**thread name change* Nvidia and AMD moral and immoral business practices

[BenSkywalker]

"Standards" should get created by a 3rd party. M$ is an an excellent position to do this.

MS has a vested interest in 2 out of the 6 popular gaming platforms on the market. They are not even close to being a 3rd party when talking on these terms. PhysX already runs on far more gaming systems then DirectX- that is the reality of the gaming landscape today. If people want to see real progress made on this front, an open standard to help push gaming forward for all vendors, then someone should be talking about getting an OpenCL team working on a project to handle it- someone without billions of dollars on the table in the gaming market already.

Nv can help PC gaming by working together with ATI to develop a universal physics engine.

nV has a universal physics engine already- it even runs on the iPhone. I don't think they are in the position where they need to go to someone else to get something done. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect nV to pay corporate welfare to get ATi on board which is what you are suggesting.

If the PC gaming industry (i.e., Microsoft, gaming developers, etc.) is serious about differentiating PC games from consoles, then it will have to be a team effort (i.e., Intel/AMD cpu divisions + ATI/NV + software developers) - and that's difficult to imagine.

Here is the reality most people utterly fail to comprehend- there is no PC gaming industry. Where did MS make most of its gaming money from? Consoles. Where did EA make most of its gaming money from? Consoles. Where did Bethesda make most of its gaming money from? Consoles. The reality is that there is only *one* company left in the world whose main concern is PC gaming- and they are trying to move away from that reliance as quickly as possible. I'm just pointing out the real world situation, PC gaming is a side column for the companies involved, realistic expectations should be formed around that.

People keep looking for these dream scenarios to take place without stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. MS's latest big release made them just under a quarter of a billion dollars in one day- $0 of that was for the PC port. PC gaming is a small concern even for MS. Publishers aren't going to give developers extra months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to add features to a PC port when they could instead focusing on moving teams on to the next console release or DLC pack faster. Whatever physics solution we expect the industry to use going forward, portability is key and that rules out MS by default.

 

[ModestGamer]

Brand agnostic card ISA and shader library etc etc etc.

 

[RussianSensation]

Here is the reality most people utterly fail to comprehend- there is no PC gaming industry. Where did MS make most of its gaming money from? Consoles.

Umm...no. The most $ Microsoft makes in gaming is by simply selling Windows OS for 90% of desktops and laptops out there. PC gamers are running Windows for the most part.

Xbox1 was unprofitable for Microsoft. Who knows how profitable Xbox360 turned out with major failure rate of hardware and all the marketing costs.

You think there is no PC gaming industry? D:

From January to June 2010, 11.2 million PC games were purchased and downloaded from an online source, according to NPD, compared to 8.2 million physical units sold at retail during the same period. - Source

So annualized, you may be looking at 40 million PC games sold in 2010 alone. Considering SC2 and World of Warcraft games sell extremely well, maybe the fact that PC games don't sell well reflects a general lack of interest for PC games from the average gamer rather than the fact that there is no PC gaming industry......I mean honestly, Quake 4, Doom 3, Wolfenstein, etc. not what console gamers would consider fun by any stretch of imagination. How many great FSPs on PC have a single-player worth playing besides Medal of Honor, Deus X, Bioshock, HL1/2, Chronicles of Riddick: Butcher's Bay, maybe Crysis? None of the Unreal, Doom, Quake franchises have a single player worthy of an A-rated title imo, unless you are still stuck in the 90s. Latest Call of Duty games and BF:BC2 - again mostly multiplayer appeal. If you enjoy single-player games, PC could use some improvement in its games.

What about racing games? We have Dirt 1/2 and GRID as notable standouts in the last couple of years. Consoles get the same NFS, Dirt, Grid, plus Gran Tourismo, Project Gotham Racing, Forza, Wipeout, etc. Again, a lacking genre on the PC.

Maybe if PC had better a wider variety of A-level games like Gran Tourismo, Forza Motorsports, Uncharted, Zelda, and good Sports games, a lot more console gamers would consider a PC (which is mainly great at only FPS, Massively online multiplayer games, RPGs and strategy games).

 

[blastingcap]

The most $ Microsoft makes in gaming is by simply selling Windows OS for 90% of desktops and laptops out there. PC gamers are running Windows for the most part.

I'm pretty sure gaming is not what drives most purchases of Windows, even for consumers, let alone businesses. Just a hunch.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So annualized, you may be looking at 40 million PC games sold in 2010 alone.

As of the September 18th numbers Microsoft had sold 380,264,407 games for the 360 so far this generation. Every single one of those games paid MS a royalty or were first party. Nintendo's systems have combined for over a billion this generation, Sony is at ~420 million with their platforms. Still think that 40 million a year number sounds good?

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php

As I stated, PC gaming is a side column. There are two ways to approach this, deny and come up with dream scenarios about how things should be would be the first one- the second being realizing the business realities of our hobbies and pushing for a logical course of progress based on that reality.

 

[Xarick]

Wait.. so you are saying blizzard and valve are trying to escape pc gaming? Blizzard makes money hand over fist.. and steam makes valve money hand over fist. Why in the world would they want out.

 

[Dribble]

I think this is as much to do with the fact that nvidia has actively decided to be a software company as much as a hardware one. They build their hardware to reflect this and we end up with gpu compute, cuda, physx, 3D, etc. Nvidia hopes the extra value they add to their hardware by developing software will offset the costs of that development.

AMD corporately is just a hardware company - AMD cpu's have no software, and they allow ati to develop drivers, but that's it - they've got to hope everyone else does the work for them. They do create great hardware (gpu's anyway) but that's it. AMD does it this way because it's much cheaper.

Personally I approve of Nvidia's approach - clearly trying to pushing gaming forward, within the constraints of everything they do having to in some way make money. Sure they are corporately a bit nasty sometimes, but at least they they are actively doing stuff.

AMD/Ati seem to be mostly all whine and no action which is just irritating - Richard Fududdy don't tell me about how you can't do something, it's not your fault, your competitor is nasty, the dog ate your open source physics library. Don't tell me about your problems that won't get me to buy your hardware - tell me about the great new things you are doing, then I'll get interested.

 

[blastingcap]

don't tell me about how ... the dog ate your open source physics library.

Lol

 

[BFG10K]

They aren't really keeping PC gaming alive so much as keeping their brand name the most recognized one in PC gaming. Big difference. TWIMTBP seems to be a statement that "our GPU is better than the competition" not "PC Gaming is better than Console Gaming".

One tends to agree. Artificially locking out ATi users from using hardware PhysX doesn't help PC gaming.

As a business nVidia's trying to make money by selling more of their cards, but let's not pretend such actions benefit PC gaming as a whole.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Oh, you mean the unskippable TWIMTBP logos like in Borderlands? I'm sure people would play them more if not for the unskippable crap shoved into their throats.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

So wouldn't it make a ton of sense for nV to pitch physx to MS for the basis of a "directP" or whatever you'd like to call it. MS would get a mostly complete platform now (and more likely at a reduced cost over building from the ground up) and nV would get an insured return on their investment (royalties).

 

[n0x1ous]

AMD/Ati seem to be mostly all whine and no action which is just irritating - Richard Fududdy don't tell me about how you can't do something, it's not your fault, your competitor is nasty, the dog ate your open source physics library. Don't tell me about your problems that won't get me to buy your hardware - tell me about the great new things you are doing, then I'll get interested.

Could not have said it any better myself.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

MS has a vested interest in 2 out of the 6 popular gaming platforms on the market. They are not even close to being a 3rd party when talking on these terms. PhysX already runs on far more gaming systems then DirectX- that is the reality of the gaming landscape today. If people want to see real progress made on this front, an open standard to help push gaming forward for all vendors, then someone should be talking about getting an OpenCL team working on a project to handle it- someone without billions of dollars on the table in the gaming market already.

I was referring to the PC gaming market, and the competition netween Nv & AMD, and nothing else.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I think this is as much to do with the fact that nvidia has actively decided to be a software company as much as a hardware one. They build their hardware to reflect this and we end up with gpu compute, cuda, physx, 3D, etc. Nvidia hopes the extra value they add to their hardware by developing software will offset the costs of that development.

AMD corporately is just a hardware company - AMD cpu's have no software, and they allow ati to develop drivers, but that's it - they've got to hope everyone else does the work for them. They do create great hardware (gpu's anyway) but that's it. AMD does it this way because it's much cheaper.

Personally I approve of Nvidia's approach - clearly trying to pushing gaming forward, within the constraints of everything they do having to in some way make money. Sure they are corporately a bit nasty sometimes, but at least they they are actively doing stuff.

AMD/Ati seem to be mostly all whine and no action which is just irritating - Richard Fududdy don't tell me about how you can't do something, it's not your fault, your competitor is nasty, the dog ate your open source physics library. Don't tell me about your problems that won't get me to buy your hardware - tell me about the great new things you are doing, then I'll get interested.

Jen Hsun whines incessantly - when he's not boasting. That doesn't excuse AMD, but stones and glass houses and all that.

 

[n0x1ous]

Jen Hsun whines incessantly - when he's not boasting. That doesn't excuse AMD, but stones and glass houses and all that.

I don't think Dribble was specifically blaming Huddy but more of that he is an AMD representative and AMD hasn't done much in those areas. So whether or not JHH "whines" about some stuff doesn't mean his company isn't trying to push things forward with products/services that may or may not appeal to everyone.

I get what your saying, but thought the situation could use a little clarity.

 

[Madcatatlas]

One tends to agree. Artificially locking out ATi users from using hardware PhysX doesn't help PC gaming.

As a business nVidia's trying to make money by selling more of their cards, but let's not pretend such actions benefit PC gaming as a whole.

Very much agree with you. The same thing with AMD, the same thing with Intel, the same thing with pretty much ANY company.

The aim is always to make more money.

The way you go about doing that, is what sets companies apart. Ethics/good morals and honesty is what Nvidia lacks in bucketloads.

The sheep which continuesly get eaten off and are happy with it, read "yes they screwed us over for so many years, but we still love them" are lost.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I don't think Dribble was specifically blaming Huddy but more of that he is an AMD representative and AMD hasn't done much in those areas. So whether or not JHH "whines" about some stuff doesn't mean his company isn't trying to push things forward with products/services that may or may not appeal to everyone.

I get what your saying, but thought the situation could use a little clarity.

I agree that Nvidia clearly does stuff to move things along, whereas AMD (gaming side) does zilch. While I don't care about PhysX, I do wish software took better advantage of CUDA.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Wait.. so you are saying blizzard and valve are trying to escape pc gaming?

Steam is being ported to the PS3, Blizzard is part of Activision now. I'm not saying any company is trying to escape PC gaming, but they are all reducing their reliance on it- at least all the coroporations that we care about as PC gamers. Sure, Facebook games have seen massive growth over the last few years, the types of games we tend to care about, not so much

Blizzard makes money hand over fist.. and steam makes valve money hand over fist. Why in the world would they want out.

40 Million units a year, 400 Million units a year. The 400 Million units also carry a price premium- as a business, what market do you care more about? I'm not saying it's the way I want it or anything approaching it, I'm saying it is the market reality and we should consider it as such.

I was referring to the PC gaming market, and the competition netween Nv & AMD, and nothing else.

My point is that there isn't a PC gaming market. There is a gaming market, and the PC is a part of that. Where it fits into the gaming market is a *HUGE* factor in how development for it is approached. Yes, there are still handful of PC exclusive games, those games aren't going to start a major industry wide push for an open source physics API, it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Creig]

Personally I approve of Nvidia's approach - clearly trying to pushing gaming forward, within the constraints of everything they do having to in some way make money. Sure they are corporately a bit nasty sometimes, but at least they they are actively doing stuff.

You mean, stuff like hiring viral marketing companies like AEG to infiltrate our forums and tell us how great Nvidia products are? Stuff like spoon feeding viral marketers like Rollo info about ATi graphical glitches in games so he can spread it around to make Nvidia look better? Stuff like making and locking out AA in Batman:AA, but then claiming that it was the developer who locked it out, not them? That kind of stuff?

Yes, I do wish that AMD was more pro-active, but not if it means that they play just as dirty as Nvidia does. Can you imagine the mess PC gaming would become if AMD abandoned all scruples as well?

AMD/Ati seem to be mostly all whine and no action which is just irritating - Richard Fududdy don't tell me about how you can't do something, it's not your fault, your competitor is nasty, the dog ate your open source physics library. Don't tell me about your problems that won't get me to buy your hardware - tell me about the great new things you are doing, then I'll get interested.

How is it whining by pointing out that your competitor is using unethical tactics to try to make your company look bad? So what should he do, keep his mouth shut and keep taking it? No, of course not. If either company is utilizing back alley tactics in order to get ahead, I want to know about it. When looking at equivalent products, I prefer to give my money to the company that isn't misbehaving.

 

[n0x1ous]

I agree that Nvidia clearly does stuff to move things along, whereas AMD (gaming side) does zilch. While I don't care about PhysX, I do wish software took better advantage of CUDA.

I agree there isn't enough software that takes advantage of CUDA. For myself, I have a video transcoder that is CUDA accelerated but that's it. I'm curious to see if Nv's new CUDA-x86 will help push it along. I would have no problem with OpenCL and all, but it seems like its always mentioned, but there is just nothing really happening with it. I could be wrong on that, but certainly there is no software that its usable on it yet is there?

I just appreciate that NV is at least making the effort on GPGPU. Its a long uphill road, but it had to start somewhere.....

 

[Madcatatlas]

Edit: in response to Creig

Same. But in the case of the GTX460, Nvidia basicly put out a great product and im a customer first and foremost, and not a "i love mac, and hate pc" kind of guy.

AMD screwed up on the pricing of the HD58xx cards, so much its unbelivable. We`re talking 100 000 of missed sales if you ask me.

You could say Nvidia is in a position to lose some money on each card. BUt with the GTX460, they are buying not only new customers. but also mindshare and interest in propriety tech like phycsx and 3d surround etc.

These things dont keep pc gaming alive, but they differentiate some aspects of games. One has to admit that much.

 

[n0x1ous]

How is it whining by pointing out that your competitor is using unethical tactics to try to make your company look bad? So what should he do, keep his mouth shut and keep taking it? No, of course not. If either company is utilizing back alley tactics in order to get ahead, I want to know about it. When looking at equivalent products, I prefer to give my money to the company that isn't misbehaving.

No, he should get his company to take ACTIVE action in developing something useful/benefical/additonal for gamers instead of always cutting down his opponents efforts to offer gamers more choices, instead of talking about OpenCL for the millionth time while not doing anything to make it happen.

Not saying Nv is perfect (fermi delay etc), but as far as extras (3D, Physx, CUDA whether you care or not) they at least make an effort and actively develop new stuff for gaming.

 

[n0x1ous]

The sheep which continuesly get eaten off and are happy with it, read "yes they screwed us over for so many years, but we still love them" are lost.

Please elaborate....

 

[Creig]

No, he should get his company to take ACTIVE action in developing something useful/benefical/additonal for gamers instead of always cutting down his opponents efforts to offer gamers more choices, instead of talking about OpenCL for the millionth time while not doing anything to make it happen.

Not saying Nv is perfect (fermi delay etc), but as far as extras (3D, Physx, CUDA whether you care or not) they at least make an effort and actively develop new stuff for gaming.

From what I heard, AMD had multiple teams out working with developers on DX11 content back when Fermi was still being held together with wood screws. That's active action, isn't it? ATi had been working on hardware tessellation for years and actively pushed MS to include it in DX. And now it is has arrived and is the most talked about feature in DX11. That's active action. And they're also not deliberately blocking Nvidia owners from enjoying the benefits of their assistance, either. Fermi owners can see the DX11 content that AMD developer teams helped with. That says a lot, in my book.

AMD might not be putting in as much time into extras as Nvidia, but they're also not bragging them up as much. I have a feeling that AMD puts in more effort than we ever hear about. They're simply just not as vocal about it as Nvidia.

 

[Creig]

Same. But in the case of the GTX460, Nvidia basicly put out a great product and im a customer first and foremost, and not a "i love mac, and hate pc" kind of guy

And I wouldn't ever disagree. You have to go with the best value for your money, be it AMD or Nvidia. But if I had to choose between two equivalent cards that were at approximately the same price, I would choose the AMD over the Nvidia because of Nvdia's low ethical standards.