S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - The Way it's Meant to be Played!

I wasn't trying to stir anything up, just hoping to get a bit more light into that whole "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" thing. Dave Baumman gave me a good clarification, and now this response by Oles helps too. But then again I've always had the habit of inadvertently stirring up hornet nests every great once in a while. It has been rather slow lately .... :p
 
I dont think this is funny at all...

I dont think that this developer can make a significant case AT ALL for ANY feature that would be useful and playable in a game setting.. That would not Run on a 9700pro FASTER than an Nv30.

Is there anyone here that can make a case for this??? What more could you do with water, or lighting or whatever.. in a Game that is not seen in GT4, or the ATi Dx9 demos??? Even now the Doom engine is only using about 50 shader instruxions max...

Without Specifically coding for *Reduced* Quality.. there is no way in hell that an Nv30 is going to outperform a 9700pro in any practical Shader based game effect i can think of. Further the 9800pro can vastly outperform the Nv30 in this area. The Nv35 is a mystery.. but I still can even begin to see this developers justification for what they are doing and publically saying.

Especially when Doomtrooper is saying at Rage3d that ATi devs HAVE been in contact with them, and sent them 9700pros long ago.
 
On ATI boards Stalker will run fast, but on NVIDIA boards it will run even faster, plus gamers will get a set of unique effects, namely due to close work with the company enginers and support of NVIDIA hardware features.

ya, you know what those effects are???

16FP precision for uber-fast ugly IQ-riffic
AND
32FP for cinematic slideshow

2 things Ati can't do :)
 
LeStoffer said:
Hehe. On this April Fools day Matt over at 3dgpu has a little gem to stir things up a bit amongst the ATI-crowd:

On ATI boards Stalker will run fast, but on NVIDIA boards it will run even faster, plus gamers will get a set of unique effects, namely due to close work with the company enginers and support of NVIDIA hardware features.

http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=2307&category=9

Note: He claims to be working on a NV35 now. ;)
Gotta love the game industry... The game was developed on Radeon 9700 boards (probably donated by ATI) and now they claim that ATI didn't respond to them.

I hope the game does come equipped with the NVIDIA logo, that just makes it easier for me to identify another game not to buy. "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." can join UT2003, Splinter Cell and others in the "games FUDie will not buy" category.

There's an Irish blessing:
May those who love us love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.
Keep on limping...

It's obvious that some game developers are no better than prostitutes; no offense intended to any prostitutes out there.

-FUDie
 
Jesus friggin Christ!!!

I am starting to get pissed, not at Nvidia, but at ATI!

I am not saying I agree with what Nv is doing, but the bottom line is, it is working!

ATI needs to start playing the same game Nv has been playing for years now. Fight fire with fire, damn it!

jmho of course.
 
Lezmaka said:
You mean the game devs are in this business to make money? OMG!
You seem to approve.

Let me give you another scenario. What if CPU vendor A were able to influence major OS vendor B to optimize the software to work better on A's products? What if A were the dominant CPU manufacturer? What if B were the dominant OS manufacturer? Sounds like collusion to me.

Of course game developers want to make money, any business does (unless they are not-for-profit or an internet company ;)), but accepting "bribes" is disgusting.

I'll give you another metaphor. Let's say that gasoline company C convinces auto producer D to make engines that work better with C's gasoline. How does this help the consumer?

-FUDie
 
Fuz said:
Jesus friggin Christ!!!

I am starting to get pissed, not at Nvidia, but at ATI!

I am not saying I agree with what Nv is doing, but the bottom line is, it is working!

ATI needs to start playing the same game Nv has been playing for years now. Fight fire with fire, damn it!

jmho of course.
I'd rather see ATI continue to make excellent hardware, wouldn't you? You really think that ATI should waste money and resources on "bribes"?

Sounds like you've bought into NVIDIA's tactics alright.

-FUDie
 
FUDie said:
Let me give you another scenario. What if CPU vendor A were able to influence major OS vendor B to optimize the software to work better on A's products? What if A were the dominant CPU manufacturer? What if B were the dominant OS manufacturer? Sounds like collusion to me.

Stuff like is already happening, and has been.

I remember a little while ago about a benchmark that had some P4 optimizations in them and so it made the Athlon look like crap. Do you really believe Intel had nothing to do with that?

Any optimizations ever made, whether it's gas or computers, helps the consumers that buy those products.

To me, it seems you think all businesses should be fair. But that's not how it is, nor will ever be, at least in the near future. Companies (and individuals) will take advantages and use them. Sure, not all will, but usually the ones who don't, end up behind.
 
LOOK! Given a chance I would rip all of you off and make you all eat breakfast on my foot. ;) :LOL:

j/k

Seriously:
Bribes are a good source of extra income. Even though the consumers will not be better off.
 
FUDie said:
I'd rather see ATI continue to make excellent hardware, wouldn't you? You really think that ATI should waste money and resources on "bribes"?

I too want to see ATI continue making great hardware, but that alone is not going to be enough. Making great hardware is a step in the right direction, but certainly not the last step.

Wasting money on 'bribes' (as you put it) will result in more profits, eventually. I wouldn't call that a 'waste', more like an investment.

And no, I haven't bought into nvidia's tactics, I just see Nvidia's marketing team doing a better job than ATI's marketing team.

Regarding S.T.A.L.K.E.R, if the devs are to be believed, it seems ATI are the only ones to blame on this one. Apparently, the devs tried contacting ATI for months, but got no response.
 
FUDie said:
Let me give you another scenario. What if CPU vendor A were able to influence major OS vendor B to optimize the software to work better on A's products? What if A were the dominant CPU manufacturer? What if B were the dominant OS manufacturer? Sounds like collusion to me.

It would be collusion only if it were for an illegal purpose.
 
Why do people make excuses for such things?

It is true that such things happen often.

It is true that such things offend some people, and some people don't care.

It is true that not everyone does things like this, and that doing things like this is not the only option for successful game releases.

If it doesn't offend you, why are you making an issue of someone else being offended? Why say someone else should not be offended with your reasoning being that you personally are not?
If you'd intend to make a case that having one vendor will enhance progress and lower costs, or that such statements made in game forums have no impact, I'd wonder what you've observed that seems to indicate that will be the result from this.
If you'd imply everyone does things like this, I'd respond that such is both untrue and irrelevant to anyone who isn't gaining benefit from this, short or long term.

It seems to me that product evolution is fastest and pricing lowest when those determining evolution and pricing have to compete with others. This gives more pricing control to the consumer.

It seems to be true that this doesn't serve consumers when it is in actuality "exclusive" support, since it has a negative impact on those excluded (the benefit of cross-vendor APIs, I'd think), and shifts pricing and evolution control to one party (the one who benefits from higher prices).

It seems to be true that this doesn't serve consumers when it is portrayed as "exclusive" support when in actuality it is not, since it can mislead those "excluded", and also shifts pricing and evolution control to the same one party.

Why would it be invalid for consumers to find such practices undesirable and vote with their money accordingly? That is the type of choice they would prefer to retain, since their influence on evolution is even more limited.

It seems that it does serve people in the short term to say things that get them more money, whether those things have to be true to get that money or not.
In my opinion, publishers as a whole don't care, but not caring doesn't have anything to do with whether other people should care or not.

In terms of correlating things said elsewhere:

I don't buy that ATI devrel gave them the cold shoulder for support...I don't see any correlation whatsoever for that in what others say about dealing with ATI devrel, or in my limited personal experience as some "no name" who emailed them with my own questions.



Considering these things, I conclude that the contents of that text is bought and paid for propaganda...possibly decided upon by the person making the statements, or possibly decided by marketing/higher management and dictated to them, but in any case made for the purposes of IHV promotion in exchange for funding. It seems worded like it, and apparent contradiction to prior statements make it seem even moreso. Note, this doesn't make all of it untrue, or even my conclusion definitely right.

In terms of those making money, the question is whether they encourage people to switch to the IHV sponsoring them after buying their game, or instead encourage people to avoid their game, and how that affects their bottom line. The choice for the developers (as much as that is separated from the above) is a matter of their unique choices, values, and preferences, with as much latitude is allowed by deadlines and funding limitations (which is controlled by the "making money" part above).

No one is saying it is new, AFAICS, just that it is becoming more apparent. BTW, I think ATI marketing is learning. I'd prefer they'd spend more time and energy on other things, but the reasoning seems to be that because I have no choice in the matter of whether they have to adapt to this approach or not, that I shouldn't have a preference...?
 
Fuz said:
Regarding S.T.A.L.K.E.R, if the devs are to be believed, it seems ATI are the only ones to blame on this one. Apparently, the devs tried contacting ATI for months, but got no response.
You said it correctly: If the devs are to be believed. Where do you think they got the 9700s they were developing their game on to begin with? :rolleyes:

-FUDie
 
Lezmaka said:
FUDie said:
Let me give you another scenario. What if CPU vendor A were able to influence major OS vendor B to optimize the software to work better on A's products? What if A were the dominant CPU manufacturer? What if B were the dominant OS manufacturer? Sounds like collusion to me.

It would be collusion only if it were for an illegal purpose.
Maybe I should have used the word "unethical". Of course I know it's not illegal.

-FUDie
 
FUDie said:
What if CPU vendor A were able to influence major OS vendor B to optimize the software to work better on A's products? What if A were the dominant CPU manufacturer? What if B were the dominant OS manufacturer? Sounds like collusion to me.

If B asked A for help because the OS ran poorly or the architecture was complex, then I still don't see any problems with that. However, if A said "If you want any help in the future or continue to want pre-release info/cpus for testing, then you'll need to optimize for our CPU" that would be wrong.

But from I can tell, they did ask for help from nvidia, and they gave it to them. And from what I've read, they asked ATI for help as well and they apparently sent them some 9700's but it's unclear if they helped in any way beyond that.
 
Back
Top