Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

[BenSkywalker]

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).

Advanced functionality in PC games is DX8 level right now, even then there isn't much exploitation of those features. ATi had a press release that they managed to ship 1Million DX9 parts in five months. nV is planning on besting that in their first month of volume shipment. Right now in the PC gaming market nVidia dominates. There has already been market evidence of this displayed, although I understand some may be unfamiliar enough with the scales of the market to think that a $300-$400 part will have any meaningful impact in terms of marketshare. Much as 3dfx dominated the gaming market for quite some time after they lost their technological edge, nVidia is still dominating it today.

It won't be purely an Nvidia game it doesnt make economic sense, if its an out of this world blockbuster and would sell say 2 million copies, being a Nvidia only game you can immediately cut out 1 million of those sales minimum.

Goldeneye sold 10Million, Halo has sold over 3Million and is still selling well. From everything that has been stated, and much of it does appear speculative, HL2 is a game that is nearing launch. It could very well be a DX8 level game and could end up on the current XBox. If the extensive rumors that have been circulating for some time about MS courting Valve for, at the very least, a timed XB exclusive on HL2, have validity it is certainly within reason that they are covering a large amount of the cash outlay that would make a deal woth doing to Valve. MS using their leverage to entice nVidia for a better pricing structure by offering the chance for enhanced/exclusive content is certainly within the realm of the possible.

I don't think it is likely that HL2 would be nVidia exclusive on the PC. I do see it being a possibility however. About a console cycle ago Glide was still a major force in PC gaming. In hardware advancement terms that is obviously a long time; in game development terms it isn't. Many devs could be less then two projects removed from a proprietary API approach on the PC.

 

[demalion]

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).

Advanced functionality in PC games is DX8 level right now, even then there isn't much exploitation of those features.

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all. Except like in the way that Cg doesn't support PS 1.4, so what it would mean is "excluding" the 8500/9100 from performing as well as it could, which has been proposed as the most reasonable interpretation. What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg. Perhaps they simply mean Cg exclusively for nvidia cards, and DX 9 HLSL for everyone else. If you try to sell Cg as a "unique", that might fly.

ATi had a press release that they managed to ship 1Million DX9 parts in five months. nV is planning on besting that in their first month of volume shipment.

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

Right now in the PC gaming market nVidia dominates. There has already been market evidence of this displayed, although I understand some may be unfamiliar enough with the scales of the market to think that a $300-$400 part will have any meaningful impact in terms of marketshare.

"some"? Whomever could you be trying to deprecate indirectly?

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We need to make up our mind on whether we're talking about the existing DX 8 base, or DX 9 features in this discussion...we're discussing marketshare and how it applies to "exclusivity" and "some" seem to be arbitrarily equating DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9 to do so (with DX 9 cards already sold being treated is irrelevant). I could use some stronger connections, which is why I am asking the questions that I am.

Much as 3dfx dominated the gaming market for quite some time after they lost their technological edge, nVidia is still dominating it today.

Well, the context of your 3dfx comparison seems valid to me, as does the rest of your post, except as it pertains to what I've addressed above.

EDIT: clarity

 

[parhelia]

Some of you say it's impossible to make a DX game work only on nVidia cards, but just remember Gun Metal which only works with Geforce (ok, so 3d analyze cracked it, but still...) and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce

 

[FUDie]

and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce

What? You mean I didn't play this on my Radeon 9700? Man, I gotta lay off the hard stuff.

 

[SpellSinger]

Some of you say it's impossible to make a DX game work only on nVidia cards, but just remember Gun Metal which only works with Geforce (ok, so 3d analyze cracked it, but still...) and Metal Gear Solid 2 which only works with geforce

Yeti released a patch in January for other products. Gun Metal was doing a device ID check which really sucked and was cracked within a day of being released. I noticed they also ripped down all the nVidia partner info from their web site. MGS2 has publicly stated they are working with ATI to fix their problems.

 

[Vince]

and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

I don't know WTF your reading, but the quote stated the following:

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

You then objected to this 'hard' statistical evidence by quoting the following as your proof:

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.

So, what can we take from this?

-Nvidia has solid, recorded statistical evidence proving that it's gained maketshare during the quarter the 9700 launched
-Analysts "claim" that the 9700 will pick-up in sales. No hard evidence, just the analysts opinion. And we've all seen the analysts predictions in the past
-These same Analysts also state that the NV30's in "Low availiablilty." So, you don't think that just as the 9700 sales pick-up, they won't be lost or at the least, counter-balanced by the NV3x line?

I so hate arguing with you, can be such an ass... twisting linguistsics to meet your idologies and not looking for the underlying truth that the linguistics are trying to describe. You also quote everything, and I mean everything, and then pull this "you missed my one line, line 9721 in paragraph 327, thus your avoiding the question"

If you'd look at the empirical evidence and nVidia's sales without putting any specific IHV linking in to the equation, you'd see just how brilliant this could be; if as Dave Baumann stated, this doesn't backfire.

Yeti released a patch in January for other products. Gun Metal was doing a device ID check which really sucked and was cracked within a day of being released.

Do you realize that you're only bolstering my (and to an extend Ben's) argument? Your thinking is illogical and wrong; as that patch which you think magically rectifies the situation does so only for a small, insignificant, size piece of the PC userbase. Most people, unlike yourself, have no idea where to even find the god damn patch.

Case in point, I've basically stopped playing PC games. I decided a few weeks ago to try out this whole Counter-Strike 1.6 thing, but you need Steam. I went to www.counter-strike.net and found you need Steam, but no link. Alrighty then. I went to www.steampowered.com and couldn't find where to download the Beta of it, only saw messages about how Steam was suspended after initial problems and that it'll be back up ASAP. Alrighty then. It wasn't untill a few weeks later that I was like, 'lets google this and see what I can find,' that I found a place to download it from.

The underlying ideology to take from this tale is that when your not in this nerdy 'loop' of whats "going-down" and where the "in" places are to get his stuff from - you have no idea where in this massive internet to look.

Unlike me, the average person wouldn't have continued to look for Steam.

 

[Dave Baumann]

FYI, Mercury 'Research' numbers aren't necessarily the best to go by since they only go to the IHV's and ask "how many chips have you sold", which is kinda open to abuse. Peddie reports are usually better since he at least tries to tie that up with actual sales as well.

 

[MfA]

Vince : Valve tied the CS 1.6 to steam unfortunately, which they arent ready to distribute in a finalized state yet. It is not easily found because they dont want your average person to find it at the moment. In a simular situation with a more orderly distribution method the software simply wouldnt be out at all yet.

Hell in your strict and orderly dream world CS would never have gotten off the ground.

 

[demalion]

and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

I don't know WTF your reading, but the quote stated the following:

Did you requote this part again in isolation to distance it from the part that had to do with my claim? Let me put the part I was referring to in proximity, so people can see if it agrees with my outlook on marketshare (which was, since you didn't quote it, "Anyways, I thought it (R300 sales) quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it?").

"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." EDIT: fixed quote

Looks like agreement to me. I'll let others judge for themselves. On to the rest of your selective repetition of your statements and ignoring of comments that seem to indicate you just might be wrong in something:

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

You then objected to this 'hard' statistical evidence by quoting the following as your proof:

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.

So, what can we take from this?

-Nvidia has solid, recorded statistical evidence proving that it's gained maketshare during the quarter the 9700 launched

3rd quarter ends in September, right? By your logic, the 9700 is a significant factor, and not the 8500, for being available at all for about a month, and available in quantity for...how many weeks? Or did it go from not available to maximum sales instantly?

-Analysts "claim" that the 9700 will pick-up in sales. No hard evidence, just the analysts opinion. And we've all seen the analysts predictions in the past

Analysts' opinions are both good and bad, but let's just selectively assume "bad" instead of recognizing any inconvenient counter-evidence, right? By ignoring the 3dmark 2001 results (which seem to support what the analysts said, and is "hard data" you seem to be determined to disregard), stating that the limited availability time for the R300 doesn't matter at all in regards to the statements because "analysts said them" (and not Vince), heck, basically just ignoring anything that is inconvenient as far as you believing and stating what you wish, you don't make your argument more valid, Vince. A discussion is addressing what other people said, not just repeating what you said over and over, with name calling sprinkled in. Atleast, in my opinion, it is supposed to be that way among adults.

-These same Analysts also state that the NV30's in "Low availiablilty." So, you don't think that just as the 9700 sales pick-up, they won't be lost or at the least, counter-balanced by the NV3x line?

Vince, you are living in a time dilated world of your own devising. The results you quote were from last year. The 9700 has been selling for 2 quarters since then. NOW, the nv30 is becoming available...it isn't impacting the sales figures from after 3rd quarter 2002, it is impacting the figures from after 1st quarter 2003 But it does seem convenient for you to pretend those two things are the same.

I so hate arguing with you, can be such an ass... twisting linguistsics to meet your idologies and not looking for the underlying truth that the linguistics are trying to describe.

If "being an ass" means disagreeing with you and not being swayed because I consider your argument support ridiculous, I plainly suggest you grow up.

Your solution seems to be to maintain your argument is valid and use name calling and ignoring criticisms and contradicting statements to support that.

You also quote everything, and I mean everything, and then pull this "you missed my one line, line 9721 in paragraph 327, thus your avoiding the question"

I don't say "you missed my one line", I say you miss my meaning, or that you ignore large bodies of reasoning just to restate your own "reasoning" in a vacuum and avoid any discussion of flaws that may have been proposed.
For example, look at my addressing of your "reductionist argument" that you didn't quote. You are still using it on your end, but the faults I pointed out are still pertinent. By not quoting my discussion of it, all you are doing is pretending I didn't point out the faults. Another example: instead of quoting my discussion of the article you linked, you re-quote the exact same text and ignore the interpretation I provided (except for a partial quote of the end of 1 sentence in a post to someone else). That didn't save space, that simply avoided addressing the reasoning I provided.

Saying "line 9721 in paragraph 327" doesn't change that.

I quote all of your text because there is so little in the way of it that I find with valid support, and so I find myself disagreeing with almost all of it. If it is repetitive, it is because your text is saying the same thing over and over.

If you'd look at the empirical evidence and nVidia's sales without putting any specific IHV linking in to the equation, you'd see just how brilliant this could be; if as Dave Baumann stated, this doesn't backfire.

Hmm...if you selectively look at the empirical evidence, as I've stated before, provided support for, and you continue to skip over. Pretending your "empirical data" is absolutely valid, and maintaining that "reductionist" argument you proposed (by ignoring my detailed criticism of it when making this post), and ignoring the "empricial data" that does not support your statements...just maybe you're responsible for me finding fault with your posts, Vince.

I think others have addressed the rest of your post. Whether you will listen or not to their replies and mine remains to be seen. The "empirical data" suggests not.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all.

It was in reference to the DX9 availability more then anything. Most devs could easily be targetting a GF3 right now with anything close to completion(within the next year or so anyway). The availability of DX9 level boards is great to build installed base to convince developers to start using the functions, but with very few exceptions it isn't going to impact developers that the technology is simply available.

What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg.

A good deal of the games we are seeing that are utilizing DX8 level features have a XBox port(or are an XBox port). If it aint broke....

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

There is a huge difference between PR hype around a product release and financial claims to shareholders. If PR blows up you have egg on your face. Misleading investors can land you in jail.

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We have now entered the third quarter from when those numbers were taken. In the quarter following the one Vince listed the R9700 boards, which is what was being discussed, were in fact $300-$400. They were also at that price point last quarter right up until a few weeks prior to the end. They would not have any meaningful impact on marketshare. For the R9500 line, they were simply not distributed widely enough to make a major impact(even then, the ~$150-$200 market is far smaller then the sub $100 level, although it is much larger then the $300-$400 range). To date I have seen as many R9500 boards in B&Ms as I have 5800Ultras(that would be one unit each ).

We need to make up our mind on whether we're talking about the existing DX 8 base, or DX 9 features in this discussion...we're discussing marketshare and how it applies to "exclusivity" and "some" seem to be arbitrarily equating DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9 to do so (with DX 9 cards already sold being treated is irrelevant). I could use some stronger connections, which is why I am asking the questions that I am.

Features has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really(except noting current dev targets). I'm talking about financials. For the typical PC gamer pretty much anyone on this board could make it 'exclusive' to only one board with very little trouble. Sure, most of us would have no problem at all cracking/hacking it, but the typical PC gamer that runs the same drivers their board shipped with won't.

nVidia's marketshare level in the PC gaming market is such that developers making exclusive content for them is a much larger potential base then it was during the Glide days focusing on 3dfx hardware(not in percentage terms, but absolute numbers).

My end in this discussion is focusing on the possible business and marketplace ramifications. There are far more nVidia using PC gamers then there are ATi using PC gamers. nVidia is the core chip in the XBox and ports between the PC and the XBox are relatively simple. MS is trying to land as much exclusive content as they can. MS and nVidia were having disputes over pricing and that could come up again. A business deal where MS covers exclusitivity status for a timed XBox release and slips in a clause here or there to help nVidia out on the condition of lower pricing is something I see MS more then willing to take part in, as is the case with nVidia. MS's goal with the XBox in terms of commited capital, allows them enough to make developers offers they couldn't reasonably refuse.

I do not think that HL2 will be nVidia exclusive on the PC, although I can certainly see it being XBox exclusive on a timed basis at least. I do however see the logic behind it(nV exclusive) being possible taken from all angles involved in a deal. You could well end up with a win/win/win in terms of the companies that would be taking part. MS gets their prestige which drives marketshare and better pricing structure, Valve gets their truckloads of cash, and nVidia gets a weapon that is potentially far more lethal to ATi then any benchmark chart to John Q Gamer.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

What about those that are considering upgrading and more importantly what about potential OEM sales? 'By our PC that can't play the biggest game of the year' doesn't quite have a good ring to it

People who bought a R300 based board are lost for this generation for nVidia for the most part. But the other ~thirty-fifty million PC gamers are not, and that and OEM contracts is where nVidia stands to gain ground.

As far as people getting rid of a $200 card for the sake of being able to play a game, I don't think it would be common however I did just last week(my former Radeon9500Pro is now 3,000 miles away from my rig and my new GF4 should be arriving in the next couple of days). For those people running a RadeonVE/GeForce2MX that are looking to upgrade and having trouble deciding the ability to play HL2 versus not could very easily close the deal.

 

[Mariner]

I've not read much of this thread but perhaps this rumour is just another ploy by the evil ( ) NVidia PR department to try and increase sales of the unimpressive GFFXs!

P.S. Just kidding. 8)

 

[Dave Baumann]

What about those that are considering upgrading and more importantly what about potential OEM sales? 'By our PC that can't play the biggest game of the year' doesn't quite have a good ring to it

What, you mean they've got the next Sims exclusive? Thats probably the type of thing that most OEM's are going to be careful of. The number of support calls they will recieve for a 3D title will be far fewer than the 'really' popular titles.

 

[demalion]

I understand that, but I don't understand how that works into anything "exclusive" at all.

It was in reference to the DX9 availability more then anything. Most devs could easily be targetting a GF3 right now with anything close to completion(within the next year or so anyway). The availability of DX9 level boards is great to build installed base to convince developers to start using the functions, but with very few exceptions it isn't going to impact developers that the technology is simply available.

Hmm...I'm still not understanding your point about "exclusive". I'm not saying it is "simply available", but that it is available and that indications show is having a significant impact on the user base. Also, offering DX 9 shader support should not be significantly harder than offering DX 8 support...it can be a matter of enhancement, not a radical shift as utilizing shaders in the first place can be.

What is mystifying is what is preventing them from using DX 9 HLSL if they are using Cg.

A good deal of the games we are seeing that are utilizing DX8 level features have a XBox port(or are an XBox port). If it aint broke....

You are seamlessly connecting XBox to nvidia exclusive on the PC.

Again, XBox->DX 8 (of DX->X Box) seems like what will actually be the case, why assume "nvidia exclusive" is facilitated? If they are using Cg, why can't they use DX 9 HLSL? Your comment doesn't answer either question AFAICS...something being ported from the XBox doesn't prevent it being implemented on non nVidia DX 8 capable cards.

nVidia has said many things that haven't turned out to be true. They seem to be making a habit of it. My opinion of that statement, therefore, is that it doesn't mean much.

There is a huge difference between PR hype around a product release and financial claims to shareholders. If PR blows up you have egg on your face. Misleading investors can land you in jail.

OK, let's talk about claims to shareholders...IIRC, the wording for the shipping was indicating "expectation", and did not specify a relationship between where they were shipping to and relating that to the actual installed consumer base that would result. This reminds me a great deal of the shipping expectations stated to shareholders for the nv30 arriving last year, and of "performance leadership" claims to shareholders.

Anyways, I thought it quite pertinent to indications of future marketshare, and that seems to be what we're talking about, isn't it? BTW, the 9700 and 9500 cards aren't $300-$400, and Vince has been nice enough to link to comments earlier that seem to agree with my outlook on marketshare.

We have now entered the third quarter from when those numbers were taken. In the quarter following the one Vince listed the R9700 boards, which is what was being discussed, were in fact $300-$400.

I thought we were discussing DX 9 cards? That seems to be what is pertinent to this talk about exclusivity.

They were also at that price point last quarter right up until a few weeks prior to the end.

To address your stipulation, Here is a post from the end of the 3rd quarter (early December).

They would not have any meaningful impact on marketshare.

OK, and your basis for this is...?

For the R9500 line, they were simply not distributed widely enough to make a major impact(even then, the ~$150-$200 market is far smaller then the sub $100 level, although it is much larger then the $300-$400 range).

Why do you make such statements so freely but without support?

I've proposed the 3dmark 2001 figures, addressed Vince's card figures, and looked at trends that seem to indicate the direction that user perception is leading in. I have in mind announced OEM wins for ATI, slow erosion of nVidia hype, and the backlash nVidia earned with the nv30 launch.

I'm not proposing these are absolutely conclusive, but I do propose them as indication that is pertinent to the assumptions being made. If you are going to make such claims in direct contradiction to these indications, I just ask that you provide some alternate figures and interpretation with some sort of logical progression, instead of just making a statement and using it for support as if the evaluation it presents is factual.

To date I have seen as many R9500 boards in B&Ms as I have 5800Ultras(that would be one unit each )

Heh, ok this is support, but it is a pretty limited sampling, don't you agree?

...

Features has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really(except noting current dev targets). I'm talking about financials. For the typical PC gamer pretty much anyone on this board could make it 'exclusive' to only one board with very little trouble. Sure, most of us would have no problem at all cracking/hacking it, but the typical PC gamer that runs the same drivers their board shipped with won't.

Yes, like Gunmetal. How smart was it for Yeti to do that? Does it make as much sense for a company like Valve whose profitability for the PC space seems so firmly tied to user good will and support? I've already covered short term benefits, but I also covered why it seems foolish to me for Valve, or any company focusing on large sales, to specifically target a group of customers to not support.

nVidia's marketshare level in the PC gaming market is such that developers making exclusive content for them is a much larger potential base then it was during the Glide days focusing on 3dfx hardware(not in percentage terms, but absolute numbers).

Ok...so it doesn't matter if you are selling, for example, 50% of what you could if that 50% is a large number? 80%? Let's run with that...if each % is a larger absolute number of sales, wouldn't that also mean that throwing away even 20% would be quite an impact? How does that make sense for Valve, then?

A simple example...what happens when a user runs a different game on their non nVidia card that looks a lot better than Half Life 2 does. Who will lose sales? All this relates to this idea of "exclusive" support.

My end in this discussion is focusing on the possible business and marketplace ramifications. There are far more nVidia using PC gamers then there are ATi using PC gamers.

What is this "far more"? Is it based on market share figures from last year? If so, do you also think the release of the R300 has had no influence on the marketshare, even looking at the things I've mentioned? How about the future?

nVidia is the core chip in the XBox and ports between the PC and the XBox are relatively simple.

I've expressed that I find the XBox->PC ineffectively linked to XBox->nvidia exclusive.

MS is trying to land as much exclusive content as they can.

Exclusive to X Box. Either they don't want it on the PC, or they want it on the PC using their own API, or atleast that is what seems reasonable to me.

MS and nVidia were having disputes over pricing and that could come up again. A business deal where MS covers exclusitivity status for a timed XBox release and slips in a clause here or there to help nVidia out on the condition of lower pricing is something I see MS more then willing to take part in, as is the case with nVidia.

That's pretty one way for nVidia.
Specifically for Valve, it does not make sense for them to participate given the source of their past success and the directions they seem to be indicating. I'm not arguing against the possibility, I'm arguing against this being described as the obvious good thing for Valve to do, and a "brilliant" strategy on nVidia's part.
Hmm..."pay money to developers to support us exclusively because our card is technically weaker than the competition". I just can't see the brilliance in that...it seems rather simple minded and obvious if you have the money.

MS's goal with the XBox in terms of commited capital, allows them enough to make developers offers they couldn't reasonably refuse.

You keep switch MS and nVidia arbitrarily based on your supposition. The only reason it would pan out is if MS stood to lose less money on X Box costs than they would from giving up PC space API control, and that only pans out in the short term. Seems a low price for them to sell that for. Since they do have "adequate" funding, I don't see the incentive on their part to support nVidia's initiative for a short term lessening of impact.

So, I think it comes down to nVidia paying developers for this, not MS, and this having no inherent relationship to X Box implementation. I don't see why a strategy of using DX for PC, and then implement the DX 8 level functionality for porting to the X Box, doesn't maximize opportunity while still allowing sales from both markets.

I do not think that HL2 will be nVidia exclusive on the PC, although I can certainly see it being XBox exclusive on a timed basis at least. I do however see the logic behind it(nV exclusive) being possible taken from all angles involved in a deal. You could well end up with a win/win/win in terms of the companies that would be taking part. MS gets their prestige which drives marketshare and better pricing structure, Valve gets their truckloads of cash, and nVidia gets a weapon that is potentially far more lethal to ATi then any benchmark chart to John Q Gamer.

Perhaps you could my short term/long term post again, here, and tell me where your opinion differs.

EDIT: Oh, take a look at this thread. I think it is pertinent, especially from the linked post downwards.

 

[John Reynolds]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

Hell, when Wing Commander: Prophecy was released my P166 w/32MB and Voodoo 1 couldn't run it quite smoothly enough, so I upgraded my system to a P2 300 w/64MB. Every other single game I bought that fall and Christmas season ran fine on the P166. WC was my first PC love and I am a little weird (OK, more than a little).

 

[Reverend]

I find the idea that people will consider changing $200-$400 video cards for the sake of a game a little far fetched.

Not so far-fetched when there are people with unlimited budget who care more about games than hardware.

 

[Reverend]

BTW, going back to the original discussion, here's an email I received :

We are under NDA concerning any upcoming titles from Valve.

 

[Arun]

BTW, going back to the original discussion, here's an email I received :

We are under NDA concerning any upcoming titles from Valve.

Good ole Brian Burke He's a nice guy, really - but you're never gonna get any info out of him *grins* Trust me, I tried it on the FP16/FP32 issue - the answer I got was quite, err, cryptic ( although I'm partly responsible for asking my question in a so cryptic way too )

Anyway, companies generally got 2 phrases to respond to such inquiries:
1. We do not comment on rumors or speculation.
2. I/We are under NDA concerning this. ( or "We are not authorized to disclose this information at this time", if not really under NDA )

But in a way, you've also got to realize he didn't deny it... While I doubt Valve would have disagreed to deny such a rumor if it was false, since it *can* damage them.
Hmm...


Uttar

 

[Reverend]

I have a long history with Butthead (that's what I call Brian when I write him), so I know what he's like :

a) when it comes to sensitive issues
b) when it comes to non-sensitive issues

Brian is a very good PR personnel, that's all I can say about him.