Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

[martrox]

http://www.spong.com/

And you thought S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s attitude sucked? If this is true, you very well may see the beginning of the end of PC gaming.....

[swaaye]

I'd say it'd more likely be the end of Valve. A move to Nvidia exclusivity would be incredibly arrogant and stupid.

From my point of view, Valve = 3DRealms in the area of credibility anyway.

[2B-Maverick]

hmmm... first april is over....

IF somthing like this ever happens, a boycott should be initialized against the parties involved.

[Dave Baumann]

This is kind of what I've been warning of for a long time.

[sonix666]

I think that someone mixed up facts. Valve has stated that their new engine for Half Life 2 will be using Cg for it's pixel and vertex shaders. However, Cg compiles to pixel shaders 1.1 and 1.3 so other DirectX 8.1 cards can work correctly with it.

[Fuz]

WTF???

From the article:
This massive story comes from insiders at nVidia, who are boasting that this will be the first of many such deals for exclusive content, bespoke to its cards

It gets better:
You will see a massive change in the structure of the PC games industry in the next few months -snip- Instead of being referred to as PC gaming, you will become an nVidia or ATI gamer, as distinct as Sony and Nintendo

I dont' want to believe it. Thats all I can say about this.

Edit: Now that I think about, there is no way the PC gaming industry is headed down that path. For that to happen, one very large player would be left sitting on the bench, and we know MS doesn't play on the bench. Why else would MS spend resources developing DX?

[Tahir2]

All I can say is 'bollox' !

[Joe DeFuria]

[quote]This massive story comes from insiders at nVidia, who are boasting that this will be the first of many such deals for exclusive content, bespoke to its cards

Keep in mind that "exclusive content" doesn't equate to, and almost certainly doesn't mean "exclusive title." Likely, it's some rather immaterial setting or something that marketing will just blow wholly out of proportion....

[Dave Baumann]

Edit: Now that I think about, there is no way the PC gaming industry is headed down that path. For that to happen, one very large player would be left sitting on the bench, and we know MS doesn't play on the bench. Why else would MS spend resources developing DX?

They don't control OpenGL.

Hopefully there will be a significant user backlash to encourage developers not to go down this route.

[london-boy]

excuse my ignorance, but wasn't DirectX invented (among other things) to make different hardware to a certain extent compatible with each other?

i mean, if they want to go down that road they might as well shift development to consoles.... PC gaming is a different thing...

[Psikotiko]

WOW!!!!

I hope it doesn't happen. Even if i had a nvidia card i would not buy the game. It's just stupid....

Edit: We have to wait and see. "Remember where you read this first, and expect confirmation at this May’s E3. " :?

[Reverend]

It is incomprehensible to me -- if this is indeed true (i.e. "can't play this game unless you have a NVIDIA card"), then I know two things :

1) Valve can make great games
2) Valve suck in business

Of course, there's a caveat to #2... maybe they know HL2 will suck and they took their chances with the money NVIDIA is paying them :? :evil:

[Reverend]

BTW, I'm moving this to the 3D Graphics Companies forum.

[Natoma]

Just in case the article gets bumped off the front page, due to the natural progression of the news.

Direct link (http://www.spong.com/x?art=4697)

[StellaArtois]

All I can say is 'bollox' !

If true, I agree. Utter bollox!!

ATI here I come... :P

[BoardBonobo]

I always thought that this was an inevitable outcome with PC games. The very fact that you have an API that sets the standards for the community means that every one is equal, allegedly.

It also means that if the API dictates what features are available to a developer then it matters not what gfx card they aim at. All they have to do is aim for the API. It also means that you don't need more than one gfx card or manufacturer on the market, after all they don't dictate what is good and what is not. Nvidias FP16 support is a prime example of that.

[Kristof]

Think economics here, can NVIDIA pay Valve the equivalent of ALL the "non-NVIDIA Boards using"-end-users ? If not then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

The only thing that might show up is some kind of exclusive demo... limiting content to one PC Graphics Hardware vendor is IMHO poor economics given that there are at least 2 giants which will propbably share roughly 50/50 of the market. Do you want half of the potential gaming market to be unable to play your game, do you want to rule out 50% of your target audience ?

IMHO NVIDIA would have to pay a hell of a lot of money to secure this, and even then the question of unlocking comes up, what stops ATI from providing a tick box : immitate NVIDIA driver strings. Or some third party from hacking the lock ?

[jb]

Yea even thought I enjoyed the 3dfx demo of UT before my friends I still thought that was a bad move (specific demos based on hardware). I hope this is just a mis-understanding. I can see where some features may or may not be there as we already have that...but not working on any other card?

[DeanoC]

I hope this is not true......

From a commerical point of view, it might make sense. The reduction of compat testing + the millions that NVIDIA would have to pay may be worth it but as a consumer it sucks.

As somebody else mentioned all it would do is make driver development harder, spending time 'emulating' video cards rather than making faster, more stable and more features in there drivers.

As a dev I'd consider it 'unethical' and quit if forced to restrict a game to one particular hardware.

We would be back to the good ol' days of custom API's (anybody for Redline games?) I wonder if NVIDIA would then sue people for writng wrappers (like 3DFX starting doing with GLIDE wrappers)

[whql]

We would be back to the good ol' days of custom API's (anybody for Redline games?) I wonder if NVIDIA would then sue people for writng wrappers (like 3DFX starting doing with GLIDE wrappers)

Well, they didn't hire that general counsil from Intel last year to sit on his fanny all day! :evil:

[Tahir2]

fanny

I aint heard that word in a long time.... if he was a bloke what the hell was he doing, fannying around?

Edit.. stupid comma's.

[sabeehali]

I think we will see a rehash of the whole NWN debacle.

:x

[Pete]

This sounds ridiculous. If people want easy development, aim for consoles. Perhaps Valve thinks they can make up what they lose in ATi PC customers with nVidia Xbox customers. I still think it's a stupid move, but not altogether surprising, given the problems ATi cards have had in the past with HL.

[duncan36]

It won't be purely an Nvidia game it doesnt make economic sense, if its an out of this world blockbuster and would sell say 2 million copies, being a Nvidia only game you can immediately cut out 1 million of those sales minimum.
So right off the bat you're losing $40 million in sales, not to mention the millions you'd lose in angry returns from the guy with the SiS Xabre card who didnt see the massive Nvidia only sticker on the box.
So you're looking at a loss of $40+ mil minimum in sales, cash that Nvidia would have to fork over to Valve, plus a huge hit to Valves standing and PR.
With Nvidia barely meeting EPS estimates theres no way they could drop $40 million on this venture.

[LeStoffer]

Rubish news! :o

Just think about it: Do you really think that most of the time making a game is about having to optimize for more than one card vendor?

Think about the massive amount of time that goes into making the engine itself (or adapting custom code to a given engine), all the content, art, animation, sound/music, AI, netcode, quality assurance and what gives.

Wake up guys! If a game developer takes the offer of going one-vendor it's because they have been payed through the nose for it - and how many of the truely creative people in this business would like to give up their freedom for a boring, steady income? Is this what fuels awesome and innovative thinking?

No, if there is anything to this newsbite it's only that Half-Life2 will be showcased with an nVidia optimized engine. The launched game is another story.

Only crap games that would otherwise die horrible in the free market could be in question here (as playable tech demos).

[Testiculus Giganticus]

I think this is being blown out of proportion.Take into account the fact that there have been NO OFFICIAL announcements about HL2 and that it wouldn`t be economically feasible for valve to do an exclusive title like that.Also think that nv is not interested in paying huge sums for exclusivity of the finished title -a demo on the other hand......

[BRiT]

Doesn't matter anyways, as HL2 wont be released until after TeamFortress 2. So we have another 3 to 4 years to go. :P

[RussSchultz]

The way its going, we'll see Half Life 2 the same time we see the 5800 ultra. *cough*

Are they ever going to release TF2? EVER?

[Nagorak]

1) Valve can make great games


Why is the word "game" plural? Valve has made a single game in the last 4 years, and as far as I know, one game total. :roll:

[Pete]

Heh, I actually placed a preorder for TF2 at Buy.com. I think that was last millenium.

I'm still waiting. ;)

(But now that I've tried BF1942, Valve can take all the time they need.)

[gokickrocks]

i disliked Valve ever since they gotten rid of Dynamix

Tribes was the best game ever

[Nagorak]

i disliked Valve ever since they gotten rid of Dynamix

Tribes was the best game ever

I think you mean Sierra.

[shaderman]

it's a release exclusive not "it won't play on anything but NV" exclusive.

- sm

[Vince]

I don't mean to cause a dispute, but has anyone stopped to consider the demographics of the average Half-Life player? I realize that many here are very passionate about a certain brand and like to feel that there is significant draw to the brand name itself, but I can't help but feel that these people truely are a niche and nothing more.

Beyond this, from what I remember of the HL demographics (which I've just remember where I saw the numbers and they're from 2000) the number of people using nVidia based PC's composed ~70% of the Half-Life base. www.3dfx.com

Now, that's significant in absolute number and I'd assume that the margin has increased as nVidia's OEM (lets face it, thats where the volume is) and even add-in board number have been steadily increasing since 2000.

So, while I'm not saying this is true - if it is, I can envision how it could be a great move for both parties involved (just not the consumer). Valve preserves ~70% + of it's base and gains the inevitable XBox Next launch title (or close to launch) aswell as any perks nVidia or MS throws it's way.

nVidia gains much, much more. Not only do they gain a massive title - but this policy, if truely implimented, is brilliant. Why fight ATi based on economies of scale and technical ability when you don't have to? From their PoV, screw the consumer and use up their developer capital which far outweighs ATi's or Matrox's. By fracturing the marketplace they cause consumers to pick; and most consumers just want to play games.

[gokickrocks]

i disliked Valve ever since they gotten rid of Dynamix

Tribes was the best game ever

I think you mean Sierra.

doh! :oops:

[demalion]

I don't mean to cause a dispute, but has anyone stopped to consider the demographics of the average Half-Life player? I realize that many here are very passionate about a certain brand and like to feel that there is significant draw to the brand name itself, but I can't help but feel that these people truely are a niche and nothing more.

It isn't only brand loyalists that will be affected. BTW, I think you ignore the impact of enthusiasts on word of mouth sales influence. Every place I've worked has had social interaction based on people seeking advice from enthusiasts (car enthusiasts, computer enthusiasts, investment enthusiasts, whatever)...what I think is a minority is enthusiasts who see nothing wrong with Valve doing something like this.

Beyond this, from what I remember of the HL demographics (which I've just remember where I saw the numbers and they're from 2000) the number of people using nVidia based PC's composed ~70% of the Half-Life base. www.3dfx.com

So assuming 70% of potential customers for HL 2 in 2003/4 is indicated by those 2000 figures, you think this is a good move on Valve's part? It makes it a potentially successful short term money collection strategy. There are many such strategies that ignore consequences...how does that make them good ones?

Now, that's significant in absolute number and I'd assume that the margin has increased as nVidia's OEM (lets face it, thats where the volume is) and even add-in board number have been steadily increasing since 2000.

Hmm...you go from Valve's survey results and incorporate non-specified marketshare growth, ignoring things like the share penetration for the 9700 family in 3dmark results in the short time period of release. Basing conclusions on either by themself seems incomplete...if I concentrated on ATI's DX 9 capable marketshare (something pretty close to 100%), mightn't I be able to argue that that is more pertinent to which vendor to choose for exclusive advanced feature support? Or, at the very atleast, which vendor not to ignore (since ATI isn't trying to garner exclusive support).

So, while I'm not saying this is true - if it is, I can envision how it could be a great move for both parties involved (just not the consumer).

Short term. Valve's success hasn't been a short term success, so I don't think they gain much (unless it is a humungous pile of money and they are the type of people who only want/need that type of gain, despite the basis of their success with half-life over the years). They depend a lot on community good will, and to the contrary of a "good move" it seems to me exceedingly foolish to squander that goodwill. But, given past behavior and monetary compensation, it does seem possible.

Valve preserves ~70% + of it's base and gains the inevitable XBox Next launch title (or close to launch) aswell as any perks nVidia or MS throws it's way.

I think your "preserves 70% + of it's base" is built on sand. That doesn't mean I don't think your description of Valve's actions is possible, just that I have no idea why you think it is a good idea for them, unless they intend to retire from PC game making. That seems possible from the angle of the X box rumor, but that's the antithesis of Valve's past PC success (Don't see how Microsoft would gain from exclusivity instead of just a franchise with the Halo franchise already in place for X box such that they would throw perks at Valve for this approach).

nVidia gains much, much more. Not only do they gain a massive title - but this policy, if truely implimented, is brilliant.

Heh, "brilliant" you say. What's so brilliant about buying marketshare instead of achieving it by successful engineering? It is a risky proposition limited by the availability of funding.

Why fight ATi based on economies of scale and technical ability when you don't have to?

From the standpoint of defining nVidia's actions, you make good (but fairly obvious) points. From the standpoint of saying these actions are "brilliant" for nvidia or a "good move" for Valve, I don't see your support holding together. I do agree it is a "good move" in the current situation for nvidia, but that possibility has been pretty evident for a while and seems a given in the discussion.

From their PoV, screw the consumer and use up their developer capital which far outweighs ATi's or Matrox's.

"far outweighs"...hmm...where are you getting these evaluations?

By fracturing the marketplace they cause consumers to pick; and most consumers just want to play games.

nVidia seems hell bent on alienating their (non-blind) enthusiasts by replacing performance leadership with PR initiatives. Since this fits my view of their actions regarding the nv30, I tend to agree this makes it possible that this rumor is true, but I don't think consumers are the only ones who will be penalized for such an approach. <-Cue the now obligatory 3dfx parallel.

[BoardBonobo]

In the article that sparked all this off is the following statement:

We have been aware for some time that both ATi and nVidia have been courting the publishers and developers of AAA PC games, trying to gain card-exclusivity.

So both nvidia and Ati have been attempting to get these kinds of deals, it just means that nvidia ave been more successful at it. I'm sure ATi will score the same kind of deal... eventually.

[demalion]

In the article that sparked all this off is the following statement:

We have been aware for some time that both ATi and nVidia have been courting the publishers and developers of AAA PC games, trying to gain card-exclusivity.

I don't believe everything written on the internet is true. Do you have some reason to trust the statement as the literal truth that I'm not aware of?

So both nvidia and Ati have been attempting to get these kinds of deals, it just means that nvidia ave been more successful at it. I'm sure ATi will score the same kind of deal... eventually.

How has ATI been attempting to do this? Are we talking about Big Honking Ads (in which case you seem to have pretty solid corroboration given what others have mentioned), or feature exclusivity? It is the feature exclusivity that I don't get....ATi's base of support is tied to cross vendor API specifications.

It is nVidia that seems to be making the attempt to leverage customization initiatives to exclude competition as an alternative to offering hardware that competes well on its own. I really don't see how it is possible for ATI except by pushing floating point precision usage such that nv30-34 performance is unacceptable, but pushing PS 2.0, or ARB fragment programs, doesn't seem to quite warrant being called exclusive...nvidia not being able to compete well (except maybe with nv35) would be nvidia's failing, not ATI preventing competition.

I guess we'll find out, though.

[PiNkY]

Anyone remember the original Half Life release. There was a special pre-release version (roughly consisting of the first quarter of the game) bundled (exclusivly, I think) with nvidia tnt cards two months prior to retail launch. Personally, I think, that is what we are going to see.

[jvd]

heh i don't see the problem. I just will never buy another game from them. Saves me money in the long run. Oh and none of my family or friends will either since i build all thier systems and i put the best cards in thier systems . Which happen to be ati cards right now. (image quality is allways more important.)

[BoddoZerg]

I seriously doubt anything like this will happen. If video-card exclusivity ever becomes the standard in PC gaming ("You will see a massive change in the structure of the PC games industry in the next few months...") then it will be the final nail in the PC gaming coffin.

Why the fuck do I want to worry about whether my PC is an "ATi PC" or a "nVidia PC" when I could get a Xbox or PS2 and not have to worry about endless bugs and patches? What if I want to upgrade, or even buy a new PC? If I want to keep my old software, I'll be forced to get the same company's videocards even if they are no longer the best!

Bullsh*t bullsh*t, bullsh*t. I believe this even less than I believe "Revenge" was going to be a viable videocard. The console market gains efficiency from segregation because they are discrete fixed platforms. The PC market has nothing of the sort. You could have an "ATi computer" and an "nVidia computer" with the same motherboard, hard drive, etc... or you could have two "nVidia computers" with totally different layouts, even one "nVidia desktop" and an "nVidia laptop".

It would be incredibly shortsighted for either nVidia or ATi to pull something like this, and suicide for Valve. (Valve has always relied on the modding community. The modding community will NOT like this...) But, I just can't believe that it is true. Both Valve and nVidia would have to be run by monkeys. More likely, Spong.Com asked Elvis Presley if he's heard anything about Half-Life 2.

[AJ]

In the article that sparked all this off is the following statement:

We have been aware for some time that both ATi and nVidia have been courting the publishers and developers of AAA PC games, trying to gain card-exclusivity.

So both nvidia and Ati have been attempting to get these kinds of deals, it just means that nvidia ave been more successful at it. I'm sure ATi will score the same kind of deal... eventually.

Hmm... That's certainly an interesting statement. Does anyone have any information about the above? Are there any game developers on the board who would be in a position to talk about this?

I do have to point out how interesting implications this would have from the point of benchmarking...

Cheers,

AJ

[Bambers]

Even if this is true its not too worrying imo for reasons already mentioned.

Personally I group HL2/TF2 in with games like duke nukem forever :lol:

[Vince]

Man this guy just loves to argue about dumb things:

It isn't only brand loyalists that will be affected. BTW, I think you ignore the impact of enthusiasts on word of mouth sales influence. Every place I've worked has had social interaction based on people seeking advice from enthusiasts (car enthusiasts, computer enthusiasts, investment enthusiasts, whatever)...what I think is a minority is enthusiasts who see nothing wrong with Valve doing something like this.

If you honestly believe that even a signficant fraction of that 70% knows what card their using, the features that the architecture has or the level of DX support it contains - then your delusional. Hell, I don't even know what the 3D chipset in my laptop it, nor do I really care.

Enthusiest sales are a niche, nothing more.

So assuming 70% of potential customers for HL 2 in 2003/4 is indicated by those 2000 figures, you think this is a good move on Valve's part? It makes it a potentially successful short term money collection strategy. There are many such strategies that ignore consequences...how does that make them good ones?

If Valve would consider it, then obviously it is. I find it ridiculous that people are so willing to dismiss this (or many of the things they do) based on nothing more than their self-imposed connection to a IHV.

Hmm...you go from Valve's survey results and incorporate non-specified marketshare growth, ignoring things like the share penetration for the 9700 family in 3dmark results in the short time period of release. Basing conclusions on either by themself seems incomplete...if I concentrated on ATI's DX 9 capable marketshare (something pretty close to 100%), mightn't I be able to argue that that is more pertinent to which vendor to choose for exclusive advanced feature support?

You really think the 9700 family has even sold close to that of the GeForce line? Give me a break, Add-in sales are literally nothing - a corperate entity the size of an nVidia or ATi can't survive on just add ins. People, such as yourself, must have no clue how big the OEM sales are, or you're just so unconnected to reality.

Valve's Half-Life (and it's derivatives) have become a mainstream game with deep inroads into the pop-culture. It's far, far beyond people like yourself in userbase.

Beyond that, nVidia will quickly assimilate the DX9 range once they get all their products out - you watch.

I think your "preserves 70% + of it's base" is built on sand. That doesn't mean I don't think your description of Valve's actions is possible, just that I have no idea why you think it is a good idea for them, unless they intend to retire from PC game making. That seems possible from the angle of the X box rumor, but that's the antithesis of Valve's past PC success (Don't see how Microsoft would gain from exclusivity instead of just a franchise with the Halo franchise already in place for X box such that they would throw perks at Valve for this approach).

I'd say your out of touch with the industry. PC Gaming is dying bud, it's inevitable and this trend has been hastened by Microsoft's virtual cannibilization of many PC developers to provide support to XBox. Go talk with Quincy about PC sales of late - it's a dying breed overall (granted there are a few, but overall)

If Valve can retain ~70+% of the PC userbase (as it's obvious from nVidia's OEM and add-in sales that they've only increased - but due to your opinion, we'll assume ~40%) and then gain some type of launch deal with Microsoft for XBox Next - that's huge. PS2 will end up approaching 100M by the end of it's lifespan. XBox will probobly be around 20-30M and that'll just go up with the Next Generation.

Heh, "brilliant" you say. What's so brilliant about buying marketshare instead of achieving it by successful engineering? It is a risky proposition limited by the availability of funding.

I realize this will come as a shock to you and many others who believe in this idealostic vision of the 3D card industry (hehe); but nVidia is a... corperate entity Their role is to create profits for their shareholders and remain a viable entity. There's not there to feed the poor, play fair, preach morals or virtues, or give confessions. They're only function in this world is to create a profit - the sooner you drop this "holier than thou" mentality in the 3D IHV area (hehe) BS, the sooner you'll see how smart it is.

You type way too much....

[fresh]

Maybe you guys should read the article a little closer :

"...deals for exclusive content..."

Exclusive *CONTENT*. So maybe they included some special shaders which makes the characters look nicer, or whatever. I seriously doubt the game will run on nvidia hardware only.

[duncan36]

You really think the 9700 family has even sold close to that of the GeForce line? Give me a break, Add-in sales are literally nothing - a corperate entity the size of an nVidia or ATi can't survive on just add ins. People, such as yourself, must have no clue how big the OEM sales are, or you're just so unconnected to reality.


Dells main add in choices are the 9700tx and 9700pro, plus about every single $3000 top of the line PC is selling with the 9700pro. I think most people are well aware of OEM sales, perhaps its you thats underestimating how well the 9700 pro has been doing in both add-in and OEM sectors.
Right now Nvidia is doing ok, but they're under increasing pricing pressure especially since they still have no high-end part to offer OEMs.
Right now Nvidia is chasing ATi's tail, one more major Nv30 calibre misstep this year and the solvency of the company is in real danger.

[Nagorak]

Making games exclusive to only one video card manufacturer isn't practical. It's not like consoles...you can have more than one console plugged in at once. In order to change games you'd have to open your case and switch your graphics card. Talk about a hassle...

[Reverend]

In the article that sparked all this off is the following statement:

We have been aware for some time that both ATi and nVidia have been courting the publishers and developers of AAA PC games, trying to gain card-exclusivity.

So both nvidia and Ati have been attempting to get these kinds of deals, it just means that nvidia ave been more successful at it. I'm sure ATi will score the same kind of deal... eventually.

Hmm... That's certainly an interesting statement. Does anyone have any information about the above? Are there any game developers on the board who would be in a position to talk about this?

I do have to point out how interesting implications this would have from the point of benchmarking...

Cheers,

AJ

I will refrain from directly answering your question (well, I'm not a developer anyway!) but I would not think a publisher like EA will allow ANY of the developers under their umbrella to do what Valve is rumored to be doing (as in this thread). I cen't speak for every developer but I think the main decision aren't the developers themselves but the publishers. Do you think Activision would allow id Software to do what Valve is apparently doing?

[demalion]

Man this guy just loves to argue about dumb things:

Actually, I really tried to attack the point and not the person, as this is the technical forum. You seem to be trying to make that impossible. I'll keep it brief: please try to get used to the idea that people might disagree with you...and say so. Or is it that action that defines "dumb"?

It isn't only brand loyalists that will be affected. BTW, I think you ignore the impact of enthusiasts on word of mouth sales influence. Every place I've worked has had social interaction based on people seeking advice from enthusiasts (car enthusiasts, computer enthusiasts, investment enthusiasts, whatever)...what I think is a minority is enthusiasts who see nothing wrong with Valve doing something like this.

If you honestly believe that even a signficant fraction of that 70% knows what card their using, the features that the architecture has or the level of DX support it contains - then your delusional. Hell, I don't even know what the 3D chipset in my laptop it, nor do I really care.

OK...let me say this again, since it didn't get across the first time. I'm not saying that people who know graphics cards are not a minority. I'm saying the impact of people who know or try to know about graphics cards on the buying decisions of people who don't know about graphics cards is significant.
Also, your connection to the survey results under discussion seems not to hold together quite so strongly as the participants likely got exposed to such information when conducting that survey.
What you seem to mean is that a small fraction of 3d accelerator users know what card they have, but you'd need to discuss that in the context of current marketshare figures for 3d game buyers and then discuss changes in that to start to make the point you are making. 3dmark 2001 figures from late 2002, for example, are closer to that than Valve's survey results from 2000.
Why are you persisting in defending a chain of reasoning that you are connecting so poorly? If you don't think it does hold together poorly, could you use a method other than repetition to support that?

Enthusiest sales are a niche, nothing more.

If you'll note, I said "BTW, I think you ignore the impact of enthusiasts on word of mouth sales influence", and then went on to say why. Did you see who was replying and decide not to read, or did you just decide repeating yourself while ignoring my reasoning was the best way to respond?

So assuming 70% of potential customers for HL 2 in 2003/4 is indicated by those 2000 figures, you think this is a good move on Valve's part? It makes it a potentially successful short term money collection strategy. There are many such strategies that ignore consequences...how does that make them good ones?

If Valve would consider it, then obviously it is.

Hmm...could you share that exclusive list you have of people who only consider good choices? Then, please clarify the exact confirmation you have that what you are proposing is what Valve is in fact considering. I'm assuming you have both, if you are proposing that statement as an answer to my question, right?

I find it ridiculous that people are so willing to dismiss this (or many of the things they do) based on nothing more than their self-imposed connection to a IHV.

I'd thought I'd given reasons why I considered your analysis flawed. What am I dismissing, exactly? Is it dismissing when you give reasoning for why you don't think something is true? I tend to think that "dismissing" was more like what you persist in doing.

Hmm...you go from Valve's survey results and incorporate non-specified marketshare growth, ignoring things like the share penetration for the 9700 family in 3dmark results in the short time period of release. Basing conclusions on either by themself seems incomplete...if I concentrated on ATI's DX 9 capable marketshare (something pretty close to 100%), mightn't I be able to argue that that is more pertinent to which vendor to choose for exclusive advanced feature support?

You really think the 9700 family has even sold close to that of the GeForce line?

When did I say that? Perhaps I have to actually state things point by point.

The 3dmark report I'm mentioning was listed as being the result of submissions from "01-Dec-2002 to 31-Dec-2002".

It had GF 4 Ti 4200 at 23%, 9700/9500 at 10%, GF 4 Ti 4600 at 8%.
The 9500 had been out how long? The 9700 how long and at what prices? The Ti 4200 and 4600 how long?

I think the answers to these questions illustrate that the 9700 and 9500 achieved significant penetration for the amount of time on market. I think the availability and price of the 9700 in the time period since the R300 launch also support either that the 9700 and 9700 Pro were very succesful for a high end card (succeeding in displacing significant GF 4 Ti 4600 high end share in a shorter time of availability), or that the 9500 family was very successful in its short time of availability. I think there have been 3 months of sales after that time period, and I don't think the GF share percentage has been increasing during that time.

If you disagree, simply clarify with reasons besides "Vince said so", that's all.

Give me a break, Add-in sales are literally nothing - a corperate entity the size of an nVidia or ATi can't survive on just add ins. People, such as yourself, must have no clue how big the OEM sales are, or you're just so unconnected to reality.

Well, it would help if you brought up some computer OEM sales figures when making assertions, wouldn't it? Maybe something as recent as the last year, instead of something you quote as being results from 2000. It would then help if we could analyze which portion are targetted by Half Life 2.

Or, we could circumvent that and observe that the only card that can conceivably offer functionality that could pretend to be exclusive to cards offered by ATI has trouble performing when offering that functionality, and discuss the OEM penetration of the nv3x family. In which case your data would have even less bearing.

Finally, we could do what you criticize and conclude that the statement in question is inaccurate, and that some other type of nvidia sponsored promotion is the case. Actually, I think this makes the most sense, but I wouldn't want to have you call me foolish or something, so let's continue.

Valve's Half-Life (and it's derivatives) have become a mainstream game with deep inroads into the pop-culture. It's far, far beyond people like yourself in userbase.

You mean there are other people besides me in the world?!

Seriously, though...what does repeating that I'm "insignificant" have to do with what we are discussing?

Beyond that, nVidia will quickly assimilate the DX9 range once they get all their products out - you watch.

"I find it ridiculous that people are so willing to dismiss this (or many of the things they do) based on nothing more than their self-imposed connection to a IHV."

I think your "preserves 70% + of it's base" is built on sand. That doesn't mean I don't think your description of Valve's actions is possible, just that I have no idea why you think it is a good idea for them, unless they intend to retire from PC game making. That seems possible from the angle of the X box rumor, but that's the antithesis of Valve's past PC success (Don't see how Microsoft would gain from exclusivity instead of just a franchise with the Halo franchise already in place for X box such that they would throw perks at Valve for this approach).

I'd say your out of touch with the industry. PC Gaming is dying bud, it's inevitable and this trend has been hastened by Microsoft's virtual cannibilization of many PC developers to provide support to XBox. Go talk with Quincy about PC sales of late - it's a dying breed overall (granted there are a few, but overall)

Well, someone has to bring actual points into this besides "This is so because I believe it" (that's what you appear to be basing your "PC Gaming is dying" certainty on).

I think people will still have reason to buy computers, in the near and forseeable future.

I think IHVs are offering capable 3D acceleration hardware for said computers.

I think computer system OEMs will push multimedia and 3d gaming in order to drive continued sales.

I think all of these factors are very strong forces, and so it seems reasonable that they will succeed sufficiently to maintain a significant PC presence.

From these, I think it reasonable to think that PC gaming will not be dying any time soon (certainly not to make Valve completely discount PC games sales as a source of revenue).

Of course, you seem to have reason to think people won't buy games for gaming capable PC systems. The problem is, instead of listing them, you listed your conclusion as a given and proceeded to base your argument on them. What support you've given doesn't seem to support your various conclusions very well, and I've said why...and I tried to indicate that again with the "built on sand" comment. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have progressed.

If Valve can retain ~70+% of the PC userbase (as it's obvious from nVidia's OEM and add-in sales that they've only increased - but due to your opinion, we'll assume ~40%)

There are a few issues with that sentence:

1) it isn't 70% of the PC userbase, it is 70% of Valve's survey results in 2000.
2) it isn't obvious from nvidia's OEM and add-in sales that nvidia's share has increased "from 70%".
3) do you give any consideration at all to, for example, ATI's OEM and add-in sales?


and then gain some type of launch deal with Microsoft for XBox Next - that's huge. PS2 will end up approaching 100M by the end of it's lifespan. XBox will probobly be around 20-30M and that'll just go up with the Next Generation.

How does this relate to an nVidia exclusive version in the PC space? I'm not contesting that Valve has reason to make a console version of Half Life 2, I'm just contesting that is applicable as support for your argument. One example detail: Microsoft doesn't seem to gain at all from circumventing DX 9. Why would they give Valve perks for doing so?

Someone brought up Steam somewhere, and that does seem to go rather against shifting development focus to consoles exclusively. Perhaps Valve changed their mind, though...but could you provide some coherent support for that belief please?

Heh, "brilliant" you say. What's so brilliant about buying marketshare instead of achieving it by successful engineering? It is a risky proposition limited by the availability of funding.

I realize this will come as a shock to you and many others who believe in this idealostic vision of the 3D card industry (hehe); but nVidia is a... corperate entity Their role is to create profits for their shareholders and remain a viable entity. There's not there to feed the poor, play fair, preach morals or virtues, or give confessions. They're only function in this world is to create a profit - the sooner you drop this "holier than thou" mentality in the 3D IHV area (hehe) BS, the sooner you'll see how smart it is.

Hmm...do you think that rant answered any of my assertions or has anything to do with the issue at hand?

OK, Vince...how does spending money to pay someone to support your product instead of succeeding on marketshare penetration by using the money you are already spending on R&D (not a little bit, either) qualify as "brilliant" in any way at all, including the one where your purpose is to make money? It could be a "good move" after you've failed to compete successfully as long as you have the money to spend.

You type way too much....
Hey, you don't have to quote it all, but it would help if you read it all, or sometimes even just the parts you do quote, when making a reply. It would also help if you answered my questions and points once in a while so I would be addressing something new.

[Vince]

3dmark 2001 figures from late 2002, for example, are closer to that than Valve's survey results from 2000.

No, as the average PC user (eg. the majority user that Valve caters to) has no idea what 3dmarks is.

Why are you persisting in defending a chain of reasoning that you are connecting so poorly?

Hardly, I've just been too lazy to look up marketshare data to prove this. But as nobody else here will, I guess I shall to move it along.

The 3dmark report I'm mentioning was listed as being the result of submissions from "01-Dec-2002 to 31-Dec-2002".

It had GF 4 Ti 4200 at 23%, 9700/9500 at 10%, GF 4 Ti 4600 at 8%.
The 9500 had been out how long? The 9700 how long and at what prices? The Ti 4200 and 4600 how long?

I think the answers to these questions illustrate that the 9700 and 9500 achieved significant penetration for the amount of time on market.

This is so very flawed - the common PC user doesn't use 3d marks. Of course the ATi chip(s) are going to achieve significant penetration when you're looking at the hard-core niche that upgrades religiously.

I think the availability and price of the 9700 in the time period since the R300 launch also support either that the 9700 and 9700 Pro were very succesful for a high end card (succeeding in displacing significant GF 4 Ti 4600 high end share in a shorter time of availability), or that the 9500 family was very successful in its short time of availability. I think there have been 3 months of sales after that time period, and I don't think the GF share percentage has been increasing during that time

Again, this is why I dismiss many of the things you say, because their blatently wrong and/or based on faulty information/ideologies.

Lets look at some industry wide numbers that show the average consumer and not just those who use 3d marks - which is humorous that you'd rely on them as most people have, literally, no clue what that is.

A Mercury Research report, released this week, found that in the 3rd quarter of 2002 Nvidia's market share rose to 58 per cent, from 56 per cent the previous quarter. ATI lost market share, shrinking from 36 per cent in the second quarter to 33 per cent in the third, despite selling the highest-performing graphics chip. The report looked at worldwide shipments of standalone graphics controllers
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/nvidiagainsmarketshare-nv302xgf4.shtml


Well, it would help if you brought up some computer OEM sales figures when making assertions, wouldn't it? Maybe something as recent as the last year, instead of something you quote as being results from 2000. It would then help if we could analyze which portion are targetted by Half Life 2.

Like I've stated many times, nVidia's marketshare is growing. With the cost of developing a game growing proportional to/greater than the increase in graphical power; I wouldn't blame a developer that doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to make sure a game works on every PC combination out there to just cut their losses on the PC front (taget the biggest slice of the pie) and then focus on a Console.

But, obviously, Valve has the resources - so this will be interesting to see play out. I think it will probobly be a IHV dependent feature thing.

Well, someone has to bring actual points into this besides "This is so because I believe it" (that's what you appear to be basing your "PC Gaming is dying" certainty on).

Thats why I stated the whole "Go to talk to Quincy" as he's seen and shown numbers on this. I know the situation and don't need to prove it to myself. If you'd like confirmation, you do the work.

Someone brought up Steam somewhere, and that does seem to go rather against shifting development focus to consoles exclusively. Perhaps Valve changed their mind, though...but could you provide some coherent support for that belief please?

I'll talk about this a bit because it's a good point. Steam, infact, shows the paradigm shift that's necessary in the PC industry due to it's constriction. With the graphical potential increasing and content creation times rising proportionally, the costs are becomming astronomical. Add to that the already withering PC gaming arena (based on sales) and you'll see even more strategies to preserve profits and cut out the publishers who are unwilling to take on the costs of many games. Besides, the digitial distrobution of media is the future...

[Vince]

Hmm...do you think that rant answered any of my assertions or has anything to do with the issue at hand?

OK, Vince...how does spending money to pay someone to support your product instead of succeeding on marketshare penetration by using the money you are already spending on R&D (not a little bit, either) qualify as "brilliant" in any way at all, including the one where your purpose is to make money? It could be a "good move" after you've failed to compete successfully as long as you have the money to spend.

Better answer this before you again accuse me of avoiding all your amazingly intuitive questions that are self-answering.

I'll use a reductionist method to demonstrate:

nVidia has much free capital (eg. $); ATi doesn't (eg. /= $).
nVidia has, over the course of their corperate lifespan; invested significantly in developer relations; ATi hasn't to the same extent.

nVidia must kill ATi and take their revenues; ATi must kill nVidia.
nVidia has had engineering problems; ATi hasn't.
nVidia has more developer capital; ATi doesn't.
nVidia uses said developer capital to fracture marketplace; ATi is at disadvanatge.
nVidia gains significant amount of developer pool; ATt, et al don't.
nVidia gets more games; ATi, et al. don't
nVidia gets more sales; other don't.
nVidia kills others; others die.

Technical superiority sold seperatly. Fracturing the marketplace is brilliant because it forces developrs to make a choice - and the choice is obvious when they can easily port a nVidia based game to XBox Next.

[MfA]

Developer capital doesnt pay for loosing even 30% of the potential market, NVIDIA will have to spend real capital for that ... a few free man hours of offsite development dont cut it either.

The only way I see them getting exclusives without handing out cash is if they start licensing their own middleware (ie. something slightly more far reaching than some support, source code snippets and Cg).

[Bambers]

While your average PC user doesn't use 3dmark, he doesn't play a huge amount of games either.

When you move into the market of those who actually play games more regularly esp those such as counter strike, they usually have better cards, or they certainly upgrade if they can, the HL engine is a inefficient peice o crap and while it can run on lower cards fine alot of people often upgrade as they see it as an easier solution.

You go on a CS server these days and theres rarely people on modems playing, they're all on BB or ISDN and can afford to upgrade graphics beyond a crappy TNT :)

Also I would imagine quite a few of those people who have better cards know a bit more about pcs and enough to click 'skip' rather than filling in the survey each time while those who don't probably fill it in again every time they patch HL, is it really that reliable?

Yes nvidia have pumped loads of gf2mx cards into the lower market and theres still a few on TNT2s around, however if you look at the gamer market, they're not hardcore overclocker/upgraders, the number of gf2mx users are starting to fall and I'd say getting on for half have a DX8 card, the majority appear to be nvidia although there is a suprising amount of people with 8500s and theres a noticable amount of people on r300 cards. These are not overclockers or upgrade maniacs (people have gone from gf2 to a 9700) and there's many who have never run 3dmark (or not submitted the score at least).

[demalion]

3dmark 2001 figures from late 2002, for example, are closer to that than Valve's survey results from 2000.

No, as the average PC user (eg. the majority user that Valve caters to) has no idea what 3dmarks is.

Were we discussing that, or discussing how representative the data might be? I thought we were discussing how representative they might be, mentioning years and all, but you seem to be trying to insist on something else.

Why are you persisting in defending a chain of reasoning that you are connecting so poorly?

Hardly, I've just been too lazy to look up marketshare data to prove this. But as nobody else here will, I guess I shall to move it along.

Yeah, nobody else is mentioning figures and analyzing them...

The 3dmark report I'm mentioning was listed as being the result of submissions from "01-Dec-2002 to 31-Dec-2002".

It had GF 4 Ti 4200 at 23%, 9700/9500 at 10%, GF 4 Ti 4600 at 8%.
The 9500 had been out how long? The 9700 how long and at what prices? The Ti 4200 and 4600 how long?

I think the answers to these questions illustrate that the 9700 and 9500 achieved significant penetration for the amount of time on market.

This is so very flawed - the common PC user doesn't use 3d marks. Of course the ATi chip(s) are going to achieve significant penetration when you're looking at the hard-core niche that upgrades religiously.

Pardon, I thought we were talking about Half-Life 2? Or do you expect the "exclusive featureset" to be for the GF 2? I had the strange idea that the people who might have upgraded since 2000 had a direct bearing on the discussion, for some reason.

I think the availability and price of the 9700 in the time period since the R300 launch also support either that the 9700 and 9700 Pro were very succesful for a high end card (succeeding in displacing significant GF 4 Ti 4600 high end share in a shorter time of availability), or that the 9500 family was very successful in its short time of availability. I think there have been 3 months of sales after that time period, and I don't think the GF share percentage has been increasing during that time

Again, this is why I dismiss many of the things you say, because their blatently wrong and/or based on faulty information/ideologies.

Wow, who can argue with such a strong chain of logic?

Lets look at some industry wide numbers that show the average consumer and not just those who use 3d marks - which is humorous that you'd rely on them as most people have, literally, no clue what that is.

Vince doing something I asked him to!

A Mercury Research report, released this week, found that in the 3rd quarter of 2002 Nvidia's market share rose to 58 per cent, from 56 per cent the previous quarter. ATI lost market share, shrinking from 36 per cent in the second quarter to 33 per cent in the third, despite selling the highest-performing graphics chip. The report looked at worldwide shipments of standalone graphics controllers
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/nvidiagainsmarketshare-nv302xgf4.shtml


Thank you! Now, to finish quoting the paragraph since you "accidentally" dropped some text:


These figures will certainly boost enthusiasm about the company, especially in expectation of the official NV30 launch. Many analysts however, claim that the latest report only tells half the truth since the effects of ATI's RADEON 9700 will not be felt, in the market for at least another quarter. Add to that the low availability of the NV30, at least until the end of the 1st quarter of 2003 and you have a more realistic picture. Another issue which everyone should be aware of, is that Flagship products, like RADEON 9700 and the NV30, account for a minute percentage of graphics cards sales, they are, instead, used as a confirmation of technological supremacy and an attraction to lure customers towards lower end products.

I'm wondering which parts you'll selectively read in the additional text I quoted? I hope you read my other text before you do so.

Well, it would help if you brought up some computer OEM sales figures when making assertions, wouldn't it? Maybe something as recent as the last year, instead of something you quote as being results from 2000. It would then help if we could analyze which portion are targetted by Half Life 2.

Like I've stated many times, nVidia's marketshare is growing.

And quite the "proof" you've presented.
With the cost of developing a game growing proportional to/greater than the increase in graphical power; I wouldn't blame a developer that doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to make sure a game works on every PC combination out there to just cut their losses on the PC front (taget the biggest slice of the pie) and then focus on a Console.

*shrug* And I think that's insane. Your "proof" of your opinion still doesn't hold together, and my "support" for mine (I have no desire to present it as factual, just well reasoned) is still available to be read above.

But, obviously, Valve has the resources - so this will be interesting to see play out. I think it will probobly be a IHV dependent feature thing.

Hey, you recognize that your comments aren't proven after all. On that note, what do you mean by "IHV dependent feature"?

Well, someone has to bring actual points into this besides "This is so because I believe it" (that's what you appear to be basing your "PC Gaming is dying" certainty on).

Thats why I stated the whole "Go to talk to Quincy" as he's seen and shown numbers on this.

You mean numbers like the above? Which "Quincy" is this, BTW? Qroach?
I know the situation and don't need to prove it to myself. If you'd like confirmation, you do the work.

If you have figures in mind, is it so difficult to link them instead of pretending they make your viewpoint unassailable fact? I don't have the confidence you do in your reasoning, and that's something that is based on what I've seen for myself.

Someone brought up Steam somewhere, and that does seem to go rather against shifting development focus to consoles exclusively. Perhaps Valve changed their mind, though...but could you provide some coherent support for that belief please?

I'll talk about this a bit because it's a good point. Steam, infact, shows the paradigm shift that's necessary in the PC industry due to it's constriction. With the graphical potential increasing and content creation times rising proportionally, the costs are becomming astronomical.

Hmm...this seems to be costs involved for consoles just as much, so...

Add to that the already withering PC gaming arena (based on sales) and you'll see even more strategies to preserve profits and cut out the publishers who are unwilling to take on the costs of many games. Besides, the digitial distrobution of media is the future...

...assuming your following statements as fact (which they might not be, if you can imagine that) supports the idea of consoles in addition, not as replacement. Also, you seem to insist on ignoring the role of user customization in Valve's success with Half-Life...is it because you'd find it inconvenient to propose that is something that would be done on consoles and not PCs?

[demalion]

Hmm...do you think that rant answered any of my assertions or has anything to do with the issue at hand?

OK, Vince...how does spending money to pay someone to support your product instead of succeeding on marketshare penetration by using the money you are already spending on R&D (not a little bit, either) qualify as "brilliant" in any way at all, including the one where your purpose is to make money? It could be a "good move" after you've failed to compete successfully as long as you have the money to spend.

Better answer this before you again accuse me of avoiding all your amazingly intuitive questions that are self-answering.

Should we discuss definitions of "dismiss" and "disagree", and apply it to each of our approaches to this discussion?

I'll use a reductionist method to demonstrate:

nVidia has much free capital (eg. $); ATi doesn't (eg. /= $).
nVidia has, over the course of their corperate lifespan; invested significantly in developer relations; ATi hasn't to the same extent.

nVidia must kill ATi and take their revenues; ATi must kill nVidia.
nVidia has had engineering problems; ATi hasn't.
nVidia has more developer capital; ATi doesn't.
nVidia uses said developer capital to fracture marketplace; ATi is at disadvanatge.
nVidia gains significant amount of developer pool; ATt, et al don't.
nVidia gets more games; ATi, et al. don't
nVidia gets more sales; other don't.
nVidia kills others; others die.

Well, there seems to be a "few" flaws in what you are proposing is a logical conclusion...namely that you list a chain of conclusions, and provide no support for how they follow from what comes before.
You:
ignore the possibility of success for what ATi is trying (technical execution advantage, advertising and marketing based on showcasing that, support of cross vendor tools, spending money on developer support)
assume the success of what nvidia is trying as given (spending, supposedly, more money for developer support of their specific featureset and vendor centric tools, marketing based on big numbers and words and not on delivering those big numbers and words effectively)

Hmm...if I turned that around, I could predict nvidia will be "dead" with just as much validity. Heck, I could "prove" that Elvis is alive...or that there is a mystical connection between the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln. :lol:

You insist on perceiving this as "brilliant", and smart usage of money, and you seem to depend on ignoring any points I raise to the contrary to say so. Will you change that impression any time soon?

To quote you again:
"I find it ridiculous that people are so willing to dismiss this (or many of the things they do) based on nothing more than their self-imposed connection to a IHV."

You seem to have a propensity for accusing others of portraying characteristics that some might think more properly describe your own behavior. But that's just an opinion.

Technical superiority sold seperatly. Fracturing the marketplace is brilliant because it forces developrs to make a choice - and the choice is obvious when they can easily port a nVidia based game to XBox Next.

The X Box does not have a GF FX, Vince...it has a chip that has PS 1.3 level functionality. How does ignoring DX 9 in favor of nv30 featureset implementation facilitate porting to the X Box? Alternatively, what exclusive features can the GF 4 or NV2A do that can't be done on, for example, the shader capable Radeon cards?

[ET]

Rubish news! :o

Just think about it: Do you really think that most of the time making a game is about having to optimize for more than one card vendor?

Think about the massive amount of time that goes into making the engine itself (or adapting custom code to a given engine), all the content, art, animation, sound/music, AI, netcode, quality assurance and what gives.

Wake up guys! If a game developer takes the offer of going one-vendor it's because they have been payed through the nose for it - and how many of the truely creative people in this business would like to give up their freedom for a boring, steady income? Is this what fuels awesome and innovative thinking?

No, if there is anything to this newsbite it's only that Half-Life2 will be showcased with an nVidia optimized engine. The launched game is another story.

Only crap games that would otherwise die horrible in the free market could be in question here (as playable tech demos).

You're looking at this the wrong way. As far as I know, what NVIDIA does (and ATI, too) is provide you with code to do the extra effects. They might also pay you so that you won't go to ATI for the same thing (that's just speculation), but that's beside the point. The graphics developer usually has enough work and time limits (except for the "when it's done" games) that he might not get to create some advanced effects anyway. What NVIDIA's support means is that instead of the game shipping without such an advance effect, it will ship with an advanced effect that works on NVIDIA cards, because that's what NVIDIA provided.

By the way, not optimising for any specific card currently means "optimising for NVIDIA hardware". That's because the baseline T&L card is a GeForce. If you're using shaders, it's a GeForce3. In short, if you write code that will work on as many cards as possible, you will write NVIDIA code.

[Dave Baumann]

Technical superiority sold seperatly. Fracturing the marketplace is brilliant because it forces developrs to make a choice - and the choice is obvious when they can easily port a nVidia based game to XBox Next.

And could backfire quite badly if they don't get the next XBox.

[LeStoffer]

You're looking at this the wrong way. As far as I know, what NVIDIA does (and ATI, too) is provide you with code to do the extra effects.

First, I was looking at it from the premise of this thread, namely about whether it stands to reason for a big game (here Half-Life 2) to be exclusive to one IHV's graphics cards (here nVidia). I wasn't talking about being content (feature) exclusive.

Beyond that, yes, developer relations guys from the IHV are there for a reason which amongst other things are to help with solutions. And of course these solutions will often be code snippets that for instance will do an effect efficiently on a specific card.

I just think that game developers will be hestitant to drop in alien (as in: I don't know how this works at all!) rendering paths within their games for a number of reasons, the main being: Who has the responsablity for end-user support?

It's a grey area between when dev-rel guys provide that code and when the game developer implements that code, but if you want to be in control, I don't believe that you would just dump a whole alien code base from a IHV into your engine - being it special rendering effects or not.

[demalion]

Oh, I didn't recognize the term "Xbox Next" as depending on the capitalization of "N".

Too many assumptions are being presumed factual to hold a fruitful discussion, I think. :-?

[demalion]

...

By the way, not optimising for any specific card currently means "optimising for NVIDIA hardware". That's because the baseline T&L card is a GeForce. If you're using shaders, it's a GeForce3. In short, if you write code that will work on as many cards as possible, you will write NVIDIA code.

Isn't that ignoring DX 9 (and the OpenGL ARB fragment shader extension)? DX 9 cards have been out for a while, so I'm just confused by what you mean by "currently" (in the context of advanced functionality).

[BenSkywalker]

Isn't that ignoring DX 9 (and the OpenGL ARB fragment shader extension)? DX 9 cards have been out for a while, so I'm just confused by what you mean by "currently" (in the context of advanced functionality).

Advanced functionality in PC games is DX8 level right now, even then there isn't much exploitation of those features. ATi had a press release that they managed to ship 1Million DX9 parts in five months. nV is planning on besting that in their first month of volume shipment. Right now in the PC gaming market nVidia dominates. There has already been market evidence of this displayed, although I understand some may be unfamiliar enough with the scales of the market to think that a $300-$400 part will have any meaningful impact in terms of marketshare. Much as 3dfx dominated the gaming market for quite some time after they lost their technological edge, nVidia is still dominating it today.

It won't be purely an Nvidia game it doesnt make economic sense, if its an out of this world blockbuster and would sell say 2 million copies, being a Nvidia only game you can immediately cut out 1 million of those sales minimum.

Goldeneye sold 10Million, Halo has sold over 3Million and is still selling well. From everything that has been stated, and much of it does appear speculative, HL2 is a game that is nearing launch. It could very well be a DX8 level game and could end up on the current XBox. If the extensive rumors that have been circulating for some time about MS courting Valve for, at the very least, a timed XB exclusive on HL2, have validity it is certainly within reason that they are covering a large amount of the cash outlay that would make a deal woth doing to Valve. MS using their leverage to entice nVidia for a better pricing structure by offering the chance for enhanced/exclusive content is certainly within the realm of the possible.

I don't think it is likely that HL2 would be nVidia exclusive on the PC. I do see it being a possibility however. About a console cycle ago Glide was still a major force in PC gaming. In hardware advancement terms that is obviously a long time; in game development terms it isn't. Many devs could be less then two projects removed from a proprietary API approach on the PC.

[demalion]

Isn't that ignoring DX 9 (and the OpenGL ARB fragment shader extension)? DX 9 cards have been out for a while, so I'm just confused by what you mean by "currently" (in the context of advanced functionality).

Advanced functionality in PC games is DX8 level right now, even then there isn't much exploitation of those features.

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all. Except like in the way that Cg doesn't support PS 1.4, so what it would mean is "excluding" the 8500/9100 from performing as well as it could, which has been proposed as the most reasonable interpretation. What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg. Perhaps they simply mean Cg exclusively for nvidia cards, and DX 9 HLSL for everyone else. If you try to sell Cg as a "unique", that might fly.

ATi had a press release that they managed to ship 1Million DX9 parts in five months. nV is planning on besting that in their first month of volume shipment.

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

Right now in the PC gaming market nVidia dominates. There has already been market evidence of this displayed, although I understand some may be unfamiliar enough with the scales of the market to think that a $300-$400 part will have any meaningful impact in terms of marketshare.

"some"? Whomever could you be trying to deprecate indirectly?

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We need to make up our mind on whether we're talking about the existing DX 8 base, or DX 9 features in this discussion...we're discussing marketshare and how it applies to "exclusivity" and "some" seem to be arbitrarily equating DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9 to do so (with DX 9 cards already sold being treated is irrelevant). I could use some stronger connections, which is why I am asking the questions that I am.

Much as 3dfx dominated the gaming market for quite some time after they lost their technological edge, nVidia is still dominating it today.

Well, the context of your 3dfx comparison seems valid to me, as does the rest of your post, except as it pertains to what I've addressed above.

EDIT: clarity

[parhelia]

Some of you say it's impossible to make a DX game work only on nVidia cards, but just remember Gun Metal which only works with Geforce (ok, so 3d analyze cracked it, but still...) and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce

[FUDie]

and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce
What? You mean I didn't play this on my Radeon 9700? Man, I gotta lay off the hard stuff. :lol:

[SpellSinger]

Some of you say it's impossible to make a DX game work only on nVidia cards, but just remember Gun Metal which only works with Geforce (ok, so 3d analyze cracked it, but still...) and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce

Yeti released a patch in January for other products. Gun Metal was doing a device ID check which really sucked and was cracked within a day of being released. I noticed they also ripped down all the nVidia partner info from their web site. MGS2 has publicly stated they are working with ATI to fix their problems.

[Vince]

and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

I don't know WTF your reading, but the quote stated the following:

A Mercury Research report, released this week, found that in the 3rd quarter of 2002 Nvidia's market share rose to 58 per cent, from 56 per cent the previous quarter. ATI lost market share, shrinking from 36 per cent in the second quarter to 33 per cent in the third, despite selling the highest-performing graphics chip. The report looked at worldwide shipments of standalone graphics controllers

You then objected to this 'hard' statistical evidence by quoting the following as your proof:

These figures will certainly boost enthusiasm about the company, especially in expectation of the official NV30 launch. Many analysts however, claim that the latest report only tells half the truth since the effects of ATI's RADEON 9700 will not be felt, in the market for at least another quarter. Add to that the low availability of the NV30, at least until the end of the 1st quarter of 2003 and you have a more realistic picture.

So, what can we take from this?

-Nvidia has solid, recorded statistical evidence proving that it's gained maketshare during the quarter the 9700 launched
-Analysts "claim" that the 9700 will pick-up in sales. No hard evidence, just the analysts opinion. And we've all seen the analysts predictions in the past :roll:
-These same Analysts also state that the NV30's in "Low availiablilty." So, you don't think that just as the 9700 sales pick-up, they won't be lost or at the least, counter-balanced by the NV3x line?

I so hate arguing with you, can be such an ass... twisting linguistsics to meet your idologies and not looking for the underlying truth that the linguistics are trying to describe. You also quote everything, and I mean everything, and then pull this "you missed my one line, line 9721 in paragraph 327, thus your avoiding the question"

If you'd look at the empirical evidence and nVidia's sales without putting any specific IHV linking in to the equation, you'd see just how brilliant this could be; if as Dave Baumann stated, this doesn't backfire.

Yeti released a patch in January for other products. Gun Metal was doing a device ID check which really sucked and was cracked within a day of being released.

Do you realize that you're only bolstering my (and to an extend Ben's) argument? Your thinking is illogical and wrong; as that patch which you think magically rectifies the situation does so only for a small, insignificant, size piece of the PC userbase. Most people, unlike yourself, have no idea where to even find the god damn patch.

Case in point, I've basically stopped playing PC games. I decided a few weeks ago to try out this whole Counter-Strike 1.6 thing, but you need Steam. I went to www.counter-strike.net and found you need Steam, but no link. Alrighty then. I went to www.steampowered.com and couldn't find where to download the Beta of it, only saw messages about how Steam was suspended after initial problems and that it'll be back up ASAP. Alrighty then. It wasn't untill a few weeks later that I was like, 'lets google this and see what I can find,' that I found a place to download it from.

The underlying ideology to take from this tale is that when your not in this nerdy 'loop' of whats "going-down" and where the "in" places are to get his stuff from - you have no idea where in this massive internet to look.

Unlike me, the average person wouldn't have continued to look for Steam.

[Dave Baumann]

FYI, Mercury 'Research' numbers aren't necessarily the best to go by since they only go to the IHV's and ask "how many chips have you sold", which is kinda open to abuse. Peddie reports are usually better since he at least tries to tie that up with actual sales as well.

[MfA]

Vince : Valve tied the CS 1.6 to steam unfortunately, which they arent ready to distribute in a finalized state yet. It is not easily found because they dont want your average person to find it at the moment. In a simular situation with a more orderly distribution method the software simply wouldnt be out at all yet.

Hell in your strict and orderly dream world CS would never have gotten off the ground.

[demalion]

and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

I don't know WTF your reading, but the quote stated the following:

Did you requote this part again in isolation to distance it from the part that had to do with my claim? Let me put the part I was referring to in proximity, so people can see if it agrees with my outlook on marketshare (which was, since you didn't quote it, "Anyways, I thought it (R300 sales) quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it?").

"Another issue which everyone should be aware of, is that Flagship products, like RADEON 9700 and the NV30, account for a minute percentage of graphics cards sales, they are, instead, used as a confirmation of technological supremacy and an attraction to lure customers towards lower end products." EDIT: fixed quote

Looks like agreement to me. I'll let others judge for themselves. On to the rest of your selective repetition of your statements and ignoring of comments that seem to indicate you just might be wrong in something:

A Mercury Research report, released this week, found that in the 3rd quarter of 2002 Nvidia's market share rose to 58 per cent, from 56 per cent the previous quarter. ATI lost market share, shrinking from 36 per cent in the second quarter to 33 per cent in the third, despite selling the highest-performing graphics chip. The report looked at worldwide shipments of standalone graphics controllers

You then objected to this 'hard' statistical evidence by quoting the following as your proof:

These figures will certainly boost enthusiasm about the company, especially in expectation of the official NV30 launch. Many analysts however, claim that the latest report only tells half the truth since the effects of ATI's RADEON 9700 will not be felt, in the market for at least another quarter. Add to that the low availability of the NV30, at least until the end of the 1st quarter of 2003 and you have a more realistic picture.

So, what can we take from this?

-Nvidia has solid, recorded statistical evidence proving that it's gained maketshare during the quarter the 9700 launched

3rd quarter ends in September, right? By your logic, the 9700 is a significant factor, and not the 8500, for being available at all for about a month, and available in quantity for...how many weeks? Or did it go from not available to maximum sales instantly?

-Analysts "claim" that the 9700 will pick-up in sales. No hard evidence, just the analysts opinion. And we've all seen the analysts predictions in the past :roll:

:lol: Analysts' opinions are both good and bad, but let's just selectively assume "bad" instead of recognizing any inconvenient counter-evidence, right? By ignoring the 3dmark 2001 results (which seem to support what the analysts said, and is "hard data" you seem to be determined to disregard), stating that the limited availability time for the R300 doesn't matter at all in regards to the statements because "analysts said them" (and not Vince), heck, basically just ignoring anything that is inconvenient as far as you believing and stating what you wish, you don't make your argument more valid, Vince. A discussion is addressing what other people said, not just repeating what you said over and over, with name calling sprinkled in. Atleast, in my opinion, it is supposed to be that way among adults.

-These same Analysts also state that the NV30's in "Low availiablilty." So, you don't think that just as the 9700 sales pick-up, they won't be lost or at the least, counter-balanced by the NV3x line?

Vince, you are living in a time dilated world of your own devising. The results you quote were from last year. The 9700 has been selling for 2 quarters since then. NOW, the nv30 is becoming available...it isn't impacting the sales figures from after 3rd quarter 2002, it is impacting the figures from after 1st quarter 2003 But it does seem convenient for you to pretend those two things are the same.

I so hate arguing with you, can be such an ass... twisting linguistsics to meet your idologies and not looking for the underlying truth that the linguistics are trying to describe.

If "being an ass" means disagreeing with you and not being swayed because I consider your argument support ridiculous, I plainly suggest you grow up.

Your solution seems to be to maintain your argument is valid and use name calling and ignoring criticisms and contradicting statements to support that. :-?

You also quote everything, and I mean everything, and then pull this "you missed my one line, line 9721 in paragraph 327, thus your avoiding the question"

I don't say "you missed my one line", I say you miss my meaning, or that you ignore large bodies of reasoning just to restate your own "reasoning" in a vacuum and avoid any discussion of flaws that may have been proposed.
For example, look at my addressing of your "reductionist argument" that you didn't quote. You are still using it on your end, but the faults I pointed out are still pertinent. By not quoting my discussion of it, all you are doing is pretending I didn't point out the faults. Another example: instead of quoting my discussion of the article you linked, you re-quote the exact same text and ignore the interpretation I provided (except for a partial quote of the end of 1 sentence in a post to someone else). That didn't save space, that simply avoided addressing the reasoning I provided.

Saying "line 9721 in paragraph 327" doesn't change that.

I quote all of your text because there is so little in the way of it that I find with valid support, and so I find myself disagreeing with almost all of it. If it is repetitive, it is because your text is saying the same thing over and over.


If you'd look at the empirical evidence and nVidia's sales without putting any specific IHV linking in to the equation, you'd see just how brilliant this could be; if as Dave Baumann stated, this doesn't backfire.

Hmm...if you selectively look at the empirical evidence, as I've stated before, provided support for, and you continue to skip over. Pretending your "empirical data" is absolutely valid, and maintaining that "reductionist" argument you proposed (by ignoring my detailed criticism of it when making this post), and ignoring the "empricial data" that does not support your statements...just maybe you're responsible for me finding fault with your posts, Vince.

I think others have addressed the rest of your post. Whether you will listen or not to their replies and mine remains to be seen. The "empirical data" suggests not. :-?

[BenSkywalker]

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all.

It was in reference to the DX9 availability more then anything. Most devs could easily be targetting a GF3 right now with anything close to completion(within the next year or so anyway). The availability of DX9 level boards is great to build installed base to convince developers to start using the functions, but with very few exceptions it isn't going to impact developers that the technology is simply available.

What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg.

A good deal of the games we are seeing that are utilizing DX8 level features have a XBox port(or are an XBox port). If it aint broke....

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

There is a huge difference between PR hype around a product release and financial claims to shareholders. If PR blows up you have egg on your face. Misleading investors can land you in jail.

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We have now entered the third quarter from when those numbers were taken. In the quarter following the one Vince listed the R9700 boards, which is what was being discussed, were in fact $300-$400. They were also at that price point last quarter right up until a few weeks prior to the end. They would not have any meaningful impact on marketshare. For the R9500 line, they were simply not distributed widely enough to make a major impact(even then, the ~$150-$200 market is far smaller then the sub $100 level, although it is much larger then the $300-$400 range). To date I have seen as many R9500 boards in B&Ms as I have 5800Ultras(that would be one unit each ;) ).

We need to make up our mind on whether we're talking about the existing DX 8 base, or DX 9 features in this discussion...we're discussing marketshare and how it applies to "exclusivity" and "some" seem to be arbitrarily equating DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9 to do so (with DX 9 cards already sold being treated is irrelevant). I could use some stronger connections, which is why I am asking the questions that I am.

Features has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really(except noting current dev targets). I'm talking about financials. For the typical PC gamer pretty much anyone on this board could make it 'exclusive' to only one board with very little trouble. Sure, most of us would have no problem at all cracking/hacking it, but the typical PC gamer that runs the same drivers their board shipped with won't.

nVidia's marketshare level in the PC gaming market is such that developers making exclusive content for them is a much larger potential base then it was during the Glide days focusing on 3dfx hardware(not in percentage terms, but absolute numbers).

My end in this discussion is focusing on the possible business and marketplace ramifications. There are far more nVidia using PC gamers then there are ATi using PC gamers. nVidia is the core chip in the XBox and ports between the PC and the XBox are relatively simple. MS is trying to land as much exclusive content as they can. MS and nVidia were having disputes over pricing and that could come up again. A business deal where MS covers exclusitivity status for a timed XBox release and slips in a clause here or there to help nVidia out on the condition of lower pricing is something I see MS more then willing to take part in, as is the case with nVidia. MS's goal with the XBox in terms of commited capital, allows them enough to make developers offers they couldn't reasonably refuse.

I do not think that HL2 will be nVidia exclusive on the PC, although I can certainly see it being XBox exclusive on a timed basis at least. I do however see the logic behind it(nV exclusive) being possible taken from all angles involved in a deal. You could well end up with a win/win/win in terms of the companies that would be taking part. MS gets their prestige which drives marketshare and better pricing structure, Valve gets their truckloads of cash, and nVidia gets a weapon that is potentially far more lethal to ATi then any benchmark chart to John Q Gamer.

[Dave Baumann]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

[BenSkywalker]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

What about those that are considering upgrading and more importantly what about potential OEM sales? 'By our PC that can't play the biggest game of the year' doesn't quite have a good ring to it ;)

People who bought a R300 based board are lost for this generation for nVidia for the most part. But the other ~thirty-fifty million PC gamers are not, and that and OEM contracts is where nVidia stands to gain ground.

As far as people getting rid of a $200 card for the sake of being able to play a game, I don't think it would be common however I did just last week(my former Radeon9500Pro is now 3,000 miles away from my rig and my new GF4 should be arriving in the next couple of days). For those people running a RadeonVE/GeForce2MX that are looking to upgrade and having trouble deciding the ability to play HL2 versus not could very easily close the deal.

[Mariner]

I've not read much of this thread but perhaps this rumour is just another ploy by the evil ( :twisted: ) NVidia PR department to try and increase sales of the unimpressive GFFXs!

P.S. Just kidding. 8)

[Dave Baumann]

What about those that are considering upgrading and more importantly what about potential OEM sales? 'By our PC that can't play the biggest game of the year' doesn't quite have a good ring to it ;)

What, you mean they've got the next Sims exclusive? Thats probably the type of thing that most OEM's are going to be careful of. The number of support calls they will recieve for a 3D title will be far fewer than the 'really' popular titles.

[demalion]

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all.

It was in reference to the DX9 availability more then anything. Most devs could easily be targetting a GF3 right now with anything close to completion(within the next year or so anyway). The availability of DX9 level boards is great to build installed base to convince developers to start using the functions, but with very few exceptions it isn't going to impact developers that the technology is simply available.

Hmm...I'm still not understanding your point about "exclusive". I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base. Also, offering DX 9 shader support should not be significantly harder than offering DX 8 support...it can be a matter of enhancement, not a radical shift as utilizing shaders in the first place can be.

What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg.

A good deal of the games we are seeing that are utilizing DX8 level features have a XBox port(or are an XBox port). If it aint broke....

You are seamlessly connecting XBox to nvidia exclusive on the PC.

Again, XBox->DX 8 (of DX->X Box) seems like what will actually be the case, why assume "nvidia exclusive" is facilitated? If they are using Cg, why can't they use DX 9 HLSL? Your comment doesn't answer either question AFAICS...something being ported from the XBox doesn't prevent it being implemented on non nVidia DX 8 capable cards.

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

There is a huge difference between PR hype around a product release and financial claims to shareholders. If PR blows up you have egg on your face. Misleading investors can land you in jail.

OK, let's talk about claims to shareholders...IIRC, the wording for the shipping was indicating "expectation", and did not specify a relationship between where they were shipping to and relating that to the actual installed consumer base that would result. This reminds me a great deal of the shipping expectations stated to shareholders for the nv30 arriving last year, and of "performance leadership" claims to shareholders.

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We have now entered the third quarter from when those numbers were taken. In the quarter following the one Vince listed the R9700 boards, which is what was being discussed, were in fact $300-$400.

I thought we were discussing DX 9 cards? That seems to be what is pertinent to this talk about exclusivity.

They were also at that price point last quarter right up until a few weeks prior to the end.

To address your stipulation, Here is a post from the end of the 3rd quarter (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=60619&#60619) (early December).

They would not have any meaningful impact on marketshare.

OK, and your basis for this is...?

For the R9500 line, they were simply not distributed widely enough to make a major impact(even then, the ~$150-$200 market is far smaller then the sub $100 level, although it is much larger then the $300-$400 range).

Why do you make such statements so freely but without support?

I've proposed the 3dmark 2001 figures, addressed Vince's card figures, and looked at trends (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4342) that seem to indicate the direction that user perception is leading in. I have in mind announced OEM wins for ATI, slow erosion of nVidia hype, and the backlash nVidia earned with the nv30 launch.

I'm not proposing these are absolutely conclusive, but I do propose them as indication that is pertinent to the assumptions being made. If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual.

To date I have seen as many R9500 boards in B&Ms as I have 5800Ultras(that would be one unit each ;) )

Heh, ok this is support, but it is a pretty limited sampling, don't you agree? ;)

...

Features has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really(except noting current dev targets). I'm talking about financials. For the typical PC gamer pretty much anyone on this board could make it 'exclusive' to only one board with very little trouble. Sure, most of us would have no problem at all cracking/hacking it, but the typical PC gamer that runs the same drivers their board shipped with won't.

Yes, like Gunmetal. How smart was it for Yeti to do that? Does it make as much sense for a company like Valve whose profitability for the PC space seems so firmly tied to user good will and support? I've already covered short term benefits, but I also covered why it seems foolish to me for Valve, or any company focusing on large sales, to specifically target a group of customers to not support.

nVidia's marketshare level in the PC gaming market is such that developers making exclusive content for them is a much larger potential base then it was during the Glide days focusing on 3dfx hardware(not in percentage terms, but absolute numbers).

Ok...so it doesn't matter if you are selling, for example, 50% of what you could if that 50% is a large number? 80%? Let's run with that...if each % is a larger absolute number of sales, wouldn't that also mean that throwing away even 20% would be quite an impact? How does that make sense for Valve, then?

A simple example...what happens when a user runs a different game on their non nVidia card that looks a lot better than Half Life 2 does. Who will lose sales? All this relates to this idea of "exclusive" support.

My end in this discussion is focusing on the possible business and marketplace ramifications. There are far more nVidia using PC gamers then there are ATi using PC gamers.

What is this "far more"? Is it based on market share figures from last year? If so, do you also think the release of the R300 has had no influence on the marketshare, even looking at the things I've mentioned? How about the future?

nVidia is the core chip in the XBox and ports between the PC and the XBox are relatively simple.
I've expressed that I find the XBox->PC ineffectively linked to XBox->nvidia exclusive.
MS is trying to land as much exclusive content as they can.

Exclusive to X Box. Either they don't want it on the PC, or they want it on the PC using their own API, or atleast that is what seems reasonable to me.
MS and nVidia were having disputes over pricing and that could come up again. A business deal where MS covers exclusitivity status for a timed XBox release and slips in a clause here or there to help nVidia out on the condition of lower pricing is something I see MS more then willing to take part in, as is the case with nVidia.
That's pretty one way for nVidia.
Specifically for Valve, it does not make sense for them to participate given the source of their past success and the directions they seem to be indicating. I'm not arguing against the possibility, I'm arguing against this being described as the obvious good thing for Valve to do, and a "brilliant" strategy on nVidia's part.
Hmm..."pay money to developers to support us exclusively because our card is technically weaker than the competition". I just can't see the brilliance in that...it seems rather simple minded and obvious if you have the money.
MS's goal with the XBox in terms of commited capital, allows them enough to make developers offers they couldn't reasonably refuse.
You keep switch MS and nVidia arbitrarily based on your supposition. The only reason it would pan out is if MS stood to lose less money on X Box costs than they would from giving up PC space API control, and that only pans out in the short term. Seems a low price for them to sell that for. Since they do have "adequate" funding, I don't see the incentive on their part to support nVidia's initiative for a short term lessening of impact.

So, I think it comes down to nVidia paying developers for this, not MS, and this having no inherent relationship to X Box implementation. I don't see why a strategy of using DX for PC, and then implement the DX 8 level functionality for porting to the X Box, doesn't maximize opportunity while still allowing sales from both markets.

I do not think that HL2 will be nVidia exclusive on the PC, although I can certainly see it being XBox exclusive on a timed basis at least. I do however see the logic behind it(nV exclusive) being possible taken from all angles involved in a deal. You could well end up with a win/win/win in terms of the companies that would be taking part. MS gets their prestige which drives marketshare and better pricing structure, Valve gets their truckloads of cash, and nVidia gets a weapon that is potentially far more lethal to ATi then any benchmark chart to John Q Gamer.

Perhaps you could my short term/long term post again, here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101215&#101215), and tell me where your opinion differs.

EDIT: Oh, take a look at this thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65613&#65613). I think it is pertinent, especially from the linked post downwards.

[John Reynolds]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

Hell, when Wing Commander: Prophecy was released my P166 w/32MB and Voodoo 1 couldn't run it quite smoothly enough, so I upgraded my system to a P2 300 w/64MB. Every other single game I bought that fall and Christmas season ran fine on the P166. WC was my first PC love and I am a little weird (OK, more than a little).

[Reverend]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.
Not so far-fetched when there are people with unlimited budget who care more about games than hardware.

[Reverend]

BTW, going back to the original discussion, here's an email I received :
We are under NDA concerning any upcoming titles from Valve.

[Arun]

BTW, going back to the original discussion, here's an email I received :
We are under NDA concerning any upcoming titles from Valve.

Good ole Brian Burke :) He's a nice guy, really - but you're never gonna get any info out of him *grins* Trust me, I tried it on the FP16/FP32 issue - the answer I got was quite, err, cryptic ( although I'm partly responsible for asking my question in a so cryptic way too ;) )

Anyway, companies generally got 2 phrases to respond to such inquiries:
1. We do not comment on rumors or speculation.
2. I/We are under NDA concerning this. ( or "We are not authorized to disclose this information at this time", if not really under NDA )

But in a way, you've also got to realize he didn't deny it... While I doubt Valve would have disagreed to deny such a rumor if it was false, since it *can* damage them.
Hmm...


Uttar

[Reverend]

I have a long history with Butthead (that's what I call Brian when I write him), so I know what he's like :

a) when it comes to sensitive issues
b) when it comes to non-sensitive issues

Brian is a very good PR personnel, that's all I can say about him.

[Colourless]

Hell, when Wing Commander: Prophecy was released my P166 w/32MB and Voodoo 1 couldn't run it quite smoothly enough, so I upgraded my system to a P2 300 w/64MB. Every other single game I bought that fall and Christmas season ran fine on the P166. WC was my first PC love and I am a little weird (OK, more than a little).

An, Origin game... what do you expect? There was a reason people used to call their engines future proofed :-)

[Hellbinder]

Looks like a couple really important points got overlooked.

1.) That 70% Nvidia number for HL is based on a bunch, I mean a bunch of dx7 classed hardware.

2) Half-Life was not about multiplayer when it came out. It was, at that time the greatest Single player game ever released. Everything gets compared to HL's single player experience these days.

3) At the Time of Its Release HL required TOP-OF-THE-LINE Hardware for solid game play at good resolutions with nice graphics.

You cant count all the players that started playing CS over the last 3 years on their dx7 cards they still have from back in the day.. as candidates for HL2. Its just not reality. HL2 is going to be about the single player experience.. which means at least 50% of it is graphics and atmosphere. Thus at LEAST 70% of that 70% can get chucked right out the window. HL2 is NOT going to be aimed at counter strike players people..

Its going to be a solid DX8 Title that Requires solid Systems and solid DX8 classed hardware to run, even at lower resolutions. Or do you really seriously think that they are going to release a game in 2003, that is a sequel to the greatest FPS experience of all time.. with graphics that cant even compare to say... NOLF2...

Dream on...

[BoardBonobo]

But haven't exclusive content deals been part and parcel of nearly every graphics card release? I remember that PVR had a similar deal with the Apocalypse line, and those games only worked on PVR hardware never mind just running with slightly different imagery on another card.

And some of the game titles were pretty popular at the time e.g.

http://home.clara.net/surfmonkey/ter.gif

Admittedly this was a terrible game ;)

http://home.clara.net/surfmonkey/mech.gif
http://home.clara.net/surfmonkey/tr.gif

I don't see what the problem is with exclusive content, the only problem I would have is if it only ran on one product. But then again most people only play one or two games on their PC to any great depth and if you really just wanted to play those games, and you needed a specific card to do it, then wouldn't you just buy it? It's like buying a PS2 instead of an XBox because you can't get the games you like on the XBox.

I realise the PC industry is supposed to be more open, but is the gaming market really that different?

*edit*
for piccies :)

[Simon F]

Bonobo, the latter two bring back some memories for me.

[Mariner]

But those games were available in the shops with patches available for other graphics cards, I believe? So even though the versions of the games on the disks included with the card were PVR specific, the games in the shops could be played on other chips - though not that many in those days!

Ultimately, I see nothing wrong with a vendor-specific version of a game being released as long as a generic version is also available which can be used on cards from other vendors.

[BoardBonobo]

Well that's kind of the crux of the matter. These games included exclusive content for the PVR cards. There were different versions available for other cards.

Admitedly there was no real unifying API for developers to follow (discounting OGL - which had no direct support under 95 and VGA\SVGA\XGA register compatibility) so it didn't make much difference. They would have to produce more than one flavour anyway to support the cards that were available.

Now it is easy for devs to produce slightly different content for games, and exclusive content for one IHV doesn't mean that another IHV can't get their own exclusive content. I see no problem.

And those piccies were freshly scanned before posting, dug out of the box of retired games and cards. Anybody want 200 486 CPUs? :D

[Reverend]

Bonobo, the latter two bring back some memories for me.
Oh goddam... now I gotta see if I can get Tomb Raider to work on a R9700Pro/WinXP... I can't get images and music of the game out of my head now, dammit... anyone knows any links to get Tomb Raider to work on my R9700Pro/WinXP?

[martrox]

Mmmmmmm......Laura Croft......(think John Carradine Sr. making funny noises in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex) :twisted:

[Tahir2]

Laura Croft

You got her name wrong too just like the guys at Image did who made the Lara Croft comic.. oh man what a tragedy that was !!! :lol:

[BRiT]

What if the Nvidia exclusive content amounts to is the insipid logo -- Nvidia: The Way It's Meant To Be Played ? Afterall, why display that to a user not running on an Nvidia card afterall? Actually, I'm surprised Nvidia hasn't built that into their drivers ala 3dfx logo.

One can only hope...

[Simon F]

Bonobo, the latter two bring back some memories for me.
Oh goddam... now I gotta see if I can get Tomb Raider to work on a R9700Pro/WinXP... I can't get images and music of the game out of my head now, dammit... anyone knows any links to get Tomb Raider to work on my R9700Pro/WinXP?
I didn't mean playing, more of memories of porting them... well, with a bit of "testing" of course. I scored a couple of trips out to California for Mechwarrior - although it was like being in a ghost town, working in Activision's offices on July 4...

As for getting TR to run on WinXP it might be tricky as the sound system/movies were DOS. We had to specifically produce a DOS version of the PVR drivers for it which was nearly half the work of the port.

[Nagorak]

Hell in your strict and orderly dream world CS would never have gotten off the ground.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? :lol:


nVidia's marketshare level in the PC gaming market is such that developers making exclusive content for them is a much larger potential base then it was during the Glide days focusing on 3dfx hardware(not in percentage terms, but absolute numbers).


It's the percentage that's important, though. Who cares if there are more actual people with Nvidia boards, there are also more people in absolute numbers that don't. You're still giving up a huge chunk of your audience.


Not so far-fetched when there are people with unlimited budget who care more about games than hardware.

Sorry, but you need to check into the Reality Hotel, and see what the gaming demographic is (especially for non-SIMs BS titles). How many of those teens and college students have unlimited budgets? They're the ones bringing in the bread and butter for FPS games, at the very least.

[MfA]

Well team fortress wouldnt have come into existence either, just fill in your favourite mod for your favourite game.

[Reverend]

Not so far-fetched when there are people with unlimited budget who care more about games than hardware.

Sorry, but you need to check into the Reality Hotel, and see what the gaming demographic is (especially for non-SIMs BS titles). How many of those teens and college students have unlimited budgets? They're the ones bringing in the bread and butter for FPS games, at the very least.
I was responding solely to Dave's (rather) one-liner -- I said what I said based on a certain type of community here at B3D.... and I think it would be fair to assume that some would upgrade their video card if DOOM3 (when it's released) runs crappy on their existing video card... whether or not DOOM3 is a great game or not won't matter... some folks want a "better" video for a certain game that has become a de facto video card benchmark because they can, um, "boast", even if they don't like that game.

[parhelia]

It's not the fact that nV will bundle some EA games with their boards which scares us, we DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, what scares me is the following statement :

"Electronic Arts has a tremendous track record for developing games that can be enjoyed by consumers of all ages and both the hardcore and casual gamer alike. By exclusively adopting NVIDIA hardware for their worldwide studios, EA is escalating the creative palette of its 3D artists and programmers," said Dan Vivoli, executive vice president of marketing at NVIDIA. "Our FX family of GPUs were designed to usher in an era of cinematic computing, and we couldn’t be more thrilled that EA has signed on to help us meet our goal."

[Gubbi]

It's not the fact that nV will bundle some EA games with their boards which scares us, we DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, what scares me is the following statement :

"Electronic Arts has a tremendous track record for developing games that can be enjoyed by consumers of all ages and both the hardcore and casual gamer alike. By exclusively adopting NVIDIA hardware for their worldwide studios, EA is escalating the creative palette of its 3D artists and programmers," said Dan Vivoli, executive vice president of marketing at NVIDIA. "Our FX family of GPUs were designed to usher in an era of cinematic computing, and we couldn’t be more thrilled that EA has signed on to help us meet our goal."

I think that most studios already use NV hardware for their work stations. So nothing new really. It doesn't say that the games themselves will be NV hardware only.

Does this affect games on other platforms ?

Sure it does. There will always be more bugs in a game running on a different platform than what it was developed on (Never Winter Nights spring to mind)

Cheers
Gubbi

[martrox]

I think that most studios already use NV hardware for their work stations. So nothing new really. It doesn't say that the games themselves will be NV hardware only.

Does this affect games on other platforms ?

Sure it does. There will always be more bugs in a game running on a different platform than what it was developed on (Never Winter Nights spring to mind)

Cheers
Gubbi

And this is a good thing? For whom? Not the consumer, that's for sure!

[BenSkywalker]

Demalion-

Hmm...I'm still not understanding your point about "exclusive". I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base.

I wasn't making a point about exclusitivity, as I stated, it was in reference to DX9 availability.

Also, offering DX 9 shader support should not be significantly harder than offering DX 8 support...it can be a matter of enhancement, not a radical shift as utilizing shaders in the first place can be.

In terms of optimizations to avoid multi pass I can see, adding the shader routines that exploit DX9 will take time and won't be seen by the majority of end users. Publishers aren't too fond of paying out for things that won't be seen by the end user ;)

Again, XBox->DX 8 (of DX->X Box) seems like what will actually be the case, why assume "nvidia exclusive" is facilitated? If they are using Cg, why can't they use DX 9 HLSL? Your comment doesn't answer either question AFAICS...something being ported from the XBox doesn't prevent it being implemented on non nVidia DX 8 capable cards.

Money. It is done. No need to do additional work. No increased funding required. No additional time spent at all.

OK, let's talk about claims to shareholders...IIRC, the wording for the shipping was indicating "expectation", and did not specify a relationship between where they were shipping to and relating that to the actual installed consumer base that would result.

nVidia does not make end consumer products. Their statements relate to shipments to OEMs as they always have. How long it will take all of those to move through the channel is another matter. Given that the statement was made as they were in the process of ramping up production odds are they had orders for the majority(if not all) of the 1.5Million chips they quoted.

I thought we were discussing DX 9 cards? That seems to be what is pertinent to this talk about exclusivity.

How are you putting those two together? Look at the numerous titles that only ran in 3D accelerated mode using Glide, whether it was a V1, V2, V3, V4 or V5. If you were to limit functionality to only DX9 level boards then you would run in to problems in terms of potential customer base. The exclusitivity factor is simply one in general for any particular IHV.

I'm not proposing these are absolutely conclusive, but I do propose them as indication that is pertinent to the assumptions being made. If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual.

How about current real numbers then?

ATI (ATYT ), now with an estimated 19% of the market, and Nvidia (NVDA ), with 32%, are the only major specialized makers of graphics chips to survive. (Intel (INTC ) holds a 28% share of the graphics-chips markets, and two smaller rivals own single-digit bites.)

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2003/tc2003044_3712_tc024.htm

That is from one week ago.

Heh, ok this is support, but it is a pretty limited sampling, don't you agree?

I've been in to numerous B&Ms, seen lots of R300 boards on the shelves- just have only seen one R9500Pro despite being available for ~six months longer then the FX.

I've already covered short term benefits, but I also covered why it seems foolish to me for Valve, or any company focusing on large sales, to specifically target a group of customers to not support.

Those same users who are likely overjoyed with the Cat3.2s, right? ;)

ATi craps on these same users we are talking about by breaking their titles of choice. How much good will should a company display when another company releases a driver that breaks all of their games? Sure, they are all HL based titles, but that still is the entirety of Valve's library(which in terms of average titles sold is likely second behind only Blizzard in the PC market).

Ok...so it doesn't matter if you are selling, for example, 50% of what you could if that 50% is a large number? 80%? Let's run with that...if each % is a larger absolute number of sales, wouldn't that also mean that throwing away even 20% would be quite an impact? How does that make sense for Valve, then?

Factor potential sales against the amount of money that is being offered in exchange for the deal. If they figure that HL2 has a potential of say four millions units, take 19% off of that(we'll round) and say it's 800K. The retail price of the game is $50, $38 at the wholesale level and the publisher takes a ~$15 cut. That leaves you with $23 per so $18.4Million if they are factoring for hitting four million. Blockbuster status is reached at 1Million, which would only be $4.4Million. You look at your projected sales and then factor in the potential impact it is going to have on your customer base then figure out how much cash you want to see. If they are planning on 1Million units sold, then $5Million in cash could be enough to convince them to make such a deal. You look in MS's direction and they agree to throw in a clause that reduces the price of their chips from nV by $1 each to give them exclusive rights to HL2 and nV lands the deal without any cash out of pocket up front(MS may even be willing to take $.50, selling another 20Million XBoxs is within reason). I want to make it clear again that I am not saying this will happen or is even likely, simply why it could be plausible for MS/Valve/nVidia.

What is this "far more"? Is it based on market share figures from last year? If so, do you also think the release of the R300 has had no influence on the marketshare, even looking at the things I've mentioned? How about the future?

One year is nothing in the gfx market when looking at gaming. Two and a half to three years out is more reasonable, that was GF1/GF2/V5/Radeon era. ATi's markeshare has risen to 19%, nV has over 50% more of the market after ATi's increase.

Most of the rest of your post deals with why the parties would want to take part in the deal which I've already expanded on. I also didn't take into account those gamers who would be swayed to upgrade to nV instead of ATi for their next round or those very die hard who would toss out their boards that couldn't run the game.

[Ailuros]

Actually, I'm surprised Nvidia hasn't built that into their drivers ala 3dfx logo.

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing, but drivers allow displaying a NV logo in D3D.

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/Logo.JPG

[Gump]

but I would not think a publisher like EA will allow ANY of the developers under their umbrella to do what Valve is rumored to be doing (as in this thread).

I haven't read the rest of the thread beyond this but...

http://nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20030409_7420

[Hellbinder]

but I would not think a publisher like EA will allow ANY of the developers under their umbrella to do what Valve is rumored to be doing (as in this thread).

Thats pretty laughable that you stated this considering that EA and Nvidia just signed an *Exclusive* agreement.

[demalion]

Demalion-

Hmm...I'm still not understanding your point about "exclusive". I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base.

I wasn't making a point about exclusitivity, as I stated, it was in reference to DX9 availability.

Hmmm...if you read that again, you'll see that I addressed your point about DX 9 availability, and related it to the context of the discussion we are having about exclusivity. Again: 'I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base.' Do you agree that this addresses DX 9 availability and that it addresses the statement you proposed as support for this part of the discussion?

Also, offering DX 9 shader support should not be significantly harder than offering DX 8 support...it can be a matter of enhancement, not a radical shift as utilizing shaders in the first place can be.

In terms of optimizations to avoid multi pass I can see, adding the shader routines that exploit DX9 will take time and won't be seen by the majority of end users. Publishers aren't too fond of paying out for things that won't be seen by the end user ;)

Hmm...floating point support and shader length seem to be the primary benefit of DX 9, and that seems to be trivial to implement for existing DX 8 shaders. Well, this and higher shading speed (for most DX 9 cards) that allow a greater number of effects and simpler management of effect implementation. Viewed in this way, shader versions seem all about scalability, and would seem to be pretty re-usable. What delay will there be? I'm not talking about fully utilizing DX 9 to the limit, I'm talking about showing tangible benefit from DX 9 support.
I don't see that as requiring much beyond what is already being offered by games (Silent Hill and Splinter Cell come to mind). I've thought this about DX 9 for a long while, and statements have served to confirm my impression to me as time has progressed. If you have something in mind that contradicts my impression, please mention it.
So my impression isn't left unsupported here, here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66839&#66839) is a comment (not out of context AFAICS, but if you think so say why) that I think supports my expectations.

Again, XBox->DX 8 (of DX->X Box) seems like what will actually be the case, why assume "nvidia exclusive" is facilitated? If they are using Cg, why can't they use DX 9 HLSL? Your comment doesn't answer either question AFAICS...something being ported from the XBox doesn't prevent it being implemented on non nVidia DX 8 capable cards.

Money. It is done. No need to do additional work. No increased funding required. No additional time spent at all.

Not doing additional work is lost sales....the PC isn't an X-Box. The additional work would have to be done to get it to work for other cards at all. Do you think using multi-texturing to implement features is easier than using DX 8 to implement the X-Box featureset, or do you think they'll just never do it? Again: "...something being ported from the XBox doesn't prevent it being implemented on non nVidia DX 8 capable cards."
BTW "(of DX->X Box)" above was meant to indicate "(or DX 8/9->X Box)", which seems a valid development path to me.

OK, let's talk about claims to shareholders...IIRC, the wording for the shipping was indicating "expectation", and did not specify a relationship between where they were shipping to and relating that to the actual installed consumer base that would result.

nVidia does not make end consumer products. Their statements relate to shipments to OEMs as they always have. How long it will take all of those to move through the channel is another matter. Given that the statement was made as they were in the process of ramping up production odds are they had orders for the majority(if not all) of the 1.5Million chips they quoted.

Your statement of the figure of 1.5 million was, again, in answer to my comment about DX 9 marketshare. It went: "ATi had a press release that they managed to ship 1Million DX9 parts in five months. nV is planning on besting that in their first month of volume shipment."

"Odds are" doesn't seem a good response to already shipped units and the marketshare figures I've discussed, nor to lend strong support to your usage of the figure as a rebuttal to my maintaining that the 9500 and higher family are a significant growing portion of the shader supporting marketplace, and represent an indication of differing marketshare represenation moving forward.

I thought we were discussing DX 9 cards? That seems to be what is pertinent to this talk about exclusivity.

How are you putting those two together? Look at the numerous titles that only ran in 3D accelerated mode using Glide, whether it was a V1, V2, V3, V4 or V5.

That's what I mean by going back in history (even before DX 7 now) and presuming equivalent applicability today. That's beeing going on throughout the discussion (had a big paragraph about that before).

We are not in a time when there is one maker of fast 3d accelerators. Not having 3D acceleration for non nVidia cards hardly seems pertinent at all to our discussion (except in a horrible worst case scenario). So what does? Well, it seems to be shaders. Hence, why I'm discussing shaders and not the Voodoo cards.

From that, we have you proposing that DX 7 (and before) still applies, and also that DX 8 shaders are all that will be offered. I've addressed that above, and also when I said limiting to DX 8 functionality will also circumvent nVidia's intended future lineup ("DX 9 top to bottom").

What I am and have been proposing is that the vehicle for exclusivity would depend on DX 9 (or, rather, CineFX versus DX 9).

If you were to limit functionality to only DX9 level boards then you would run in to problems in terms of potential customer base. The exclusitivity factor is simply one in general for any particular IHV.

Eh? I'm limiting exclusivity to DX 9, not functionality, and this is based on the current focus on DX 9 level functionality by everone (including nVidia themselves, as branded by "CineFX") and the perception I've been proposing that DX 9 support is not an onerous step from DX 8 supporting game designs.

I'm not proposing these are absolutely conclusive, but I do propose them as indication that is pertinent to the assumptions being made. If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual.

How about current real numbers then?

ATI (ATYT ), now with an estimated 19% of the market, and Nvidia (NVDA ), with 32%, are the only major specialized makers of graphics chips to survive. (Intel (INTC ) holds a 28% share of the graphics-chips markets, and two smaller rivals own single-digit bites.)

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2003/tc2003044_3712_tc024.htm

That is from one week ago.

You do recall the discussion I was having where 70% nVidia marketshare was proposed?

In any case, Ben, the article is from 1 week ago, but the figures are from Q4 2002. Take a look (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7511).

A handy quote (allegedly atleast...it is the Inquirer after all ;)) from the John Peddie report:


John Peddie's Market Watch report said that ATI increased its graphics share in Q4 of 2002 by 18% compared to the same quarter in 2001, ahead of Intel and Nvidia.

Nvidia, however, remained the largest supplier of graphics to the PC market but with a reduced share of the market.
...

I'm still under the impression that the future is shaping up differently than the past to which you keep referring by way of example.

Heh, ok this is support, but it is a pretty limited sampling, don't you agree?

I've been in to numerous B&Ms, seen lots of R300 boards on the shelves- just have only seen one R9500Pro despite being available for ~six months longer then the FX.

Well, a few things: The 9500 Pro is an R300, so I presume you meant 9700; We've discussed the 9700 price and the marketshare figures, and I've addressed the reservations you expressed about the 9700 having bearing on marketshare outside of the $300-$400 price range (the 9700 has been less than $300 since 4th quarter 2002); Just maybe the 9500 Pro isn't on shelves because they are selling very well, or because in those places the 9700 is selling well enough...did you ask?

I'm pretty sure I saw a 9500 Pro at Circuit City at the beginning of the year, and I'm pretty sure as scarce as they are that there really has been the opportunity for there to be more than "one" 9500 Pro on shelves in the "six months" of its release. So, forgive me, I still think your report is "limited".

An analysis of the applicability of the figures I presented in regards to 9500 Pro availability is also available in my prior posts.


I've already covered short term benefits, but I also covered why it seems foolish to me for Valve, or any company focusing on large sales, to specifically target a group of customers to not support.

Those same users who are likely overjoyed with the Cat3.2s, right? ;)

Hmm...didn't take the opportunity to correct me on "large sales" which should be "long term sales" (they are the same for Valve in my view, but shouldn't have been used in conjunction with "any company") and instead went off on a long ATI bash. :-?

Well, I've said plenty on this already, and I think others too. If you can relate it to the discussion for me, I'll address it next time.

Ok...so it doesn't matter if you are selling, for example, 50% of what you could if that 50% is a large number? 80%? Let's run with that...if each % is a larger absolute number of sales, wouldn't that also mean that throwing away even 20% would be quite an impact? How does that make sense for Valve, then?

Factor potential sales against the amount of money that is being offered in exchange for the deal. If they figure that HL2 has a potential of say four millions units, take 19% off of that(we'll round) and say it's 800K. The retail price of the game is $50, $38 at the wholesale level and the publisher takes a ~$15 cut. That leaves you with $23 per so $18.4Million if they are factoring for hitting four million. Blockbuster status is reached at 1Million, which would only be $4.4Million.

Wouldn't it be 4.6 with your suppositions?

You look at your projected sales and then factor in the potential impact it is going to have on your customer base then figure out how much cash you want to see. If they are planning on 1Million units sold, then $5Million in cash could be enough to convince them to make such a deal.
That seems to ignore things like growing future sales and a long term franchise as Valve did with the first Half-Life. Or should they not bother? See my next comment.

You look in MS's direction and they agree to throw in a clause that reduces the price of their chips from nV by $1 each to give them exclusive rights to HL2 and nV lands the deal without any cash out of pocket up front(MS may even be willing to take $.50, selling another 20Million XBoxs is within reason). I want to make it clear again that I am not saying this will happen or is even likely, simply why it could be plausible for MS/Valve/nVidia.

Ben, I really wish you wouldn't simply ignore the large body of prior text specifically devoted to addressing this line of reasoning. This was directly addressed in the post to which you reply. Why are you simply repeating something I've addressed in detail with no discussion of that address, and then using it for support in a reply to me? I addressed it the last time you proposed it as support and your choice to disregard that seems to prevent any progress (something I've also indicated in that previos post).

What is this "far more"? Is it based on market share figures from last year? If so, do you also think the release of the R300 has had no influence on the marketshare, even looking at the things I've mentioned? How about the future?

One year is nothing in the gfx market when looking at gaming.

"Nothing"? Is that another unspecified and unsupported phrase used to refute my statements? You seem to be trying to make me repeat myself on several fronts. :-?

Two and a half to three years out is more reasonable, that was GF1/GF2/V5/Radeon era. ATi's markeshare has risen to 19%, nV has over 50% more of the market after ATi's increase.

That sounds like an abusive phrasing of figures. The indications I've seen don't seem to support any reasonable parsing of the statement. As far as I've understood, nVidia's marketshare has been decreasing since the R300 launch, and ATI's marketshare had increased from one year prior to the quoted figures. The other numbers discussed in the thread seem to all tend to support the indication of the trend I propose to my understanding. Again, could you please relate your support more convincingly?

Hmm..or is that just an odd way of saying "nVidia has more than 1.5 times ATI's marketshare as of Q4 2002"? I'll just point out that those figures are for a view of the market where Intel has a 28% share, and therefore would include 3d accelerators from nVidia that do not have much bearing on exclusivity, as I've proposed before. Doesn't seem to successfully address the other figures and discussion I've presented AFAICS.

Most of the rest of your post deals with why the parties would want to take part in the deal which I've already expanded on.

No, most of the rest of my post deals with things that seem to refute your statements that you ended up repeating above. :-?

I also didn't take into account those gamers who would be swayed to upgrade to nV instead of ATi for their next round or those very die hard who would toss out their boards that couldn't run the game.

But there are other things you aren't taking into account, even after I've taken the time to point them out.

[BenSkywalker]

You are going off topic here, so I'll try to put it back on track. I'm not talking about DX9 being linked to any of the events dealing with Valve. The reason I brought it up was simply availability. You can now buy a DX9 level board for under $90, they are available at the mass market price.

Marketshare and the finances concerning the possibility of this deal is what are relevant so I'll reply to those points.

I'm still under the impression that the future is shaping up differently than the past to which you keep referring by way of example.

Because you are under that impression does not make it so.

Just maybe the 9500 Pro isn't on shelves because they are selling very well, or because in those places the 9700 is selling well enough...did you ask?

It took me about a week of searching to find a place that I could get a R9500Pro from, most places told me they should have some in stock within a couple of weeks(with gaps of weeks in the supply channel that takes weeks to replenish there are supply issues). Yes, I think the R9500Pro sold very well considering its class, but simply look to the thread your provided from the Inquirer stating that add in boards outsold CPUs in Q4. With flat PC sales that should place CPU shipments in the ~30Million range for Q4 and graphics boards outsold that. The 1Million total units which took place over two quarters amounts to likely ~1.5%-2%(I haven't seen the break out for per quarter shipments on the R300 boards).

Hmm...didn't take the opportunity to correct me on "large sales" which should be "long term sales" (they are the same for Valve in my view, but shouldn't have been used in conjunction with "any company") and instead went off on a long ATI bash.

Did ATi not break Valve's games with the latest driver release? Long term user support for a IHV isn't helped when you release drivers that won't work with their games. For the really die hard Valve loyalists things like that happening can hurt ATi's chances of them purchasing their boards. ATi, by releasing a driver that removed acceptable support for Valve games hurts their reputation in the Valve community. Looking at the R300 boards in particular, without a SS AA implementation their IQ is also inferior to many earlier boards in the HL powered games. Talking about the Valve loyalists ATi is not doing what it takes to keep them in the fold. Long term, this is going to hurt ATi with the die hard Valve community. If they were making an active push to court these die hard fans the way that nV does(implementing a SS option on their DX9 level boards as an example) I could see why long term impact could be a somewhat factor.

Also in terms of long term sales goals, if they really want to build a major franchise then they could move to the consoles. The PC market is still a lot smaller then the console side of things.

Wouldn't it be 4.6 with your suppositions?

I rounded less then you, it's $4.37Million.

That seems to ignore things like growing future sales and a long term franchise as Valve did with the first Half-Life. Or should they not bother? See my next comment.

If you are saying it has the potential to hurt the franchise then yes that is a possible risk. How large that risk is vs the money it would take to offset it would be up for Valve to decide.

Ben, I really wish you wouldn't simply ignore the large body of prior text specifically devoted to addressing this line of reasoning.

Your body of text was dealt with. MS makes out as they lost less money per XBox(utilizing scales of economy a $1 difference makes a big impact), your comment on giving up their PC API support seems completely out of left field to me. Why do you suppose that they would be surrendering DX control because of a possible deal? They will still have full control over their API. As it stands Valve has been using OpenGL for their lead API all along. MS would still have full control over DX, that is a non factor.

"Nothing"? Is that another unspecified and unsupported phrase used to refute my statements? You seem to be trying to make me repeat myself on several fronts.

As it relates to the gaming market what happens in the last year, unless it is a massive shift the likes of which we haven't really seen, is not all that important. The target platform is set long prior to the year before it ships.

That sounds like an abusive phrasing of figures. The indications I've seen don't seem to support any reasonable parsing of the statement. As far as I've understood, nVidia's marketshare has been decreasing since the R300 launch

From the article you linked-

Intel managed to increase its graphics shipment by 12% while Nvidia grew its share by 13% in that quarter.

I stated ~50% while the actual number is closer to 68% greater then ATi. I was allowing for a large adjustment. Also, the article you linked to gives increase in sales compared to year ago for the particular IHVs. Given nV's baseline figure they saw a larger increase in unit sales then ATi and for that matter a nearly identical(actually, slightly larger for nV) in terms of marketshare. ATi's marketshare is increasing in proportion to what it was faster then nVidia's, nVidia's marketshare is growing faster in absolute terms.

No, most of the rest of my post deals with things that seem to refute your statements that you ended up repeating above.

Because you state something does not make it so. Your statements do comment on what I had stated previously, there is no need to explain to you the same things over and over again. You want to link this singular deal out into MS handing over DX control, debating the amount of DX9 boards on the market, and trying to inflate ATi's marketshare. I have addressed all of those issue. DX9 is irrelevant in the context of this hypothetical deal, this has nothing to do with MS surrendering control over their API and ATi's marketshare is considerably lower then nVidia's and decreasing in relation to nVidia based on the numbers we have.

[demalion]

You are going off topic here, so I'll try to put it back on track.

You're "on track" seems to be a sidetrack, details given before.

I'm not talking about DX9 being linked to any of the events dealing with Valve.

And I am, as I was when you replied. Did you just decide to skip over the "Again:" cues? I've addressed the commentary you've made about DX 9, both the availability you keep mentioning (I say yet again) and the relationship that I see with the discussion at hand.


The reason I brought it up was simply availability.

Yeah, and I answered you. Why do you repeat it instead of responding to my answer?

You can now buy a DX9 level board for under $90, they are available at the mass market price.

Strange, there was no mention of the price in the quote I provided of your introduction to the topic I was addressing. You give me the impression of trying to switch focus after I addressed your approach, as an alternative to recognizing that anything I said addressed anything you said. That's no way to hold a productive discussion. :-?

Marketshare and the finances concerning the possibility of this deal is what are relevant so I'll reply to those points.

Well, actually, as I've said before I seem to recollect, I happen to maintain that things you don't reply to are relevant. I also think I've given reason why. I also repeat again that stating they aren't and replying by ignoring them doesn't get us anywhere.

I'm still under the impression that the future is shaping up differently than the past to which you keep referring by way of example.

Because you are under that impression does not make it so.

This is a bit ridiculous in the cut and snip department, Ben. It wasn't just my impression, it was my impression following a discussion, quotes, and correction of an assertion you made, that you "happened" to decide to omit in order to make this statement.

You asserted that something indicated the marketplace as of a week ago. I provided a link that showed the data in question was actually from Q4 2002, and quoted an excerpt of the report that yet again seemed to provide indication that your assertions about marketshare are not well supported. You reply by quoting only my caption and excising the quote and prior discussion that backed it up, and then making a remark to imply that I don't have anything...backing it up.

A bit...absurd.

Just maybe the 9500 Pro isn't on shelves because they are selling very well, or because in those places the 9700 is selling well enough...did you ask?

It took me about a week of searching to find a place that I could get a R9500Pro from, most places told me they should have some in stock within a couple of weeks(with gaps of weeks in the supply channel that takes weeks to replenish there are supply issues).

You are omitting discussion related to this I offer, and are applying an extrapolation of your experience universally and proposing it as a substitute. Did you ever relate your experience to your mention of six months?

But, anyways, yes there do seem to be 9500 supply problems in retail. I'm unclear how many are involved in the 9600TX deal (with Medion IIRC), but there does seem to be an indication that retail availability was sacrified for OEM contracts. Also, the discussion you repeatedly omit does not depend on the 9500 alone...in fact, it spends some time addressing your basis for viewing the 9500 in isolation in a fashion that you've chosen not to respond to.

Yes, I think the R9500Pro sold very well considering its class,
It would be nice if I had some idea if that recognized something I said, but it just looks like a deprecation without connection to me (yes, even as part of the rest of the sentence that follow, since the rest of the sentence doesn't seem associated with it)...what does "considering its class" mean in the context of our discussion?
but simply look to the thread your provided from the Inquirer stating that add in boards outsold CPUs in Q4. With flat PC sales that should place CPU shipments in the ~30Million range for Q4 and graphics boards outsold that. The 1Million total units which took place over two quarters amounts to likely ~1.5%-2%(I haven't seen the break out for per quarter shipments on the R300 boards).

Your extrapolation seems a bit uncontrolled. It did not say boards outsold CPU shipments, it said graphics shipments outsold CPU shipments. That would include integrated nforce boards, integrated ATI solutions, and integrated Intel graphics chipsets. The point they made by saying that figure exceeded CPU shipments was that they believed it indicated discrete solutions were a significant portion.

That doesn't change the figures originally discussed (nor the invalidity of the context in which you originally presented them, though it does seem to behoove you to ignore that). Tell me: what do you think of nVidia's integrated chipset sales (nforce) compared to ATI's? If you think nforce outsold ATI's integrated solutions, that would mean that the original figures are overstating the case of add in board marketshare (and ATI's situation would be more favorable). That would be my guess, but I don't claim to know, nor would I try to come up with percentages and present them as data based on my guess.

Hmm...didn't take the opportunity to correct me on "large sales" which should be "long term sales" (they are the same for Valve in my view, but shouldn't have been used in conjunction with "any company") and instead went off on a long ATI bash.

Did ATi not break Valve's games with the latest driver release? Long term user support for a IHV isn't helped when you release drivers that won't work with their games.

Hey, I got the impression the last time we discussed this that you had an amazing ability to ignore what others said too!
Well, we've had this discussion here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4648&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=0) already, I don't feel like repeating myself point by point regarding your commentary. If you write paragraphs and paragraphs ignoring the other issues with Alt-Tabbing and Esc in Half-Life has had, I guess it must be true that ATI is "breaking games", right?

For the really die hard Valve loyalists things like that happening can hurt ATi's chances of them purchasing their boards. ATi, by releasing a driver that removed acceptable support for Valve games hurts their reputation in the Valve community.

Removed acceptable support? :-? In case anyone got confused, you can play the game with ATI drivers, but along with the other issues the game has with leaving 3d mode (not just with ATI cards), it crashes when using Cat 3.2 and completely leaving 3D mode (Esc or Alt-Tab, as I understand it), atleast for most people (I presume R300 owners, I didn't run into the problem when I did it). The coherent support here is ignoring the long standing bugs with sound that occurs in the same circumstance, discounting that this indicates that the game could have issues itself, and proposing this as support for Valve having reason for going nvidia exclusive.

Do you call this relating your anti-ATI ranting (for the reader wishing to evaluate the applicability of the label, it begins in a prior post with "ATi craps on these same users...") to the discussion at hand?

Looking at the R300 boards in particular, without a SS AA implementation their IQ is also inferior to many earlier boards in the HL powered games.

What are your framerates with supersampling on your 4200 using 8x aniso (not necessarily with trilinear, half life shouldn't need it much)? On that basis, are you going to maintain that "inferior IQ" as indisputable? Are you further maintaining that half-life (the first one, the one with alpha tests) IQ is make-or-break for people who play it and its mods?

Talking about the Valve loyalists ATi is not doing what it takes to keep them in the fold. Long term, this is going to hurt ATi with the die hard Valve community. If they were making an active push to court these die hard fans the way that nV does(implementing a SS option on their DX9 level boards as an example) I could see why long term impact could be a somewhat factor.

Some twists and turns in that, but I feel compelled to address everything fairly even if presented in a way I view as distortion. I agree ATi should offer a super sampling option for those who want it. I don't agree that not offering it makes a cut and dry case of inferior IQ for ATi (did you ever turn on AA when you had your 9500?). I agree that it is indeed cut and dry when it comes to alpha test application, but I don't agree that alpha test textures are the only factor for IQ in the half life engine.
I also don't think "not offering SS" in the context of the current half life engine and then associating that as a deficiency in regard to DX 9 (and therefore future games) goes together at all in a coherent fashion.
If you are wondering on my reason for this last, there are discussions about alpha tests and blends elsewhere in the forums.

Also in terms of long term sales goals, if they really want to build a major franchise then they could move to the consoles. The PC market is still a lot smaller then the console side of things.

I addressed this. They are an also ran on the console. On the PC they have a well established franchise strategy needing a refresh. Why go console exclusive? Heck, why am I repeating myself again when you refuse to address my commentary except in fragments away from the body of support I provide? I.e., your cut and snip earlier. :-?

Wouldn't it be 4.6 with your suppositions?

I rounded less then you, it's $4.37Million.

Okay...you switched from my 20% to 19%.

That seems to ignore things like growing future sales and a long term franchise as Valve did with the first Half-Life. Or should they not bother? See my next comment.

If you are saying it has the potential to hurt the franchise then yes that is a possible risk. How large that risk is vs the money it would take to offset it would be up for Valve to decide.

Hmm...did you read my first post, or my request, with link, for you take a look at my prior posts?.

Ben, I really wish you wouldn't simply ignore the large body of prior text specifically devoted to addressing this line of reasoning.

Your body of text was dealt with.

That's your euphism for ignoring it? Or maybe you mean "making it disappear" in a vaguely mobster sense?

MS makes out as they lost less money per XBox(utilizing scales of economy a $1 difference makes a big impact), your comment on giving up their PC API support seems completely out of left field to me.

Is this where I'm supposed to repeat my discussion so you can ignore it again? It's still there earlier in the thread, Ben. I don't have the impression that it is reasonable to require to me repeat it because you've decided to talk around it, nor that it would do any good if I did because other repetitions have consistently been treated the same way.

I don't know, I get tired of pointing this out, do you get tired of doing it? Since it takes less typing and thought for you to ignore than me to try and hold a discourse, I'd guess not. Oh well, my typing fingers are building up endurance.

Why do you suppose that they would be surrendering DX control because of a possible deal?

If you're really curious, go back a post or two to when I said so... :shock:
One place to look would be to the text you said you didn't find it necessary to recognize. Where I talked about MS and nvidia and Xbox and stuff...you know, the stuff you just started to talk about again after saying my discussion of the same things didn't apply. Perhaps you can get some mileage out of picking sentences and responding to them in a way that makes sense to the sentence in isolation but not the rest of the text it is part of?

They will still have full control over their API.
Hmm, nVidia seems to be having issues with the DX 9 API. BTW, did you read this link (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65613&#65613) the first time I provide it? If so, too bad you decided not to discuss it so we could have me spend time referring you to answers and arguments already provided.

As it stands Valve has been using OpenGL for their lead API all along. MS would still have full control over DX, that is a non factor.

Hmm...don't you think it is a bit of a non sequitor to propose "X Box exclusive" as being an incentive for MS to pay off Valve and "Valve has been using OpenGL for their lead API all along"?

"Nothing"? Is that another unspecified and unsupported phrase used to refute my statements? You seem to be trying to make me repeat myself on several fronts.

As it relates to the gaming market what happens in the last year, unless it is a massive shift the likes of which we haven't really seen, is not all that important.

You mean "that I, Ben, haven't really seen", and your vision just seems extremely selective to me. I can't seem to engage a discussion about anything I mention, it seems like it is always me repeating myself to your restatements of things I've addressed before. I really do think it is you, Ben. Could you take the time and step back and evaluate that proposition objectively for me? Hmm...I believe that 8 pages of a thread having failed to do so prior, it is wishful thinking on my part. :-?

The target platform is set long prior to the year before it ships.

I have this strange idea I had a discussion about DX 8 and DX 9, with provided support, that is directly related to this, and more than once too. I don't see recognition or reply to it, other than your saying I was going off topic and you saying you'd be putting things on track by ignoring it.

Are you trying to get me to use emoticons?

That sounds like an abusive phrasing of figures. The indications I've seen don't seem to support any reasonable parsing of the statement. As far as I've understood, nVidia's marketshare has been decreasing since the R300 launch

From the article you linked-

Intel managed to increase its graphics shipment by 12% while Nvidia grew its share by 13% in that quarter.

I stated ~50% while the actual number is closer to 68% greater then ATi.

Like my next paragraph had said? Is it just impossible for you to quote what I said and say "yes"? Oh, wait, I discussed other stuff in that next paragraph too, maybe that's why you didn't recognize it.

Do you have some ATI-blocking shades on such that you didn't mention that ATI saw an 18% growth "ahead of nVidia and Intel", despite it being at the beginning of the article, and was quoted by myself earlier?

In order to progress, I have to repeat myself since your discussion does nothing to recognize what I brought up. That makes me think progressing the discussion is not what you are interested in.

I was allowing for a large adjustment. Also, the article you linked to gives increase in sales compared to year ago for the particular IHVs. Given nV's baseline figure they saw a larger increase in unit sales then ATi and for that matter a nearly identical(actually, slightly larger for nV) in terms of marketshare.

I'll discuss the bolded bit in conjunction with the discussion of the text I quote after this.

Discussing nforce sales versus ATI integrated sales would be disrupt your statement, wouldn't it?

ATi's marketshare is increasing in proportion to what it was faster then nVidia's, nVidia's marketshare is growing faster in absolute terms.

Market...share. Leaves me the impression of percentages. So, having a larger percentage share of...the market... than before, to me indicates...growing market share. ATI grew 18%, nvidia grew 13%...so...by what math did nVidia's market share grow faster?

That looks like a convolution to support the statement highlighted in bold above that seems, to my understanding, to be incorrect, and to do so by emphasizing unit sales and disregarding the meaning of what units are being sold.

At this point I'll quote a definition I've found of marketshare (http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?2989), and have the expectation someone will say I'm playing word games by responding to a usage I don't see as correct.
I don't know...it really does look to me like you spent a paragraph trying to redefine the word. Would you maintain that I am mistaken? Besides just saying "yes", can you provide coherent support for that?

No, most of the rest of my post deals with things that seem to refute your statements that you ended up repeating above.

Because you state something does not make it so.

Are you just making a bad job of trying to throw my words back at me? Sounds silly when what you are quoting mentions support of mine to which you are refusing to reply.

Your statements do comment on what I had stated previously, there is no need to explain to you the same things over and over again.
You explain something...if I disagree, I provide my reasons and counterargument...if you disagree, you provide your reasons and counterargument, not repeat your original explanation and dismiss my reasons and counterargument as invalid because you said so. So...I wasn't asking you to "explain the same things over and over again".
Did I have to explain this?

You want to link this singular deal out into MS handing over DX control, debating the amount of DX9 boards on the market, and trying to inflate ATi's marketshare.
Doesn't strike me as an objective representation of my viewpoint, actually.
There's a "few" paragraphs indicating why. My saying this, again, in a discussion with you is not because I like saying it, but because it is necessitated by your treatment of the discussion.

I have addressed all of those issue.

No, you have made statements and discounted mine and the given reasons behind them and simply proceeded to omit my statements and reasons without providing discussion of what I brought up. That is not 'addressing those issues'.

DX9 is irrelevant in the context of this hypothetical deal, this has nothing to do with MS surrendering control over their API and ATi's marketshare is considerably lower then nVidia's and decreasing in relation to nVidia based on the numbers we have.

Your argument feels like a "Quicksand" method of argument...opposing viewpoints and support are swallowed up without a trace or consideration in order to present the original uninterrupted surface intact.

[Reverend]

]
but I would not think a publisher like EA will allow ANY of the developers under their umbrella to do what Valve is rumored to be doing (as in this thread).

Thats pretty laughable that you stated this considering that EA and Nvidia just signed an *Exclusive* agreement.
What I meant by "... to do what Valve is rumored to be doing..." is that a Valve game to not run on non-NVIDIA hardware, which isn't the case with EA's agreement with NVIDIA. I doubt my statement is laughable this sense.

[Striker]

The largest post I've EVER seen.

Good work demalion...I doubt anyone will ever read it, tho. I didnt read it, for one.

[BenSkywalker]

I've addressed the commentary you've made about DX 9, both the availability you keep mentioning (I say yet again) and the relationship that I see with the discussion at hand.

And your comment was-

Again: 'I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base.'

And I provided numbers that directly refuted it. Are you ready to drop it yet? Should I dig up more numbers to show you this?

Well, actually, as I've said before I seem to recollect, I happen to maintain that things you don't reply to are relevant.

Drop the morality based hypothesis and try presenting your end of the discussion with some logical business based lines of discussion. I claimed nVidia had a significantly greater portion of the gaming market, you refuted it using extremely weak anecdotal evidence which was completely unrelated and I come back with hard market data. It is not my job to find an angle you can use to discuss this issue. You are utilizing speculation about how the market would respond based on people's feeling to the situation overall. Start presenting some real numbers revolving around Valve's user base or the market at large and stop trying to think of a way that maybe someday something bad might come of it.

It wasn't just my impression, it was my impression following a discussion, quotes, and correction of an assertion you made, that you "happened" to decide to omit in order to make this statement.

I showed you hard data that made all of your rantings irrelevant. We have now seen numbers from two quarters of ATi's supposed new direction and nVidia has increased their marketshare. This is based on numbers that come from a financial publication, not my completely unfounded speculation based on a particular leaning I may have.

You asserted that something indicated the marketplace as of a week ago.

Where did I state that? I quoted an ARTICLE and stated "That was from a week ago". I quote an article, say it was from a week ago. Why I didn't reply to the rest of your post concerning that it was from Q4 was that I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE. The only thing I stated that can be remotely misunderstood was that the numbers were current. I apologize if I mistakenly assumed that you would know that current numbers indicates the most recently released figures. Given that the article was posted within a week of the end of Q1 it should have been understood that it was from the prior quarter. We have discussions regularly concerning marketshare in the console forum, it is understood that when you post new numbers they are the most recent available(and when someone says 'current numbers' it indicates the most recently available numbers). If I was stating that they were in fact up to the minute numbers, I would have stated as such.

You are omitting discussion related to this I offer, and are applying an extrapolation of your experience universally and proposing it as a substitute. Did you ever relate your experience to your mention of six months?

You asked me a question pertaining to my personal experience, I relayed the details of my personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is never worth much, nor have I claimed otherwise.

what does "considering its class" mean in the context of our discussion?

It sold well for a $200 board.

Your extrapolation seems a bit uncontrolled. It did not say boards outsold CPU shipments, it said graphics shipments outsold CPU shipments.

Yes, that was a mistake on my part. I misspoke when I stated boards as I should have stated chips.

If you write paragraphs and paragraphs ignoring the other issues with Alt-Tabbing and Esc in Half-Life has had, I guess it must be true that ATI is "breaking games", right?

Is this in the context of Valve's customers or not? Go check gaming based forums to see what they think of ATi's drivers right now.

The coherent support here is ignoring the long standing bugs with sound that occurs in the same circumstance, discounting that this indicates that the game could have issues itself, and proposing this as support for Valve having reason for going nvidia exclusive.

The game worked fine with the Cat3.1s and then didn't with the Cat3.2s. ATi has ackowledged it and said they would fix it. Does anyone honestly think ATi tested any of the HL games with the Cat 3.2s? How do you think Valve's loyalists running ATi hardware right now feel about ATi's drivers? These same users who you expect to get upset with Valve if they were to drop ATi? Does this 'prove' anything? No. Is there a certain way to quantify what impact this will have? No. The same way your prior speculation on short v long terms benefits is non quantifiable.

What are your framerates with supersampling on your 4200 using 8x aniso (not necessarily with trilinear, half life shouldn't need it much)?

:shock: Have you ever played Half-Life? I could run 4x AA+AF with my GF2@1280x960 and it was playable. I honestly don't know what my exact framerate is, capped @100 and never noticed any slowdown @1280x960(you can't run 4xS in OpenGL, only D3D which doesn't support 16x12) and that is with trilinear and HL needs it a lot more then most current games, the mip banding on the grated floors is obscenely bad).

On that basis, are you going to maintain that "inferior IQ" as indisputable?

Yes, until ATi releases a SS implementation for their R300 boards. Overall the AA on the R300 is leaps and bounds beyond what I currently have, but in HL it is extremely poor. The games needs SS AA.

Are you further maintaining that half-life (the first one, the one with alpha tests) IQ is make-or-break for people who play it and its mods?

No, nor is performance a major concern with any vaguely close to current board. But what about those people upgrading from a GF4MX to a R9700Pro and HL looks poorer? Talking about the die hard loyalists here.

I don't agree that not offering it makes a cut and dry case of inferior IQ for ATi (did you ever turn on AA when you had your 9500?).

Ran almost everything 2x AA 16x Q AF(newer games, HL I ran at 6x AA when it worked). Now I run most things at 2x AA 8x AF(HL 4S, Quake3 engined games 4x).

I agree that it is indeed cut and dry when it comes to alpha test application, but I don't agree that alpha test textures are the only factor for IQ in the half life engine.

Nor do I. I have the graphics expansion pack which improved things considerably where HL was weakest(mode complexity). The textures are limited to 256x256 and any close to current board can handle it with max A and trilinear along with a fairly heavy negative LOD setting without running in to aliasing issues with the very noteable exception of alpha textures.

I also don't think "not offering SS" in the context of the current half life engine and then associating that as a deficiency in regard to DX 9 (and therefore future games) goes together at all in a coherent fashion.

I was stating that as it was easier then writing the R300/R350/RV350. They should offer SS AA as an option on all of their boards. I don't have a R8500 nor have I had my hands on one in quite some time so I can't say if they currently offer a SS AA mode or not. I am not going to say they should do something that they may already have done.

I addressed this. They are an also ran on the console.

They haven't released a timely port of their titles yet.

On the PC they have a well established franchise strategy needing a refresh.

There are two different aspects to what happens concerning Valve. One is their customer support and encouragement for helping to keep the community alive. This requires very minimal effort from Valve, handing off the basic tools and giving out some documentation along with a bit of encouragement pretty much handles it. The other end is financial. On this end, they pale in comparison to what Rockstar has done in the last twenty months with one of their franchises. That is, every title Valve has sold combined for their entire existance pales in comparison to what RockStar's singular franchise has done in under two years.

Why go console exclusive?

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

I don't know, I get tired of pointing this out, do you get tired of doing it? Since it takes less typing and thought for you to ignore than me to try and hold a discourse, I'd guess not.

Your comments focused on my not spelling out explicitly how it would benefit each party. I did that. I broke down how all involved could stand to come out ahead on a financial end(with the exception of nV who simply gains huge PR). MS could land reduced chip costs. Apologies if one sentence makes your lengthy comments irrelevant moving forward. I am not going to take time to reply to the same point worded twelve different ways.

Hmm, nVidia seems to be having issues with the DX 9 API. BTW, did you read this link the first time I provide it? If so, too bad you decided not to discuss it so we could have me spend time referring you to answers and arguments already provided.

Could you please explain how the hell Cg means MS is handing over control for DX please? I stated that they will still have full control over their API. You think Cg means Gates is going to have over DX to Trovalds(sic)? Maybe Steve Jobs will control the entire MS corporation if nVidia comes up with their own API....

Hmm...don't you think it is a bit of a non sequitor to propose "X Box exclusive" as being an incentive for MS to pay off Valve and "Valve has been using OpenGL for their lead API all along"?

Why? OpenGL is Valve's lead API, they have still supported DX. If they wanted to pull off an exclusive PC port they could 'break things' quite nicely under OpenGL.

You mean "that I, Ben, haven't really seen", and your vision just seems extremely selective to me.

Perhaps because I look at actual market data by industry professionals instead of listening to the dreams of users who focus on an extremely tiny niche market? Hard market data. I have provided it. In order to make any headway in this discussion you need to provide something to counter it. It is that simple. Facts v fancy.

I have this strange idea I had a discussion about DX 8 and DX 9, with provided support, that is directly related to this, and more than once too.

And I told you why what you said could be thrown out the window. You focus on your ideals. I focus on reality. You talked to many game publishers about your ideas for game development? It's a stressful job, I'm sure they could use a hearty laugh. This market is controlled by money. Yes, there are a few groups in the industry who have enough of it to fully self fund themselves and ignore whatever the publisher wants. You can likely count those groups on one hand.

Market...share. Leaves me the impression of percentages. So, having a larger percentage share of...the market... than before, to me indicates...growing market share. ATI grew 18%, nvidia grew 13%...so...by what math did nVidia's market share grow faster?

My quote again-

ATi's marketshare is increasing in proportion to what it was faster then nVidia's, nVidia's marketshare is growing faster in absolute terms.

16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

You would make a great comedian at a financial professional gathering. Have you taken any economics classes at all? My comment was extremely obvious(and of course, correct).

I don't know...it really does look to me like you spent a paragraph trying to redefine the word. Would you maintain that I am mistaken? Besides just saying "yes", can you provide coherent support for that?

This has nothing to do with English, it is very basic economics and mathematics.

[demalion]

Sorry, lost the original to a crash (I think the "one ring" screen saver installed some spyware, uninstalling seems to have done wonders for stability) and I spent a little less effort on cleaning it up.
I've addressed the commentary you've made about DX 9, both the availability you keep mentioning (I say yet again) and the relationship that I see with the discussion at hand.

And your comment was-

My singular comment that you propose in isolation in lieu of the actual paragraphs I was referring to, you mean.

Again: 'I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base.'

And I provided numbers that directly refuted it.

I understand that you said "You're saying it doesn't make it so" to prevent me from saying it to you. That doesn't mean that it is any less valid when I do say it to you (I just did), nor that it is any more valid when you said it to me (as discussed in my last post to you, a discussion you decided was irrelevant after I provided my input on the matter). It as at times like this where I'm faced with the choice of repeating something you decided to ignore or mentioning it and saying to go look. Your strategy seems to consist of causing me to make this choice in place of holding an actual discussion with me, and depending on people not reading the parts of my posts you don't quote (and it seems to work for some, though let me do them the courtesy of mentioning one by name: "Striker") by responding to each strategy in the same way (quoting isolated text and saying only that text is relevant).

Are you ready to drop it yet? Should I dig up more numbers to show you this?

By this you seek to imply that I'm hiding from your numbers, when I've addressed them directly. Your excuse for ignoring my address is later specified to be that I am to blame for my criticisms of your statements, not you. To answer your question: No, I'm not going to give way to your insistence on being right regardless of what I say, and if you wish that, you can converse with yourself using notepad to more effectively achieve the goal.

Well, actually, as I've said before I seem to recollect, I happen to maintain that things you don't reply to are relevant.

Drop the morality based hypothesis and try presenting your end of the discussion with some logical business based lines of discussion.

What morality based hypothesis? That my statements are relevant? How dare I propose that with support, discussion, examples, quotation, and analysis! I don't know how you put up with me.

I claimed nVidia had a significantly greater portion of the gaming market, you refuted it using extremely weak anecdotal evidence which was completely unrelated and I come back with hard market data.

To hold a discussion we have to be able to discuss the same thing in some sane frame of reference. I never "refuted" that nvidia has a greater market share, I refuted that the market share figures being presented had direct bearing on the gaming market share for a game like half life 2. I even gave reasons among the "irrelevant" things I discussed. BTW, when I mentioned Steve Spence in that other thread, did you decide to emulate him more closely to cause me aggravation? Your practice here reminds me rather closely of his approach to dispute (except you don't have the power to delete threads and posts by other people).

It is not my job to find an angle you can use to discuss this issue.
Who asked you to find me an angle? I'm doing fine on discussing the issue and providing support, thanks, I'm just asking you to get beyond your self-involvment with your own viewpoint and think through the statements I provide. You seem to have a "self induced optical deficiency" in your fixation with your own angle (to be less vague, I'm saying you have blinders on).

You are utilizing speculation about how the market would respond based on people's feeling to the situation overall.

No, I'm using support based on discussing the data I present, the data you presented, criticizing your analysis with support for my reasons for doing so, providing my own observations and statements, and hoping in vain for you to respond to my statements with anything but a marked contempt for viewpoints not your own. :-?

Start presenting some real numbers revolving around Valve's user base or the market at large and stop trying to think of a way that maybe someday something bad might come of it.

Hmm? I am presenting "real numbers". Is your phrasing intended to refer to the 2000 Valve survey results and again propose they are the most pertinent to the question of the marketplace in 2003 for Half Life 2, and circumventing my support for disagreeing?

It wasn't just my impression, it was my impression following a discussion, quotes, and correction of an assertion you made, that you "happened" to decide to omit in order to make this statement.

I showed you hard data that made all of your rantings irrelevant.

Well, I said something, and you said something. I think it is observable that the statement I made is true. Instead of refuting it, you label it irrelevant. Let's see what your support for this is.

We have now seen numbers from two quarters of ATi's supposed new direction and nVidia has increased their marketshare.

From the earlier analysis of your "hard data" (would be nice if you gave some indication of having read the links (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7511) I provide non selectively):
"Nvidia, however, remained the largest supplier of graphics to the PC market but with a reduced share of the market."

EDIT: The following is a quote from the original release at Jon Peddie's web site. (http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/MarketWatch_Q402.shtml) (the reason for this mention is at the end of the post):

"Nvidia ... was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market."

That is perhaps a clue that your interpretation is wrong, along with my mention of a definition of the term "market share" to clarify where you seem to be confused in your usage of it AFAICS.

Also, the numbers we see there are not after two quarters unless you want to propose that mass availability was instantaneous upon release(which would make it about 1 and half quarters) and add half a quarter for the hell of it.

There is a "whole bunch" of text supporting the sentiment of that quote and my above comment that you decided was "irrelevant" to your reply, apparently. It remains easier for you to ignore than me to repeat, so repeating it seems a wasteful proposition, but let's continue with me addressing your commentary and providing support, and you...hmmm, well something.
This is based on numbers that come from a financial publication, not my completely unfounded speculation based on a particular leaning I may have.
No, this is based on your personal interpretation of numbers from a financial publication, and your ignoring anything I say that contradicts your interpretation.
You asserted that something indicated the marketplace as of a week ago.

Where did I state that?

How about current real numbers then?
ATI (ATYT ), now with an estimated 19% of the market, and Nvidia (NVDA ), with 32%, are the only major specialized makers of graphics chips to survive. (Intel (INTC ) holds a 28% share of the graphics-chips markets, and two smaller rivals own single-digit bites.)
link provided...
That is from one week ago.
:shock:
I quoted an ARTICLE and stated "That was from a week ago". I quote an article, say it was from a week ago. Why I didn't reply to the rest of your post concerning that it was from Q4 was that I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.
Hmm...so because you never said "this is not from Q4" (just quoted figures and said it was from a week ago :shock:), my discussion of the relevance of it being from Q4 is...err...irrelevant?
Do go on...
The only thing I stated that can be remotely misunderstood was that the numbers were current.
Well, shame on me for "misunderstanding" you saying "how about current real numbers?" then quoting marketshare figures then saying "that is from one week ago". No implication there that contradicts it being from the Q4 2002, of course. Bleh.

I apologize if I mistakenly...
:shock:
...assumed that you would know that current numbers indicates the most recently released figures.
False alarm, it's still my fault. :-?
Given that the article was posted within a week of the end of Q1 it should have been understood that it was from the prior quarter.
I didn't have trouble understanding that, which is why I corrected your statement. You saying that seems to be predicated on the belief that I should have known better than to think you are capable of a mistake. Well, I didn't, and I still don't, but it is of course more useful to have this sidetrack concerning your infallibility rather than discussing the support that has already been presented on my part.
We have discussions regularly concerning marketshare in the console forum, it is understood that when you post new numbers they are the most recent available(and when someone says 'current numbers' it indicates the most recently available numbers). If I was stating that they were in fact up to the minute numbers, I would have stated as such.
Since this is obviously the console forum, you don't make silly mistakes, and the article was within "minutes" of the end Q1, I obviously should have known better to think that there was something wrong with your statement and responded by quoting something that might make your assertion look weaker. Or not, but with your selective reading skills, perhaps you'll be please by the prior sentence.
You are omitting discussion related to this I offer, and are applying an extrapolation of your experience universally and proposing it as a substitute. Did you ever relate your experience to your mention of six months?

You asked me a question pertaining to my personal experience,
No, what I asked for was substantion and some form of support. What you decided constituted support against the figures and commentary I proposed was your personal experience in the stores presented as applicable to the 6 months of availability to the R300. My evaluation of that is reflected rather well in the text of mine you just quoted, if you read it.
I relayed the details of my personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is never worth much, nor have I claimed otherwise.
You do when you propose it in response to the broad request: "If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual."

...

Not the most sterling support for your assertion that my "rantings" are "irrelevant", IMO.

what does "considering its class" mean in the context of our discussion?

It sold well for a $200 board.
Well, it did list for $199, but I'll also point out that the non Pro (also DX 9) listed for less. I'd say the selling price mattered more and I recall some DX 9 Radeon card selling for $150 for Q4. But back to discussing your "hard data".
Your extrapolation seems a bit uncontrolled. It did not say boards outsold CPU shipments, it said graphics shipments outsold CPU shipments.
Yes, that was a mistake on my part. I misspoke when I stated boards as I should have stated chips.
It is good to find a point beyond which your defense of your infallibility will not continue.
Perhaps now we can progress to such things as considering that it wasn't boards but "graphics shipments", including integrated chipsets (I seem to recall wondering how many nforce boards might have made up nVidia's marketshare figure). Then, we could perhaps recognize that my long standing (and continually deemed irrelevant) discussion concerning DX 8 and DX 9 and the topic of exclusivity is indeed pertinent (or would you still maintain that GF 4 MX and below functionality, such as offered by Intel with its 28% share in your "hard data", has direct bearing on HL 2 exclusivity?). If "we" can, my discussion is available in prior posts.
If you write paragraphs and paragraphs ignoring the other issues with Alt-Tabbing and Esc in Half-Life has had, I guess it must be true that ATI is "breaking games", right?
Is this in the context of Valve's customers or not? Go check gaming based forums to see what they think of ATi's drivers right now.
The same forums where the common wisdom is that ATI's drivers suck and that nVidia's drivers are flawless? Hmm...well, I see a lot of complaints about nVidia drivers too.
First place I looked, in the planethalflife forums, has this mention (http://www.forumplanet.com/planethalflife/topic.asp?fid=1890&tid=995343) of a long standing nVidia driver problem. Maybe you had a more emotional forum in mind, since searching on "ATI bug" did not turn up the type of discussion you referred to. Perhaps you could provide a link to gaming forum in question?
In any case, why is it that ATI is "breaking games", but nVidia is not? Could it be because it is more convenient to discuss the validity of your viewpoint by proxy?
Hey, look what someone said: "Anecdotal evidence is never worth much, nor have I claimed otherwise."
The coherent support here is ignoring the long standing bugs with sound that occurs in the same circumstance, discounting that this indicates that the game could have issues itself, and proposing this as support for Valve having reason for going nvidia exclusive.
The game worked fine with the Cat3.1s and then didn't with the Cat3.2s
That seems to be anecdotal evidence to me, but still true. The problem is you propose it as a factor in Valve's decision making...what was that you said before about anecdotal evidence? I don't think they are run by people with your mentality, but, hey, I could be wrong.
ATi has ackowledged it and said they would fix it.
Well, they acknowledged that they could reproduce it and gave some indication that the issue would be resolved. Which does not seem to speak against the example that I provided of how the same action is and has been bugged on the part of the program for quite a while, and is something Valve is indicating they will address. Might not even be an issue for HL 2 :shock:!
Oh, here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4648&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=0) is that link to our prior discussion of this topic (provided again).
Does anyone honestly think ATi tested any of the HL games with the Cat 3.2s?
The problem manifests when you Alt-Tab or press Esc. For myself, I don't use Alt-Tab because I play using sound, and I don't use Esc because I'm used to the "~". I suspect ATi's problem (and, yes it is their problem in testing, if not in the actual bug) was related to that. BTW, I used Esc in both Natural Selection and Counter-Strike using Cat 3.2 on my 8500, and the issue did not manifest. I also Alt-Tabbed out of NS.
I only mention this anecdotal evidence because you seem to be indicating it is a unversal problem with ATI cards.
How do you think Valve's loyalists running ATi hardware right now feel about ATi's drivers?
Weren't you accusing me of using people's feelings to support my case, Ben? Were you perhaps thinking of yourself when you said it?
To answer, I propose the possibility that they blame Valve, for the long standing problem I referred to earlier. Could be the fault of either, or both, and the only problem with deciding on one or the other is then extrapolating that and inflicting it on others as support for your argument.
These same users who you expect to get upset with Valve if they were to drop ATi?
I'm not sure what users you are referring to, as you haven't clarified your example. I expect ATi users would be a bit upset, and I think the marketshare picture is changing who they would tend to blame for such an issue. I don't think your "hard data" is an effective counter to that expectation (reasons provided prior).
Does this 'prove' anything? No. Is there a certain way to quantify what impact this will have? No. The same way your prior speculation on short v long terms benefits is non quantifiable.
You call this hypocritical and ill conceived line of argument equivalent to my discussion? Well, if you say it, it's true, right? :-? Great alternative to addressing someones disagreement: say it is worthless as the argument you presented. :shock:
What are your framerates with supersampling on your 4200 using 8x aniso (not necessarily with trilinear, half life shouldn't need it much)?
:shock: Have you ever played Half-Life?
Not on a 4200, which, amazingly enough, is why I asked you a question.
I could run 4x AA+AF with my GF2@1280x960 and it was playable.
Hmm...I did not ask about "playable", I asked for something to relate to your idea of undisputably inferior image quality. Let's see how close to that I get.
I honestly don't know what my exact framerate is, capped @100 and never noticed any slowdown @1280x960(you can't run 4xS in OpenGL, only D3D which doesn't support 16x12) and that is with trilinear and HL needs it a lot more then most current games, the mip banding on the grated floors is obscenely bad).
Well, that's not quite a helpful answer, is it? What level of aniso? I presume maximum image quality settings tweaked on your 4200? Is mentioning these and your fps really that complicated? If you want to include trilinear, go ahead.
If you don't want to discuss actual figures, I'll just point out that your opinion is not "indisputable". :shock: There are even places in the game without alpha tested textures.
On that basis, are you going to maintain that "inferior IQ" as indisputable?
Yes, until ATi releases a SS implementation for their R300 boards. Overall the AA on the R300 is leaps and bounds beyond what I currently have, but in HL it is extremely poor. The games needs SS AA.
Wow, you really do love your facts and figures.
Are you further maintaining that half-life (the first one, the one with alpha tests) IQ is make-or-break for people who play it and its mods?
No, nor is performance a major concern with any vaguely close to current board. But what about those people upgrading from a GF4MX to a R9700Pro and HL looks poorer?
:shock: I don't know, I think statements like these make you look idiotic. I think it is easy to snip my quote of you and reply out of your own replies, so you don't care that you do so. Hmm...yeah, I'm having trouble with people upgrading from the GF4MX finding the 9700 Pro a disappointment.
Talking about the die hard loyalists here.
:shock: :lol: :cry: :lol:
I don't agree that not offering it makes a cut and dry case of inferior IQ for ATi (did you ever turn on AA when you had your 9500?).

Ran almost everything 2x AA 16x Q AF(newer games, HL I ran at 6x AA when it worked).
The issue with HL is when leaving it the 3d screen, so how exactly did you have a problem with 6xAA associated with "when it worked"? Was there a problem with getting it to start that I forgot about, or are you just determined to say negative things about ATI?
Now I run most things at 2x AA 8x AF(HL 4S, Quake3 engined games 4x).
Ah! 8x AF at 1280x960! There we go. Now if fps just wasn't so hard to report for HL. :-? I mean, then we could build a more complete picture of how they compared for your evaluation. However, with you evaluating 6xAA as "indisputably" worse than 4xS on the GF 4 Ti 4200, I'm not sure there is a common ground we can reach to continue the discussion. Nevermind the GF 4 MX comment.
I agree that it is indeed cut and dry when it comes to alpha test application, but I don't agree that alpha test textures are the only factor for IQ in the half life engine.

Nor do I. I have the graphics expansion pack which improved things considerably where HL was weakest(mode complexity). The textures are limited to 256x256 and any close to current board can handle it with max A and trilinear along with a fairly heavy negative LOD setting without running in to aliasing issues with the very noteable exception of alpha textures.
If they aren't the only factor, why are they only factor you recognize when discussing indisputable IQ superiority? What about 16x AF? Maybe going up to 1600x1200 and using 2xAA? I can see how a GF 4 MX user would hate that. :shock:
I also don't think "not offering SS" in the context of the current half life engine and then associating that as a deficiency in regard to DX 9 (and therefore future games) goes together at all in a coherent fashion.

I was stating that as it was easier then writing the R300/R350/RV350. They should offer SS AA as an option on all of their boards.
...
Your commentary still doesn't hold together, AFAICS.

I addressed this. They are an also ran on the console.

They haven't released a timely port of their titles yet.

On the PC they have a well established franchise strategy needing a refresh.

There are two different aspects to what happens concerning Valve. One is their customer support and encouragement for helping to keep the community alive. This requires very minimal effort from Valve, handing off the basic tools and giving out some documentation along with a bit of encouragement pretty much handles it. The other end is financial. On this end, they pale in comparison to what Rockstar has done in the last twenty months with one of their franchises. That is, every title Valve has sold combined for their entire existance pales in comparison to what RockStar's singular franchise has done in under two years.
Two points:
Is it really so hard to provide the information on which you are basing such a statement?
I've already said it makes sense to do a console port, what you continue to fail to do is relate that to the proposition of "nVidia exclusive" on the PC.

Why go console exclusive?

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.
Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. :shock: Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I don't know, I get tired of pointing this out, do you get tired of doing it? Since it takes less typing and thought for you to ignore than me to try and hold a discourse, I'd guess not.

Your comments focused on my not spelling out explicitly how it would benefit each party.
No, it focused on pointing out how it would not benefit some of the people you said it would benefit, and criticizing your stating that it would with an absence of coherency.
I did that. I broke down how all involved could stand to come out ahead on a financial end(with the exception of nV who simply gains huge PR). MS could land reduced chip costs.
And I addressed the flaws in your "breaking it down". Now, here we are, you telling me what you did after ignoring my reply to each detail of it.
Apologies if one sentence makes your lengthy comments irrelevant moving forward.
What one sentence are you proposing make my comments irrelevant? Let me guess, the sentence where Ben says "your comments are irrelevant"?
I am not going to take time to reply to the same point worded twelve different ways.
You haven't replied to my discussion of this besides labelling it irrelevant.
Did I mention my feeling of deja vu (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4648&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=100)?

Hmm, nVidia seems to be having issues with the DX 9 API. BTW, did you read this link the first time I provide it? If so, too bad you decided not to discuss it so we could have me spend time referring you to answers and arguments already provided.

Could you please explain how the hell Cg means MS is handing over control for DX please?
No, I indicated that MS paying someone to use Cg instead of DX 9 reduces the influence of DX 9, and provided a link referencing a discussion by Microsoft personnel commenting on Cg. It was addressing what you proposed (which was quoted and pointed out directly in some of that "irrelevant" text of mine), and if you'd spend some time reading what I said you could maybe avoid asking such questions. Just a thoght.
I stated that they will still have full control over their API. You think Cg means Gates is going to have over DX to Trovalds(sic)? Maybe Steve Jobs will control the entire MS corporation if nVidia comes up with their own API....
Hmm...well, with such a lucid commentary, how can I begin to disagree?
Hmm...don't you think it is a bit of a non sequitor to propose "X Box exclusive" as being an incentive for MS to pay off Valve and "Valve has been using OpenGL for their lead API all along"?

Why?
So, I guess the answer would be "No". :shock:
OpenGL is Valve's lead API, they have still supported DX. If they wanted to pull off an exclusive PC port they could 'break things' quite nicely under OpenGL.
Did you forget we were discussing your proposition of "X Box exclusive" and how you proposed that validated your commentary? A hint: if OpenGL is your lead API, your focus is the PC, not X Box. This might serve to negate the strength of proposing a focus on the X Box as rationally connected to nvidia exclusive on the PC. Just the same stuff I said before, nothing new here. :-?

You mean "that I, Ben, haven't really seen", and your vision just seems extremely selective to me.

Perhaps because I look at actual market data by industry professionals instead of listening to the dreams of users who focus on an extremely tiny niche market? Hard market data. I have provided it.
:lol: Yes, and I provided the data too (without saying something about "one week ago"). I also discussed that data, provided support for that discussion, looked at your discussion in turn and criticized it point by point, and provided other data...steps you have not done. Yet, again, "Ben is right".
In order to make any headway in this discussion you need to provide something to counter it. It is that simple. Facts v fancy.
Yeah, your opinion is fact, mine is fancy. Deja vu (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4648&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=100). Forgive me for not linking to specific posts in the thread, I'm simply presuming that anyone who follows my links (not that I would accuse of you doing that, Ben) will read on for a while and be able to form their own impressions.
I have this strange idea I had a discussion about DX 8 and DX 9, with provided support, that is directly related to this, and more than once too.

And I told you why what you said could be thrown out the window.
What, because they were irrelevant? I must have skipped over your support. Or, perhaps I just have a different standard of support than you do (of course, because I'm not you, my standard must be a lower one).
You focus on your ideals. I focus on reality.
Hmm...it must be nice to have reality defined as "Ben's viewpoint".
You talked to many game publishers about your ideas for game development?
Hmm...nope. Did you? Could you provide a quote of the commentary on this topic that was provided by Valve to you?
It's a stressful job, I'm sure they could use a hearty laugh. This market is controlled by money. Yes, there are a few groups in the industry who have enough of it to fully self fund themselves and ignore whatever the publisher wants. You can likely count those groups on one hand.
It obviously doesn't disturb you to propose such a diatribe as factual. As long as that is the case, please understand that people will continue to form low opinions of your posts. Ones they can justify by quoting you. In context.
Market...share. Leaves me the impression of percentages. So, having a larger percentage share of...the market... than before, to me indicates...growing market share. ATI grew 18%, nvidia grew 13%...so...by what math did nVidia's market share grow faster?

My quote again-

ATi's marketshare is increasing in proportion to what it was faster then nVidia's, nVidia's marketshare is growing faster in absolute terms.

Hmm...there does seem to be be some abusable terminology, doesn't there? Heh, OK, did a search and found the original report, discussed below.


16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

Your math is all wrong, because the growth was in shipments, and the impact on market share is separate, and I do have to ask: why'd you go and arbitrarily make up "facts" based on your misunderstanding? My mistake for providing something abusable to someone I view as prone to abusing. :-?

However, I should have corrected terminology before this, and I'm reminded of my comment when I quoted the Inquirer: "A handy quote (allegedly atleast...it is the Inquirer after all ;)) from the John Peddie report".

Hopefully, discussing things without the Inquirer's terminology will lead to clarity...Here is the report from Jon Peddie's site (http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/MarketWatch_Q402.shtml).

You'll note that that the growth was from Q3 to Q4, and was in shipments, and that their analysis of marketshare is a marked departure from yours (strange with your statement being factual presentation based on financial experts :-?)
Picking among the Inquirer comments (non selectively, atleast), this is the only interpretation that makes sense, and I blame myself for allowing the confusing terminology to persist this long and for quoting it without correction in the first place.
You would make a great comedian at a financial professional gathering. Have you taken any economics classes at all? My comment was extremely obvious(and of course, correct).
:lol: I recognized that your comments didn't make sense, and I should have applied that to the Inquirer I was quoting. Being truly at fault for this, I have the expectation that this will be a proxy for the validity in your own analysis, ignoring or down playing the errors on your own part. Will you succeed in disappointing me?
About the request for my employment as a comedian at a financial professional gathering: only if I can be your sidekick. :lol:
About the "My comment was extremely obvious(and of course, correct)": On second thought, I don't think you need me in the act at all. :lol:

I don't know...it really does look to me like you spent a paragraph trying to redefine the word. Would you maintain that I am mistaken? Besides just saying "yes", can you provide coherent support for that?

This has nothing to do with English, it is very basic economics and mathematics.

Ayep.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hold the emoticons in today. My twisted mouth and popped out eyes shall be my self inflicted punishment.

[Saem]

SWEET ZOMBIE JEEBUS, demalion.

Go write a book!

[Tahir2]

And you lost the original so you had to re-write it .. I agree with Saem go write War and Pieces 2 or something ;)

[demalion]

SWEET ZOMBIE JEEBUS, demalion.

Go write a book!
Are you disagreeing with my statements, or just stating that I'm wasting my time?

Takes longer to write it than read it, ya know, if it makes you feel better. :P

[Vince]

Demalion, do you ever have a conversation that doesn't reduce to pointless discussions on semantics? How about you cut threw the shit for once and get to the ideas and facts behind the words - not the linguistics in themselves... just an idea.

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

Actually, this just shows how out of touch you are with the Console industry. Ben's statement is not only correct, it's prophetic (although it's obvious do to it's linear extrapolation of today)

XBox Next is the de facto online service at this time and is the template for the Next Generation which is being built around Broadband and the distrobution of digital medium via this method. Sony is definatly gearing up for this type of synergy big-time; although at this time MS has the lead.

Look no further than the 10 or so games for XBox Live! which have additional downloadable content thats distributed thew the MS controlled fabric and stored on the HD. Ubisoft's widely acclaimed SplinterCell has additional levels that are released to Xbox players just like Valve's done on the PC arena.

This E3 should be quite exciting for the Online push.. you're quite behind the times.

I've already said it makes sense to do a console port, what you continue to fail to do is relate that to the proposition of "nVidia exclusive" on the PC.

It makes sence because of the state of the gaming industry and it's trends. The cost of a top-tier next generation game will be astronomical in terms of development cost and time - when your pushing around a Billion polygons a second, you need the massive expensive digitial content to fill the enviroment and associated physics, AI, et al. to match them.

So, when a game like GTA: Vice City sells north of 9-10M copies (Thats ~$500Million) in like 3 months - you take note. For Valve to have HL2 be a launch title on a Console would be huge. They then take the game designed around the XBox and it's nVidia graphics chip and, at minimum costs, port it to nVidia powered PCs. So, they get the sales of the Consoles, they get any kick-back they can from nVidia, and they get a majority stake in the PC area thanks to nVidia's Nv3x and 4x line's penetration into the marketplace.

[demalion]

And you lost the original so you had to re-write it .. I agree with Saem go write War and Pieces 2 or something ;)
I actually have a problem with just saying "Ben, you are a <insert what you'd think I'd call Ben>." and treat posts as warranting reply.

If you disagree, provide a shorter post for me to reply to, and if you agree, mention it in a brief post so I feel more free to trim. But don't worry, I'll be trying to trim further replies in any case.

[Saem]

Are you disagreeing with my statements, or just stating that I'm wasting my time?

Takes longer to write it than read it, ya know, if it makes you feel better.

That's not what I meant. I mean you have so much to say on the subject, write a book.

[whql]

So, when a game like GTA: Vice City sells north of 9-10M copies (Thats ~$500Million) in like 3 months - you take note.

It only sells that much because its on the PS2...

[Tahir2]

I think I will abstain. Some of what has been written recently and in the past by yourself and Ben could take weeks to analyse. In fact it is pretty hard for me to see what you two are actually debating now. A lot of seems on the surface to be an exercise in tautology..which is what both of you accuse each other of doing in your own words. :D

As an aside there is no evidence so far as to what kind of engine HL2 has and whether or not it will be compatible with ALL NVIDIA cards and other manufacturers or whether it will be playable only on a GF4 Ti 4x00 and beyond. By playable I mean that the game will actually run to any degree.

Until we know this fact there is not much else to say about market shares, market targets, what Valve are doing, what NVIDIA get out of it, what relevance XBOX has.

This is just my humble opinion and I carry only a small voice.

[demalion]

Demalion, do you ever have a conversation that doesn't reduce to pointless discussions on semantics? How about you cut threw the shit for once and get to the ideas and facts behind the words - not the linguistics in themselves... just an idea.

Oh, waiting to snipe, I see. Here's a thought, perhaps addressing the points when I present them would facilitate...discussing points. I've addressed the points Ben has raised, more than once. If you happen to have an inability to recognize my discussing points in disagreement to your viewpoint, I can understand that all you would see is semantics discussion. I don't accept the blame for that, though.
Any particular reason you reply to posts with someone else when we had our own discussion already? Well, I've stated my theory before.
Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

Actually, this just shows how out of touch you are with the Console industry. Ben's statement is not only correct, it's prophetic (although it's obvious do to it's linear extrapolation of today)

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.
XBox Next is the de facto online service at this time and is the template for the Next Generation which is being built around Broadband and the distrobution of digital medium via this method. Sony is definatly gearing up for this type of synergy big-time; although at this time MS has the lead.
And this ties into nVidia exclusive development on the PC, how?
Look no further than the 10 or so games for XBox Live! which have additional downloadable content thats distributed thew the MS controlled fabric and stored on the HD. Ubisoft's widely acclaimed SplinterCell has additional levels that are released to Xbox players just like Valve's done on the PC arena.
That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.
This E3 should be quite exciting for the Online push.. you're quite behind the times.
Ahhh...sure, Vince.
I've already said it makes sense to do a console port, what you continue to fail to do is relate that to the proposition of "nVidia exclusive" on the PC.

It makes sence because of the state of the gaming industry and it's trends.
You say as you proceed to base your conclusion on something else entirely.
The cost of a top-tier next generation game will be astronomical in terms of development cost and time - when your pushing around a Billion polygons a second, you need the massivile expensive digitial content and associated physics, AI, et al. to match them.
Ok, games are expensive.
So, when a game like GTA: Vice City sells north of 9-10M copies in like 3 months - you take note.
Ok, games sell well on consoles.
For Valve to have HL2 be a launch title on a Console would be huge
How does a PC release preclude this? In fact, it would seem to make sense to have a PC release widely distributed first, build community support, so content could then be offered for this hypothetical console title in exactly the way you state. Do you begin to see the problem I have with the parallel you draw to automatic nVidia exclusivity?
They then take the game designed around the XBox and it's nVidia graphics chip and, at minimum costs, port it to nVidia powered PCs.
Why does the PC have to come after? Why does it make sense to discuss "OpenGL" as the primary API for Valve (as Ben was) in connection to this? Why wouldn't they code to PC standards (which would work with cards other than nVidia and have a positive impact on community response) and optimize it for the XBox afterwards if they are planning on leveraging user created content delivery?
So, they get the sales of the Consoles, they get any kick-back they can from nVidia, and they get a majority stake in the PC area thanks to nVidia's Nv3x and 4x line's penetration into the marketplace.
Umm...yeah, you've connected that well to the market trends. Silly of me to mention the things I did. :-?
This reminds me of discussion earlier in the thread, and, lo-and-behold, it is a repetition of what I addressed and what I said to address it back then.

[Tahir2]

1) Is HL2 going to be released on console only?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know

2) Is HL2 going to be released on PC and run only on the NV3x family?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know

3) Is HL2 going to be released on PC and run on any DirectX 9 card?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know

4) Is HL2 going to be released on console before it is released on PC (if it is to be released on both)?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know


5) So there are many arguments for and against all the questions I posed but does anyone here have any hard information that can be answered with a simple(r) yes or no?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know

My answers are as follows:

(1)c (2)c (3)c (4)c (5)b

I answered 5) with a 'No' on a hunch ;)

[Vince]

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:

http://playstation2-linux.com/

:Shock at how little this guy knows:

There are also several games that I know of for PS2 that have editors built in as well - the recently released broadband capable MidnightClubII comes to mind.

Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

Again, your soo very out of touch - your comments reak of ignorance. Go ask Archie in the Console forum (former Square programmer) why SquareSoft doesn't put the Final Fantasy series on XBox. The truth is, porting to even a closed box system like XBox would require such a massive retooling for Square that it's not finacially viable for the returns.

And thats for a closed box!! Inagine having to deal with the PC and it's open enviroment where no two systems are alike!!

It's easy for someone like you to state that "porting to every platform is better than one or two", but to the company's CFO and the bean counters who have to make this financially viable - it's imposible.

Just think of the customer service personel increase when going from PS2 to the PC. You need dedicated people knowledgable in the diffrent PC graphics parts, problems... and these people need more room, more equiptment, et al. It's huge.


And this ties into nVidia exclusive development on the PC, how?

Design to a Console, port to the PC IHV that supplies the consoles 3D subsystem and you have the best of both worlds.

That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.

Again, you stated:

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.

How does a PC release preclude this? In fact, it would seem to make sense to have a PC release widely distributed first, build community support, so content could then be offered for this hypothetical console title in exactly the way you state. Do you begin to see the problem I have with the parallel you draw to automatic nVidia exclusivity?

Again, economies of scale and the related costs to maintain these seperate platforms is prohibited. How about you go talk to a real developer in the console room?

[OpenGL guy]

Again, your soo very out of touch - your comments reak of ignorance. Go ask Archie in the Console forum (former Square programmer) why SquareSoft doesn't put the Final Fantasy series on XBox. The truth is, porting to even a closed box system like XBox would require such a massive retooling for Square that it's not finacially viable for the returns.

And thats for a closed box!! Inagine having to deal with the PC and it's open enviroment where no two systems are alike!!
You may be correct, but your example is poor. Many of the Final Fantasy games are available for PCs and an Xbox is not that much different from a PC.

[demalion]

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:

http://playstation2-linux.com/

:Shock at how little this guy knows:
Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box.
:shock:
There are also several games that I know of for PS2 that have editors built in as well - the recently released broadband capable MidnightClubII comes to mind.
Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

Again, your soo very out of touch - your comments reak of ignorance.
That answers my statements so eloquently.
Go ask Archie in the Console forum (former Square programmer) why SquareSoft doesn't put the Final Fantasy series on XBox. The truth is, porting to even a closed box system like XBox would require such a massive retooling for Square that it's not finacially viable for the returns.
Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...
And thats for a closed box!! Inagine having to deal with the PC and it's open enviroment where no two systems are alike!!
Like...Valve...does...already? Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?
It's easy for someone like you to state that "porting to every platform is better than one or two", but to the company's CFO and the bean counters who have to make this financially viable - it's imposible.
Yeah...that's what I stated. :shock:
Here I excise your run on about porting from PS2 to the PC due my eyes hurting from prior boggling today (warming up for future discussions).
And this ties into nVidia exclusive development on the PC, how?

Design to a Console, port to the PC IHV that supplies the consoles 3D subsystem and you have the best of both worlds.
Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC? Do you read a sentence of mine and decide to disagree with it, completely forgetting the prior statements you made?
Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.
Way to provide coherency.

That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.

Again, you stated:

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.
Ah, X Box Linux. Why'd you link to PS 2 Linux above? Could you provide some info on how depending on that is a more successful strategy than releasing a PC game (getting sales in a separate market and still getting the content)? If its the solution to consumer created content for a console only game, it must have a pretty large user base, right?

How does a PC release preclude this? In fact, it would seem to make sense to have a PC release widely distributed first, build community support, so content could then be offered for this hypothetical console title in exactly the way you state. Do you begin to see the problem I have with the parallel you draw to automatic nVidia exclusivity?

Again, economies of scale and the related costs to maintain these seperate platforms is prohibited.
How can I argue with such an eloquently utilized catch phrase?
How about you go talk to a real developer in the console room?
Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

[MfA]

PS2 Linux, well that gives you a huge pool of potential community based development that does.

[Vince]

PS2 Linux, well that gives you a huge pool of potential community based development that does.

I'm sure someone said the same about the first PC developers who distributed their text games on floppies in zip-lock bags. Give it time Marco...

You may be correct, but your example is poor. Many of the Final Fantasy games are available for PCs and an Xbox is not that much different from a PC.

Hmm... I gotcha, and I appologize for stating it poorly. To articulate it better, from what I've heard the initial costs to re-tool and equipt their studios for other platforms is an enormous upfront cost. Not only in hardware, but talent and training, etc. Thus, your probobly correct in the content being similiar, but the problem for the financially inclined is getting to that point.

[MfA]

To let ourselves become dependent on architectures whos existence and continued development depend on the whims of a single party would be a bad mistake. If open development versions of consoles become as prevalent as PCs are now, and free software inevitably starts cutting into Sony's bottom line one way or the other (which after all depends on their tight control on distribution on the normal consoles) Sony will drop them like a hot potato.

[Vince]

To let ourselves become dependent on architectures whos existence and continued development depend on the whims of a single party would be a bad mistake. If open development versions of consoles become as prevalent as PCs are now, and free software inevitably starts cutting into Sony's bottom line one way or the other (which after all depends on their tight control on distribution on the normal consoles) Sony will drop them like a hot potato.

Very true, but at this point SCE controls the number of kits sold. Besides, I think we've covered the true purpose of the Linux kit in the console forum enough.

But, I think your right overall. But, just as the PC OS buisness has showed that people like simplicity and ease of use even if that comes at the expense of true competition; I can't help but think this trend will carry over into the Living Room. I never said it was a good thing, which is what people often mistake about my comments. There's a diffrence between a good thing and an inevitable thing.

[MfA]

PCs wont go anywhere soon, the people who are the ones who would give up their free time for community based projects are most of the time the same ones who would sooner spend a little more money on their PC (which they will continue to have) than on a expensive dev model of a console ... if Sony wants these people to develop content for them it will have to make all their consoles usable for development work.

"I have to add value to their console by investing my time, and I have to pay them extra for the favour ... fuck that."

That will just bring the point where open source software starts competing with their commercial products that much closer, they wont let it happen. One way or the other the console will forever remain a console, they wont turn into homecomputers again.

[Vince]

Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box. :shock:

I was replying to your statement which wasn't limited to XBox as you said "Consoles". Perhaps you forgot what you stated, so I'll repost it:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:[Bold is Vince]

Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

(a) I don't know the extent that the editors lets you go to. But it's on a console from 2000, sans a HDD or any large storage.
(b) Using Linux and a HDD you can create your own game.


Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.
(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.

Like...Valve...does...already?

HL was built on the proven Quake1 engine they bought off 'id. I can't imagine that they're in-house engine that will be powering HL2 and TF2 will have the same compatability across the spectum of PC's as something like the venerable Q1 engine that was constintly improved and whose code base was updated by 'id' and those others whove licensed the engine. But, I could be wrong. :lol:

Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?

Your taking my statement out of context. Please refrain from this and attempt to have an argument based on valid points.

PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.

Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC?

&

Way to provide coherency.

This is coherent because the majority of problems concerning 3D game incompatability are traceable to the 3D subsystem and/or it's drivers. By designing to a MS console based on an nVidia architecture and then porting to the PC space which has that same NVxx line penetration, you're using similiar tool sets and similiar debug, and similar coding practices. You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.

Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.

Your hacking apart my comments and then reassembling them where you want. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

PS2-Linux was in responce to your comment that a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers - which is untrue.

I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console, which is why your responce is so off-the-wall. What I have stated is that with development costs skyrocketing and the PC gaming audience shrinking (while the console market is increasing) - it might be financially better for Valve to taget a Console and then take advanatge of any deal nVidia offers to port it to their similiar hardware. Thus, less problems for Valve, less costs - more upsides.

[quote]That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.

Could you provide some info on how depending on that is a more successful strategy than releasing a PC game (getting sales in a separate market and still getting the content)? If its the solution to consumer created content for a console only game, it must have a pretty large user base, right?

There are many ways to justify this:

(a) The Console market is big, look at GTA3/Vice City and their combined half a Billion Dollars(+) in revenue in the last 2 years alone.
(b) By focusing on a Console you free-up time spent on fixes and can create more content.
(c) Consumer created content is great, but even CS (which is perhaps the greatest sucess story to-date) has had developer input and help since early on. [Beta 5.0?]
(d) There will still be a PC following, in the form of the hypothetical nVidia supported hardware. When a Mod goes commerical like CS/that UT one, it could be released to the Consoles in the form of download.
(e) Ways we aren't even thinking of.

Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

Cute, but I'd say if you want their opinion - you go to them. Quite honestly, your not that special asshole. Not everyone has to listen to you and do the work your too lazy to do yourself. If you want their opinions or input or their personal stories of the industry, you go to them.

[whql]

(a) The Console market is big, look at GTA3/Vice City and their combined half a Billion Dollars(+) in revenue in the last 2 years alone.


No. The PS2 market is big.

[demalion]

Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box. :shock:

I was replying to your statement which wasn't limited to XBox as you said "Consoles". Perhaps you forgot what you stated, so I'll repost it:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:[Bold is Vince]
Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.
Yes, PS 2 is a console that has remarkably little to do with XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve and the connection Ben, and you, seem to be trying to make with "console exclusive" and "nVidia only on the PC".
Discussing "PS 2" exclusive, ignoring a discussion of Microsoft, nVidia, and nVidia exclusive on the PC, your proposition for PS 2 exclusivity still seems without merit. When not invested in disagreeing with me, you even seem capable of recognizing that.
When you don't have a point to address, what else am I to do but point out that your response is predicated on arguing about the phrase "console exclusive" instead of recognizing that your point does not make sense for the discussion?
Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

(a) I don't know the extent that the editors lets you go to. But it's on a console from 2000, sans a HDD or any large storage.
I was talking about Valve and half-life, Vince. Don't you feel a little silly using what is apparently a racing game with an editing function you "don't know the extent" of in reply to that discussion?

(b) Using Linux and a HDD you can create your own game.
Hmm...instead of editing tools on a PC, you are proposing the ability to create your own game on PS 2 Linux because you have "Linux and a HDD"?
Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.
A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.
(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.
Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).
This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter. The content delivery argument was then offered to continue in that vein of the PC not mattering.
It struck me as remarkably similar to bringing up PS 2 Linux to support the idea of an X Box exclusive of HL 2 by Valve since a PC wasn't needed to provide custom content.
So the answer to my question of whether you just reply for the sake of disagreeing with me would be "yes"? Or is there some other reason you seem to have glossed over my requests to Ben to relate his propositions of "console exclusive" to the discussion on HL 2, X Box, MS and Valve for which he is using it as support?
Like...Valve...does...already?

HL was built on the proven Quake1 engine they bought off 'id. I can't imagine that they're in-house engine that will be powering HL2 and TF2 will have the same compatability across the spectum of PC's as something like the venerable Q1 engine that was constintly improved and whose code base was updated by 'id' and those others whove licensed the engine.
"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?
But, I could be wrong. :lol:
Really? You don't say?
Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?

Your taking my statement out of context. Please refrain from this and attempt to have an argument based on valid points.
It seems apparent that what I was criticizing in what you quoted did indeed get lost in the shuffle in a rush to disagree with me. I don't know, I think that's your fault. Clarified above, and in the post you quoted, and many prior posts.
PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.
"This is obvious", "anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game", "creative powers"? You're big on telling someone your statements are valid and theirs are not, but you seem to be deficient in supporting such assertions.
Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC?

&

Way to provide coherency.

This is coherent because the majority of problems concerning 3D game incompatability are traceable to the 3D subsystem and/or it's drivers. By designing to a MS console based on an nVidia architecture and then porting to the PC space which has that same NVxx line penetration, you're using similiar tool sets and similiar debug, and similar coding practices.
You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC". The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing. I've said this to you directly before, Vince, and your reply was to wait until I was discussing it with someone else and re-introduce your approach along with a load of accusations.
You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.
That won't work for exactly the reasons of component compatibility and driver interaction that you proposed as an argument against providing a PC game at all (the graphics driver and card aren't the only set of components and drivers to worry about, despite your assertion that they are all that matter, and circumventing the API does not make sense on the PC). In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue. Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.

Your hacking apart my comments and then reassembling them where you want. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

No, that is indeed what you said in response to my proposing that, Vince, after you "hacked it apart" to allow you to mention PS 2 Linux more easily (though the "Valve" remaining in the text should have given you a clue to stick to something besides proposing equivalency to an editor for a racing game). :-?

Complaining that I'm "hacking apart your comments" still hasn't providing an answer to my comment.

PS2-Linux was in responce to your comment that a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers - which is untrue.
Too bad you made it up, then. :lol: "a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers". :lol: Geeze, Vince.

I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console, which is why your responce is so off-the-wall.
No, just proposed something else with glaring inconsistencies in support as the more viable alternative. :shock: Hint: that was not the first time I offered that proposal.
What I have stated is that with development costs skyrocketing and the PC gaming audience shrinking (while the console market is increasing) - it might be financially better for Valve to taget a Console and then take advanatge of any deal nVidia offers to port it to their similiar hardware.
Yes, just like this.
Thus, less problems for Valve, less costs - more upsides.
"I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console"
Bleh.

Here I snip most of a discussion focused on proposing exactly what you just said you never stated, predicated yet again on ignoring the issues I raised concerning your proposal. I've already noted there is no inherent limit to how often it is possible for a person to repeat their viewpoint without recognizing what others have said in response, so it is something I need to practice. :-?

Selected bits that seem less repetive:


...(c) Consumer created content is great, but even CS (which is perhaps the greatest sucess story to-date) has had developer input and help since early on. [Beta 5.0?]
That's a bit less tasking than doing everything in house...hadn't we agreed on that much?

(d) There will still be a PC following, in the form of the hypothetical nVidia supported hardware. When a Mod goes commerical like CS/that UT one, it could be released to the Consoles in the form of download.
And how would the mod be created in the first place? Your proposed answer is PS 2 Linux, and the now dropped "XBox Linux" that I asked you about after you proposed it. :-?
(e) Ways we aren't even thinking of.
Mod Faeries?
Someone still has to create a mod, and the necessities of artwork and map creation seems pretty well defined for a game like Half Life 2.
Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

Cute, but I'd say if you want their opinion - you go to them.
Which is why I asked you to, Vince, since it is you who wants to propose their opinion as support.
Quite honestly, your not that special asshole.
I'm not proposing that I'm "special", I'm proposing that it is your support that depends on specifying the console developer's opinion on this discussion.
Thanks for the "asshole", though, I wouldn't recognize your posts without it.
Not everyone has to listen to you and do the work your too lazy to do yourself.
Hmm...so I should go validate your argument for you? It is strange for me when you make certain comments, because I try to imagine what it would be like if you took your own advice.
If you want their opinions or input or their personal stories of the industry, you go to them.
Eh? When did I say I wanted them? Did you forget your own words? Twilight zone!

[whql]

FYI, for those that think those that are interested in market share numbers:

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/MailHome.asp?datePublish=2003/4/11&pages=13&se q=83

Thanks to ATI’s continuing supply of high-end chips and increasing shipments of its newer products, Gigabyte Technology and CP Technology enjoyed significant growth last month. Gigabyte’s graphics card sales rose 36.4% to NT$195 million from NT$143 million in February. CP Technology broke its record with its March sales of NT$423 million, up 45.9% from the previous month.

In the Nvidia camp, Leadtek Research suffered a decline of 5.7% while Prolink Microsystems reported slight growth of 6.2% in March, both compared to February.

I'd doubt that board vendor growths such as these for the ATI boys are coming without ATI gaining marketshare.

[quattro]

half life was built on quake 2 engine. just before you two get too carried away.
now stop this silly topic.

[Ichneumon]

half life was built on quake 2 engine. just before you two get too carried away.
now stop this silly topic.


Actually no it wasn't. The original half life game was based on an enhanced Quake1 engine. Heh, it was more like Quake 1.8 engine... :)

[Vince]

Actually no it wasn't. The original half life game was based on an enhanced Quake1 engine. Heh, it was more like Quake 1.8 engine... :)

Thank you Sir! :)

[Vince]

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.

Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse". Are you not capapable of stating what you mean? Do you have an articulation problem? I'll buy you a dictionary...

Yes, PS 2 is a console that has remarkably little to do with XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve and the connection Ben, and you, seem to be trying to make with "console exclusive" and "nVidia only on the PC".

Infact, it has a remarkable amount in common; to a slight degree it's an established platform whose sales are reflective of a mature name brand and MS will undoubtedly be looking at the PS2's life as a model for XBox Next.

It's major commonality is in demographic - which has shown that the console demographic has shifted to an older audience (Avg. PS2 age is in 20s, XBox's is a bit older), such as Valve targets on the PC, and this will give added confidence to developers that their mature content will find a large home in the massive and still increasing base.

Discussing "PS 2" exclusive, ignoring a discussion of Microsoft, nVidia, and nVidia exclusive on the PC, your proposition for PS 2 exclusivity still seems without merit. When not invested in disagreeing with me, you even seem capable of recognizing that.

I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole. I stated that an XBox launch exclusive would be a plus (as the PS2 has shown PC developers that the userbase is there, both in size and maturity - aswell as the potential for end-user content creation, as seen in PS2-Linux)

You have a problem comprehending the words that are on the screen in front of you and creating a coherent picture of what's being said. Instead you mix ideologies and create what you want out of them, it reminds me of one of my away messages and a memorable quote:

"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." - Anais Nin (1903 - 1977)

When you don't have a point to address, what else am I to do but point out that your response is predicated on arguing about the phrase "console exclusive" instead of recognizing that your point does not make sense for the discussion?

I only hope that you'll think objectivly about this; but appearently you've failed on either the former or later part.

This is a pretty coherient ideology, I'll sum it up quickly and hope you understand it:

PC sales are down, Console sales are up. NGConsole sales will be even higher. Valve could launch their game on XBox next, having designed it's inhouse around the CineFx architecture and circumvent any HAL or high level abstraction (hell, utilize Cg to the fullest) and get absolutly stellar preformance on the Xbox Next. They can do this because the Console demographic is inline with HL's and the potential customers are there for a mature game (eg. Halo, MGS2, GTAx).

If this rumor is true, they can then take advantage of any deal nvidia is offering and produce exclusively utilizing Cg and outputting to the CineFx architecture and extentions.

While many here will oppose me, IMHO, nVidia's shippments of CineFx based accelerators (DX9+) will quickly outstripp those of ATI once nVidia's full line is out in the marketplace in widespread numbers - just as they have historically done. The $99 price point will be a big help, as will their OEM relations.

Thus, to conclude. Valve gets to maximize profits by tageting the XBox/PC and their close platforms; they develop for the same platform (or very close to it, about as homologous as possible on the PC) and can push it using Cg exclusively. They're in a damn good position as they minimize discontinuality between their userbases and needs to spend less on dev rel, customer assisntence, fixing inter-IHV 3D subsystem relkated problems, etc.

All at the cost of ATI and Matrox users. Which, as Valve's numbers (and the only conclusive numbers unless you can produce more tailored to HL exclusively) show that the wide majority of HL users aren't enthusiests, but the more mainstream user. Thus, they can pick them back up in two ways: (a) They own an XBox/Console, (b) They can buy an nVidia card in their PC if they're OEM doesn't already come with one.

I was talking about Valve and half-life, Vince. Don't you feel a little silly using what is apparently a racing game with an editing function you "don't know the extent" of in reply to that discussion?

Not at all, your origional statement was responded correctly by my comment. perhaps you've again forgotten what you stated, so I'll refresh it for you:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

To which there is a growing segment (eg. PS2 Linux and ingame editors) which allow for users to create their own content. PS2-Linux is a great example due to the freedom allowed to the user.


Beyond this, the comment was in the context of HL modifications, in particular, Counter-Strike. Which, if you'd check your history hardly became the mass-phenonima it did untill there was significant developer input (eg. Beta 5.0 -> 1.0 -> 1.6). Thus, using the CS model, I can see how "garage-built" mods can be designed on PS2-Linux like systems and then follow a CS-esque path starting @ Beta 5.0.

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.

A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.

A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

Hell, this is like HighSchool Economics. I think I learned about it in AP Economics when I was 16. Catch-Phrase... heh... here's one for ya - addlepate.

Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).

Ok.. this impacts me how?

This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter.

(a) Your logic isn't based on what he said, it's your interpretation of it (eg. "This seems predicted")
(b) MS's interests on the PC? These being? To elaborate:

Microsoft's interests on the PC front is much more politically motivated than on the Console one. Their DX teams must take influence from ATI and their differing architectures and implimentations and somehow put out a DX revision that mates all the IHV's in some way. Thus, you get this bloated HAL and upper abtraction layers that adds to the confusion.

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.

It struck me as remarkably similar to bringing up PS 2 Linux to support the idea of an X Box exclusive of HL 2 by Valve since a PC wasn't needed to provide custom content.
So the answer to my question of whether you just reply for the sake of disagreeing with me would be "yes"? Or is there some other reason you seem to have glossed over my requests to Ben to relate his propositions of "console exclusive" to the discussion on HL 2, X Box, MS and Valve for which he is using it as support?

I've made my points, if you can't see or comprehend them then I can't do anymore. I replied because your wrong - plain and simple.

"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?

It's called intuition and common sence.

-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

So, you honestly believe an inhouse engine will have the same compability as a two year old liecensed engine thats already in the commerical marketplace and getting patched and updated? Give me a break.

Really? You don't say?

I was being sarcastic, I'm not wrong here.

It seems apparent that what I was criticizing in what you quoted did indeed get lost in the shuffle in a rush to disagree with me. I don't know, I think that's your fault. Clarified above, and in the post you quoted, and many prior posts.

Right.. whatever... good dodge.

"This is obvious", "anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game", "creative powers"? You're big on telling someone your statements are valid and theirs are not, but you seem to be deficient in supporting such assertions.

How so? Go to the link I provided and see what the PS2 community (as an early example of what the console future may hold) is building while you sit on your ass and uptalk the useless rhetoric.

http://playstation2-linux.com/

You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC".

Um, using Cg and outputting your HLSL to a CineFx based processor is an easy port.. Hell, go read the interview by the team that designed the XBox game Wreckless and ask them how easy it was to copy and past nVidia supplied code into their engine!

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing.

Yes they are as the figures demonstrate two things:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind.

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Thus, by the time HL2 is out - if nVidia's sales hold up as they are now (more than likely as they increased in Q4 02 even with R300 beginning) when they bring out the value based DX9 cards and then the DX9 refresh and the NV4x generation, et al. They will flood the market with compatable DX9 accelerators at the $99 price poijnt and below. Which will draw the OEMs to utilize them and complete the cycle as seen in DX7 and DX8.

You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.
That won't work for exactly the reasons of component compatibility and driver interaction that you proposed as an argument against providing a PC game at all (the graphics driver and card aren't the only set of components and drivers to worry about, despite your assertion that they are all that matter, and circumventing the API does not make sense on the PC).

The hell it won't. Circumventing the common API (eg. DX and OGl's ARB extentions) is easy if you utilize OGL and code using Cg. Which yeilds a nice increase as seen when running nV30 specific code paths.

In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue.

No you don't. Code to nVidia specific OGL extentions using Cg.

Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

No, other cards don't need to work as I'm making a case for HL2 to be nVidia exclusive. Forget DX, code to OGL IHV specific extentions. Are you not capable of rational thought? This is my whole argument and you fucked it up... you kill me.

And yes, you'd abandon the <DX9/CineFx architectures. But with nVidia having (by then), nV4x based accelerators @ the $99 price point and around two years of DX9 penetration, this will be minimized. Aswell as the casual crowd who won't upgrade to a DX9 accelerator very well may get a XBox/Console.

No, that is indeed what you said in response to my proposing that, Vince, after you "hacked it apart" to allow you to mention PS 2 Linux more easily (though the "Valve" remaining in the text should have given you a clue to stick to something besides proposing equivalency to an editor for a racing game). :-?

Give me a break, do I need to quote you again? Hell, why not:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

Do you understand this? Is the inter-neural pathway linking your frontal lobes with Wernicke's area severed? Seriously, whats your problem in comprehending this?

You asked what Console users are going to create the contet...

I replied, Look at the PS2-Linux community. Whats so fucking hard?

I've tired of your uselessness...

[WhiningKhan]

Sorry to interrupt you two lovebirds, I just need up to date info:

Quote:
In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue.

No you don't. Code to nVidia specific OGL extentions using Cg

Can you really do that with Xbox? I thought OGL wasn't and never would be an allowed acronym in the House Microsoft.

[Vince]

Can you really do that with Xbox? I thought OGL wasn't and never would be an allowed acronym in the House Microsoft.

Yes, it was stated on many times circa 2001 that a developer could code using OGL on XBox. I remember the quintessential example being DoomIII. I'm sure this could be found on XBox.com or a dev site.

There are some developers who have gone even lower than DX/OGL and used native push-buffers exclusivly on their Xbox game and have achieved much better preformance (or so they claim).

Somone like Marco could probobly better explain this if you ask... (hint)

[demalion]

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.

Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse".

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension? Here is an idea: before you pick one part of the post to disagree with, read the post. :shock: You've made it abundantly clear you did not, and that you are too dedicated in your self involvement to acknowledge your error. Ben certainly caused me to repeat my argument enough, and your proposing that I didn't state that I was discussing MS, nVidia, X Box, and Valve after I had the very same discussion with you seems to highlight the source of the problem: only one of us is giving any thought to what the other person is saying.
That's simply not a problem I can fix for you.
What's your purpose in carrying on like this? If it is to make yourself look better to anyone other than yourself, I think you're being counter-productive.
My purpose in responding? In topics that concern me, I'm simultaneously drawn to addressing what I view as flawed arguments and resistant to totally dismissing the viewpoints of another. That leaves me in a bind with someone who maintains flawed arguments because they are theirs, and invests enough of their ego into maintaining it that they dedicate themselves to basing their replies on accusations and name calling, quoting with the intention to misrepresent, and re-asserting their own viewpoint in place of even a basic recognition of someone else's.

To that end, and because you state nothing new in this post (well, besides new accusations and insults) that I haven't addressed already and for which your reply hasn't consisted of simple insults and accusations in place of reasoning, I'm going to restrict my quoting and replies to only the more outstanding key points of your post.
To differentiate this from something you can easily claim is equivalent to your own behavior: If you feel there is something I haven't addressed, for the sake of brevity I simply challenge you to quote the statement of yours so I can either point out that I have, or rectify the mistake.
Or, you could ask that console developer you mentioned to chime in, since hopefully, even if they share your viewpoint as you claim, they hopefully won't display the same characteristics as yourself in discussing them.

Are you not capapable of stating what you mean? Do you have an articulation problem? I'll buy you a dictionary...

An example of the insults you consider valid support. :-?

Infact, it has a remarkable amount in common; to a slight degree it's an established platform whose sales are reflective of a mature name brand and MS will undoubtedly be looking at the PS2's life as a model for XBox Next.

My quote that you split to start this line of argument was:


Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2. When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support. More than once, too.

I suggest you take better note of clues like the thread title, the discussion I had specifically with you earlier in the thread (not that you seem to have paid attention at the time), and the post to which you replied. Not each by themself, but the concurrence of all at the same time. :-?

Proposition:
I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole.
Actuality:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?
I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.
:shock:

This is a pretty coherient ideology, I'll sum it up quickly and hope you understand it:

PC sales are down, Console sales are up. NGConsole sales will be even higher. Valve could launch their game on XBox next, having designed it's inhouse around the CineFx architecture and circumvent any HAL or high level abstraction (hell, utilize Cg to the fullest) and get absolutly stellar preformance on the Xbox Next. They can do this because the Console demographic is inline with HL's and the potential customers are there for a mature game (eg. Halo, MGS2, GTAx).

Hello, Vince, I'd like to re-introduce you to the beginning of our prior discussion (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101822&#101822) of this very viewpoint (starts at the bottom of my post). Did you successfully address my rebuttal last time? No? Oh, you waited until I'd continued it for a few pages with Ben to re-introduce your viewpoint and ignore my reply? Ah, well, then you know why I'm pointing you back there instead of repeating it yet again.

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.

A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.

A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

A catch phrase isn't something that doesn't exist, but something used as a slogan, to lend validity to a statement in the absence of other substantion. Sort of like you did both in what I quoted, and in your reply here intermingled with the insults. Using the phrase doesn't make your argument more valid, and you just spent a paragraph in validiting the phrase instead of your point in demonstration of why that is a problem. You don't view it as just validating the phrase because you seem to view your believing something as validation for it.

Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).

Ok.. this impacts me how?

Maybe with the text of yours I quoted in the line before?

(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.

:shock:

This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter.

(a) Your logic isn't based on what he said, it's your interpretation of it (eg. "This seems predicted")
So because I said "seems" it isn't true? Oh, wait, you didn't "say" that, you just said I dared "interpret" something he said. While I'm at it, "interpreting" what you said can be called into question too. :shock:

(b) MS's interests on the PC? These being? To elaborate:

Microsoft's interests on the PC front is much more politically motivated than on the Console one. Their DX teams must take influence from ATI and their differing architectures and implimentations and somehow put out a DX revision that mates all the IHV's in some way. Thus, you get this bloated HAL and upper abtraction layers that adds to the confusion.
Hey, you talked about MS

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.
Then you talked about something completey different.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.
And then you do an amazing job of relating it to MS! Or...not.
Am I allowed to interpret it? :roll: <- The first one of the thread for me? If so, congrats Vince.
"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?

It's called intuition and common sence.
-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

Does that "intuition" lead you to believe it is like a) something attached to Quake 1 by some unspecified property that prevents Valve from applying it to a new engine, rather than b) experience gained and work they did that they, like other developers for the PC have and continue to do, can then apply to a new engine.

I ask because common sense doesn't rule out b), what with other developers managing to do it and all. :-?

Encapsulation of the problem:
But, I could be wrong. :lol:
Really? You don't say?
I was being sarcastic, I'm not wrong here.

:shock:
You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC".

Um, using Cg and outputting your HLSL to a CineFx based processor is an easy port..
If you're using Cg, use DX 9 HLSL instead and gain support for other IHVs.
Are you making any effort to make sense?
Oh, pardon, since you've successfully established that other IHVs don't matter by your unquestionable figures and analysis, you are making sense...
Or not (I add because I really believe you don't think you accept the prior statement as false). :-?

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

Yes, your survey results for Valve you said were from 2000, and the figures we discussed near the words highlighted in this post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101819&highlight=finish+quoting+pa ragraph#101819)
:-?

The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing.

Yes they are as the figures demonstrate two things:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind.

nforce integrated graphics featureset is not equivalent to the X Box...
Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:
Who is going to replace the "Intel Inside"? Was there a reason for injecting that slogan?
(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Yes, because the R300 has been such a flop in add in board sales, and your 2000 Valve survey results and share figures from before 9700 sales portray that so accurately. :lol:

A reminder of the last time we discussed this (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101649&highlight=report#101649), highlighted for visual aid.

Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

No, other cards don't need to work as I'm making a case for HL2 to be nVidia exclusive. Forget DX, code to OGL IHV specific extentions. Are you not capable of rational thought? This is my whole argument and you fucked it up... you kill me.

Just so we're all clear on what your argument is, to avoid further confusion in future discussion.

You asked what Console users are going to create the contet...

I replied, Look at the PS2-Linux community. Whats so fucking hard?

I had thought your discussion with Mfa (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104667&#104667) had yielded some thought on your part, but I was mistaken. What made me think you'd treat anyone else's commentary any differently than you treat mine? :lol:

I've tired of your uselessness...
Hmm...saves a lot of text by not quoting the insults and repetitions. It would have been twice as long if I hadn't done that.
I really would like you to avail yourself of my invitation to quote what you think this text does not address, and see how well your text bears scrutiny without burying it in your rhetoric. <- This is not sarcasm. Up to it?
EDIT: To be clear, "without burying it in your rhetoric" doesn't mean not providing a further explanation of the quote (atleast not one that doesn't contradict or redefine the quote), it just means without a repetition to inflate the post length, and without an abundance of insults and accusations.

[Vince]

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

What are you saying? Can you show some statistical or empircal evidence that a studio can be financially viable (on a per that game only basis) by producing an upper-tier game that's avaliable on the PC first and then ported to a Console and has been as sucessfull as GTA:xx, Halo, or MGS2:SoL (all of which are going Console -> PC as I'm a proponent of)and is within the first-person, action/advanture genre ONLY?

That's simply not a problem I can fix for you.
What's your purpose in carrying on like this? If it is to make yourself look better to anyone other than yourself, I think you're being counter-productive.

Excuse me? if you post something thats wrong or false, I can post my opiniuon on why it's wrong. This is exactly what has been done.

My purpose in responding? In topics that concern me, I'm simultaneously drawn to addressing what I view as flawed arguments and resistant to totally dismissing the viewpoints of another. That leaves me in a bind with someone who maintains flawed arguments because they are theirs, and invests enough of their ego into maintaining it that they dedicate themselves to basing their replies on accusations and name calling, quoting with the intention to misrepresent, and re-asserting their own viewpoint in place of even a basic recognition of someone else's.

This part is interesting, as you've still not explained how my view/ideology is flawed. You've provided no empiracal evidence, no modern numbers. Just your opinion - which doesn't compare.

An example of the insults you consider valid support. :-?

I don't claim that it's a valid support. Rather it shows my agitation with your irrationality on this topic.

My quote that you split to start this line of argument was:
Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2. When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support. More than once, too.

Ok, I can see you have no idea what I'm stating - which surprises me as it's so clearly stated earlier.

I'll go threw it step-by-step and maybe you'll catch on to what I'm saying (and aren't stating):

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2.

Demographics is Very related, as Ben stated, because in the past the Console community just wouldn't support a game with the topic and maturity of a HL2 or TF2. Yet, if you'd have been keeping up with the Console scene, you'd have noticed that the demographics are rising in relation to age and this is an interesting point as the major demographic is now in the 20-30year old age bracket.

This co-insides with Valve's demographics for HL1/2 and as seen by HALO, MGS2, and GTA:x - the sales potential for this group on a console is well in excess of that on the PC. There is NO PC game in the same genre as HL2 on the PC that has sold as much as the GTA series has - especially in the same temporal period. Thus, for the first time, Valve could release a game like HL2 sucessfully on Consoles. This should be factored in.

When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support

PS2-Linux is hardly ridiculous, as it puts console users in the same position that homebrewed PC developers were in back in the early '80s.

I've also stated the following:

PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.

I suggest you take better note of clues like the thread title, the discussion I had specifically with you earlier in the thread (not that you seem to have paid attention at the time), and the post to which you replied. Not each by themself, but the concurrence of all at the same time. :-?

I'm debating what you stated - perhaps you intended something diffrent than what you articulated?

Proposition:
I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole.
Actuality:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?
I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.

Care to explain to me how "PS2 exclusivity" is in some way interconnected to my comments on Downloadable content (eg. XBox Live!, PS2Explorer in Japan)?

"Exclusivity" implies that the content is limited to just one specific brand (eg. Halo is exclusive to XBox) of paltform. Downloadable content isn't limited to exclusive titles as a developer could produce a multiplatform game and send post-sales content down the respected platfoms network fabric. For example, SplinterCell is multiplatform as is FFXI, and most games.

I'm guessing you never did well on IQ tests, in particular the questions like, "All Zips are Zaps, but not all Zaps are Mips..."

Hello, Vince, I'd like to re-introduce you to the beginning of our prior discussion (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101822&#101822) of this very viewpoint (starts at the bottom of my post). Did you successfully address my rebuttal last time? No? Oh, you waited until I'd continued it for a few pages with Ben to re-introduce your viewpoint and ignore my reply? Ah, well, then you know why I'm pointing you back there instead of repeating it yet again.

Fine: Here it is:

Well, there seems to be a "few" flaws in what you are proposing is a logical conclusion...namely that you list a chain of conclusions, and provide no support for how they follow from what comes before.You:

ignore the possibility of success for what ATi is trying (technical execution advantage, advertising and marketing based on showcasing that, support of cross vendor tools, spending money on developer support)

assume the success of what nvidia is trying as given (spending, supposedly, more money for developer support of their specific featureset and vendor centric tools, marketing based on big numbers and words and not on delivering those big numbers and words effectively)

(a) ATI's sales have been insignificantly increased during the period of time when they had an advantage during the DX8 generation and at the least had technological parity with nVidia. This isn't going to increase there sales.

You could point to the developer relations and marketing on "Big numbers/word" but they still pale in comparason to the initiatives that nVidia has established. For example:

(1) Dev Rel is a long-term initiative that can't be won overnight. nVidia has the legacy and the history of superior support. ATI must first work past the stimga attached to their drivers and their support before they can even attempt to surpass nvidia on this front. This requires time, of which they don't have.
(2)nVidia has "bigger number" (eg. Specs). People are ignorant and know that 1Ghz DDRII is 'better' than whatever the R300 is upto. You go educate people on the diffrence between a 128 and 256bit coursness on the controller. This policy won't unseat nVidia anytime soon.. heh.

(b) I can assume nVidia's continued success and retention of market
dominence because this has been contistent since 1999. I tend to put more faith in a status quo thats lasted 5 generations of Moore's law than your hypothetical arguments. Lets be realistic. nVidia has faced threasts before and has proven very adept at coming out ahead - even using unconventional tactics (eg. the media outlet dealings against 3dfx circa 1999); which is why fragmenting the marketplace wouldn't surprise me.


A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

A catch phrase isn't something that doesn't exist, but something used as a slogan, to lend validity to a statement in the absence of other substantion.

Economies of Scale doesn't exist because it's a 'catch-phrase'? You've got to be kidding me, this is ridiculous. This is fundimental macroeconomics - you're joking right.

We don't explain it because it's so obvious - I, for one, didn't realize there are people here that: (a) Don't know what Economies of scale is. (b) Can't apply this to the situation.

Economy of Scale is when a productive entity can produce t goods at c cost, or thanks to productivity gains can produce t+n goods at c-g cost per good where n has in someway a direct related to g. Thus, it follows that as you produce more absolute goods, your cost per goods produced diminishes.

But, as anyone knowledgable in Macroeconomics will tell you, this only happens due to productivity gains (eg. specilization) - which in contemporary society is tecnological in nature and thus requires an up-front capital expendature.

Thus, even though you may get a better deal by producing/selling more goods/games - if your absolute amount sold doesn't surpass the fixed costs to produce them, then you don't.

This is why SquareSoft hasn't retooled for XBox production - it's upfront cost is to high and won't be recovered by Xbox sales.

This *may* apply to Valve to. With the massive developmental costs of a NG game, and the massive investment requires - it's plausible that the economies of scale just don't exist when it comes to the upfront cost of supporting the entire PC spectrum (eg. with all it's seperate combinations of 3D subsystems) when the PC base that will buy the game is diminshing.

Thus, by restricting the PC to *just* nVidia cards based on CineFx or higher using their propietary OGL extentions and Cg - the minimize this external cost while maximizing profits.

Sort of like you did both in what I quoted, and in your reply here intermingled with the insults. Using the phrase doesn't make your argument more valid, and you just spent a paragraph in validiting the phrase instead of your point in demonstration of why that is a problem. You don't view it as just validating the phrase because you seem to view your believing something as validation for it.

With all due respect, I think we both thought more of you. I'd never have guessed I'd have to explain basic macroeconomic theory to a member of this board - I mean, this is not only high-school level, but I can derive it all in my head it's so simplistic.

And Ben's a smart guy, I'm sure some of our conversations in the past would drive you insane where what we wrote was so archaic, yet we both knew what eachother ment and didn't have this BS arguing over linguistics.

Hey, you talked about MS

Whoa... whatever.

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.
Then you talked about something completey different.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.
And then you do an amazing job of relating it to MS! Or...not.
Am I allowed to interpret it? :roll: <- The first one of the thread for me? If so, congrats Vince.

Again, lets think this threw a bit.

How is it completely diffrent? "Valve's developing got easier because their developing entirely to one 3D subsystem using Cg." I stated this above. If you can't deduce that prodraming entirely to one architecture (CineFx) is easier than worrying about seperate codepaths (eg. Carmack in DoomIII) then you should spend you time elsewhere.

It's called intuition and common sence.
-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

Does that "intuition" lead you to believe it is like a) something attached to Quake 1 by some unspecified property that prevents Valve from applying it to a new engine, rather than b) experience gained and work they did that they, like other developers for the PC have and continue to do, can then apply to a new engine.

I ask because common sense doesn't rule out b), what with other developers managing to do it and all. :-?

(a) Something attached? 'id' routinely updates their licensed engines and send their clients new codebases. This is widely know; obviously it's nothing "attached" as it's the cumulative effect of two years of constant Q2 penetration into the consumer market and via brute-force probobility it's reached the majority of common PC subsystem combinations (eg. that host games). Thus, as problems are encountered, 'id' patches and fixes them. There are then incorperated into Valve's licensed engine.

(b) This is an extention of (a) as the work they do and experience gained in making a program compatable across a wide range of PC subsystem combinations (eg. If you remember, werte talking about compatability) doesn't apply when your dealing with a new engine and code base. Obviously there is experience gained, but that's insignificant in the face of writing an entire DX9+ renderer and engine and then "predicting" it's compatability based on past engine experiences that used DX5 level 3D subsystems. See the glaring discrepincy?

This is all dynamic thinking and common sence, nothing more.


If you're using Cg, use DX 9 HLSL instead and gain support for other IHVs.
Are you making any effort to make sense?
Oh, pardon, since you've successfully established that other IHVs don't matter by your unquestionable figures and analysis, you are making sense...
Or not (I add because I really believe you don't think you accept the prior statement as false). :-?

Again, your missing the crux of this issue. I'd like to refer you away from the sheer marketshare issue (which you'll fight even without contadictory numbers) and towards the above economy of scale dilema facing a company which must support vastly more 3D subsystems and combinations.

Also, there is the issue of the inevitable speed gain by using Cg and nVidia's propietary extentions/code paths.This can be seen in the NV30 vs. ARB paths in Doom3 and the several demos that have been discussed in the 3D technological forum. Which I'd direct you towards.

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

Yes, your survey results for Valve you said were from 2000, and the figures we discussed near the words highlighted in this post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=101819&highlight=finish+quoting+pa ragraph#101819)
:-?

Yes, thats more recent than your supplied numbers :lol:

I also posted the Marketshare from 2H02 (IIRC) that showed nVidia gains in light of the R300 launch. And there is historical precident at nVidia retained and gained marketshare during the DX8 generation when they has, at best, parity with ATI.

What empiracal evidence do you have supporting you?

nforce integrated graphics featureset is not equivalent to the X Box...

I didn't claim it was. I was talking about nVidia's penetration into the integrated market. Furthermore, I stated:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind. [Part you quoted]

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:
Who is going to replace the "Intel Inside"? Was there a reason for injecting that slogan?

Wow, give me a break. Read what I wrote again... it's clear that if your going to replace integrated graphics (of which Intel has the 2nd largest % - thus "Intel Inside"), they will do it with an add-in board. In this catagory, nVidia holds the majority of sales. Thus, proboblility dicates they will chose an nVidia based board.

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Yes, because the R300 has been such a flop in add in board sales, and your 2000 Valve survey results and share figures from before 9700 sales portray that so accurately. :lol:

I never stated that the R300 was a "Flop." Again, please stop putting words into my mouth. I did state that nVidia has outsold the R300 thus far and increased marketshare during the first quarter of the R300s availability - which I posted a link to earlier on.

The 2000 Valve survey is also the most recent one I could find commissioned by Valve - maybe you can find a newer one to discredit me based on empiracal evindence and not :icons: ?!?


I had thought your discussion with Mfa (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=104667&#104667) had yielded some thought on your part, but I was mistaken. What made me think you'd treat anyone else's commentary any differently than you treat mine? :lol:

(a) Was your comment facually incorrect when you stated:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

Yes!

(b) Marco didn't disprove me, just stated that the current Console based developer community is tiny compared to todays PC one. To which I reponded so was the origional PC developers who'd sell their text-based adventured in zip-lock bags for $5 of a mom-and-pop's store. Give it time.

[BenSkywalker]

Vince is doing quite well on the console market and how it works so I'll let him carry on with that end of the discussion. On to the other factors you adressed from my last post, marketshare and HL's performance.

I can see only two possible reasons for your incomprehension of the marketshare numbers. Either you are changing things around and switching from the ATi v nV discussion we were having or you don't grasp statistics. If you are changing things around and want to discuss the broader market then you can argue with yourself. For the statistics breakdown-

According to the link you provided shipments were roughly 53Million in the quarter they were using, so we will use that as a baseline.

ATi= 10,070,000

nVidia= 16,960,000

That was for Q4 last year and represented a 18% increase for ATi and a 13% increase for nVidia. That would have the compared quarter @-

ATi= 8,539,360

nVidia= 15,009,600

ATi would be up ~1,530,640

nV would be up ~1,950,940

Taking a look at the Q4 numbers we have ATi up by 2.888% with nVidia up by 3.681% when looking at the entire market in terms of sales, absolute numbers. nVidia increased their sales by over 400K more then ATi. Just for reference-

16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

I was off by 0.028% for ATi and 0.011% for nVidia. All of the information needed to calculate that nV grew faster in absolute terms has been posted twice by you and once from myself. Despite not knowing what the actual shipments were all the figures were there to figure it out for yourself. Either you have changed your discussion over to something removed from what we had been discussing or I am correct. What the analysts comments state are irrelevant in this discussion as we have three sets of identical numbers and they all equate out to the above. nVidia grew faster in marketshare terms looking at absolute numbers.

For Half-Life performance, the framerate drops from its constant 99FPS rate once in a while, but it seems to be quite brief. I can't give you xxFPS average as there is no benchmark utility that runs on the current build that I am aware of. The performance should be no surprise, HL runs on Pentium166 systems without a 3D board. Running a 2.1GHZ AXP with a Ti4200 it shouldn't be shocking in the least that it doesn't slow down much no matter what you do.

Edit-

WHQL-

Halo is approaching $200 million in gross revenue as is SSBM. SMS and SAB2 are approaching the $150Million mark. Zelda and PGR are both in the $100Million range. It isn't just the PS2 market that is huge(although it is the biggest currently).

As far as the breakdown of the individual board vendors goes, what are BFG's numbers looking like? Their sub $100 GF4Ti boards had to have a decent impact on the nV market. B&Ms having boards for ~30% less then NewEgg etc.

[demalion]

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities. For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002, and your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales). I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.
However, dealing with all the BS at once would (and has) required a truly monumental post(s), which people probably don't find useful when resulting from a discussion with you involved. As an alternative, I'm thinking I should make my efforts to dispel some of this miasma with something more incremental.

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all. :)

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply).

Sample of this Proposition:
You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

Digging past initial "layer" of this Proposition:


Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.
Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse".
This looks like you blaming me for not stating I was discussing XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you interjected about PS2 Linux as a solution for content development. (If you insist in disputing things, there is some more excellent, in context, quoting opportunity).
Hmm...let us see if some bolding and commentary in italics can help help you in parsing the actuality of what was said, even when restricting this quote to immediately before and after what you quoted for your response so as to not have too high of an expectation of your ability to read and think about what other people say.

Actuality from before the BS, with visual aids:

Your commentary still doesn't hold together, AFAICS.

]I addressed this. They are an also ran on the console.

They haven't released a timely port of their titles yet.

On the PC they have a well established franchise strategy needing a refresh.

There are two different aspects to what happens concerning Valve. One is their customer support and encouragement for helping to keep the community alive. This requires very minimal effort from Valve, handing off the basic tools and giving out some documentation along with a bit of encouragement pretty much handles it. The other end is financial. On this end, they pale in comparison to what Rockstar has done in the last twenty months with one of their franchises. That is, every title Valve has sold combined for their entire existance pales in comparison to what RockStar's singular franchise has done in under two years.
Two points:
Is it really so hard to provide the information on which you are basing such a statement?
I've already said it makes sense to do a console port, what you continue to fail to do is relate that to the proposition of "nVidia exclusive" on the PC.

Why go console exclusive?

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.
Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. :shock: Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I don't know, I get tired of pointing this out, do you get tired of doing it? Since it takes less typing and thought for you to ignore than me to try and hold a discourse, I'd guess not.

Your comments focused on my not spelling out explicitly how it would benefit each party.
No, it focused on pointing out how it would not benefit some of the people you said it would benefit (that would bethe aforementioned list spelled out in a prior post) , and criticizing your stating that it would with an absence of coherency.
I did that. I broke down how all involved could stand to come out ahead on a financial end(with the exception of nV who simply gains huge PR). MS could land reduced chip costs.
(notice Ben's own reference to some of these members of that list)
And I addressed the flaws in your "breaking it down". Now, here we are, you telling me what you did after ignoring my reply to each detail of it.
Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?

[whql]

Halo is approaching $200 million in gross revenue as is SSBM. SMS and SAB2 are approaching the $150Million mark. Zelda and PGR are both in the $100Million range.

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

It isn't just the PS2 market that is huge(although it is the biggest currently).

No current console is in the vaguest position to avail that, and by the time the next gen comes around Vinces point may well be pointless.

As far as the breakdown of the individual board vendors goes, what are BFG's numbers looking like? Their sub $100 GF4Ti boards had to have a decent impact on the nV market. B&Ms having boards for ~30% less then NewEgg etc.

Why a bit player like BFG? What about the volume players such as MSI and ASUS?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030414100251.html

We also noted on Saturday that MSI’s sales of graphics cards were unbelievably weak in March, while ASUS’ sales of graphics cards also stayed on not so high level."

[demalion]

Vince is doing quite well on the console market and how it works so I'll let him carry on with that end of the discussion.
What, by restating what you did and pretending I haven't addressed it before? :-?
On to the other factors you adressed from my last post, marketshare and HL's performance.

I can see only two possible reasons for your incomprehension of the marketshare numbers.
My incomprehension, you say?
Either you are changing things around and switching from the ATi v nV discussion we were having or you don't grasp statistics.
Or you're mistaken in something. Let's examine that, shall we?
If you are changing things around and want to discuss the broader market then you can argue with yourself. For the statistics breakdown-

According to the link you provided shipments were roughly 53Million in the quarter they were using, so we will use that as a baseline.

ATi= 10,070,000

nVidia= 16,960,000

That was for Q4 last year and represented a 18% increase for ATi and a 13% increase for nVidia. That would have the compared quarter @-

ATi= 8,539,360

nVidia= 15,009,600

ATi would be up ~1,530,640

nV would be up ~1,950,940

OK, here is why I quoted the definition of market share (http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?2989) to you. If Company A had 20% of the market in one quarter, and 20% in the next, their market share did not decrease.

If Company N had 35% in one quarter, and 30% in the next, their market share did decrease.

If unit shipments for the entire market went up, and for Company A their shipments went up 20%, and for Company N shipments went up 10%, guess what, it doesn't change which one of those companies had their marketshare decrease (Psst...it isn't Company A).

Once we get past this, we can maybe discuss what it means when we have other numbers indicating rapid market penetration (not just in shipped units, but in market presence) of a new product for one of those companies when relative to the established market presence of parts of another company that have been out for much longer, and how the market segment reflected by those numbers can then have a significantly different picture of market share than those for overall market share. Let me know when you are ready for that, so I can refer you back a few pages in the thread....though I suspect it might be a while until you finally read some of what I've provided for you. :-?

Taking a look at the Q4 numbers we have ATi up by 2.888% with nVidia up by 3.681% when looking at the entire market in terms of sales, absolute numbers. nVidia increased their sales by over 400K more then ATi. Just for reference-

That's not market share (http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?2989), that's unit shipments, your percentages are completely mixing up the two. Here, Jon Peddie seems to have similar ideas as myself as to the difference (http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/MarketWatch_Q402.shtml).
Fun quote from this report: "Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market".
Maybe you could look up what it says of the other company under discussion?
16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

Quoting your bad math doesn't change that your applying the unit shipment growth to market share percentage, though I do think it makes you look a bit silly. Perhaps you could read my prior post (for the first time?)

I was off by 0.028% for ATi and 0.011% for nVidia. All of the information needed to calculate that nV grew faster in absolute terms has been posted twice by you and once from myself.
You're pretty thick headed, Ben.
Despite not knowing what the actual shipments were all the figures were there to figure it out for yourself. Either you have changed your discussion over to something removed from what we had been discussing or I am correct.
:lol:
What the analysts comments state are irrelevant in this discussion
By this I presume you mean you didn't read the actual Jon Peddie report but are sticking to the Inquirer's mangling because it allows you to hang on to your beliefs?
as we have three sets of identical numbers and they all equate out to the above. nVidia grew faster in marketshare terms looking at absolute numbers.
Polishing your routine? :lol:
For Half-Life performance, the framerate drops from its constant 99FPS rate once in a while, but it seems to be quite brief. I can't give you xxFPS average as there is no benchmark utility that runs on the current build that I am aware of. The performance should be no surprise, HL runs on Pentium166 systems without a 3D board. Running a 2.1GHZ AXP with a Ti4200 it shouldn't be shocking in the least that it doesn't slow down much no matter what you do.
99 fps with 4xS and 8x trilinear Aniso? Bleh, I said all I wanted was for you to confirm all of these things simultaneously so we could progress in our discussion of comparing indisputable image quality (and for the 9700 Pro versus the GF 4 MX, too :lol:)

[Vince]

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

This is untrue. While I'm sure Ben will be sure to remember me saying this for our future discussions (heh) - XBox is doing pretty damn well for all thats stacked against it. Of course Sony's kicking it's ass in, but they've [MS] made a foothold and Halo's sales are upthere with Metal Gear Solid2: Sons of Liberty. This has me awed indeed as MGS2 was the game, it was untouchable pre-GTA. Which is indicative of something, believe me.

And the whole Console market is blowing up, face the facts bud. Outside of The Sims and Solitare - the PC scene is stagnating and starving on the vine. Retailors are cutting back space devoted to PC sales and devoting it elsewhere or to Consoles.

This isn't to say that PC gaming will die, as Marco was correct. But the days of PC gaming being a trend-setter and/or leader in electronic gaming has reached and end and it's going down from here.

[whql]

This is untrue.

What, that potential sales for any PS2 title is likely to far greater than any title for the XBox? You’re admitting that yourself.

Halo's sales are upthere with Metal Gear Solid2: Sons of Liberty.

Does sales include bundling? I can’t remember when XBox’s didn’t come with Halo stuck to the front of it.

And the whole Console market is blowing up, face the facts bud.

Again, shrug, didn’t I say this wasn’t the case. But the market for PC titles is still there, it just depends on the type of title, and you’ve pointed out one of the best sellers.

[Vince]

Well, since 3/4ths you post was attacking linguistics - I'll assume a victory, but it's ashame you must turn this debate into such a state by not providing any factual or empiracal evidence. It's truely ashame, well atleast you know what Economies of Scale is now.

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities.

What?!? You've got to be kidding... are you out of things that I haven't shot down or what?

For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002

I covered 3D Marks, this is insane - you think 3D Marks is indicative of the PS gaming community at large?

Let me tell you something, Half-Life and Counter-Strike hasn't been made popular by people like you who'll jerk off over the latest 3D accelerator from ATI. It's popular with the masses, the masses who don't know what 3D chip their using, don't know what IHV's made it, what DirectX is, nor do they care.

It's to these people that the Valve survey has shed light on. Irregardless of if the Survey date was 1996, 1999, 2000, or 2003 - the proportionality will remain near static because the majority of users aren't buying add in cards, nor are they bouncing between IHV's based on what Dave Baumann's latest review has shed light on (No offense Dave, you know I love ya). They play using their PC and they play because they enjoy it. Thbe sooner you can differentiate between the constant 30,000 people playing CS or the millions who play HL and the select few whose playing UT2003 or Quake3 the sooner you'll see this.

your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales).

Ok, yo want to play this game. It's also without the sales of any NV30 cards. Thus, how can you state that because the R300 was on sale for only "1 month" it's sales wouldn't peak with enthusiest purchases upfront?

Or that the GeForceFX won't have a counter-balancing effect when it's released and will negate any advantage the R300 would have caused? I've read the How to lie with Statistsics Book too.


Thus, lets take the [Q3] numbers for what they are - nVidia widened the gap between them and ATI dispite the existence of preformance parity/superiority with the established Radeon8500 brand, aswell as the undisputed reign with enthusiensts with their R300 core.

I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.

What? They stated the same you already are, that the R300 was only on sale for a month. And I agree and accept that, but if what your saying is correct, ideology speaking, that a higher preformaning solution allways outsells the competition especially when price/preformance is included...

They why the heck is nVidia kicking ATI's ass in the DX8 generation?

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all. :)

I think to anyone reading this, it's clear whose correct in their views. As one such person has already stated.

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply).

This isn't it at all - this is a side issue, please attempt to not create additional BS by stating things like this.

Demalion, answer this: Can a PS2 console owner, if so inclined, designs a game and/or everything one could do on a PC?


Sample of this Proposition:
You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

Digging past initial "layer" of this Proposition:

Are you going to fight substance anytime soon? Or just my outlash at my inability to tolerate your utter stupidity at times? Because if so, then this argument is over... If I want abuse I can go talk to Lauren. :)

This looks like you blaming me for not stating I was discussing XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you interjected about PS2 Linux as a solution for content development. (If you insist in disputing things, there is some more excellent, in context, quoting opportunity).

This is off topic, but to clear it up - Did you or did you not state this:


My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

I'm expecting a one word answer... think you can hack it?

Hmm...let us see if some bolding and commentary in italics can help help you in parsing the actuality of what was said, even when restricting this quote to immediately before and after what you quoted for your response so as to not have too high of an expectation of your ability to read and think about what other people say.

Ok, to jump right into youur semantics debate: I have read it yeat again and have come to the same conclusion.

Your statement, even if the lineage of the comment is vested only in relation to Valve's console prospectives (Thus implying Valve, MS, and nVidia only), your intention with the following comment:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity

Was to show that Ben's preceeding comment:

Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Thus, your intention was to show the inability of (Your words) users to make "content with console exclusivity". Thereby rendering Ben's statement wrong based on the inability of his line of reasoning to exist. The Economies of Scale can't exist if the ability to decrease inherient per unit cost doesn't exist.

Unfortunatly for you, this potential exists already as I stated in a fea areas, for example here:

Actually, this just shows how out of touch you are with the Console industry. Ben's statement is not only correct, it's prophetic (although it's obvious do to it's linear extrapolation of today)

XBox Next is the de facto online service at this time and is the template for the Next Generation which is being built around Broadband and the distrobution of digital medium via this method. Sony is definatly gearing up for this type of synergy big-time; although at this time MS has the lead.

Look no further than the 10 or so games for XBox Live! which have additional downloadable content thats distributed thew the MS controlled fabric and stored on the HD. Ubisoft's widely acclaimed SplinterCell has additional levels that are released to Xbox players just like Valve's done on the PC arena.

And here in responce to your wrongfull comment number 2:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

http://playstation2-linux.com/

:Shock at how little this guy knows:

There are also several games that I know of for PS2 that have editors built in as well - the recently released broadband capable MidnightClubII comes to mind.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=120


This is also insignificant because you stated this:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=100

Did you state this or not? You asked what "console users" could create content, I answered..

Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?

Just did... also, I have yet to play "hide and seek." You've asked me to retrack and answer questions from like page2 which I have and yet nothing from you on that or a plathora of other issues....

Then again, I feel that you'd rather debate semantics like above. It's too bad that you're still incorrect. I'd recommend you walk (or click) away.

[Vince]

Demalion,

What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

How to lie with Statistsics baby, yeah! Should get a Pulitzer...

[David G.]

Edit: Now that I think about, there is no way the PC gaming industry is headed down that path. For that to happen, one very large player would be left sitting on the bench, and we know MS doesn't play on the bench. Why else would MS spend resources developing DX?

They don't control OpenGL.

Hopefully there will be a significant user backlash to encourage developers not to go down this route.


Doom III is OpenGL . Also there will be a lot of games that will use this engine .

nVIDIA can't rely on the fact that they can pay off some game developers to make "nVIDIA only games" .

BTW ... who's engine will be used for HL2 ?

As I remember they used the Q2 engine for Half-Life .

[duncan36]

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

And the line that is responsible for this the gf4ti line is almost dead, the line thats replacing the FX line is in every way inferior to ATi's Dx9 parts including costs.
See thats the thing about GPU's every product generation is like a total reboot, all that momentum you build up with huge volume is gone. Nvidia would like to hang onto the GF4Ti line forever, but they cant.

[demalion]

Demalion,

What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?

:shock: :lol: Vince, we were discussing market presence, I in Dec 2002 as indicated in 3dmark 2001 results, in rebuttal to yours from 2000 Valve survey results. You then (tried) to use market share figures! (http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/nvidiagainsmarketshare-nv302xgf4.shtml) to support your viewpoint, :shock: and now that that is refuted, you're claiming such figures are "useless" so you can simply propose your own statement about the very same "intangible mathematical property" in its place! (That would be the bold statement in your text below).

There really is no limit, is there?

As far as I can tell, thanks to Ben's numbers, nVidia is still out shipping ATI in the number of units that people will play their games on by a wide and still widening majority...

Ignoring everything having to do with having disputed your "units that people will play their games on" that I've proposed, for the moment (that's for another pile):

That's the very difference between unit shipments and (quarterly, not "months to month" is what we're discussing, BTW) market share figures. It is the bold statement that you just made that equates to the quarterly marketshare we were just discussing, and you dismiss as useless when it isn't coming from you. What your statement in the beginning boils down to is ignoring the actual market share figures so you can say what you want to believe instead.

How to lie with Statistsics baby, yeah! Should get a Pulitzer...
Hey, are you angling to be the potty mouth component of Ben's comedy act? He seems to have a gig lined up for some sort of financial convention.

Off to that first pile now, I smell a worsening aroma from that direction...:-?

[flf]

And the line that is responsible for this the gf4ti line is almost dead, the line thats replacing the FX line is in every way inferior to ATi's Dx9 parts including costs.
See thats the thing about GPU's every product generation is like a total reboot, all that momentum you build up with huge volume is gone. Nvidia would like to hang onto the GF4Ti line forever, but they cant.

That simply isn't the way reality works out. The fact is that major OEMs work out deals with their hardware partners. How many machines were shipped with TNT M64 boards when GF2s were available?

Additionally, you discount brand loyalty. You may have none, but the general consumer (not the kiddies that post their bench scores, but their parents that actually buy hardware) often cares less for prime performance than they do about cost and comfort. Brand recognition and marketing are often more dominant than true technical prowess, regardless of who you think the leader is.

Betamax, anyone?

[Tahir2]

BTW ... who's engine will be used for HL2 ?

Inhouse engine IIRC.. source was from www.shacknews.com

[BenSkywalker]

So you are changing the discussion around and now want to argue the broader market instead of ATi v nVidia. You can argue with yourself on that one. I'll give you some fuel for your argument with yourself-

Jon Peddie Research estimates that approximately 53 million PC graphics devices shipped from nine suppliers in Q4'02, a 13% increase over the previous quarter.

As compared to Q3'02, Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market.

However, only five of nine suppliers drove growth in Q4'02: ATI, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, and VIA.

You want to debate the broader market go ahead, do it with yourself. Isolate ATi and nVidia and nVidia increased their marketshare which is what we have been discussing up until your end was dismantled.

WHQL-

Shrug. Its still chcken feed in comparison to the PS2 maket, and the potential PC market for that matter.

The 'potential' PC market has never been realized. The best selling PC title ever hasn't managed to reach close to 1/50th of the global installed base. Also, Halo's sales would rank it in the top five PC titles of all time, and that is on the 'weak' platform. As far as weak is concerned, compare the best selling PS2 FPS against Halo or even MetroidPrime for that matter. The PS2 has such large mass market success for the same reasons The Sims was such a hit on the PC, casual gamers. FPSs are actually quite comparable across the different platforms in terms of sales.

No current console is in the vaguest position to avail that, and by the time the next gen comes around Vinces point may well be pointless.

Depends on how you look at it. By the end of this generation it is plausible that one of the other consoles will have the same installed base that Sony has now, or close to it. Even if they don't, both SM64 and Goldeneye hit $500Million in revenue on the N64 which was slaughtered in marketshare by the PSX.

Why a bit player like BFG? What about the volume players such as MSI and ASUS?

I brought it up as they are trying to extrapolate out what the entire market looked like based on what a couple of board vendors sold. They are not only going up against boards with different chips, they are also competing with each other. What were ATi's sales vs their third party suppliers? Without knowing this you can't tell exactly how the market is shaping up.

[demalion]

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all. :)

I think to anyone reading this, it's clear whose correct in their views. As one such person has already stated.You mean Ben? :lol:
Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply)



This isn't it at all - this is a side issue, please attempt to not create additional BS by stating things like this.


You then proceeded to addresswhat I was quoting, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was simply a quote of the very same post to which you replied to re-introduce yourself into this thread. The entire reason for posting it was to discuss the issue of you failing to read it, and you proceed to treat it exactly like that was the case. Does this mean we're done with this pile?

Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?

Just did... also, I have yet to play "hide and seek."

:lol: :

This is off topic, but to clear it up - Did you or did you not state this:


My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

I'm expecting a one word answer... think you can hack it?

No<-(one word answer).
Of course you're a pregnant woman! Did you or did you not state "I'm expecting"? One word answer.
Of course you should be ashamed of yourself! Did your did you not stop beating your wife? One word answer.
:roll: Some people outgrow that.

No hide and seek here!

What I stated was:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? :shock:
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You know, the very same block of text I accused you of splitting up to facilitate playing hide and seek already.

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply)


You've asked me to retrack and answer questions from like page2 which I have and yet nothing from you on that or a plathora of other issues....

Do you grasp the concept of "I'm going to do this now, and we'll repeat those other things later", or did you not get beyond a problem with that as you aged beyond 3 years old (perhaps the forum should be renamed to be clear on expected behavior... :-?)? Oh, that's right, I "haven't addressed your console argument already" (as I look back at several pages of replies). :roll: :lol:

Then again, I feel that you'd rather debate semantics like above. It's too bad that you're still incorrect. I'd recommend you walk (or click) away.

The post was quoting what was actually stated, Vince. Notably absent is your making a case against the assertions. What is present is a clear answer to the question "Can you manage not to ignore this request [to quote all my discussion] or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?".
Maybe I should have asked for a one word answer.

[demalion]

Well, since 3/4ths you post was attacking linguistics - I'll assume a victory,

Any way you can, right? :lol: Read a bit more carefully.

but it's ashame you must turn this debate into such a state by not providing any factual or empiracal evidence.

What are you talking about? This post was only about your point, did you read it at all? I quote both myself and you, as that is the range of the empirical evidence required to deal with your assertion. Let me guess, you spent a post ignoring what I said, and restating your opinions not even realizing what I was actually talking to you about?!?

It's truely ashame, well atleast you know what Economies of Scale is now.

Vince, I'm perfectly willing to go through each and every one of your assertions (again). If you er...actually read the post to which you are replying, you'll see that I am not attempting to rehash all aspects of our discussion (again), which is why my preface (that you are disputing in an attempt to discuss everything but the one and only point of which the post was a focus), made the simple assertion that Dec 2002 is after Q3 2002, that you said otherwise, and were wrong to do so, and you can't even agree to stick to the validity of that! :shock: :lol:. I'm simply handling one of your assertions at a time (as I said in the post, you should read it some time :P) to limit the amount of BS you can throw on to the discussion (doesn't limit you if you hold a completely different discussion, though, does it?). I have to admit it does look like I ended up over-estimating your ability to read what was stated. Perhaps you could try again and actually address the post?

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities.

What?!? You've got to be kidding... are you out of things that I haven't shot down or what?

I know you think you've shot them down, and I'll correct you one point at a time on that, however the post you are replying to was only about the one item...that I specifically mentioned, quoted, and highlighted for you. Not good enough?

For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002

I covered 3D Marks, this is insane - you think 3D Marks is indicative of the PS gaming community at large?

I pointed out that you stated a falsity about your figures being more current than anything I proposed. Instead of addressing the falsity you made, you say you "covered 3dmark" and go on a diatribe to bury the very simple question (EDIT: I covered the diatribe in the previous post).
That's what I call BS. It's an assertion without meaning ("covered 3dmark" to you means you insulted my usage of it and were absolutely right in saying it wasn't applicable because it was you that said it wasn't applicable).

Here I excise your multi-paragraph diatrabe accusing me of masturbating to ATI cards, and re-asserting your belief system as valid without any substantion whatsoever, let alone substantion linking the statements to any of our discussion, which I do admit goes hand in hand with stating that quarterly marketshare is a useless as an indication as you went on to do in your next post.

your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales).

Ok, yo want to play this game. It's also without the sales of any NV30 cards.

Which is why I'm not making claims that Q3 2002 figures indicate nv30's impact on ATI's market share, as you are doing for the 9700 and nVidia's market share. :shock:

Thus, how can you state that because the R300 was on sale for only "1 month" it's sales wouldn't peak with enthusiest purchases upfront?

So, of course, they shipped all cards instantly to be represented in your figures for that quarter, and selling for less than half the time compared to the Ti 4x00 parts, and at the price of the Ti 4600 parts, the figures you provided were quite representative of the 9700's impact in the two full quarters since then. :shock:

Or that the GeForceFX won't have a counter-balancing effect when it's released and will negate any advantage the R300 would have caused?
I've read the How to lie with Statistsics Book too.

You've proved that you have pretty thoroughly. Your assertion that I did, however, was part of a rather amazing post all in all. :lol:
"What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?". Now that's a sig candidate! Unfortunately for the level of mirth in the forum, using it would be against my own personal policy right now.

Thus, lets take the [Q3] numbers for what they are - nVidia widened the gap between them and ATI dispite the existence of preformance parity/superiority with the established Radeon8500 brand, aswell as the undisputed reign with enthusiensts with their R300 core.

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth? That really does explain a comment like... "What the hell good does an intangible mathmatical property (eg. Marketshare) that fluctuates from months to month have to do with the increasing number of nVidia accelerators in people's PCs?". Ok, Ok, enough of that for a while. :lol:

I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.

What? They stated the same you already are, that the R300 was only on sale for a month. And I agree and accept that, but if what your saying is correct, ideology speaking, that a higher preformaning solution allways outsells the competition especially when price/preformance is included...

The nv30 outperforms the 9700 and 9800, and costs less!!!! Thanks for the info.

Did you forget that ATi released their 6 month refresh part along with the nv30's release?

They why the heck is nVidia kicking ATI's ass in the DX8 generation?

When we get to this pile, remind me to ask you for the figures you are basing this on.

[Althornin]

bwahahahahah!
Demalion, its an excercise in futility.

As much fun as this discussion is, its a waste of time and space. Vince and Ben have never listened to facts, reasoning, or logic before.

[demalion]

So you are changing the discussion around and now want to argue the broader market instead of ATi v nVidia.

That doesn't make sense to me (yes, even reading it with what follows).

You can argue with yourself on that one. I'll give you some fuel for your argument with yourself-

This tries to indicate that a point will follow, I think. :-?

Jon Peddie Research estimates that approximately 53 million PC graphics devices shipped from nine suppliers in Q4'02, a 13% increase over the previous quarter.

As compared to Q3'02, Nvidia saw a 13% increase in graphics shipments in Q4'02 and was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide but with a reduced share of the total graphics market.

However, only five of nine suppliers drove growth in Q4'02: ATI, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, and VIA.

You want to debate the broader market go ahead, do it with yourself. Isolate ATi and nVidia and nVidia increased their marketshare which is what we have been discussing up until your end was dismantled.

But I don't see one. The problem I see with your statements is in bold above.

Let me tell you my thoughts, and you get back to me on the mistake I'm making? Maybe I'm being a bit sloppy with my thoughts, and you can clarify what is wrong with it.

If Company A maintains its standing in overall market share, and Company N reduces its standing in overall marketshare, the relationship when viewing the "market", when just in terms of the two companies as you propose, is that Company A gained marketshare.

A1=A2= .2
N1= .35
N2= .3

A2/(A2+N2) > A1/(A1+N1)

.2, .35, and .3 are marketshare. market share * unit shipments is a count of the units comprising the market share for the volume of unit shipments in question....the unit shipments for that period associated with that company.
The market share for a company can decrease at the same time that the unit shipments for it increases...it just requires that the unit shipments for the rest of what is being considered increase by a more significant factor.
The above equation is applicable because of a mathematical property of the following statement:

(A2*UQ4)/((A2+N2)*UQ4) > (A1*UQ3)/((A1+N1)*UQ3)

You're using unit shipments in Q4 (UQ4) to make statements in comparison to Q3, without properly applying "UQ3".
Something wrong with my formulas? Something wrong with yours? Both are possible at any given moment. Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

[Blotta]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post.

Just some thoughts, nothing more. Feel free to disagree.

Keep in mind I didn't read alot of the long posts. Got a little bleary-eyed after the first few.

Regarding availability of 9500 pro mentioned earlier.
Here in Toronto I visited 7 stores (all withing 3 block radius), 6 of them had 9500 pro. Most had oem and retail versions. Bought one. I know different places have different availabilities. Just saying here there are plenty.

As for GFFX there were none. Want to eventually get 5200 for crap computer. Maybe Nvidia delivery man was afraid he was gonna get SARS.

I will be surprised if hl2 comes out before NV75. Maybe they can bundle it with tf2. As for relevance of hl2-Nvidia deal, I don't see much:

1-probably just a bundle deal where they ship hl2 with Nvidia product and throw in some crap bonus exclusives. (Kinda like EA deal)

2-Doom will overshadow hl2 completely. People are buying and will buy newer cards for doom not hl2. If Nvidia had a deal with id, that would be big news. (I'll need to get an NV35-40 or R350-400 bout then)

3- anyone who would alienate a segment of their market, even if only 30% is dumb. Who can predict who is gonna be market leader when Valve comes out with their next product anyway.

4- If hl2 is any good they can probably get more if they hedge ps2 against xbox for licensing of game.

5- correct me if i am wrong (I probably am) but this is basically a Microsoft issue and not an Nvidia issue anyway. Nvidia makes xbox chips, MS handles licensing and other noble tasks. Not sure what agreement Nvidia and Valve can make for consoles without MS calling the shots. No one really knows who is making chip for next x-box. Could be ATi.

6-Nvidia has a lot of cash. If Valve is hard up for dough I can see them becoming Nvidia's biatch.

That being said, any exclusive deal that would allow a major game to opperate on only one VC would be silly but not surprising. I'm sure ATI would love such a scenerio just as much as Nvidia. Truth is, as someone noted earlier (not sure who) these companies answer to their shareholders and bankers. I'm near the bottom of their list of priorities.
If either company felt they could increase profits by following this strategy they would do it in a minute. If they had to discount and alienate 10, 30 or 50% of computer users they would. I wouldn't be surprised to see either VC company turn to buying out companies such as Valve and making games exclusively for their product. It would seem to be a natural business extension. You provide the means, why not provide exclusive content. (Kinda like Rogers Cable - bought Sports channel22 - then bought the blue jays)

The only loser would be us, the consumer. We'd either have to pick our favourite games/VC combo and forsake others, depend on patches or emulators, or get 2 PCs, one with ATI another with NV.

But its all probably much ado about nothing.

Regards,

Julio

Go Leafs Go

[Rodéric]

As I remember they used the Q2 engine for Half-Life .

Well in fact they used a heavily modified Quake Engine. Even if the result looked more like Quake 2.

[BenSkywalker]

Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

Your formula takes into account all chips headed for Excel workstations in croporate machines that won't ever see a game. You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market. The reason why we have been segmenting nVidia and ATi is due to their nigh monopoly on gaming based PC gaming vid hardware(at least in the context which we are discussing it). This entire discussion has revolved around the comparable marketshare between ATi and nVidia, including the players without a viable presence in the gaming market invalidates the results for the purpose of this discussion.

When looking at the sales of next gen consoles, you don't factor in the PSX sales. For the first couple of years after the initial debut of the PS2 the PSX was selling well enough to throw the numbers off for all of the next gen consoles. Because of this, when attempting to analyze the next gen console market the PSX was eliminated from the equation and only sales of actual next gen consoles were utilized.

As I stated, if you are changing around the discussion I am not going to continue with this particular discussion. We started talking about this as it was in relation to nVidia having a significantly larger portion of the gaming market then ATi, and the numbers indicate that that is the case and the latest numbers we have seen indicate that the gap is growing.

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth?

Vince.....? :lol:

Vince has been a very vocal advocate of hybrid software based rasterization and has been rather convinced that Stanford's HLSL project is the future of graphics implementations. I could see how you could at least make an association on that point for me, but Vince is widely considered a CELL/GRID lap dog ;) I've never been let down by his ability to cut up nV PR(or any PC based IHV) on any of their chips.

Edit-

Forgot to mention. The points I quoted stated that the PC graphics market saw a 13% sales increase and nVidia saw a 13% sales increase, and nVidia lost market share.

[Ollo]

Thought this might be interesting for the discussion at hand:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33679404[/img]

Date is May 16. Sounds familiar?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Thought this might be interesting for the discussion at hand:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33679404[/img]

Date is May 16. Sounds familiar?

The magazine is coming out on May 16th, so you will have to wait another month from then until anything happens. :)

[demalion]

Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

Your formula takes into account all chips headed for Excel workstations in croporate machines that won't ever see a game.

Oh, like I've told you a half a dozen times? :shock: :lol:

Ben, that's why I criticized your interpretation of the figures (well, the first reason atleast).

You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market.

That's because that's what the figures portray. The figures you brought up. You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market, and I'm discussing them with you in return.
Your formulas based on the figures do the same thing, Ben. :shock:

The reason why we have been segmenting nVidia and ATi is due to their nigh monopoly on gaming based PC gaming vid hardware(at least in the context which we are discussing it).

So? Does this change the analysis I provided of why just viewing them in isolation ATi has gained market share?

This entire discussion has revolved around the comparable marketshare between ATi and nVidia, including the players without a viable presence in the gaming market invalidates the results for the purpose of this discussion.

:lol: Then it's a bit funny that you proposed these figures. :!:

Oh my, there doesn't seem to be anything addressing the actual conclusions I drew, just blaming me for drawing them on figures you brought up and criticizing the very thing I've been criticizing about them for the last few pages! Strange that.

When looking at the sales of next gen consoles, you don't factor in the PSX sales. For the first couple of years after the initial debut of the PS2 the PSX was selling well enough to throw the numbers off for all of the next gen consoles. Because of this, when attempting to analyze the next gen console market the PSX was eliminated from the equation and only sales of actual next gen consoles were utilized.
Hey, almost like if I criticized that these figures arbitrarily equated DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9! Oh wait....I did!
As I stated, if you are changing around the discussion I am not going to continue with this particular discussion.

:shock: It is the discussion you started, Ben. I'm not changing anything around, you introduced the flaws you mention, and I was just pointing out the additional flaws you introduced on top of it.
Wow.

Here:

I'm not proposing these are absolutely conclusive, but I do propose them as indication that is pertinent to the assumptions being made. If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual.
How about current real numbers then?
Does this look familiar? These numbers we are discussing now...are the numbers that you brought up after this! Though you didn't quite label them as Q4 2002. :-?

What did I say about these numbers? Let's see:


Your extrapolation seems a bit uncontrolled. It did not say boards outsold CPU shipments, it said graphics shipments outsold CPU shipments. That would include integrated nforce boards, integrated ATI solutions, and integrated Intel graphics chipsets. The point they made by saying that figure exceeded CPU shipments was that they believed it indicated discrete solutions were a significant portion.
...different post...
To hold a discussion we have to be able to discuss the same thing in some sane frame of reference. I never "refuted" that nvidia has a greater market share, I refuted that the market share figures being presented had direct bearing on the gaming market share for a game like half life 2.


We need to make up our mind on whether we're talking about the existing DX 8 base, or DX 9 features in this discussion...we're discussing marketshare and how it applies to "exclusivity" and "some" seem to be arbitrarily equating DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9 to do so (with DX 9 cards already sold being treated is irrelevant). I could use some stronger connections, which is why I am asking the questions that I am.

:shock:

We started talking about this as it was in relation to nVidia having a significantly larger portion of the gaming market then ATi, and the numbers indicate that that is the case and the latest numbers we have seen indicate
that the gap is growing.
:shock: The numbers you just criticized as being non-representative, and which I just discussed do not show that "the gap is growing"?!?
Oh, wait, it is non-representative when I discuss them, only you are allowed to discuss them, and my discussion of them is therefore irrelevant.
My bad: I didn't learn the first time you told me that. :-?

Double wow!

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth?

Vince.....? :lol:

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself. :shock:

Vince has been a very vocal advocate of hybrid software based rasterization and has been rather convinced that Stanford's HLSL project is the future of graphics implementations. I could see how you could at least make an association on that point for me, but Vince is widely considered a CELL/GRID lap dog ;) I've never been let down by his ability to cut up nV PR(or any PC based IHV) on any of their chips.

Ah, and this makes the statement I was criticizng more valid how? :idea: Oh, by proxy! :roll: :lol:

Edit-

Forgot to mention. The points I quoted stated that the PC graphics market saw a 13% sales increase and nVidia saw a 13% sales increase, and nVidia lost market share.
Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them! :shock:

[BenSkywalker]

You wanted a defined target platform for HL2 then you should have defined one. I made no claims about any particular DX level boards nor shipments. Without declaring what level of DX you assume HL2 to require then that element has not been factored in. Having the XBox as a target platform doesn't mean too much as we can see with SplinterCell running on DX7 hardware. My interpetation of the figures is simply one of comparing ATi to nVidia, the exact premise I explicitly stated I was working under previously. You don't like it, you counter it with some real market data. None of the 'this online database says xxx', real numbers. Until you do so, then I see no need to continue this discussion.

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself.

I deserve that, I was moronic enough to be fooled by ATi's PR so obviously it can happen.

Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them!

:shock: I thought it was an act, apparently not. Take any marketplace figure, any way you like it with multiple parties(three or more) involved. Assign them all a given marketshare. Increase the total sales for the market a given percentage and do the same adjustment for one of the board vendors in particular and move the others around as you like. Try it a few times and see how frequently the marketshare changes for the company whose sales increase mirrored the industry as a whole, make special note of when they decline.

[demalion]

You wanted a defined target platform for HL2 then you should have defined one. I made no claims about any particular DX level boards nor shipments.
Didn't read the text I quoted from pages ago the first time, why should it be any different this time? :-?

Without declaring what level of DX you assume HL2 to require then that element has not been factored in. Having the XBox as a target platform doesn't mean too much as we can see with SplinterCell running on DX7 hardware.:shock:
It does mean something if you are proposing nVidia exclusive PC support makes sense because something is being developed for the X Box. Now, who was doing that Ben? Can you remember?

A hint: what you just mentioned about Splinter Cell supports my argument.

My interpetation of the figures is simply one of comparing ATi to nVidia, the exact premise I explicitly stated I was working under previously.
Hmm? I didn't ignore that premise, I showed you how your math was wrong. Hey, are there enough posts between that and this now for your comfort level?

You don't like it, you counter it with some real market data.
We were discussing the same market data...it's just as real for you as it is for me.
None of the 'this online database says xxx', real numbers. Until you do so, then I see no need to continue this discussion.
You just criticized your own numbers as being applicable in the same way I did pages ago, and now I have to counter them? But we've both countered them already! :lol:

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself.

I deserve that, I was moronic enough to be fooled by ATi's PR so obviously it can happen.

Yeah, you're the picture of a raving ATi <B3D expletive>. Like how a GF 4 MX user would be downgrading image quality for half life by switching to a 9700 Pro. :roll:
Oh wait, maybe that's why the question was about nVidia, and not ATI!

Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them!

:shock: I thought it was an act, apparently not. Take any marketplace figure, any way you like it with multiple parties(three or more) involved. Assign them all a given marketshare. Increase the total sales for the market a given percentage and do the same adjustment for one of the board vendors in particular and move the others around as you like. Try it a few times and see how frequently the marketshare changes for the company whose sales increase mirrored the industry as a whole, make special note of when they decline.

Not big on reading what others say (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=105487&#105487), are you? Heaven forbid we use actual formulas and math to discuss it. :shock: :roll:

[dksuiko]

It's the fight we've all been waiting for!

The Tireless Rebutter (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html) vs. The Tireless Rebutter! (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html)

Grab your popcorn and buy your drinks now because this fight is scheduled for infinite rounds!

[Althornin]

but we dont loathe demalion.
besides, its more like
The Philosopher (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html) vs Ferrous Cranus (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html)

[Ollo]

Yes, round 9 is shaping up quite good.

*opens another can of beer and sits back*

[BenSkywalker]

I had a reply typed up an deleted it. This isn't worth it any more. If the deal happens it happens. It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved and that was the point of the discussion.

[demalion]

I had a reply typed up an deleted it. This isn't worth it any more.
Your approach to replying to disagreement is never worth it unless everyone else shuts up. That is why I recommend you stick to local editing for more productive use of it. :-?
If the deal happens it happens.
True, though what the deal is remains to be seen.
It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved
That is the problem: no it was not. You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate it.
That doesn't mean Valve won't do it, it means the argument for them doing it that you provided was self-conflicting, based on excluding inconveninet factors, and focused on supporting your belief system.
Neither of us has any exclusive monopoly on actuality, all we have is available information and reasoning, if we choose to employ them.
Your method of argument is based on excluding the reasoning and information in opposition to what you want to believe, without any justification besides your own desire to exclude them and without any recognition of any criticism of your own belief.
and that was the point of the discussion.
Yes, making your statement does seem like it was the only point of the discussion for you. The problem is that you believe your stating something is the same thing as it being demonstrated to be valid, and think that support is based solely on dismissing anything besides your own statements.

EDIT: How do you like that?

[BenSkywalker]

It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved

[demalion]

Get back to me now that it is more suited for your reply, and I'll get back to you when I return.

[demalion]

And you did not demonstrate how it could work out well for all parties involved "very clearly", thanks to that self-conflicting argument based on excluding inconvenient factors and focused on supporting your belief system to which I referred. Maybe if "very clearly" is synonymous with "in a completely flawed fashion"?...oh wait, it isn't.

It comes down in the end to your saying "You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate it" can't be a valid reply to "It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could for all parties involved"...because it doesn't have the word how.

Let's try this then: "You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate how it could."

So, to make it easy for you, how does that change in wording invalidate the rest of the post? How does it change the rest of the discussion before that? It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it just removes the factor you've been reduced to nitpicking about. With it removed, where does that leave us?

[Dave Baumann]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/23/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

The game will make its public debut next month at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the trade show of the gaming industry, at the booth of graphic chip developer ATI. A non-interactive theater will show gameplay (much like id Software and Activision (ATVI: Research, Estimates) debuted "Doom III" last year).

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

[jb]

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

So Can I start another thread about how HL2 is ATI only then :) :) :) ;) :D

Thanks for the info Dave.

[John Reynolds]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/23/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

The game will make its public debut next month at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the trade show of the gaming industry, at the booth of graphic chip developer ATI. A non-interactive theater will show gameplay (much like id Software and Activision (ATVI: Research, Estimates) debuted "Doom III" last year).

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

It also puts to rest the nasty rumor of it being an exclusive X-box title that Evil over at evilavatar.com was spreading.

[Dave Baumann]

Unless its XBoxII only :!: :!: :P :wink:

[Mark]

Unless its XBoxII only :!: :!: :P :wink:
oh! Nice! :wink: