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

[happy medium]

Originally Posted by Aristotelian
"Do we think that a thread like "Nvidia and AMD moral and immoral business practices" deserves its own thread? I think it does. A number of people have a lot to say about that, and perhaps we can put the halos in place, or bury them as is necessary after a topic like that."

I think this was a great idea and since we are knee deep in this discussion, I thought I'd just keep it going.

Special thinks to Aristotelian for the great idea.

Edit: I just changed the thread name to keep the current discussion going.

Per the moderator post in this thread:

As moderator I would allow for such a thread so long as the posters handled themselves with respect and civility, kept the personal mudslinging and trash-talk out of it, and the rhetoric plus hyperbole level was minimal (preferably non-existent).

In other words, give it shot and we'll see how it goes.

An openly public discussion, handled professionally, will only better serve the community but I don't want to hear people whining that it is too heavily moderated because I will be monitoring such a thread for member call-outs and derogatory/condescending posting behavior.

Let's see if the community is mature enough to have such a conversation. I'm hopeful.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[RussianSensation]

Nv can help PC gaming by working together with ATI to develop a universal physics engine. Advanced physics effects in games would allow for far more realistic games than increased graphical settings can bring on their own.

As far as helping developers to improve graphics, if it means creating standalone features that only NV cards can take advantage of, then it sounds to me like a strategy to sell more NV graphics cards for PhysX (aka Batman: AA).

I am Ok with NV paying $ to optimize a game to run better on NV hardware by working closely with developers and teaching them to take advantage of their GPU architectures. What I am against is the implementation of GeForce specific features that won't necessarily push PC games uniformly for everyone.

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.

Right now all I am sensing from this is that NV is going to use marketing funds to create more PhysX specific games...

 

[happy medium]

Nv can help PC gaming by working together with ATI to develop a universal physics engine. Advanced physics effects in games would allow for far more realistic games than increased graphical settings can bring on their own.

I agree with this statement.

I also think its great that Nvidia seems to work better "out of the box", mabe thats also what there trying to accomplish?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

NV fluff piece.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

MS need to write a physics engine for directcompute, which would pay off twice over when the next xbox launches.

 

[SlowSpyder]

NV fluff piece.

Yea, I'm thinking the 67xx and 68xx parts must be close to launch.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

MS need to write a physics engine for directcompute, which would pay off twice over when the next xbox launches.

This. :thumbsup:

I don't think it's reasonable - and frankly, fair - to expect the 2 sole competitors in a market to work together, especially if one (Nvidia) has a dominant technology (PhysX) over the other.

I don't remember people asking 3dfx to give GLide to Nvidia, ATI, Matrox, etc.

 

[badb0y]

This. :thumbsup:

I don't think it's reasonable - and frankly, fair - to expect the 2 sole competitors in a market to work together, especially if one (Nvidia) has a dominant technology (PhysX) over the other.

I don't remember people asking 3dfx to give GLide to Nvidia, ATI, Matrox, etc.

Do you remember what happened to 3dfx

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Do you remember what happened to 3dfx

Yes, they got et by a free market.

"Standards" should get created by a 3rd party. M$ is an an excellent position to do this. Otherwise, if I'm Nvidia, I have no desire to share the technology I paid for (PhysX) with my competitor.

 

[degibson]

Nv can help PC gaming by working together with ATI to develop a universal physics engine. Advanced physics effects in games would allow for far more realistic games than increased graphical settings can bring on their own.

If only that would make NVidia money. Unfortunately, the needs of the consumer and the needs of NVidia aren't the same. NVidia is probably better off making a physics engine that ATI/AMD cannot hope to clone or implement.

MS need to write a physics engine for directcompute, which would pay off twice over when the next xbox launches.

God help us if MS does this... they'd monetize the hell out of it and lock down the infrastructure for years.

 

[extra]

MS need to write a physics engine for directcompute, which would pay off twice over when the next xbox launches.

I think you're right--at least in a way. I think that over the next couple years devs will move to using directcompute or opencl for physics and that physx will probably slowly fade away. It got the ball rolling, which is good, eventually a standard supported by everyone will come along, and since more support=larger potential player base=more potential sales, it will win out. Sort of like Glide and Directx. Glide paved the way, got people interested in 3d, eventually we got good directx 3d support. Physx is getting people interested in gpu accelerated physics and getting game designers to think about physics when creating their games much like Glide made it easy to implement solid 3d games back in the day.

 

[MentalIlness]

So when Fudzilla posts a negative article about Nvidia...it is because he hates Nvidia.

And when Fudzilla posts a positive article about Nvidia, then whatever Fudzilla posts is true and great.

Will this Nvidia campaign ever stop ? Because it is not working.

Thread-crapping is not acceptable.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[happy medium]

Physx is getting people interested in gpu accelerated physics and getting game designers to think about physics when creating their games much like Glide made it easy to implement solid 3d games back in the day.

Which is good for all gamers.

 

[BD231]

I think you're right--at least in a way. I think that over the next couple years devs will move to using directcompute or opencl for physics and that physx will probably slowly fade away. It got the ball rolling, which is good, eventually a standard supported by everyone will come along, and since more support=larger potential player base=more potential sales, it will win out. Sort of like Glide and Directx. Glide paved the way, got people interested in 3d, eventually we got good directx 3d support. Physx is getting people interested in gpu accelerated physics and getting game designers to think about physics when creating their games much like Glide made it easy to implement solid 3d games back in the day.

Physics is far less compelling than ushering in mainstream 3D support. Why would Microsoft assume responsibility for a feature that isn't in high demand?

Short of Phys-X making a huge impact on the PC gaming industry I don't see Microsoft having much of an incentive.

 

[Attic]

/puke

nVidia bought up Aegia with the idea they could throw up some gates (artificial limitations and vendor lock outs) and herd gamers to their camp. They had left over money from their program to buy off forum members with free hardware and accerories.

nVidia handled GPU accelerated physx so poorly that it fits perfectly to be placed here in headlines prior to the debut of AMD's next offering. GPU physx has become nothing more than a cheesy tactic for nVidia to lean on to try and drum up sales or throw up roadblocks to their main competitor
..

Thread-crapping is not acceptable.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[AdamK47]

How I keep nVidia in business to keep PC gaming alive: Buy three GTX 480s

 

[happy medium]

/puke

nVidia bought up Aegia with the idea they could throw up some gates (artificial limitations and vendor lock outs) and herd gamers to their camp. They had left over money from their program to buy off forum members with free hardware and accerories.

nVidia handled GPU accelerated physx so poorly that it fits perfectly to be placed here in headlines prior to the debut of AMD's next offering. GPU physx has become nothing more than a cheesy tactic for nVidia to lean on to try and drum up sales or throw up roadblocks to their main competitor.

So I take it you don't agree with Nvidia's TWIMTBP program?

 

[Attic]

As a gamer I don't appreciate nVidia's attempts to split the gaming experience based upon a gamers chosen hardware. I think it's better for developers to be implementing features that all gamers can use as oppose to developers being bought by nVidia bucks and then catering the gaming experience to nVidia's hardware.

Thankfully it looks like nVidia has only had limited success with their attempt to heard gamers to nVidia GPU's by altering the game experience based on a gamers chosen GPU vendor. Hopefully this stops the trend of developers adding features that only work on nVidia hardware <---- bad for gamers if it continues.

 

[jiffylube1024]

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".

If they really want to help PC gaming out then Nvidia and AMD should band together to bring better exclusives to the PC, or have more PC-only features. Keeping PhysX (and in some cases, AA) Nvidia-only features is not the way to bring PC gaming back to glory, either.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

God help us if MS does this... they'd monetize the hell out of it and lock down the infrastructure for years.

-Between Nvidia already doing that for Nvidia only and MS doing it for PC gaming as a (general) whole, I'll take the later.

GPU physics could be a real trump card for microsoft when the next Xbox releases, and if they "get the bugs ironed out" on us PC gamers, I'd hardly complain.

 

[blastingcap]

NV is a company and like most companies it ultimately just cares about its profits, short term and long. If it helps PC gamers it isn't doing it out of the goodness of its heart. In fact, it has no heart. It is not a person.

Also, who is making money off PS3 video chips, you know, that company that is making money off consoles and not just PC gaming?

That was a rhetorical question.

 

[MagickMan]

NV fluff piece.

No doubt. You know they're shaking in their shoes, anticipating the next beat down.

 

[OCGuy]

NV is a company and like most companies it ultimately just cares about its profits, short term and long. If it helps PC gamers it isn't doing it out of the goodness of its heart. In fact, it has no heart. It is not a person.

Also, who is making money off PS3 video chips, you know, that company that is making money off consoles and not just PC gaming?

That was a rhetorical question.

Which company is only making money off of PC gaming?

 

[Rifter]

Here is my take on this.

I do not disagree with NV helping developers to add either AA or other graphical elements to games. In alot of cases its either NV pays for it and helps code it or it doesnt get done at all since the devepers would not spend the money to do it themselves. So at least this way some people can enjoy it, otherwise no one would enjoy it so its a win for the consumers, like it or not.

The bottom line for all you ATI card buyers is that ATI COULD do the same thing, they COULD spend money to work with developers, they COULD spend money to make there own physics engine, and they COULD spend money to help developers impliment code to work with ATI specific features. The problem is they made a CHOICE not to. That right a choice, they were not forced not to they decided that it was best for them as a company not to. Its that simple. ATI said screw the developers we arnt going to help them code anything. Which is fine. You just have to realize when you buy a ATI card that if it has any special features that are ATI specific that they will probably never be implemented in a game because ATI doesnt care to spend the time/money to make it happen.

I completly disagree with NV locking physX out on a system with ATI as the main GPU, this is completly stupid and is taking away sales from them. If i have a 5870 and want a 450 for physX why the hell would NV not want to sell me a card for that. This is possibly one of the stupidest business decisions i have seen made in the last 5 years.

I also think MS developing physics would be a BAD IDEA, we would be in the same boat as we are with physX, but locked down by MS not NV. We need a free open source physics engine, not one made by NV, MS, or ATI.

 

[blastingcap]

Which company is only making money off of PC gaming?

My point is that NV will follow the profits, wherever they may lie, so if they do help PC gaming it's a byproduct of self-interest. That said, I appreciate that they push AMD to innovate, and vice versa. I want both companies to be competitive, but humble, and to have open standards when possible.