Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I remember watching a speech John Carmack gave a few years ago where he was talking about the development of Rage and he mentioned something about the game costing upwards of 20 or 30 million dollars to create (that includes building the engine from the ground up). A few million is not the cost of the entire game; that would only cover the game's engine. If you're telling me that GPU code is going to cost 5x as much as multithreaded CPU code, that really does amount to potentially millions of dollars difference.
Up until that time we were talking only about, what Tim Sweeney said!
In your reply you didn't mention Carmack!
Also you said exactly the following:
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
If it cost millions of dollars to add PhysX to a game, no game would have PhysX.
You didn't use the word
few!
So, yes it cost, millions of dollars to make a game (5,10,15,20...)
Anyway, with your last post you cleared what you meant and in many things i agree!
I mean that, I also remember Carmack saying the "
20 million dollars figure", of cource he meant
AAA multiplatform games!
Not all multiplatform games cost that much (and of cource there are many good (and bad) games costing way way less!
If the "
general purpose computing on GPUs" method adopted from the industry, it will a have negative economical effect in all the games! (not just multiplatform AAA!)
And i think you are trying to suggest that:
since the cost of "GPU code" is not a huge part of the development budget of a game,
why Tim Sweeney is making such a big deal out of it?
Well, first of all this is true for only the AAA multiplatform games!
But
this is not the actual reason, that i think Tim Sweeney is making such a big deal out of it!
Like I said in my previous post, I think that he researched:
what budget's increasemeants ratio, must have a part of an engine in order to be a economically viable move for the industry to follow,
if you do the scaling long-term! (like 10 years from now!),
and he made the conclusion that 10X can lead to undesirable results long term, if you follow such economic model policies in your design philisophy!
Not only, I didn't do a research about it, but also i don't have his knowledge and resources to do the research, so i wont even try to challenge his conclusions!
If you have the qualifications, you can try!
Just kidding! (i know you didn't mean it that way!)
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
The other weird part of the article is that it seems to contradict itself here:
?In the next generation we?ll write 100% of our rendering code in a real programming language ? not DirectX, not OpenGL, but a language like C++ or CUDA. A real programming language unconstrained by weird API restrictions. Whether that runs on Nvidia hardware, Intel hardware or ATI hardware is really an independent question. You could potentially run it on any hardware that's capable of running general-purpose code efficiently,"
He's complaining about the cost of development, but he doesn't want to use DirectX and OpenGL/OpenCL which are specifically designed to make things easier to write. How does that make sense? If he doesn't want to use high level programming languages that are inefficient but easy to write, why doesn't he start writing his games in assembly language? ASM is
much more efficient than programming in C, is it not? Of course nobody does that because programming in ASM is extremely expensive. Using a video card is no different; he's bitching about low level GPU programming being very difficult then he dismisses DirectX because it's too slow or he doesn't like the name or some other asinine reason.
He is not talking about assembly, he just wants to write in a C based language (C/C++/CUDA)!
His issues with DX/openGL is that "
all games look kinda similar" so the customers (gamers) lose gradually their interest in gaming , or that the visuals are not advancing in a proper manner in order to entice new customers, so the market has the potentiality to subjected in steep problems!
