...

... you are more of like a liability for them, at least from here where I sit.

PS: it is rather insulting when you think you can fool anyone with these really cheap excuses, y'know.

Yeah, I'm trying to fool you. So that means you are speaking for AMD and categorically denying that AMD declined Eidos's offer to send engineers to their studios for an in-game implementation for them? Because this is EXACTLY what you are telling everybody here when you say "I" am the one trying to fool people. Would you have them convinced that AMD is the victim when that is clearly not the case? Apparently you would, but the question is... why?
Jesus man, even I can admit being less than thrilled about the PhsyX lock-out. But you guys.. Hehehehe.... You guys will not budge. Not a nanometer.

Are you going to take the low road? Or the "HIGH ROAD"?

EDITED: bold ^ Felt it may have been insulting.

Something you should see as well.

HardwareCanuks

 

[Mr Fox]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Excuse me? I thought that Eidos offered to implement the same feature Nvidia did, but AMD declined? Then they have the brass balls to become Nvidias accuser. I think you guys are really overlooking what kind of company AMD/ATI is. SUPER poor, or SUPER lazy. I mean come on. For all the things you complain about Nvidia, for sh*t sure you can't say they aren't the innovators out of the two. But you will anyway.

I swear to God I have no idea why they (NV) are paying you - most of the time you only post ludicrously childish and nonsensical excuses in defense of Nvidia...

... you are more of like a liability for them, at least from here where I sit.

PS: it is rather insulting when you think you can fool anyone with these really cheap excuses, y'know.

Enough of this Crap... Personal Attacks are not needed here...

nV is fading..... Enough said...

They have been run out of the Core Logic Chipset business..(Thank God !)

The PhysX Argument is about a Niche Market (12 Applications) that will die soon.(Unless they further subsidize the development of another)

The rest of this stuff is minutia...

The big picture is that Grand Nagus Huang needs to focus upon the core business, and get right with their customers, or they will see the voice of the customer just as they did in the Chipsets.

Hate The Nagus....

The rest you are arguing over Petty Shit......

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Mr Fox
Enough of this Crap... Personal Attacks are not needed here...

It may be personal business, put on the public stage because we're talking about it, but it isn't a personal attack. It is darn good business to validate/invalidate one's sources based information that could drive their motivation.

Logically anyone with "Member of Nvidia Focus Group" in their signature has enough bias to justify the above interjection.

Don't you spell nVidia with a small "n" capital "V" ?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Yeah, I'm trying to fool you. So that means you are speaking for AMD and categorically denying that AMD declined Eidos's offer to send engineers to their studios for an in-game implementation for them? Because this is EXACTLY what you are telling everybody here when you say "I" am the one trying to fool people. Would you have them convinced that AMD is the victim when that is clearly not the case? Apparently you would, but the question is... why?

Mutual exclusivity? Just because someone disagrees with the totality of a statement does not necessary mean they are arguing the complete opposite of every single point. Especially if they're not directly contradicting it. You said a lot more than that one statement, yet infer its truth based on decent towards your motivations/history on this topic.

I'm sure Edios offered AMD the same access they gave nVidia. The real question is the AA lockout justified if the operations that support it are part of the DirectX standard, for which nVidia and ATI/AMD both subscribe.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Mr Fox
Enough of this Crap... Personal Attacks are not needed here...

It may be personal business, put on the public stage because we're talking about it, but it isn't a personal attack. It is darn good business to validate/invalidate one's sources based information that could drive their motivation.

Logically anyone with "Member of Nvidia Focus Group" in their signature has enough bias to justify the above interjection.

Don't you spell nVidia with a small "n" capital "V" ?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Yeah, I'm trying to fool you. So that means you are speaking for AMD and categorically denying that AMD declined Eidos's offer to send engineers to their studios for an in-game implementation for them? Because this is EXACTLY what you are telling everybody here when you say "I" am the one trying to fool people. Would you have them convinced that AMD is the victim when that is clearly not the case? Apparently you would, but the question is... why?

Mutual exclusivity? Just because someone disagrees with the totality of a statement does not necessary mean they are arguing the complete opposite of every single point. Especially if they're not directly contradicting it. You said a lot more than that one statement, yet infer its truth based on decent towards your motivations/history on this topic.

I'm sure Edios offered AMD the same access they gave nVidia. The real question is the AA lockout justified if the operations that support it are part of the DirectX standard, for which nVidia and ATI/AMD both subscribe.

Waitaminute. You think that if Nvidia's AA implementation is part of the DX standard, that AMD should have every right to run it just the same? Nvidia wrote the code along with Eidos devs to get in-game AA working on their cards. Something the UE did not support natively (god only knows why). AMD would not do it. They knew about it, but did n-o-t-h-i-n-g. But you still feel they should gain from it. Not be locked out from it.

And why wasn't AMD there? Taking care of business? What happened to GITG?
Did they not want to bother because there was a TWIMTBP stamp on the game? Who's problem is that? The AMD customer who wants AA in B:AA. That's who's problem it is.

Let me ask you something. If you and your office buddies contributes $5 every week into a lotto pool, but one week you are asked for the pool money and say "I don't want to play this week" and don't put in your $5, they hit lotto. do you think you should still get a cut?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Then why wasn't AMD there? Taking care of business? What happened to GITG?
Did they not want to bother because there was a TWIMTBP stamp on the game? Who's problem is that? The AMD customer who wants AA in B:AA. That's who's problem it is.

They were involved in setting the standards that all the graphics industry subscribe to. Do they have to be there to hold every developers hand to get the benefits of those standards?

 

[SRoode]

AA is a feature that all modern video cards are more than capable of. It should not be hampered (IMO) by limiting front end access, or resorting to hacks which in some cases have been blocked by some very reputable sites because of the uncertainty of future legal action.

 

[lavaheadache]

here lies the beginning of the consolization of PC's. Next they are going to come out with games that only the owners of a Razer mouse can use the BFG eleventy billi:Qn because they paid to implement a special button for it. I bet Logitec owners would be more viscous than the mob.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
Next they are going to come out with games that only the owners of a Razer mouse can use

I'm all good there...love my Death Adder.

 

[Swampthing]

Originally posted by: dunno99


I don't think closed or open standards have that much impact on innovation. Take OpenGL for example -- it's open (input open to many in the public, voted by some board), yet it's slow in the innovation front. On the other hand, DirectX is closed (input given only to select people chosen by Microsoft), yet it's pushing and setting the pace for graphics. I'm not going to argue if MS is going in the right direction or not, but I think it's clear that there are many cases for and against each.

So lemme get this straight. Your comparing an API that comes standard on the only operating system that's even remotely mainstream, something that you pretty much HAVE to own to even use a computer.

To a video card that not even 30% of the computer using world even has?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why directx won out over opengl.

You really think that's a fair comparison of open and closed standards?

Proprietary standards that only work one on manufacturers chip who doesn't even have 30% of the total graphics card market share is a whole other thing. That stifles development big time.