Poll: What would the price of Physx card have to be

[imported_Sigma]

I would pay up to $200.00 U.S. Its like any hardware. If a must have game comes out that takes large advantage of it then I'll buy it. It took GLQuake to make me buy my Canopus Pure3d Voodoo1 card.

The problem I see is with online games.

People talk about destructible enviroments in online games. I just dont see how this can be possible. I mean in just a matter of minutes people would completely level maps in games like BF2.

Also what about the guy that doesnt have a PPU card how is this gonna affect him? Most people will not be buying these cards I can guarantee that.

Plus the network traffic would be insane having to update everybodies system on the status of now 1000's of extra objects.


Even single player games would be affected. Its gonna be real hard for level designers to make levels if you can just circumvent the whole level by blasting through walls and doors. At least I guess there wont be too many more find green key for green door stuff going on.

In the end its gonna come down to the creativity of developers to make this work. I think its gonna be a real uphill battle though.

I am very excited about the possiblities.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: JBT
I'm really suprised by some folks who consider themselves enthusiests. I for one love the idea. I'm sick of being able to shoot water melons and walk into buckets and being like wow it moved... I would really like to be able to interact with the environment.

I don't get how some of you spend $100 or more for a bit better audio but arn't willing to put any money into something that will completely change the capabilities of our games.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people adopting a 'wait and see' attitude here. People (including me) want some bang for their hard-earned bucks and I just do not see enough concrete information to warrant jumping blindly on the PhysX card bandwagon.

That said, I will definitely get one when I build my PC if there are decent games making proper use of the technology.

Your right no one will buy the product if there is no game support. Who would? I What I'm talking about is if this really does what it is suppose to be capable from videos like Acanthus linked to why wouldn't you get it? and why do you think its only worth $100 or less. (not you specifically just for 40+ people who said they wouldn't)

 

[imported_JamesDax]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: JBT
I'm really suprised by some folks who consider themselves enthusiests. I for one love the idea. I'm sick of being able to shoot water melons and walk into buckets and being like wow it moved... I would really like to be able to interact with the environment.

I don't get how some of you spend $100 or more for a bit better audio but arn't willing to put any money into something that will completely change the capabilities of our games.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people adopting a 'wait and see' attitude here. People (including me) want some bang for their hard-earned bucks and I just do not see enough concrete information to warrant jumping blindly on the PhysX card bandwagon.

That said, I will definitely get one when I build my PC if there are decent games making proper use of the technology.

No concrete information?? Well you simply aren't looking if you think that. Here, this should be enough concrete info for you and all the other doubters in this thread.

 

[MechaSheeba]

I'd spend $50-75 on one, that's about what I spent on my CPU. There's no way in hell I'm gonna drop the $299 they want for a PPU, or anything even remotely close to it when I'm not even willing to spend that on a graphics card. Neither is the majority of the market I would think.

A GPU is a required component to play games, a CPU is a multipurpose tool that's required for your PC to even turn on. You can't sell me on an optional part that costs 2-3x what'd I'd spend on the previous two.

They set their sights way too high, IMO. They should've started with something half as powerful at half the cost and worked their way up as it gained momentum. AFAIK, CellFactor is pretty much just a tech demo, a downloadable one map MP game. The only upcoming game I'm looking forward to that may support it is UT2K7, but that's pretty much done. Every demo we've seen has had nothing showing PPU powered physics, and with its imminent release on the 360 and PS3 which lack PPU support, I'm not expecting much on the PC side.

I hope the PPU straight flops on its ass so Ageia gets bought out by a real company with the resources to actually make several revisions of the card and mainstream price it. Maybe then I'll be interested.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: MechaSheeba
I'd spend $50-75 on one, that's about what I spent on my CPU. There's no way in hell I'm gonna drop the $299 they want for a PPU, or anything even remotely close to it when I'm not even willing to spend that on a graphics card. Neither is the majority of the market I would think.

A GPU is a required component to play games, a CPU is a multipurpose tool that's required for your PC to even turn on. You can't sell me on an optional part that costs 2-3x what'd I'd spend on the previous two.

They set their sights way too high, IMO. They should've started with something half as powerful at half the cost and worked their way up as it gained momentum. AFAIK, CellFactor is pretty much just a tech demo, a downloadable one map MP game. The only upcoming game I'm looking forward to that may support it is UT2K7, but that's pretty much done. Every demo we've seen has had nothing showing PPU powered physics, and with its imminent release on the 360 and PS3 which lack PPU support, I'm not expecting much on the PC side.

I hope the PPU straight flops on its ass so Ageia gets bought out by a real company with the resources to actually make several revisions of the card and mainstream price it. Maybe then I'll be interested.

You'e in with my dad there, he rarely pays much for anything PC related, lol. He won't be buying one until it drops to below £100 himself.

Also, the PS3 will have PhysX Support even without a PhysX PPU inside: http://www.gamershell.com/companies/ageia/280949.html

 

[poohbear]

http://physx.ageia.com/titles.html

man did u guys see the "cellfactor" video on that link?!?!? jebus that's incredible, physics is just nuts in that demo.:0 if i only had to upgrade this card as often as my sound card, then i'd get it (i.e. once every 3 years). but if they expect me to upgrade as often as the vid card manufacturers would like, then i can't do that for their $299 MSRP.

 

[mauri]

for 100$ i would be ready to try this. but the price that they are predicting for the end product are just too high for me at the moment.

 

[stelleg151]

I put 100$, but I personally am hoping that it wont catch on. I think gradual support of multicore processors should be what game developers focus on. I support better physics, but really I think since in a couple years we will have 4 and 8 core processors that it should be left to them.

As for people who respond using the history of the video card as example of how important add on cards can be, let me explain my position.

Audio and video are the means with which we interact with our computer, so having dedicated processing for those complex interactions makes sense to me. However, putting extra processors in the computer to take work from the CPU is not a trend I support. If physics first, what next. AI? Light processing? To use a fairly weak human anatomy analogy, I think that the CPU should satisfy the brain, sound card for the ears, and video card for the eyes.

Yes I have played the CellFactor video, and it is impressive, but there was a HL2 demo map that wasnt all that dissimlar, with hundreds of barrels. I think the fact that Aegia sold their API to Sony for PS3 for use on the Cell says something: it shows that as we move to multicore, very impressive physics will be possible.

I dont want Aegia to fail, I think improved physics is great, but I hope that they succeed in selling APIs to software companies for use on multicore systems, not as a hardware supplier.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: MechaSheeba
I'd spend $50-75 on one, that's about what I spent on my CPU. There's no way in hell I'm gonna drop the $299 they want for a PPU, or anything even remotely close to it when I'm not even willing to spend that on a graphics card. Neither is the majority of the market I would think.

A GPU is a required component to play games, a CPU is a multipurpose tool that's required for your PC to even turn on. You can't sell me on an optional part that costs 2-3x what'd I'd spend on the previous two.

They set their sights way too high, IMO. They should've started with something half as powerful at half the cost and worked their way up as it gained momentum. AFAIK, CellFactor is pretty much just a tech demo, a downloadable one map MP game. The only upcoming game I'm looking forward to that may support it is UT2K7, but that's pretty much done. Every demo we've seen has had nothing showing PPU powered physics, and with its imminent release on the 360 and PS3 which lack PPU support, I'm not expecting much on the PC side.

I hope the PPU straight flops on its ass so Ageia gets bought out by a real company with the resources to actually make several revisions of the card and mainstream price it. Maybe then I'll be interested.

I'm with this guy. I'll give them maybe $50. I just don't see a need for it. The physics in Oblivion, and most other games for that matter, are enough for me to suspend my disbelief.

That being said, I'll only buy one when it's at my price point, most likely used.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: JBT

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: JBT
I'm really suprised by some folks who consider themselves enthusiests. I for one love the idea. I'm sick of being able to shoot water melons and walk into buckets and being like wow it moved... I would really like to be able to interact with the environment.

I don't get how some of you spend $100 or more for a bit better audio but arn't willing to put any money into something that will completely change the capabilities of our games.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people adopting a 'wait and see' attitude here. People (including me) want some bang for their hard-earned bucks and I just do not see enough concrete information to warrant jumping blindly on the PhysX card bandwagon.

That said, I will definitely get one when I build my PC if there are decent games making proper use of the technology.

Your right no one will buy the product if there is no game support. Who would? I What I'm talking about is if this really does what it is suppose to be capable from videos like Acanthus linked to why wouldn't you get it? and why do you think its only worth $100 or less. (not you specifically just for 40+ people who said they wouldn't)

Because it is yet another added expense for a gamers rig. I don't have any doubt that it will be beneficial for gaming. I also have no doubts that ATI and Nvidia will come up with their own versions built into the GPU's. The Ageia card will be a single purpose card. You can't do anything else with it other than what it was intended to do. Should be no more expensive than a sound card IMHO.

It looks very promising though, and will most likely get one down the road if NV/ATI does not jump on the wagon and integrate similar hardware into their GPU's. But not really sure I would pay more than 100.00 bucks for one.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I would pay up to $200 Cdn., contingent of course on some decent games making good use of it.

Are Crysis and UT2K7 the only announced games that are expected to be able to use it?

http://physx.ageia.com/titles.html

Nothing much of note except the aging UT franchise. If it was GR under Red Storm then it would probably rock, under Ubisoft it's questionable.

Not to mention multiplayer issues. Will Ageia need to be a server side thing and how would that translate to the client? Is it eye candy only? I seem to remember reading that they wanted gameplay to hinge on whether you had a Ageia chip.

Thats the question I've had as well. Having a processor to do crazy physics is all well and good in single player games, but when multiplayer comes into play...how are they going to sync all this crap?

 

[imported_JamesDax]

Boy, you guys are hopeless.

 

[SKoprowski]

You all have good points. The only reason I would consider the PPU is because of Unreal Tournament 2007. However, I don't see how you could benefit from it unless everyone you're playing online with has one. You would assume the physics would be disabled as soon as someone joins a game that doesn't have a PPU. I'm not buying UT2007 for it's single player.

 

[TraumaRN]

200 bucks for a PPU.....and at some point this summer I'll pay it. Definitely for UT2007

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SKoprowski
You all have good points. The only reason I would consider the PPU is because of Unreal Tournament 2007. However, I don't see how you could benefit from it unless everyone you're playing online with has one. You would assume the physics would be disabled as soon as someone joins a game that doesn't have a PPU. I'm not buying UT2007 for it's single player.

The physics engine also has a software render mode with less precision.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: JamesDax

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: JBT
I'm really suprised by some folks who consider themselves enthusiests. I for one love the idea. I'm sick of being able to shoot water melons and walk into buckets and being like wow it moved... I would really like to be able to interact with the environment.

I don't get how some of you spend $100 or more for a bit better audio but arn't willing to put any money into something that will completely change the capabilities of our games.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people adopting a 'wait and see' attitude here. People (including me) want some bang for their hard-earned bucks and I just do not see enough concrete information to warrant jumping blindly on the PhysX card bandwagon.

That said, I will definitely get one when I build my PC if there are decent games making proper use of the technology.

No concrete information?? Well you simply aren't looking if you think that. Here, this should be enough concrete info for you and all the other doubters in this thread.

I did not say no concrete information, I just said not enough. Thanks for the link though, some interesting info on there.

Edit: I was wondering about the multiplayer thing as well. I play mp way more than I play sp/campaigns so if this does not translate well to mp games then there may not be any point in me getting this. Though some of you guys are probably right, in a few years we will all have some sort of dedicated physics processor in our rigs.

 

[Avalon]

I'd be willing to drop about $150 for one. it'll have to be PCI-e, though, since I'm out of PCI slots.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: SKoprowski
You all have good points. The only reason I would consider the PPU is because of Unreal Tournament 2007. However, I don't see how you could benefit from it unless everyone you're playing online with has one. You would assume the physics would be disabled as soon as someone joins a game that doesn't have a PPU. I'm not buying UT2007 for it's single player.

Multiplayer effects will not be syncronized... I mean how could it? Our internet connections already have plenty of lag added at every step. So you think you're going to add a bunch of stuff flying around, have the server pass those packets down the line and have anything playable? Think again.

 

[fishbits]

Multiplayer effects will not be syncronized... I mean how could it? Our internet connections already have plenty of lag added at every step. So you think you're going to add a bunch of stuff flying around, have the server pass those packets down the line and have anything playable? Think again.

Dunno, but it doesn't sound impossible to get advantages for MP. Lets say there's a canned set of paramaters to send to the physics unit when a wall gets destroyed. Packet is sent saying "Destroy wall 12," and all players see this happen. It just looks a lot better on the physics capable systems. Same bandwidth would be used as if I fired a weapon or activated an elevator online now. Or when running through puddles, it looks better on the physics card equipped system, but plays functionally the same on either. Or better animations, higher poly meshes, flowing hair/capes, extra weapon/spell effects. Not talking about a tangle of girders crashing to the ground from above forming unique obstacles/hard cover in real-time, but definitely adding to the experience even in a MP environment without affecting those who choose not to upgrade.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: fishbits

Multiplayer effects will not be syncronized... I mean how could it? Our internet connections already have plenty of lag added at every step. So you think you're going to add a bunch of stuff flying around, have the server pass those packets down the line and have anything playable? Think again.

Dunno, but it doesn't sound impossible to get advantages for MP. Lets say there's a canned set of paramaters to send to the physics unit when a wall gets destroyed. Packet is sent saying "Destroy wall 12," and all players see this happen. It just looks a lot better on the physics capable systems. Same bandwidth would be used as if I fired a weapon or activated an elevator online now. Or when running through puddles, it looks better on the physics card equipped system, but plays functionally the same on either. Or better animations, higher poly meshes, flowing hair/capes, extra weapon/spell effects. Not talking about a tangle of girders crashing to the ground from above forming unique obstacles/hard cover in real-time, but definitely adding to the experience even in a MP environment without affecting those who choose not to upgrade.

You've just described a scripted event... gamers usually despise that type of stuff. So wall 12 will always blow the exact same way and in the exact same location? I don't see it happening and being "cool"... I could be wrong though.

 

[fishbits]

When you get right down to it, there's not too much in video game animation that couldn't be described as "scripted." The difference would be instead of a puff of smoke followed by a hole in the wall, there'd be the visible animation of lets say eighty bricks, blocks and chunks interacting as they fall away. We're not talking about the one blocky spherical boulder that stands out like a sore thumb tumbling along a crude animation path. Put it this way: Have you ever watched a Hollywoood blockbuster a second time? The explosions, etc are identical each time! But, they still look damned good. What I'm picturing here though is a different "seed" being generated for each event so that it doesn't look exactly the same for something you'll be seeing relatively often (thus "destroy wall 12," not "destroy wall section.") I'd use the term "triggered" event rather than "scripted" to take a stab at setting them apart. And of course there's all the other aspects I'd mentioned for MP, surely there are many more that could utilized too.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: fishbits
When you get right down to it, there's not too much in video game animation that couldn't be described as "scripted." The difference would be instead of a puff of smoke followed by a hole in the wall, there'd be the visible animation of lets say eighty bricks, blocks and chunks interacting as they fall away. We're not talking about the one blocky spherical boulder that stands out like a sore thumb tumbling along a crude animation path. Put it this way: Have you ever watched a Hollywoood blockbuster a second time? The explosions, etc are identical each time! But, they still look damned good. What I'm picturing here though is a different "seed" being generated for each event so that it doesn't look exactly the same for something you'll be seeing relatively often (thus "destroy wall 12," not "destroy wall section.") I'd use the term "triggered" event rather than "scripted" to take a stab at setting them apart. And of course there's all the other aspects I'd mentioned for MP, surely there are many more that could utilized too.

Right... but that can't be used for game play, only visual effects. Say that "seed" gives one player a perfect hiding place and not the others? I think it's fairly certain, due to bandwidth and host/client constraints, that PhysiX will have zero multiplayer support.

Maybe Anandtech can offer up a critical preview. Everything I've seen so far has been sunshine and lollypops.

 

[RussianSensation]

$69.99 for 128mb version and $79.99 for 256mb version.

Unless it really changes the way games are played (as 3D graphics have done), in no way can the $200+ price be justified. Also the argument of $100 for X-FI soundcard is not comparable. Almost all games can take advantage of EAX effects and listening to better music quality is "priceless." Not to mention, X-Fi card will easily last 2-3 years.

In the future, as physics become an intergral part of the game, I could see myself spending $170 or so, but never as much as a videocard.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: fishbits
When you get right down to it, there's not too much in video game animation that couldn't be described as "scripted." The difference would be instead of a puff of smoke followed by a hole in the wall, there'd be the visible animation of lets say eighty bricks, blocks and chunks interacting as they fall away. We're not talking about the one blocky spherical boulder that stands out like a sore thumb tumbling along a crude animation path. Put it this way: Have you ever watched a Hollywoood blockbuster a second time? The explosions, etc are identical each time! But, they still look damned good. What I'm picturing here though is a different "seed" being generated for each event so that it doesn't look exactly the same for something you'll be seeing relatively often (thus "destroy wall 12," not "destroy wall section.") I'd use the term "triggered" event rather than "scripted" to take a stab at setting them apart. And of course there's all the other aspects I'd mentioned for MP, surely there are many more that could utilized too.

Right... but that can't be used for game play, only visual effects. Say that "seed" gives one player a perfect hiding place and not the others? I think it's fairly certain, due to bandwidth and host/client constraints, that PhysiX will have zero multiplayer support.

Maybe Anandtech can offer up a critical preview. Everything I've seen so far has been sunshine and lollypops.

That is sort of the point I was getting at in some of my earlier posts. I would like to see something that actually critiques this card and what it is trying to do rather than just reading about how awesome it could be.

 

[Jeff7181]

When games actually use it, and don't just add useless and crappy particles because the card makes it possible, I'll get one. The Bet on Soldier demo video looked horrible, however, the Cell Factor demo looked amazing.