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.
