Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

[demalion]

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

http://playstation2-linux.com/

:Shock at how little this guy knows:

Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box.

There are also several games that I know of for PS2 that have editors built in as well - the recently released broadband capable MidnightClubII comes to mind.

Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

Again, your soo very out of touch - your comments reak of ignorance.

That answers my statements so eloquently.

Go ask Archie in the Console forum (former Square programmer) why SquareSoft doesn't put the Final Fantasy series on XBox. The truth is, porting to even a closed box system like XBox would require such a massive retooling for Square that it's not finacially viable for the returns.

Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...

And thats for a closed box!! Inagine having to deal with the PC and it's open enviroment where no two systems are alike!!

Like...Valve...does...already? Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?

It's easy for someone like you to state that "porting to every platform is better than one or two", but to the company's CFO and the bean counters who have to make this financially viable - it's imposible.

Yeah...that's what I stated.
Here I excise your run on about porting from PS2 to the PC due my eyes hurting from prior boggling today (warming up for future discussions).

And this ties into nVidia exclusive development on the PC, how?

Design to a Console, port to the PC IHV that supplies the consoles 3D subsystem and you have the best of both worlds.

Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC? Do you read a sentence of mine and decide to disagree with it, completely forgetting the prior statements you made?
Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.
Way to provide coherency.

That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.

Again, you stated:

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.

Ah, X Box Linux. Why'd you link to PS 2 Linux above? Could you provide some info on how depending on that is a more successful strategy than releasing a PC game (getting sales in a separate market and still getting the content)? If its the solution to consumer created content for a console only game, it must have a pretty large user base, right?

How does a PC release preclude this? In fact, it would seem to make sense to have a PC release widely distributed first, build community support, so content could then be offered for this hypothetical console title in exactly the way you state. Do you begin to see the problem I have with the parallel you draw to automatic nVidia exclusivity?

Again, economies of scale and the related costs to maintain these seperate platforms is prohibited.

How can I argue with such an eloquently utilized catch phrase?

How about you go talk to a real developer in the console room?

Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

 

[MfA]

PS2 Linux, well that gives you a huge pool of potential community based development that does.

 

[Vince]

PS2 Linux, well that gives you a huge pool of potential community based development that does.

I'm sure someone said the same about the first PC developers who distributed their text games on floppies in zip-lock bags. Give it time Marco...

You may be correct, but your example is poor. Many of the Final Fantasy games are available for PCs and an Xbox is not that much different from a PC.

Hmm... I gotcha, and I appologize for stating it poorly. To articulate it better, from what I've heard the initial costs to re-tool and equipt their studios for other platforms is an enormous upfront cost. Not only in hardware, but talent and training, etc. Thus, your probobly correct in the content being similiar, but the problem for the financially inclined is getting to that point.

 

[MfA]

To let ourselves become dependent on architectures whos existence and continued development depend on the whims of a single party would be a bad mistake. If open development versions of consoles become as prevalent as PCs are now, and free software inevitably starts cutting into Sony's bottom line one way or the other (which after all depends on their tight control on distribution on the normal consoles) Sony will drop them like a hot potato.

 

[Vince]

To let ourselves become dependent on architectures whos existence and continued development depend on the whims of a single party would be a bad mistake. If open development versions of consoles become as prevalent as PCs are now, and free software inevitably starts cutting into Sony's bottom line one way or the other (which after all depends on their tight control on distribution on the normal consoles) Sony will drop them like a hot potato.

Very true, but at this point SCE controls the number of kits sold. Besides, I think we've covered the true purpose of the Linux kit in the console forum enough.

But, I think your right overall. But, just as the PC OS buisness has showed that people like simplicity and ease of use even if that comes at the expense of true competition; I can't help but think this trend will carry over into the Living Room. I never said it was a good thing, which is what people often mistake about my comments. There's a diffrence between a good thing and an inevitable thing.

 

[MfA]

PCs wont go anywhere soon, the people who are the ones who would give up their free time for community based projects are most of the time the same ones who would sooner spend a little more money on their PC (which they will continue to have) than on a expensive dev model of a console ... if Sony wants these people to develop content for them it will have to make all their consoles usable for development work.

"I have to add value to their console by investing my time, and I have to pay them extra for the favour ... fuck that."

That will just bring the point where open source software starts competing with their commercial products that much closer, they wont let it happen. One way or the other the console will forever remain a console, they wont turn into homecomputers again.

 

[Vince]

Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box.

I was replying to your statement which wasn't limited to XBox as you said "Consoles". Perhaps you forgot what you stated, so I'll repost it:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? [Bold is Vince]

Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

(a) I don't know the extent that the editors lets you go to. But it's on a console from 2000, sans a HDD or any large storage.
(b) Using Linux and a HDD you can create your own game.

Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.
(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.

Like...Valve...does...already?

HL was built on the proven Quake1 engine they bought off 'id. I can't imagine that they're in-house engine that will be powering HL2 and TF2 will have the same compatability across the spectum of PC's as something like the venerable Q1 engine that was constintly improved and whose code base was updated by 'id' and those others whove licensed the engine. But, I could be wrong.

Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?

Your taking my statement out of context. Please refrain from this and attempt to have an argument based on valid points.

PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.

Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC?

&

Way to provide coherency.

This is coherent because the majority of problems concerning 3D game incompatability are traceable to the 3D subsystem and/or it's drivers. By designing to a MS console based on an nVidia architecture and then porting to the PC space which has that same NVxx line penetration, you're using similiar tool sets and similiar debug, and similar coding practices. You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.

Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.

Your hacking apart my comments and then reassembling them where you want. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

PS2-Linux was in responce to your comment that a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers - which is untrue.

I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console, which is why your responce is so off-the-wall. What I have stated is that with development costs skyrocketing and the PC gaming audience shrinking (while the console market is increasing) - it might be financially better for Valve to taget a Console and then take advanatge of any deal nVidia offers to port it to their similiar hardware. Thus, less problems for Valve, less costs - more upsides.

That's all well and good, and would seem to have nothing at all to do with the issue I had with his statement. Hmm...thanks for the valuable addition to the discussion, though.

Could you provide some info on how depending on that is a more successful strategy than releasing a PC game (getting sales in a separate market and still getting the content)? If its the solution to consumer created content for a console only game, it must have a pretty large user base, right?

There are many ways to justify this:

(a) The Console market is big, look at GTA3/Vice City and their combined half a Billion Dollars(+) in revenue in the last 2 years alone.
(b) By focusing on a Console you free-up time spent on fixes and can create more content.
(c) Consumer created content is great, but even CS (which is perhaps the greatest sucess story to-date) has had developer input and help since early on. [Beta 5.0?]
(d) There will still be a PC following, in the form of the hypothetical nVidia supported hardware. When a Mod goes commerical like CS/that UT one, it could be released to the Consoles in the form of download.
(e) Ways we aren't even thinking of.

Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

Cute, but I'd say if you want their opinion - you go to them. Quite honestly, your not that special asshole. Not everyone has to listen to you and do the work your too lazy to do yourself. If you want their opinions or input or their personal stories of the industry, you go to them.

 

[whql]

(a) The Console market is big, look at GTA3/Vice City and their combined half a Billion Dollars(+) in revenue in the last 2 years alone.

No. The PS2 market is big.

 

[demalion]

Err, umm...I thought we were discussing X Box and "nVidia exclusive"?
I was aware of linux for the Play Station 2, but that seems to have startlingly little bearing on a discussion involving nVidia and Microsoft and X box.

I was replying to your statement which wasn't limited to XBox as you said "Consoles". Perhaps you forgot what you stated, so I'll repost it:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content? [Bold is Vince]

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.
Yes, PS 2 is a console that has remarkably little to do with XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve and the connection Ben, and you, seem to be trying to make with "console exclusive" and "nVidia only on the PC".
Discussing "PS 2" exclusive, ignoring a discussion of Microsoft, nVidia, and nVidia exclusive on the PC, your proposition for PS 2 exclusivity still seems without merit. When not invested in disagreeing with me, you even seem capable of recognizing that.
When you don't have a point to address, what else am I to do but point out that your response is predicated on arguing about the phrase "console exclusive" instead of recognizing that your point does not make sense for the discussion?

Hmm...OK, that must be just like creating a map for half life, right? (I need an emote that stresses one eye at a time, cuz you're killing me).

(a) I don't know the extent that the editors lets you go to. But it's on a console from 2000, sans a HDD or any large storage.

I was talking about Valve and half-life, Vince. Don't you feel a little silly using what is apparently a racing game with an editing function you "don't know the extent" of in reply to that discussion?

(b) Using Linux and a HDD you can create your own game.

Hmm...instead of editing tools on a PC, you are proposing the ability to create your own game on PS 2 Linux because you have "Linux and a HDD"?

Strange that other people port to the X Box, then. Almost as if your statement has little bearing on the issue. Also, that clarifies why you defended Ben's OpenGL comments now...

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.

A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.

(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.

Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).
This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter. The content delivery argument was then offered to continue in that vein of the PC not mattering.
It struck me as remarkably similar to bringing up PS 2 Linux to support the idea of an X Box exclusive of HL 2 by Valve since a PC wasn't needed to provide custom content.
So the answer to my question of whether you just reply for the sake of disagreeing with me would be "yes"? Or is there some other reason you seem to have glossed over my requests to Ben to relate his propositions of "console exclusive" to the discussion on HL 2, X Box, MS and Valve for which he is using it as support?

Like...Valve...does...already?

HL was built on the proven Quake1 engine they bought off 'id. I can't imagine that they're in-house engine that will be powering HL2 and TF2 will have the same compatability across the spectum of PC's as something like the venerable Q1 engine that was constintly improved and whose code base was updated by 'id' and those others whove licensed the engine.

"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?

But, I could be wrong.

Really? You don't say?

Oh wait, there is Linux for the PS 2, all the custom content can be delivered from there and, naturally, any subsequent PC release will be nVidia only, and subsidized by Microsoft.
Or did what I was criticizing get lost somewhere in the shuffle of your rush to disagree with me?

Your taking my statement out of context. Please refrain from this and attempt to have an argument based on valid points.

It seems apparent that what I was criticizing in what you quoted did indeed get lost in the shuffle in a rush to disagree with me. I don't know, I think that's your fault. Clarified above, and in the post you quoted, and many prior posts.

PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.

"This is obvious", "anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game", "creative powers"? You're big on telling someone your statements are valid and theirs are not, but you seem to be deficient in supporting such assertions.

Hmm..."best of both worlds"? What about the customer support and retooling issues you just got through mentioning to justify not bothering with the PC?

&

Way to provide coherency.

This is coherent because the majority of problems concerning 3D game incompatability are traceable to the 3D subsystem and/or it's drivers. By designing to a MS console based on an nVidia architecture and then porting to the PC space which has that same NVxx line penetration, you're using similiar tool sets and similiar debug, and similar coding practices.

You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC". The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing. I've said this to you directly before, Vince, and your reply was to wait until I was discussing it with someone else and re-introduce your approach along with a load of accusations.

You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.

That won't work for exactly the reasons of component compatibility and driver interaction that you proposed as an argument against providing a PC game at all (the graphics driver and card aren't the only set of components and drivers to worry about, despite your assertion that they are all that matter, and circumventing the API does not make sense on the PC). In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue. Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

Hey, how about develop for PC then develop for the simpler and more controlled world of the console afterwards? Oh, wait, you responded to that...with your mention of PS 2 Linux, and saying they wouldn't do the PC at all.

Your hacking apart my comments and then reassembling them where you want. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

No, that is indeed what you said in response to my proposing that, Vince, after you "hacked it apart" to allow you to mention PS 2 Linux more easily (though the "Valve" remaining in the text should have given you a clue to stick to something besides proposing equivalency to an editor for a racing game).

Complaining that I'm "hacking apart your comments" still hasn't providing an answer to my comment.

PS2-Linux was in responce to your comment that a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers - which is untrue.

Too bad you made it up, then. "a Console gamer can't go any programming or designing like his PC brothers". Geeze, Vince.

I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console, which is why your responce is so off-the-wall.

No, just proposed something else with glaring inconsistencies in support as the more viable alternative. Hint: that was not the first time I offered that proposal.

What I have stated is that with development costs skyrocketing and the PC gaming audience shrinking (while the console market is increasing) - it might be financially better for Valve to taget a Console and then take advanatge of any deal nVidia offers to port it to their similiar hardware.

Yes, just like this.

Thus, less problems for Valve, less costs - more upsides.

"I've never stated explicitly why not go PC first and then port to a Console"
Bleh.

Here I snip most of a discussion focused on proposing exactly what you just said you never stated, predicated yet again on ignoring the issues I raised concerning your proposal. I've already noted there is no inherent limit to how often it is possible for a person to repeat their viewpoint without recognizing what others have said in response, so it is something I need to practice.

Selected bits that seem less repetive:

...(c) Consumer created content is great, but even CS (which is perhaps the greatest sucess story to-date) has had developer input and help since early on. [Beta 5.0?]

That's a bit less tasking than doing everything in house...hadn't we agreed on that much?

(d) There will still be a PC following, in the form of the hypothetical nVidia supported hardware. When a Mod goes commerical like CS/that UT one, it could be released to the Consoles in the form of download.

And how would the mod be created in the first place? Your proposed answer is PS 2 Linux, and the now dropped "XBox Linux" that I asked you about after you proposed it.

(e) Ways we aren't even thinking of.

Mod Faeries?
Someone still has to create a mod, and the necessities of artwork and map creation seems pretty well defined for a game like Half Life 2.

Because these forums aren't any harder for them to click on than the Console forums, and I'm already having this discussion here?
Why don't you ask them to come here and provide their take on your re-introduction into the thread and the discussion we are having as a result, and what you are proposing is their viewpoint? It will hopefully be a positive change from the type of posting you seem to be doing now.

Cute, but I'd say if you want their opinion - you go to them.

Which is why I asked you to, Vince, since it is you who wants to propose their opinion as support.

Quite honestly, your not that special asshole.

I'm not proposing that I'm "special", I'm proposing that it is your support that depends on specifying the console developer's opinion on this discussion.
Thanks for the "asshole", though, I wouldn't recognize your posts without it.

Not everyone has to listen to you and do the work your too lazy to do yourself.

Hmm...so I should go validate your argument for you? It is strange for me when you make certain comments, because I try to imagine what it would be like if you took your own advice.

If you want their opinions or input or their personal stories of the industry, you go to them.

Eh? When did I say I wanted them? Did you forget your own words? Twilight zone!

 

[whql]

FYI, for those that think those that are interested in market share numbers:

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/MailHome.asp?datePublish=2003/4/11&pages=13&se q=83

Thanks to ATI’s continuing supply of high-end chips and increasing shipments of its newer products, Gigabyte Technology and CP Technology enjoyed significant growth last month. Gigabyte’s graphics card sales rose 36.4% to NT$195 million from NT$143 million in February. CP Technology broke its record with its March sales of NT$423 million, up 45.9% from the previous month.

In the Nvidia camp, Leadtek Research suffered a decline of 5.7% while Prolink Microsystems reported slight growth of 6.2% in March, both compared to February.

I'd doubt that board vendor growths such as these for the ATI boys are coming without ATI gaining marketshare.

 

[quattro]

half life was built on quake 2 engine. just before you two get too carried away.
now stop this silly topic.

 

[Ichneumon]

half life was built on quake 2 engine. just before you two get too carried away.
now stop this silly topic.

Actually no it wasn't. The original half life game was based on an enhanced Quake1 engine. Heh, it was more like Quake 1.8 engine...

 

[Vince]

Actually no it wasn't. The original half life game was based on an enhanced Quake1 engine. Heh, it was more like Quake 1.8 engine...

Thank you Sir!

 

[Vince]

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.

Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse". Are you not capapable of stating what you mean? Do you have an articulation problem? I'll buy you a dictionary...

Yes, PS 2 is a console that has remarkably little to do with XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve and the connection Ben, and you, seem to be trying to make with "console exclusive" and "nVidia only on the PC".

Infact, it has a remarkable amount in common; to a slight degree it's an established platform whose sales are reflective of a mature name brand and MS will undoubtedly be looking at the PS2's life as a model for XBox Next.

It's major commonality is in demographic - which has shown that the console demographic has shifted to an older audience (Avg. PS2 age is in 20s, XBox's is a bit older), such as Valve targets on the PC, and this will give added confidence to developers that their mature content will find a large home in the massive and still increasing base.

Discussing "PS 2" exclusive, ignoring a discussion of Microsoft, nVidia, and nVidia exclusive on the PC, your proposition for PS 2 exclusivity still seems without merit. When not invested in disagreeing with me, you even seem capable of recognizing that.

I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole. I stated that an XBox launch exclusive would be a plus (as the PS2 has shown PC developers that the userbase is there, both in size and maturity - aswell as the potential for end-user content creation, as seen in PS2-Linux)

You have a problem comprehending the words that are on the screen in front of you and creating a coherent picture of what's being said. Instead you mix ideologies and create what you want out of them, it reminds me of one of my away messages and a memorable quote:

"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." - Anais Nin (1903 - 1977)

When you don't have a point to address, what else am I to do but point out that your response is predicated on arguing about the phrase "console exclusive" instead of recognizing that your point does not make sense for the discussion?

I only hope that you'll think objectivly about this; but appearently you've failed on either the former or later part.

This is a pretty coherient ideology, I'll sum it up quickly and hope you understand it:

PC sales are down, Console sales are up. NGConsole sales will be even higher. Valve could launch their game on XBox next, having designed it's inhouse around the CineFx architecture and circumvent any HAL or high level abstraction (hell, utilize Cg to the fullest) and get absolutly stellar preformance on the Xbox Next. They can do this because the Console demographic is inline with HL's and the potential customers are there for a mature game (eg. Halo, MGS2, GTAx).

If this rumor is true, they can then take advantage of any deal nvidia is offering and produce exclusively utilizing Cg and outputting to the CineFx architecture and extentions.

While many here will oppose me, IMHO, nVidia's shippments of CineFx based accelerators (DX9+) will quickly outstripp those of ATI once nVidia's full line is out in the marketplace in widespread numbers - just as they have historically done. The $99 price point will be a big help, as will their OEM relations.

Thus, to conclude. Valve gets to maximize profits by tageting the XBox/PC and their close platforms; they develop for the same platform (or very close to it, about as homologous as possible on the PC) and can push it using Cg exclusively. They're in a damn good position as they minimize discontinuality between their userbases and needs to spend less on dev rel, customer assisntence, fixing inter-IHV 3D subsystem relkated problems, etc.

All at the cost of ATI and Matrox users. Which, as Valve's numbers (and the only conclusive numbers unless you can produce more tailored to HL exclusively) show that the wide majority of HL users aren't enthusiests, but the more mainstream user. Thus, they can pick them back up in two ways: (a) They own an XBox/Console, (b) They can buy an nVidia card in their PC if they're OEM doesn't already come with one.

I was talking about Valve and half-life, Vince. Don't you feel a little silly using what is apparently a racing game with an editing function you "don't know the extent" of in reply to that discussion?

Not at all, your origional statement was responded correctly by my comment. perhaps you've again forgotten what you stated, so I'll refresh it for you:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

To which there is a growing segment (eg. PS2 Linux and ingame editors) which allow for users to create their own content. PS2-Linux is a great example due to the freedom allowed to the user.


Beyond this, the comment was in the context of HL modifications, in particular, Counter-Strike. Which, if you'd check your history hardly became the mass-phenonima it did untill there was significant developer input (eg. Beta 5.0 -> 1.0 -> 1.6). Thus, using the CS model, I can see how "garage-built" mods can be designed on PS2-Linux like systems and then follow a CS-esque path starting @ Beta 5.0.

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.

A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.

A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

Hell, this is like HighSchool Economics. I think I learned about it in AP Economics when I was 16. Catch-Phrase... heh... here's one for ya - addlepate.

Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).

Ok.. this impacts me how?

This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter.

(a) Your logic isn't based on what he said, it's your interpretation of it (eg. "This seems predicted")
(b) MS's interests on the PC? These being? To elaborate:

Microsoft's interests on the PC front is much more politically motivated than on the Console one. Their DX teams must take influence from ATI and their differing architectures and implimentations and somehow put out a DX revision that mates all the IHV's in some way. Thus, you get this bloated HAL and upper abtraction layers that adds to the confusion.

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.

It struck me as remarkably similar to bringing up PS 2 Linux to support the idea of an X Box exclusive of HL 2 by Valve since a PC wasn't needed to provide custom content.
So the answer to my question of whether you just reply for the sake of disagreeing with me would be "yes"? Or is there some other reason you seem to have glossed over my requests to Ben to relate his propositions of "console exclusive" to the discussion on HL 2, X Box, MS and Valve for which he is using it as support?

I've made my points, if you can't see or comprehend them then I can't do anymore. I replied because your wrong - plain and simple.

"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?

It's called intuition and common sence.

-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

So, you honestly believe an inhouse engine will have the same compability as a two year old liecensed engine thats already in the commerical marketplace and getting patched and updated? Give me a break.

Really? You don't say?

I was being sarcastic, I'm not wrong here.

It seems apparent that what I was criticizing in what you quoted did indeed get lost in the shuffle in a rush to disagree with me. I don't know, I think that's your fault. Clarified above, and in the post you quoted, and many prior posts.

Right.. whatever... good dodge.

"This is obvious", "anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game", "creative powers"? You're big on telling someone your statements are valid and theirs are not, but you seem to be deficient in supporting such assertions.

How so? Go to the link I provided and see what the PS2 community (as an early example of what the console future may hold) is building while you sit on your ass and uptalk the useless rhetoric.

http://playstation2-linux.com/

You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC".

Um, using Cg and outputting your HLSL to a CineFx based processor is an easy port.. Hell, go read the interview by the team that designed the XBox game Wreckless and ask them how easy it was to copy and past nVidia supplied code into their engine!

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing.

Yes they are as the figures demonstrate two things:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind.

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Thus, by the time HL2 is out - if nVidia's sales hold up as they are now (more than likely as they increased in Q4 02 even with R300 beginning) when they bring out the value based DX9 cards and then the DX9 refresh and the NV4x generation, et al. They will flood the market with compatable DX9 accelerators at the $99 price poijnt and below. Which will draw the OEMs to utilize them and complete the cycle as seen in DX7 and DX8.

You can thus code on the console more "to the metal", free of the HAL of DX and extracting greater preformance on XBox - while maintaining more similiar code bases on the PC by focusing on nVidia's underlying architecture.

That won't work for exactly the reasons of component compatibility and driver interaction that you proposed as an argument against providing a PC game at all (the graphics driver and card aren't the only set of components and drivers to worry about, despite your assertion that they are all that matter, and circumventing the API does not make sense on the PC).

The hell it won't. Circumventing the common API (eg. DX and OGl's ARB extentions) is easy if you utilize OGL and code using Cg. Which yeilds a nice increase as seen when running nV30 specific code paths.

In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue.

No you don't. Code to nVidia specific OGL extentions using Cg.

Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

No, other cards don't need to work as I'm making a case for HL2 to be nVidia exclusive. Forget DX, code to OGL IHV specific extentions. Are you not capable of rational thought? This is my whole argument and you fucked it up... you kill me.

And yes, you'd abandon the <DX9/CineFx architectures. But with nVidia having (by then), nV4x based accelerators @ the $99 price point and around two years of DX9 penetration, this will be minimized. Aswell as the casual crowd who won't upgrade to a DX9 accelerator very well may get a XBox/Console.

No, that is indeed what you said in response to my proposing that, Vince, after you "hacked it apart" to allow you to mention PS 2 Linux more easily (though the "Valve" remaining in the text should have given you a clue to stick to something besides proposing equivalency to an editor for a racing game).

Give me a break, do I need to quote you again? Hell, why not:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

Do you understand this? Is the inter-neural pathway linking your frontal lobes with Wernicke's area severed? Seriously, whats your problem in comprehending this?

You asked what Console users are going to create the contet...

I replied, Look at the PS2-Linux community. Whats so fucking hard?

I've tired of your uselessness...

 

[WhiningKhan]

Sorry to interrupt you two lovebirds, I just need up to date info:

Quote:

In order to port to the PC you will already have to code for an API similar to DX, and making the advanced functionality nVidia exclusive will not remove that issue.

No you don't. Code to nVidia specific OGL extentions using Cg

Can you really do that with Xbox? I thought OGL wasn't and never would be an allowed acronym in the House Microsoft.

 

[Vince]

Can you really do that with Xbox? I thought OGL wasn't and never would be an allowed acronym in the House Microsoft.

Yes, it was stated on many times circa 2001 that a developer could code using OGL on XBox. I remember the quintessential example being DoomIII. I'm sure this could be found on XBox.com or a dev site.

There are some developers who have gone even lower than DX/OGL and used native push-buffers exclusivly on their Xbox game and have achieved much better preformance (or so they claim).

Somone like Marco could probobly better explain this if you ask... (hint)

 

[demalion]

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.

Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse".

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension? Here is an idea: before you pick one part of the post to disagree with, read the post. You've made it abundantly clear you did not, and that you are too dedicated in your self involvement to acknowledge your error. Ben certainly caused me to repeat my argument enough, and your proposing that I didn't state that I was discussing MS, nVidia, X Box, and Valve after I had the very same discussion with you seems to highlight the source of the problem: only one of us is giving any thought to what the other person is saying.
That's simply not a problem I can fix for you.
What's your purpose in carrying on like this? If it is to make yourself look better to anyone other than yourself, I think you're being counter-productive.
My purpose in responding? In topics that concern me, I'm simultaneously drawn to addressing what I view as flawed arguments and resistant to totally dismissing the viewpoints of another. That leaves me in a bind with someone who maintains flawed arguments because they are theirs, and invests enough of their ego into maintaining it that they dedicate themselves to basing their replies on accusations and name calling, quoting with the intention to misrepresent, and re-asserting their own viewpoint in place of even a basic recognition of someone else's.

To that end, and because you state nothing new in this post (well, besides new accusations and insults) that I haven't addressed already and for which your reply hasn't consisted of simple insults and accusations in place of reasoning, I'm going to restrict my quoting and replies to only the more outstanding key points of your post.
To differentiate this from something you can easily claim is equivalent to your own behavior: If you feel there is something I haven't addressed, for the sake of brevity I simply challenge you to quote the statement of yours so I can either point out that I have, or rectify the mistake.
Or, you could ask that console developer you mentioned to chime in, since hopefully, even if they share your viewpoint as you claim, they hopefully won't display the same characteristics as yourself in discussing them.

Are you not capapable of stating what you mean? Do you have an articulation problem? I'll buy you a dictionary...

An example of the insults you consider valid support.

Infact, it has a remarkable amount in common; to a slight degree it's an established platform whose sales are reflective of a mature name brand and MS will undoubtedly be looking at the PS2's life as a model for XBox Next.

My quote that you split to start this line of argument was:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2. When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support. More than once, too.

I suggest you take better note of clues like the thread title, the discussion I had specifically with you earlier in the thread (not that you seem to have paid attention at the time), and the post to which you replied. Not each by themself, but the concurrence of all at the same time.

Proposition:

I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole.

Actuality:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.

This is a pretty coherient ideology, I'll sum it up quickly and hope you understand it:

PC sales are down, Console sales are up. NGConsole sales will be even higher. Valve could launch their game on XBox next, having designed it's inhouse around the CineFx architecture and circumvent any HAL or high level abstraction (hell, utilize Cg to the fullest) and get absolutly stellar preformance on the Xbox Next. They can do this because the Console demographic is inline with HL's and the potential customers are there for a mature game (eg. Halo, MGS2, GTAx).

Hello, Vince, I'd like to re-introduce you to the beginning of our prior discussion of this very viewpoint (starts at the bottom of my post). Did you successfully address my rebuttal last time? No? Oh, you waited until I'd continued it for a few pages with Ben to re-introduce your viewpoint and ignore my reply? Ah, well, then you know why I'm pointing you back there instead of repeating it yet again.

(a) Again, this is an economies of scale issue with Squaresoft re-tooling. You need to drop the gamer mentality and look at this froma CFO's perspective.

A catch phrase, and an accusation of gamer mentality on my part. Amazingly lucid commentary.

A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

A catch phrase isn't something that doesn't exist, but something used as a slogan, to lend validity to a statement in the absence of other substantion. Sort of like you did both in what I quoted, and in your reply here intermingled with the insults. Using the phrase doesn't make your argument more valid, and you just spent a paragraph in validiting the phrase instead of your point in demonstration of why that is a problem. You don't view it as just validating the phrase because you seem to view your believing something as validation for it.

Ben proposed Valve's OpenGL API focus and his reasoning that HL 2 would be console exclusive and on the X Box (not PC) as simultaneous reasons for Microsoft to offer Valve incentives for making HL 2 nvidia exclusive (on the PC).

Ok.. this impacts me how?

Maybe with the text of yours I quoted in the line before?

(b) I didn't defend any OGL comment, actually I'd have to look back to see what it was about and I'm confused about what your attempting to imply.

This seems predicated on saying MS would pay Valve to go nVidia only on the PC since nVidia makes the graphics chip for the X Box, and then when I point out that seems counter to MS interest on the PC, switching to saying it makes sense to focus on consoles exclusively in response because the PC doesn't matter.

(a) Your logic isn't based on what he said, it's your interpretation of it (eg. "This seems predicted")

So because I said "seems" it isn't true? Oh, wait, you didn't "say" that, you just said I dared "interpret" something he said. While I'm at it, "interpreting" what you said can be called into question too.

(b) MS's interests on the PC? These being? To elaborate:

Microsoft's interests on the PC front is much more politically motivated than on the Console one. Their DX teams must take influence from ATI and their differing architectures and implimentations and somehow put out a DX revision that mates all the IHV's in some way. Thus, you get this bloated HAL and upper abtraction layers that adds to the confusion.

Hey, you talked about MS

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.

Then you talked about something completey different.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.

And then you do an amazing job of relating it to MS! Or...not.
Am I allowed to interpret it? <- The first one of the thread for me? If so, congrats Vince.

"You can't imagine" is the extent of your support? Valve has already been working on assuring compatibility across PCs, that wasn't granted magically by using Quake 1 from, what, 1998?

It's called intuition and common sence.
-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

Does that "intuition" lead you to believe it is like a) something attached to Quake 1 by some unspecified property that prevents Valve from applying it to a new engine, rather than b) experience gained and work they did that they, like other developers for the PC have and continue to do, can then apply to a new engine.

I ask because common sense doesn't rule out b), what with other developers managing to do it and all.

Encapsulation of the problem:

But, I could be wrong.

Really? You don't say?

I was being sarcastic, I'm not wrong here.

You said "NV3x and NV4x" penetration, whose market penetration remain fictional propositions on which to base your argument. Switching to "NVxx" reintroduces the problem with arbitrarily equating all levels of functionality of nvidia chipsets into to your argument about "X Box support = easy to port to the PC".

Um, using Cg and outputting your HLSL to a CineFx based processor is an easy port..

If you're using Cg, use DX 9 HLSL instead and gain support for other IHVs.
Are you making any effort to make sense?
Oh, pardon, since you've successfully established that other IHVs don't matter by your unquestionable figures and analysis, you are making sense...
Or not (I add because I really believe you don't think you accept the prior statement as false).

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

Yes, your survey results for Valve you said were from 2000, and the figures we discussed near the words highlighted in this post

The market share figures both you and Ben bring into the discussion are not related to what you are proposing is Valve's concern, because they are not representative of the market share of nVidia in relation to the featureset level you are proposing.

Yes they are as the figures demonstrate two things:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind.

nforce integrated graphics featureset is not equivalent to the X Box...

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

Who is going to replace the "Intel Inside"? Was there a reason for injecting that slogan?

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Yes, because the R300 has been such a flop in add in board sales, and your 2000 Valve survey results and share figures from before 9700 sales portray that so accurately.

A reminder of the last time we discussed this, highlighted for visual aid.

Other cards work with the DX API, so your similarity in code base will work for supporting them as well, and not even in the "70% nvidia marketshare" world you proposed initially in the thread have you made a case for abandoning them.

No, other cards don't need to work as I'm making a case for HL2 to be nVidia exclusive. Forget DX, code to OGL IHV specific extentions. Are you not capable of rational thought? This is my whole argument and you fucked it up... you kill me.

Just so we're all clear on what your argument is, to avoid further confusion in future discussion.

You asked what Console users are going to create the contet...

I replied, Look at the PS2-Linux community. Whats so fucking hard?

I had thought your discussion with Mfa had yielded some thought on your part, but I was mistaken. What made me think you'd treat anyone else's commentary any differently than you treat mine?

I've tired of your uselessness...

Hmm...saves a lot of text by not quoting the insults and repetitions. It would have been twice as long if I hadn't done that.
I really would like you to avail yourself of my invitation to quote what you think this text does not address, and see how well your text bears scrutiny without burying it in your rhetoric. <- This is not sarcasm. Up to it?
EDIT: To be clear, "without burying it in your rhetoric" doesn't mean not providing a further explanation of the quote (atleast not one that doesn't contradict or redefine the quote), it just means without a repetition to inflate the post length, and without an abundance of insults and accusations.

 

[Vince]

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

What are you saying? Can you show some statistical or empircal evidence that a studio can be financially viable (on a per that game only basis) by producing an upper-tier game that's avaliable on the PC first and then ported to a Console and has been as sucessfull as GTAx, Halo, or MGS2:SoL (all of which are going Console -> PC as I'm a proponent of)and is within the first-person, action/advanture genre ONLY?

That's simply not a problem I can fix for you.
What's your purpose in carrying on like this? If it is to make yourself look better to anyone other than yourself, I think you're being counter-productive.

Excuse me? if you post something thats wrong or false, I can post my opiniuon on why it's wrong. This is exactly what has been done.

My purpose in responding? In topics that concern me, I'm simultaneously drawn to addressing what I view as flawed arguments and resistant to totally dismissing the viewpoints of another. That leaves me in a bind with someone who maintains flawed arguments because they are theirs, and invests enough of their ego into maintaining it that they dedicate themselves to basing their replies on accusations and name calling, quoting with the intention to misrepresent, and re-asserting their own viewpoint in place of even a basic recognition of someone else's

.

This part is interesting, as you've still not explained how my view/ideology is flawed. You've provided no empiracal evidence, no modern numbers. Just your opinion - which doesn't compare.

An example of the insults you consider valid support.

I don't claim that it's a valid support. Rather it shows my agitation with your irrationality on this topic.

My quote that you split to start this line of argument was:

Hmm...OK, on the one hand he is recognizing Valve not spending money on developing content by having the community do so, and on the other he is talking about "console only". My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?
Hmm...that's a PC type of thing, isn't it? Since you can make a game for both the PC and the console, get the sales from both, and the content from the PC for the delivery system you propose, it still seems sort of silly to be proposing a "Console only" deal as associated with "nVidia exclusive" when "nVidia exclusive" will be destructive to the very community support you propose will provide dividends for the console.

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2. When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support. More than once, too.

Ok, I can see you have no idea what I'm stating - which surprises me as it's so clearly stated earlier.

I'll go threw it step-by-step and maybe you'll catch on to what I'm saying (and aren't stating):

You split the first paragraph off, ignoring the reference to "Valve" in it, to start a discussion of demographics that has nothing to do with addressing the problem of ignoring the necessity of PC community support for Valve and Half-Life 2.

Demographics is Very related, as Ben stated, because in the past the Console community just wouldn't support a game with the topic and maturity of a HL2 or TF2. Yet, if you'd have been keeping up with the Console scene, you'd have noticed that the demographics are rising in relation to age and this is an interesting point as the major demographic is now in the 20-30year old age bracket.

This co-insides with Valve's demographics for HL1/2 and as seen by HALO, MGS2, and GTA - the sales potential for this group on a console is well in excess of that on the PC. There is NO PC game in the same genre as HL2 on the PC that has sold as much as the GTA series has - especially in the same temporal period. Thus, for the first time, Valve could release a game like HL2 sucessfully on Consoles. This should be factored in.

When I point that your proposed solution for community content (PS 2 Linux) is ridiculous, you blame me for not informing you of what we were discussing...and then proceed to continue to try and use the PS 2 to support that the PC is not necessary to Valve as a source for consumer content, when, supposedly, it is now clear to you that we were discussing Valve, HL 2, and community support

PS2-Linux is hardly ridiculous, as it puts console users in the same position that homebrewed PC developers were in back in the early '80s.

I've also stated the following:

PS2 Linux is just a first step in that direction, this is obvious and it should be viewed as nothing more. Your the one whose been proven wrong (as anyone on PS2 Linux can design a full-fledged game) and aren't forward-looking at the trend thats happening towards giving users added creative powers in console games.

I suggest you take better note of clues like the thread title, the discussion I had specifically with you earlier in the thread (not that you seem to have paid attention at the time), and the post to which you replied. Not each by themself, but the concurrence of all at the same time.

I'm debating what you stated - perhaps you intended something diffrent than what you articulated?

Proposition:

I never suggested "PS2 exclusivity" - thanks for putting words into my mouth asshole.

Actuality:

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I've stated that not only is there developer dl/able content but also consumer created. I just figured you were atleast a bit knowledgable about the console arena and the development happening on PS2 Linux and XBox Linux - but I was wrong.

Care to explain to me how "PS2 exclusivity" is in some way interconnected to my comments on Downloadable content (eg. XBox Live!, PS2Explorer in Japan)?

"Exclusivity" implies that the content is limited to just one specific brand (eg. Halo is exclusive to XBox) of paltform. Downloadable content isn't limited to exclusive titles as a developer could produce a multiplatform game and send post-sales content down the respected platfoms network fabric. For example, SplinterCell is multiplatform as is FFXI, and most games.

I'm guessing you never did well on IQ tests, in particular the questions like, "All Zips are Zaps, but not all Zaps are Mips..."

Hello, Vince, I'd like to re-introduce you to the beginning of our prior discussion of this very viewpoint (starts at the bottom of my post). Did you successfully address my rebuttal last time? No? Oh, you waited until I'd continued it for a few pages with Ben to re-introduce your viewpoint and ignore my reply? Ah, well, then you know why I'm pointing you back there instead of repeating it yet again.

Fine: Here it is:

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)

(a) ATI's sales have been insignificantly increased during the period of time when they had an advantage during the DX8 generation and at the least had technological parity with nVidia. This isn't going to increase there sales.

You could point to the developer relations and marketing on "Big numbers/word" but they still pale in comparason to the initiatives that nVidia has established. For example:

(1) Dev Rel is a long-term initiative that can't be won overnight. nVidia has the legacy and the history of superior support. ATI must first work past the stimga attached to their drivers and their support before they can even attempt to surpass nvidia on this front. This requires time, of which they don't have.
(2)nVidia has "bigger number" (eg. Specs). People are ignorant and know that 1Ghz DDRII is 'better' than whatever the R300 is upto. You go educate people on the diffrence between a 128 and 256bit coursness on the controller. This policy won't unseat nVidia anytime soon.. heh.

(b) I can assume nVidia's continued success and retention of market
dominence because this has been contistent since 1999. I tend to put more faith in a status quo thats lasted 5 generations of Moore's law than your hypothetical arguments. Lets be realistic. nVidia has faced threasts before and has proven very adept at coming out ahead - even using unconventional tactics (eg. the media outlet dealings against 3dfx circa 1999); which is why fragmenting the marketplace wouldn't surprise me.

A Catch Phrase? What is? Economies of scale? Perhaps to the undereducated it is, but to anyone with even a rudimentry education in Macroeconomical theory - it's a principle whose importance is paramount. I've had very little formal economical education, but I've resided in the halls that gave birth to the supply-side revolution and has embraced neoclassical Price Theory and I'll be damned if the ideology underriding "Economies of Scale" isn't taught within the first week.

A catch phrase isn't something that doesn't exist, but something used as a slogan, to lend validity to a statement in the absence of other substantion.

Economies of Scale doesn't exist because it's a 'catch-phrase'? You've got to be kidding me, this is ridiculous. This is fundimental macroeconomics - you're joking right.

We don't explain it because it's so obvious - I, for one, didn't realize there are people here that: (a) Don't know what Economies of scale is. (b) Can't apply this to the situation.

Economy of Scale is when a productive entity can produce t goods at c cost, or thanks to productivity gains can produce t+n goods at c-g cost per good where n has in someway a direct related to g. Thus, it follows that as you produce more absolute goods, your cost per goods produced diminishes.

But, as anyone knowledgable in Macroeconomics will tell you, this only happens due to productivity gains (eg. specilization) - which in contemporary society is tecnological in nature and thus requires an up-front capital expendature.

Thus, even though you may get a better deal by producing/selling more goods/games - if your absolute amount sold doesn't surpass the fixed costs to produce them, then you don't.

This is why SquareSoft hasn't retooled for XBox production - it's upfront cost is to high and won't be recovered by Xbox sales.

This *may* apply to Valve to. With the massive developmental costs of a NG game, and the massive investment requires - it's plausible that the economies of scale just don't exist when it comes to the upfront cost of supporting the entire PC spectrum (eg. with all it's seperate combinations of 3D subsystems) when the PC base that will buy the game is diminshing.

Thus, by restricting the PC to *just* nVidia cards based on CineFx or higher using their propietary OGL extentions and Cg - the minimize this external cost while maximizing profits.

Sort of like you did both in what I quoted, and in your reply here intermingled with the insults. Using the phrase doesn't make your argument more valid, and you just spent a paragraph in validiting the phrase instead of your point in demonstration of why that is a problem. You don't view it as just validating the phrase because you seem to view your believing something as validation for it.

With all due respect, I think we both thought more of you. I'd never have guessed I'd have to explain basic macroeconomic theory to a member of this board - I mean, this is not only high-school level, but I can derive it all in my head it's so simplistic.

And Ben's a smart guy, I'm sure some of our conversations in the past would drive you insane where what we wrote was so archaic, yet we both knew what eachother ment and didn't have this BS arguing over linguistics.

Hey, you talked about MS

Whoa... whatever.

Going OGL and using Cg could be a blessing as then Valve could design HL2/TF2 more "to the metal" as it was once called of the XBox's 3D subsystem and by-pass the HAL and other abstractions present in DirectX - just as they many developer do now (eg. utilizing push buffers) to extract higher preformance. But, by doing this they're mapping to nVidia specific calls/extentions which might not exist under DX - but their would under the NV_specific extention in OGL.

Then you talked about something completey different.

Thus, Valve's developing just got a whole lot easier, and faster.

And then you do an amazing job of relating it to MS! Or...not.
Am I allowed to interpret it? <- The first one of the thread for me? If so, congrats Vince.

Again, lets think this threw a bit.

How is it completely diffrent? "Valve's developing got easier because their developing entirely to one 3D subsystem using Cg." I stated this above. If you can't deduce that prodraming entirely to one architecture (CineFx) is easier than worrying about seperate codepaths (eg. Carmack in DoomIII) then you should spend you time elsewhere.

It's called intuition and common sence.
-The Quake1 Engine was first used in a game in 1996.
-Half-Life was published in Oct. 1998.
-For over two years of commercial exposure, 'id' and other liecenses updated the engine and code base periodically. Valve did this too.

Does that "intuition" lead you to believe it is like a) something attached to Quake 1 by some unspecified property that prevents Valve from applying it to a new engine, rather than b) experience gained and work they did that they, like other developers for the PC have and continue to do, can then apply to a new engine.

I ask because common sense doesn't rule out b), what with other developers managing to do it and all.

(a) Something attached? 'id' routinely updates their licensed engines and send their clients new codebases. This is widely know; obviously it's nothing "attached" as it's the cumulative effect of two years of constant Q2 penetration into the consumer market and via brute-force probobility it's reached the majority of common PC subsystem combinations (eg. that host games). Thus, as problems are encountered, 'id' patches and fixes them. There are then incorperated into Valve's licensed engine.

(b) This is an extention of (a) as the work they do and experience gained in making a program compatable across a wide range of PC subsystem combinations (eg. If you remember, werte talking about compatability) doesn't apply when your dealing with a new engine and code base. Obviously there is experience gained, but that's insignificant in the face of writing an entire DX9+ renderer and engine and then "predicting" it's compatability based on past engine experiences that used DX5 level 3D subsystems. See the glaring discrepincy?

This is all dynamic thinking and common sence, nothing more.

If you're using Cg, use DX 9 HLSL instead and gain support for other IHVs.
Are you making any effort to make sense?
Oh, pardon, since you've successfully established that other IHVs don't matter by your unquestionable figures and analysis, you are making sense...
Or not (I add because I really believe you don't think you accept the prior statement as false).

Again, your missing the crux of this issue. I'd like to refer you away from the sheer marketshare issue (which you'll fight even without contadictory numbers) and towards the above economy of scale dilema facing a company which must support vastly more 3D subsystems and combinations.

Also, there is the issue of the inevitable speed gain by using Cg and nVidia's propietary extentions/code paths.This can be seen in the NV30 vs. ARB paths in Doom3 and the several demos that have been discussed in the 3D technological forum. Which I'd direct you towards.

Also, we shall see about Nv3/4x penetration - but historically nvidia has held it's own and I think this will play out similiarly. You have NO empirical or economically based evidence to show that nVidia Won't continue on their historical OEM and market penetration - atleast I do.

Yes, your survey results for Valve you said were from 2000, and the figures we discussed near the words highlighted in this post

Yes, thats more recent than your supplied numbers

I also posted the Marketshare from 2H02 (IIRC) that showed nVidia gains in light of the R300 launch. And there is historical precident at nVidia retained and gained marketshare during the DX8 generation when they has, at best, parity with ATI.

What empiracal evidence do you have supporting you?

nforce integrated graphics featureset is not equivalent to the X Box...

I didn't claim it was. I was talking about nVidia's penetration into the integrated market. Furthermore, I stated:

(a) In overall 3D market, the majority of acceleraors are integrated; which nVidia holds the lagest share of, followed by Intel, then ATI is trailing a bit behind. [Part you quoted]

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Thus, chances are - if there going to replace the Intel Inside with a 3D IHV's product they will move to the following demographic:

Who is going to replace the "Intel Inside"? Was there a reason for injecting that slogan?

Wow, give me a break. Read what I wrote again... it's clear that if your going to replace integrated graphics (of which Intel has the 2nd largest % - thus "Intel Inside"), they will do it with an add-in board. In this catagory, nVidia holds the majority of sales. Thus, proboblility dicates they will chose an nVidia based board.

(b) Add in board sales, which nVidia again has the majority of and as they pump the pipe with DX9+ accelerators at the $99 price point, they're DX9 penetration will carry over into the above numbers rapidly (eg. as seen with DX8).

Yes, because the R300 has been such a flop in add in board sales, and your 2000 Valve survey results and share figures from before 9700 sales portray that so accurately.

I never stated that the R300 was a "Flop." Again, please stop putting words into my mouth. I did state that nVidia has outsold the R300 thus far and increased marketshare during the first quarter of the R300s availability - which I posted a link to earlier on.

The 2000 Valve survey is also the most recent one I could find commissioned by Valve - maybe you can find a newer one to discredit me based on empiracal evindence and not :icons: ?!?

I had thought your discussion with Mfa had yielded some thought on your part, but I was mistaken. What made me think you'd treat anyone else's commentary any differently than you treat mine?

(a) Was your comment facually incorrect when you stated:

My simple question: which console only users are going to create the content?

Yes!

(b) Marco didn't disprove me, just stated that the current Console based developer community is tiny compared to todays PC one. To which I reponded so was the origional PC developers who'd sell their text-based adventured in zip-lock bags for $5 of a mom-and-pop's store. Give it time.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Vince is doing quite well on the console market and how it works so I'll let him carry on with that end of the discussion. On to the other factors you adressed from my last post, marketshare and HL's performance.

I can see only two possible reasons for your incomprehension of the marketshare numbers. Either you are changing things around and switching from the ATi v nV discussion we were having or you don't grasp statistics. If you are changing things around and want to discuss the broader market then you can argue with yourself. For the statistics breakdown-

According to the link you provided shipments were roughly 53Million in the quarter they were using, so we will use that as a baseline.

ATi= 10,070,000

nVidia= 16,960,000

That was for Q4 last year and represented a 18% increase for ATi and a 13% increase for nVidia. That would have the compared quarter @-

ATi= 8,539,360

nVidia= 15,009,600

ATi would be up ~1,530,640

nV would be up ~1,950,940

Taking a look at the Q4 numbers we have ATi up by 2.888% with nVidia up by 3.681% when looking at the entire market in terms of sales, absolute numbers. nVidia increased their sales by over 400K more then ATi. Just for reference-

16.2 * 1.18 = 19.116 Absolute up 2.916%

28.4 * 1.13 = 32.092 Absolute up 3.692%

I was off by 0.028% for ATi and 0.011% for nVidia. All of the information needed to calculate that nV grew faster in absolute terms has been posted twice by you and once from myself. Despite not knowing what the actual shipments were all the figures were there to figure it out for yourself. Either you have changed your discussion over to something removed from what we had been discussing or I am correct. What the analysts comments state are irrelevant in this discussion as we have three sets of identical numbers and they all equate out to the above. nVidia grew faster in marketshare terms looking at absolute numbers.

For Half-Life performance, the framerate drops from its constant 99FPS rate once in a while, but it seems to be quite brief. I can't give you xxFPS average as there is no benchmark utility that runs on the current build that I am aware of. The performance should be no surprise, HL runs on Pentium166 systems without a 3D board. Running a 2.1GHZ AXP with a Ti4200 it shouldn't be shocking in the least that it doesn't slow down much no matter what you do.

Edit-

WHQL-

Halo is approaching $200 million in gross revenue as is SSBM. SMS and SAB2 are approaching the $150Million mark. Zelda and PGR are both in the $100Million range. It isn't just the PS2 market that is huge(although it is the biggest currently).

As far as the breakdown of the individual board vendors goes, what are BFG's numbers looking like? Their sub $100 GF4Ti boards had to have a decent impact on the nV market. B&Ms having boards for ~30% less then NewEgg etc.

 

[demalion]

Well, you do seem quite dedicated to repetition of your point in conjunction with downright falsities. For example: the 3dmark figures I proposed as being more representative, though not conclusive, were from Dec 2002, and your marketshare figures were from Q3 (not all of the 2nd half) 2002 showed nvidia gains in the light of 1 month of 9700 (and no 9500) sales). I also pointed out that your own source directly contradicted your proposed representation of its applicability.
However, dealing with all the BS at once would (and has) required a truly monumental post(s), which people probably don't find useful when resulting from a discussion with you involved. As an alternative, I'm thinking I should make my efforts to dispel some of this miasma with something more incremental.

So let's take this step by step and see how far we can progress through the layers of BS by tackling one pile at a time. Don't worry, I'm willing to tackle all the piles (again) from this post of yours, but let's deal with each of your propositions directly, since, you being right, the validity of them will be obvious to all.

Vince's pile 1: It's demalion's fault for ridiculing Vince proposing PS 2 and the editing function Vince doesn't know much about in a racing game as a solution for community created content for Half Life 2 on a console , because demalion didn't say he was talking about XBox, Valve, MS, and nVidia exclusive on the PC. (If you dispute this is what you did, that's fine, I can quote you, in context, in reply).

Sample of this Proposition:

You're blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension?

I'm only responding to the words you type, I'd respond to the ideology behind it, but it's severly lacking, actually it's just missing entirely..

Digging past initial "layer" of this Proposition:

Yes, I'm aware that PS 2 is a console.
Yes, I was discussing XBox, nVidia, and Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you quoted me.

Then state that, don't say "Equus" with the intention of "Zebra"and then get pist off when somone says "Horse".

This looks like you blaming me for not stating I was discussing XBox, nVidia, Microsoft, and Valve with Ben when you interjected about PS2 Linux as a solution for content development. (If you insist in disputing things, there is some more excellent, in context, quoting opportunity).
Hmm...let us see if some bolding and commentary in italics can help help you in parsing the actuality of what was said, even when restricting this quote to immediately before and after what you quoted for your response so as to not have too high of an expectation of your ability to read and think about what other people say.

Actuality from before the BS, with visual aids:

Your commentary still doesn't hold together, AFAICS.

]I addressed this. They are an also ran on the console.

They haven't released a timely port of their titles yet.

On the PC they have a well established franchise strategy needing a refresh.

There are two different aspects to what happens concerning Valve. One is their customer support and encouragement for helping to keep the community alive. This requires very minimal effort from Valve, handing off the basic tools and giving out some documentation along with a bit of encouragement pretty much handles it. The other end is financial. On this end, they pale in comparison to what Rockstar has done in the last twenty months with one of their franchises. That is, every title Valve has sold combined for their entire existance pales in comparison to what RockStar's singular franchise has done in under two years.

Two points:
Is it really so hard to provide the information on which you are basing such a statement?
I've already said it makes sense to do a console port, what you continue to fail to do is relate that to the proposition of "nVidia exclusive" on the PC.

Why go console exclusive?

Scales of economy. Valve's model concerning CounterStrike(etc) wasn't viable on the consoles until recently(allowing additional levels, content to be DLed, acceptable gaming environment). Now it is.

Yeah, there will be lots of users making such content with console exclusivity. Are you able to critically parse your own statements before making them?

I don't know, I get tired of pointing this out, do you get tired of doing it? Since it takes less typing and thought for you to ignore than me to try and hold a discourse, I'd guess not.

Your comments focused on my not spelling out explicitly how it would benefit each party.

No, it focused on pointing out how it would not benefit some of the people you said it would benefit (that would bethe aforementioned list spelled out in a prior post) , and criticizing your stating that it would with an absence of coherency.

I did that. I broke down how all involved could stand to come out ahead on a financial end(with the exception of nV who simply gains huge PR). MS could land reduced chip costs.
(notice Ben's own reference to some of these members of that list)

And I addressed the flaws in your "breaking it down". Now, here we are, you telling me what you did after ignoring my reply to each detail of it.

Can you muster a credible reply to this (quoting it all, since it's short as discussions with you go), or can we move on to the next pile, and eventually progress in discussion of the issue without you playing hide and seek among them? <-Can you manage not to ignore this request or quote it and propose only a bundle of insults as validation for not heeding it?