"An interview with Richard Huddy & Kevin Strange

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Heavily linked to Nvidia ?

You're right, he phrased that badly...it should be "Heavily biased towards nVidia?" 8)

Should it? 8)

 

[nelg]

I wna tto know just like anand wants to know . If this can indeed be done on ps 2.0 hardware why wasn't it ?

Its this a result of twimtp ?

What I want to know is why should they have done it in ps 2.0?

Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more ps 2.0 capable cards in the market than ps 3.0 . This is a business decision plain and simple. As either Dave or Reverend pointed out recently (IIRC), games generate most of there income a short while after being released. The work that goes into making a patch generates a disproportionately small amount of revenue for developers. So in a way you are correct. By doing this only for SM 3.0 they are generating more income, assuming they were paid by Nvidia, than they would by producing a non commissioned patch.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I wna tto know just like anand wants to know . If this can indeed be done on ps 2.0 hardware why wasn't it ?

Its this a result of twimtp ?

What I want to know is why should they have done it in ps 2.0?

Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more ps 2.0 capable cards in the market than ps 3.0 . This is a business decision plain and simple. As either Dave or Reverend pointed out recently (IIRC), games generate most of there income a short while after being released. The work that goes into making a patch generates a disproportionately small amount of revenue for developers. So in a way you are correct. By doing this only for SM 3.0 they are generating more income, assuming they were paid by Nvidia, than they would by producing a non commissioned patch.

Unless you want to licence the engine out (which Crytek do), in which case not supporting the vast majority of DX9/SM2.0 cards in the market is a serious handicap. It's all the more weird as ATI is listed as a partner on their website right next to Nvidia.

The only thing I can think of is that this might be some kind of exclusive content deal with Nvidia to help publicise NV40 now that it is actually beginning to trickle out. In a couple of months, we may see another patch with SM2.0 improvements/effects that will benefit the R420/R423.

 

[trinibwoy]

Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more ps 2.0 capable cards in the market than ps 3.0 . This is a business decision plain and simple.

And a good one at that based on your following comment

As either Dave or Reverend pointed out recently (IIRC), games generate most of there income a short while after being released. The work that goes into making a patch generates a disproportionately small amount of revenue for developers.

Many arguments are being made on the assumption that developers have some moral obligation to please the masses. I doubt anybody would deny themselves the experience of playing Far Cry just because v1.2 or further patches will only enable features for certain cards. If anything the biggest impact on the consumer would be Nvidia's goal - for them to perceive the NV4x as being more feature rich and choosing it over R420. This perception is not entirely unfounded either.

 

[jvd]

I wna tto know just like anand wants to know . If this can indeed be done on ps 2.0 hardware why wasn't it ?

Its this a result of twimtp ?

What I want to know is why should they have done it in ps 2.0?

why shouldn't it be done ?

Why should there be a patch for it for p.s 3.0. Why not just wait till 4.0

 

[karlotta]

Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more ps 2.0 capable cards in the market than ps 3.0 . This is a business decision plain and simple.

And a good one at that based on your following comment

As either Dave or Reverend pointed out recently (IIRC), games generate most of there income a short while after being released. The work that goes into making a patch generates a disproportionately small amount of revenue for developers.

Many arguments are being made on the assumption that developers have some moral obligation to please the masses. I doubt anybody would deny themselves the experience of playing Far Cry just because v1.2 or further patches will only enable features for certain cards. If anything the biggest impact on the consumer would be Nvidia's goal - for them to perceive the NV4x as being more feature rich and choosing it over R420. This perception is not entirely unfounded either.

Hello? realworld? come in real world. they need to sell games, they want it to be a great experiance for all consummers on all platforms. Do you understand that?
anyways if the bugs are out for the nv3x s then this is a good patch. Just how long will it take for the 1.3 patch which WILL have perfomance for 2.0 hardware. I bet when the $$ runs out from nvda.. How does any sane person get 25% gain...? Thats like a DOOM3 demo we saw over a year ago.....

 

[jvd]

all the optimizations were on for these . that is how they gain so much .

 

[nelg]

Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that there are orders of magnitudes more ps 2.0 capable cards in the market than ps 3.0 . This is a business decision plain and simple.

And a good one at that based on your following comment

As either Dave or Reverend pointed out recently (IIRC), games generate most of there income a short while after being released. The work that goes into making a patch generates a disproportionately small amount of revenue for developers.

Many arguments are being made on the assumption that developers have some moral obligation to please the masses. I doubt anybody would deny themselves the experience of playing Far Cry just because v1.2 or further patches will only enable features for certain cards. If anything the biggest impact on the consumer would be Nvidia's goal - for them to perceive the NV4x as being more feature rich and choosing it over R420. This perception is not entirely unfounded either.

Well, in the context of your earlier question...

I'm not sure I understand this claim. Are you saying that when Nvidia approached Crytek to support SM3.0 they explicitly forbade them from also implementing the new features in SM2.0 ?

Yes that is what is being implied. The problem I and many have is that it is being done for monetary reasons while being passed off as if it were for technical reasons. All IMHO.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Here's another Richard Huddy Interview. I suspect that the guys at 3DCenter may be a little pissed off with this as, from the very quick skim through I've had, it appears to offer a little more in content.

 

[MrBond]

Looks like they just asked better/different questions.

We don't intend to invest money in getting our logo into the splash screens of games since we thank that is amazingly unproductive.

Take that!

 

[Geo]

Good grief:

World-wide, ATI has seeded approaching ten thousand graphics cards to game developers over the last two years. And that's purely with the aim of ensuring that people who buy our graphics cards get the best possible experience. That's a pretty expensive commitment from ATI.

I suppose those aren't all top-of-the-line cards, but still! That's gotta add a few bucks to the price of an X800!

 

[Atomahawk]

Probably part of their R&D tax right off. Makes a lot of sense when you really need proper support for your hardware.

 

[Atomahawk]

That Hexus interview was really a great read, seemed to be mostly honest answers from a guy that enjoys what he does. A bit of PR but nothing that would be considered pure BULL.

 

[Simon F]

Here's another Richard Huddy Interview.

From that article:

Richard is a veteran of the 3D graphics industry. Having previously held positions, amongst others, at Rendermorphics

We had a few meetings with them before the MS thing. I wonder if he was there then?
I remember trying to explain (a few times) why we didn't store textures in raster order. I think it was a bit of a surprise to software people.

 

[Diplo]

ATI is the kind of company that NVIDIA always wanted to be. It's not just successful, but it is also technology led, inclusive, and is very honest, both with its customers and with its-self.

That's all very well and nice, but at the end of the day I don't really care too much for which is the "better" company, just what graphics cards they produce. If Nvidia produce the better card I'll buy it and the same goes for ATI. I suspect neither will have a monopoly on producing the best products in the long term. Whether ATI is better to work for or has a better 'ethos' is interesting to read, but ultimately has little impact on my purchasing decisions. *shrug*

 

[jb]

That's all very well and nice, but at the end of the day I don't really care too much for which is the "better" company, just what graphics cards they produce. If Nvidia produce the better card I'll buy it and the same goes for ATI. I suspect neither will have a monopoly on producing the best products in the long term. Whether ATI is better to work for or has a better 'ethos' is interesting to read, but ultimately has little impact on my purchasing decisions. *shrug*

Ohh I agree with you 100%. However if you have a case where both cards are more or less equal (meaning company A does XYZ better than the others while company B does UVW better than the others). So with a case were either is the right choice what else do you base your buying choice on? Luck of the draw? Color of the card? Some would make the choice based on who they beleieve is the better company of the two....

 

[Diplo]

So with a case were either is the right choice what else do you base your buying choice on? Luck of the draw? Color of the card?

Price Then I'd probably go on over-clockability and the reputation of the actual IHV.