ATI Gaming Evolved devrel program

[hoom]

Had not seen that
Cool, pleased to see they are onto it already

 

[Humus]

Interview with Neal Robinson, Richard Huddy & David Hoff at Xbit
New, better replacement for the Get In The Game program or just a different name for same old devrel?

As someone who worked under both Richard Huddy and Neal Robinson in the past I know they are great guys that absolutely gets it. Unfortunately, the people higher in the chain are not as bright. I hope this new initiative comes with some extra $$$ attached to the efforts, rather than bold powerpoint slides from upper management.

Why does that matter? Its the results that count

I hate to say this, but no, you need more logos on startup screens, and I really hate startup logos. If the user launches a game and it shows the Nvidia logo, even if the game doesn't run as good as the AMD card would, they will still think they made the right choice. And if the game runs not so good, and they have an AMD card, they will absolutely believe that switching to Nvidia will give them a better experience. If all games show Nvidia all the time, gamers will buy Nvidia simply because they think it will run better there.

 

[doob]

Oh please don't, not the start up screens, what happened to the good conduct of leaving all the company(ies) logos and names of people involved on the neatly credits option right near the exit button?

The logo of the main company behind the game is understandable, but for me that's it, nothing else should delay what the program was bought for, no matter how stylish the CGI intro is.

At least making a game pre-load data while showing the logos, and let them be skippable without having to manually mess around with files.

Better yet, show only the first time the game is executed, and just leave a little logo on some corner of the main menu screen.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Humus, I'd say that there have been a lot of changes since you were there. Again, looks at the results from the past year alone.

 

[AlNom]

Keep it relevant to the thread topic, folks.

 

[willardjuice]

I play left 4 dead 2 @ 1920x1200 and 8xaa/16xaf. I have a feeling next year (without upgrading my computer) I will be playing Portal 2 @ 1920x1200 and 8xaa/16xaf. Outside of of few games, it has been years since we have had any real advancement/innovation in image quality.

Who's fault is this? Valve's? Or are Valve's hands tied because of the ps triple and 360? Perhaps Amd/Nvidia/Intel is at fault? Is this even a problem (saves consumers money)?

Your answers here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=57015

Also for future references, if you see a trollish post, just report it. There's no need to respond to it (in fact it usually makes things worse). It really just makes AlStrong's life harder. In this case, the post raised a decent (but off-topic) debate. We want you guys to have those debates! Are only request is to have them in the correct thread/sub-forum!

 

[Richard]

I play left 4 dead 2 @ 1920x1200 and 8xaa/16xaf. I have a feeling next year (without upgrading my computer) I will be playing Portal 2 @ 1920x1200 and 8xaa/16xaf. Outside of of few games, it has been years since we have had any real advancement/innovation in image quality.

To be fair, Valve would not be the first company I'd look for advancement/innovation in IQ. Aside from Lost Coast which was a tech demo Valve has been great at solidifying what other people have pioneered. Portal itself was very light on features and hardware reqs so it's only natural the sequel follows the same path. id has been MIA and Epic is now more interested in consoles anyway. Everyone's to blame when a 2007 game is still the most advanced and IQ rich game we have today.

Again, I don't think ATI's devrel even with this new push is going to help matters much. We've had AvP and BF:BC2 but compared to their console brothers the PC port doesn't stand out. There's no incentive for devs to create a high-end PC fork and that's what it takes to make use of quad cores + 4 gb ram + teraflops of GPU power. That or just pump out another GTA4.

That reminds of a good example: Red Dead Redemption is not coming out for PC (thus far), if ATI and NVIDIA have to get together and support a kick ass PC version with huge draw distances without the fugly LoD pops and GTA4-shadows wouldn't that help move some hardware? Are they talking to id about ways to make Rage PC stand out so people go out and buy a Radeons HD6 or GF 580? Are they waiting for CryTek to push out a PC version of Crysis 2 with the same IQ as the original?

Btw, I don't disagree with what others mentioned about logos, etc. Personally I loath them, but I can see the argument. OTOH, fighting for logos is a small spec in the big picture of PC gaming as the enabler of higher hardware sales. A bit like fighting over fishing rights while fisheries continue to dwindle.

 

[eastmen]

I dont mind that its slowing down a bit. Its just slowing way down , way to fast. I remember back when the xbox 360 was coming out and epic was talking about 2gig cards and that was 2005. Now we are in 2010 and are just seeing 2 gig cards.

Not only that but as you said the best looking game is still from 2007.

 

[green.pixel]

I suppose only an ATI/NVIDIA alliance will help PC gaming at this point though. They need to stop with the PhysX/EYEFINITY/(S)3D shens and concentrate on saving their future market.

Isn't the reason why they've come up with those exactly because there are few games to push the hardware, so they have to give some incentive to consumers to pony up the dough?


You know why we are in this whole shebang in the first place? There isn't an entity that champions PC as platform for gaming the way the console companies champion theirs. They spend shitload on marketing and advertisment, tens of millions of dollars invested across traditional and new media formats, TV/print/internet/outdoors/radio and even wider publicity support now thanks to the success of the Wii, with "merciless and well-funded PR armies poised to combat any criticism", One could say that game publishers can and should fund marketing but more often than not nowadays, console makers push the marketing. Is there a unified body that does that for PC games via mass media? You guessed it, there isn't. Someone could also say that it should be Microsoft's job, since they basically own the PC gaming market, but for obvious reasons, they don't give a flying fuck about promoting it since the launch of their DirectX box, all along with shutting down legendary PC devs. They will probably announce one day that they are giving up the OS business to focus on 360.


http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?p=2267509#post2267509

I can't really comment on your own experience. But in the UK and London, most people do their 'high-end' gaming via consoles, whereas AAA level PC gaming is like some kind of "hidden, underground way to game".

Some people I know who work in various high street stores, such as PC World, can also confirm the general lack of public awareness about PC gaming.

Of course, everyone already knows about popular PC casual games like Solitaire, MSN games, and Facebook games. So in that sense, everyone does know about PC gaming. But very casual gaming.

AAA level PC gaming has almost zero advertizing for the general public and relies mostly on word of mouth.

When it comes to AAA level gaming, people may walk into a PC World store looking to buy what they see 24/7 on TV: XBOX or PS3.

Every time a new multiplatform game is coming out, I always have someone ask me if I am going to get this new game. If I say yes, the next question they ask is whether I am getting the XBOX 360 version or Playstation 3 version. If I say I'll be getting the PC version, 9 out of 10 of them did not know there was a PC version. These people watch the same TV commercials, but don't notice a PC version. These console gamers are also the very same people who also own PCs at home.

So contrary to what you are saying, PC penetration in every home does not automatically promote PC gaming.

Of course, people will play a casual game of Solitaire (I even play it sometimes) because it's there.

A lot of people get introduced to Facebook games when they log into their Facebook.

However, most of these people are never going to hear about Crysis or the PC version of Call Of Duty automatically just because they have a PC at home.

If you go into the Windows 7 games folder, you will see a link at the top of the page under "Game Providers" for "More Games from Microsoft". This link takes you to a world of more casual games. But you will notice that there is no such link to Steam or Microsoft's "Games For Windows" site which would have made sure you at least become aware of hardcore PC gaming.

I have also recently started to hear console-only gamers talk to me about Crysis, only now after they read about the multiplatform Crysis 2 in a console game mag.

I have never seen the PC-exclusive original Crysis advertized anywhere that the general public can be notified about its existence.

But everyone has seen TV commercials for the XBOX-exclusive FORZA.

I also see the same multi-platform commercials you are talking about as well:

In terms of the commercials promoting the PC version, it usually means nothing more than: showing you the PC version's game cover with the other platform versions at the very end of the commercial.

Most people watching these commercials don't sit there thinking "Why would I play an exact XBOX port on a PC?" - even if they managed to properly notice that crucial one second moment in time when the PC game cover was displayed.

In terms of certain multiplatform game commercials directly 'pushing' people to buy one platform version over another, there are more than plenty of those.

At the end of the multiplatform commercial, you may witness an aggressively styled voice telling you to get the game now on XBOX 360. They will even show you the XBOX 360 console and its retail price, 'pushing' the viewer to walk into a high street store and buy a new XBOX 360 to play this game.

In TV advertizing, there is a big difference between the audience seeing something and actually acknowledging it. This is how certain multiplatform ads fail to properly get through to the masses about hardcore PC gaming. In the split second that the PC box may be displayed on the screen, most people will take that time to look for the box / icon / logo that relates to the platforms that they already expect to get the game on. Maybe there's another explanation. However, on a general public gamers level, somehow, the ignorance continues. Which could be further explained by the fact that many ads for multiplatform games. Yes the multiplatform games, end the ad by showing the viewer one of the consoles and telling them to get the game now on that platform.

There are no such direct PC supporting ads for hardcore games. So psychologically, this increases public ignorance further, and would explain why the same viewer will walk into a PC World store the next day looking for the same console for their hardcore gaming needs. They are told that hardcore gaming = XBOX or PS3. This is why people who have noticed PC versions of certain hardcore games like GTA will usually mentally skip past it. Because they are constantly being recommended to get the consoles by TV ads that broadcast on main channels primetime nationwide to an audience of 20 million or so viewers.

From my own direct experince, once a lot of these graphics-hungry hardcore console gamers see a hardcore PC rig playing their favorite games with better graphics, that's when I can confirm how ignorant they previously were, and how quickly they become interested in hardcore PC gaming.

This brings me back to the issues some stores are having when selling high end gaming PCs. The reaction that people have is generally very positive when they look at the awesomeness of the actual PC hardware. But at the end of the day, most potential buyers, don't really know how the experience will be when they get home compared with hardcore consoles.

All the TV ads are recommending consoles because the game publishers are given incentives by Microsoft and Sony to promote them. Most people don't know about Steam. Most people have only heard of a very small number of PC games like World Of Warcraft, which doesn't appeal to everyone.

The public ignorance is further compounded by Microsoft who do not want any hardcore gaming attention taken away from the XBOX and given to the PC, due to the obvious money they will lose on XBOX sales and lost XBOX game sales if much more potential customers were properly educated about hardcore PC gaming and how you can get graphics even more 'hardcore' than the console versions. Plus all the other PC specific benefits.

Again, this would explain why Microft would not dare to include a link within the 'game provider' section of the Windows 7 Games Folder to their hardcore PC gaming store: "Games For Windows". But they don't mind providing a link to their MSN for casual gaming. No matter how popular PC casual gaming gets, it will never take away potential XBOX sales. Why? Because most people who buy XBOX 360's are people such as my friends who prefer hardcore gaming.

Microsoft will only promote PC gaming so far, such as showcasing the latest Direct X at an exhibition. They want to give an extra benefit of Windows over Mac: Gaming. But where Microsoft will stop promoting PC gaming is well before it eats into any real XBOX sales. They don't mind more PC gamers getting into XBOX gaming. But not the other way round. Hence why the Games For Windows website has a link at the bottom of the home page to the XBOX website. But the XBOX homepage has no such link to the Games For Windows site. Microsoft are scared of the potential lost XBOX sales, and prefer hardcore PC gaming to be a "hidden, underground way to game".

You want to know why I keep on mentioning Crysis?

It's to remind you that it's not 'universally' classed as a 'casual' game, just like 'Call Of Duty' and many other 'hardcore' games that push XBOX and Playstation sales.

Killzone 2 (sold 2 million) - an over-hyped PS3 exclusive game that advertized 24/7 on national TV. Not bad.

Crysis (sold 1.5 million) - Considering the PC hardware specs required, and the fact that PC gaming is a kind of "hidden, underground way to game", Crysis (the PC exclusive with almost zero advertizing) sold extremely well.

Now imagine if Crysis was advertized like Killzone 2.

This is the type of thing that YOU fear, and this is the type of thing that MICROSOFT also fears.


The hidden, underground way to game.


You mentioned how Gaming PCs are not selling in your local stores.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

These stores 'sell' PC gaming similar to the way YOU would sell it: -

Let customer walk into store and be greeted in face with 'consoles' playing all the latest games for everyone to gather around and try - But let 'Gaming PCs' be put to the back of the store without even being switched on and having any demos playing. Then scratch head and wonder why they're not selling

This is the type of thing that YOU fear, and this is the type of thing that MICROSOFT also fears.

.


Since basically the begining of it, PC gaming was never pulling the sales numbers as big as consoles, all because of the lack of large scale marketing and advertising push to the masses.

Several members of PCGA have conflicts of interest in pushing PC gaming, because they have about the same interest in it as Rupert Murdoch has in Google's success.


http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1336107553&postcount=143

The "golden age" of PC gaming was all about the player & users. From the early days of SSI and cardboard-boxed PC games, the most important thing was what was being delivered to the gamer and the gaming experience. The early foundations of Electronic Arts was also based solely on this principle, and boy, talk about a perfect textbook example of the 180 degree turn-around!

Over the years, focus has shifted away from the PC gaming consumer and now is more focused on the profitable relationships between companies such as the developer, publisher, marketing groups, distributors, etc. etc. When you see events like Ubisoft Montreal ripping the DX10.1 path out of Assassin's Creed, the purchase and destruction of open Physics API's, the "buy off" of extensions for common graphics and audio API's, the degree of copy protection and spyware now included in games, etc.etc.. it becomes clear the PC gaming industry no longer is focused on the players. There is just no argument that holds water in contrast to all of the above events that are firmly in public record.

I personally knew things were turning south the moment Quake2 was released. This was that precise turning point for me to see John Carmack and the id Software team release early from strong pressure from the publisher/distributor circles (headed by Activision). Their philosophy was always one of a "When it's done" release schedule, but this had changed dramatically. You'll also notice J.C has truly broken apart from the industry at that point, with a heavy shift over to Open Source and Linux. I'd do the same thing in his shoes. Corporate World Order has it's hooks into the PC gaming world now.

 

[Richard]

Isn't the reason why they've come up with those exactly because there are few games to push the hardware, so they have to give some incentive to consumers to pony up the dough?

Well, not if they're proprietary. Consoles now have hardware upgrades, HDD installs and patches but they don't have two competing hardware companies trying to one-up each other on the same platform.

You know why we are in this whole shebang in the first place? There isn't an entity that champions PC as platform for gaming the way the console companies champion theirs. They spend shitload on marketing and advertisment, tens of millions of dollars invested across traditional and new media formats,<snip>

I agree. I do think ATI/NVIDIA can be that champion if they only cooperate.

 

[Rys]

A heck of a lot of work would need to be put in by Microsoft, Khronos, probably Apple, games developers AND the PC GPU vendors before something approaching a console's appeal to the same people could be marketed. ATI and NV couldn't do it on their own, not even as champions.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Microsoft tried with mandatory features in Dx10. Other than that, Nvidia doesn't seem interested as they continue to promote propriety features and vendorID locked features (hopefully we've seen the last of this though). ATI has to be open, although it's arguable whether it's company philosophy or just the fact they were in a minority position for so long with low marketshare.

Khronos group is even more prone to IHV politics and proprietary features (extensions in OGL for example).

Game developers go all over. Most don't favor any particular vendor. But many also encourage IHVs to promote proprietary features by using them. It'd be nice if all game devs refused to use any proprietary feature of a card that cannot be reproduced on another. But somehow I don't see devs banding together to do such.

Regards,
SB

 

[DeanoC]

Game developers go all over. Most don't favor any particular vendor. But many also encourage IHVs to promote proprietary features by using them. It'd be nice if all game devs refused to use any proprietary feature of a card that cannot be reproduced on another. But somehow I don't see devs banding together to do such.

Regards,
SB

Why? As a game developer I want to produce the best 'image' of my game to the public. In an ideal world that would be everyone but then that would also target lowest common denominator. I'd rather add something that might only support a subset then not support at all, i.e. If I can do something using CUDA, but can't under CS/OCL, should I simply not use it? Or remove Eyefinity support because only ATI support those setup on single cards?

Utimately I want everyone who plays the game on whatever platform to enjoy it, PC gaming is already fairly hard to support, reality is profits from PC games (which many people have theories on why) make it a hard sell to produce a lot of new content (programmer and art wise). If an IHV, NV or ATI help make it better on 50% (there cards) by doing the work, i think its better to have it on some than none at all.

Its not perfect but this is the real world, where often the hard argument from game devs is convincing publishers its even worth doing a PC version and especially anything beyond a quick console port.

Hopefully ATI new devrel program will help PC games sell better, which is really what PC games need at the moment. If it helps sell ATI cards, that gives them more reasons to support game devs, exactly same as NV. Rather then worrying about equal capabilities on all PC platforms, instead support the extra money competition from the IHVs brings into the PC game market, cos right now PC games need all the investment they can get.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I fully support dev's getting support for what they do, I'm a vocal advocate of trying to get people I know to actually pay for games, but that's unfortunately a rather large uphill battle in the US.

I understand your reasoning behind support of proprietary features, but just can't agree with it fully.

The game market is already segmented with budget, mainstream, and enthusiast class hardware. Proprietary features segment that even further not only between IHV's but also among an IHV's own cards above and beyond any changes to DX versions.

Throw in the fact that I hear frustration from people both online but more so in real life about buying best bang for the buck video cards and then finding out that what used to work on X years old card now doesn't work on Y brand new card just because IHV chip is different.

Said people then start making noise about saying screw it and just going to consoles.

I'd say something like Eyefinity versus CUDA is a bit different, no? Eyefinity is just a fancy name for support of expanded custom resolutions, most often ultra widescreen. Something anyone could do if they wanted. Would ATI be able to support CUDA if they wanted? And how much help would they get from Nvidia in order to make sure their proprietary product works on a competitor's chips? A apt analogy there would be Nvidia's 3D stereoscopic support, something ATI could implement if they wanted (in this case just providing hooks to 3rd party implementations).

And then what's the consolation for someone that say upgraded from an 8800 GT to a 5850 and then found out some things no longer work? More frustration and dissatisfaction with PC gaming.

As Richard keeps advocating it'd be nice if ATI and Nvidia worked together to make sure everything can work on both vendors cards, but without Microsoft forcing the issue, I don't see that ever happening unfortunately.

And so we may see some games advance, but at the cost of one additional element of customer loss in addition to those already prevalent.

All that said, I absolutely understand how devs want to make the most of the tools, even the proprietary ones, they have at hand. I don't blame them for that. But it's also just one more thing pushing some people away from PC gaming, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[DeanoC]

I'd say something like Eyefinity versus CUDA is a bit different, no? Eyefinity is just a fancy name for support of expanded custom resolutions, most often ultra widescreen. Something anyone could do if they wanted. Would ATI be able to support CUDA if they wanted? And how much help would they get from Nvidia in order to make sure their proprietary product works on a competitor's chips? A apt analogy there would be Nvidia's 3D stereoscopic support, something ATI could implement if they wanted (in this case just providing hooks to 3rd party implementations).

Could ATI support CUDA? Yes absolutely it wouldn't be that hard to do either, just needs a PTX to ATI native compiler... (Ocelot runs CUDA on CPUs as an example). Would it run as well as it does on NVIDIA chips, no CUDA and the software written to it assumes NV hw (i.e. 32 warps on NV versus 64 on ATI). But ATI could add there own libraries to support ATI features and educate coders to write it more neutral which would even the playing field a bit. CUDA is fairly open in a API/Compiler sense (Ocelot being a good example of non NV based support), however NV run the show and decide what goes in. Could it become a open based standard? Only ATI and NV know if they could bury the hatchet and work together...
However thats never going to happen due to corporate politics. ATI won't support an NV led program,so instead they have to support the 'open' solution OpenCL, that fact its technically gimped compared to CUDA is bye the bye. So leaves NV and game developers with interesting choices? Do we effectively downgrade what we do (using OpenCL over CUDA) so its a level playing field or do our best to support both with the risk of spliting capabilities and also mean more work for us? (for the record doing both CUDA and OpenCL is the right thing to do at the moment, I'd prefer to do it once but hey i want the best for the games buyers).
Eyefinity also requires similar (tho obviously a lot less) choices just the other way (to get the best, we need to customise for the ATI setup), it will work on NV ultra widescreen but Eyefinity is the gold standard to support properly.

And then what's the consolation for someone that say upgraded from an 8800 GT to a 5850 and then found out some things no longer work? More frustration and dissatisfaction with PC gaming.

Erm but thats PC for you? Console and PC have there strengths and weaknesses, Consoles with fixed hardware have that strength, 20 years later your game will look and play exactly as it did. On PC if you upgrade it, things will change, in some cases better, in other worse. Thats the price to pay for having those options to upgrade and change.

As Richard keeps advocating it'd be nice if ATI and Nvidia worked together to make sure everything can work on both vendors cards, but without Microsoft forcing the issue, I don't see that ever happening unfortunately.

Absolutely, the best for everyone would be support by both. But that would mean both companies simply supported the best API regardless of who invented it.

 

[Richard]

A heck of a lot of work would need to be put in by Microsoft, Khronos, probably Apple, games developers AND the PC GPU vendors before something approaching a console's appeal to the same people could be marketed. ATI and NV couldn't do it on their own, not even as champions.

Microsoft has no interest in it (or think it doesn't). Khronos... <sigh>... Apple by their own admission has given up on the desktop. Game developers would first need a common ground that doesn't raise their budgets; they are as much a target for a joint effort as consumers are. All that's left is AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.

Absolutely, the best for everyone would be support by both. But that would mean both companies simply supported the best API regardless of who invented it.

Even forgetting the technical merits, do they secretely believe they can outlive their competitor AND maintain a lively PC gaming market?

 

[karlotta]

...

Even forgetting the technical merits, do they secretely believe they can outlive their competitor AND maintain a lively PC gaming market?

They are not looking that far ahead. Biz wise its quarter to quarter. Engineering side they are running the silicone cycle.

 

[3dcgi]

Apple by their own admission has given up on the desktop.

Are you referring to gaming specifically or the desktop period. They can still sell a lot of trucks so I don't see Apple giving up on desktops for content creation.

 

[green.pixel]

Erm but thats PC for you? Console and PC have there strengths and weaknesses, Consoles with fixed hardware have that strength, 20 years later your game will look and play exactly as it did. On PC if you upgrade it, things will change, in some cases better, in other worse. Thats the price to pay for having those options to upgrade and change.

It never was about the tech, it was always about the games.

Cultural and play style differences that made PC games unique are absent for quite some time with very few exceptions. Nowadays, it's one big soup of sameyness and it looks like it's not going to change, not for the foreseeable future anyway.

 

[Richard]

Are you referring to gaming specifically or the desktop period. They can still sell a lot of trucks so I don't see Apple giving up on desktops for content creation.

I'm talking about hardware and performance. They're lagging updating the Mac more and more while they concentrate on iPod/iPhone/iPod. Despite the talk of iPad eating netbook sales, and the press touting every 1 million iPads sold, the fact is netbooks are selling a heck of a lot more. Apple has been stuck at around 3-4% market share WW for the last four years because they don't want to sacrifice their huge margins. While that's perfectly fine for their bottom line it makes them a non-starter for a PC champion (even in a coalition, )

It never was about the tech, it was always about the games.

Cultural and play style differences that made PC games unique are absent for quite some time with very few exceptions. Nowadays, it's one big soup of sameyness and it looks like it's not going to change, not for the foreseeable future anyway.

I agree completely. The reason why the SNES was my last console was because at that time the PC had the majority of games I wanted to play. They were graphic adventures and FPS and western RPGs.

Nowadays the games PC can call its own are MMOs, Facebook and Starcraft (every 12 years). It wouldn't be that bad if PC ports of console games at least took advantage of the superior hardware. Why pay more for the privilege of playing the same game at 300fps? That's where I propose AMD/NVIDIA should come in.