Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

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.
 
BoardBonobo said:
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
 
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:
 
Man this guy just loves to argue about dumb things:

demalion said:
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
AJ said:
BoardBonobo said:
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?
 
Vince said:
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"?

demalion said:
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.
 
demalion said:
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.

Look at this said:
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...
 
demalion said:
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.
 
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).
 
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).
 
Vince said:
demalion said:
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!

Look at this said:
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?
 
Vince said:
demalion said:
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?
 
LeStoffer said:
Rubish news! :eek:

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.
 
Vince said:
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.
 
ET said:
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.
 
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. :-?
 
ET said:
...

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).
 
Back
Top