Halflife 2 to be nVidia only????

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Thought this might be interesting for the discussion at hand:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33679404[/img]

Date is May 16. Sounds familiar?

The magazine is coming out on May 16th, so you will have to wait another month from then until anything happens.

 

[demalion]

Instead of simply persisting that there is nothing wrong with what you did, do you have a correction for my formula available, and can you use it to show your math is indeed correct?

Your formula takes into account all chips headed for Excel workstations in croporate machines that won't ever see a game.

Oh, like I've told you a half a dozen times?

Ben, that's why I criticized your interpretation of the figures (well, the first reason atleast).

You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market.

That's because that's what the figures portray. The figures you brought up. You are factoring in chips that are unrelated to the gaming market, and I'm discussing them with you in return.
Your formulas based on the figures do the same thing, Ben.

The reason why we have been segmenting nVidia and ATi is due to their nigh monopoly on gaming based PC gaming vid hardware(at least in the context which we are discussing it).

So? Does this change the analysis I provided of why just viewing them in isolation ATi has gained market share?

This entire discussion has revolved around the comparable marketshare between ATi and nVidia, including the players without a viable presence in the gaming market invalidates the results for the purpose of this discussion.

Then it's a bit funny that you proposed these figures.

Oh my, there doesn't seem to be anything addressing the actual conclusions I drew, just blaming me for drawing them on figures you brought up and criticizing the very thing I've been criticizing about them for the last few pages! Strange that.

When looking at the sales of next gen consoles, you don't factor in the PSX sales. For the first couple of years after the initial debut of the PS2 the PSX was selling well enough to throw the numbers off for all of the next gen consoles. Because of this, when attempting to analyze the next gen console market the PSX was eliminated from the equation and only sales of actual next gen consoles were utilized.

Hey, almost like if I criticized that these figures arbitrarily equated DX 7, DX 8, and DX 9! Oh wait....I did!

As I stated, if you are changing around the discussion I am not going to continue with this particular discussion.

It is the discussion you started, Ben. I'm not changing anything around, you introduced the flaws you mention, and I was just pointing out the additional flaws you introduced on top of it.
Wow.

Here:

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.

How about current real numbers then?

Does this look familiar? These numbers we are discussing now...are the numbers that you brought up after this! Though you didn't quite label them as Q4 2002.

What did I say about these numbers? Let's see:

Your extrapolation seems a bit uncontrolled. It did not say boards outsold CPU shipments, it said graphics shipments outsold CPU shipments. That would include integrated nforce boards, integrated ATI solutions, and integrated Intel graphics chipsets. The point they made by saying that figure exceeded CPU shipments was that they believed it indicated discrete solutions were a significant portion.
...different post...
To hold a discussion we have to be able to discuss the same thing in some sane frame of reference. I never "refuted" that nvidia has a greater market share, I refuted that the market share figures being presented had direct bearing on the gaming market share for a game like half life 2.

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.

We started talking about this as it was in relation to nVidia having a significantly larger portion of the gaming market then ATi, and the numbers indicate that that is the case and the latest numbers we have seen indicate
that the gap is growing.

The numbers you just criticized as being non-representative, and which I just discussed do not show that "the gap is growing"?!?
Oh, wait, it is non-representative when I discuss them, only you are allowed to discuss them, and my discussion of them is therefore irrelevant.
My bad: I didn't learn the first time you told me that.

Double wow!

Do you live in a world where NV PR is the literal truth?

Vince.....?

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself.

Vince has been a very vocal advocate of hybrid software based rasterization and has been rather convinced that Stanford's HLSL project is the future of graphics implementations. I could see how you could at least make an association on that point for me, but Vince is widely considered a CELL/GRID lap dog I've never been let down by his ability to cut up nV PR(or any PC based IHV) on any of their chips.

Ah, and this makes the statement I was criticizng more valid how? Oh, by proxy!

Edit-

Forgot to mention. The points I quoted stated that the PC graphics market saw a 13% sales increase and nVidia saw a 13% sales increase, and nVidia lost market share.

Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them!

 

[BenSkywalker]

You wanted a defined target platform for HL2 then you should have defined one. I made no claims about any particular DX level boards nor shipments. Without declaring what level of DX you assume HL2 to require then that element has not been factored in. Having the XBox as a target platform doesn't mean too much as we can see with SplinterCell running on DX7 hardware. My interpetation of the figures is simply one of comparing ATi to nVidia, the exact premise I explicitly stated I was working under previously. You don't like it, you counter it with some real market data. None of the 'this online database says xxx', real numbers. Until you do so, then I see no need to continue this discussion.

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself.

I deserve that, I was moronic enough to be fooled by ATi's PR so obviously it can happen.

Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them!

I thought it was an act, apparently not. Take any marketplace figure, any way you like it with multiple parties(three or more) involved. Assign them all a given marketshare. Increase the total sales for the market a given percentage and do the same adjustment for one of the board vendors in particular and move the others around as you like. Try it a few times and see how frequently the marketshare changes for the company whose sales increase mirrored the industry as a whole, make special note of when they decline.

 

[demalion]

You wanted a defined target platform for HL2 then you should have defined one. I made no claims about any particular DX level boards nor shipments.

Didn't read the text I quoted from pages ago the first time, why should it be any different this time?

Without declaring what level of DX you assume HL2 to require then that element has not been factored in. Having the XBox as a target platform doesn't mean too much as we can see with SplinterCell running on DX7 hardware.

It does mean something if you are proposing nVidia exclusive PC support makes sense because something is being developed for the X Box. Now, who was doing that Ben? Can you remember?

A hint: what you just mentioned about Splinter Cell supports my argument.

My interpetation of the figures is simply one of comparing ATi to nVidia, the exact premise I explicitly stated I was working under previously.

Hmm? I didn't ignore that premise, I showed you how your math was wrong. Hey, are there enough posts between that and this now for your comfort level?

You don't like it, you counter it with some real market data.

We were discussing the same market data...it's just as real for you as it is for me.

None of the 'this online database says xxx', real numbers. Until you do so, then I see no need to continue this discussion.

You just criticized your own numbers as being applicable in the same way I did pages ago, and now I have to counter them? But we've both countered them already!

BTW, feel free to apply the question to yourself.

I deserve that, I was moronic enough to be fooled by ATi's PR so obviously it can happen.

Yeah, you're the picture of a raving ATi <B3D expletive>. Like how a GF 4 MX user would be downgrading image quality for half life by switching to a 9700 Pro.
Oh wait, maybe that's why the question was about nVidia, and not ATI!

Yes...because, among other things, ATI saw an 18% sales increase. Is this something not covered in my prior posts to you? Oh, silly my, I'm acting as if you read them!

I thought it was an act, apparently not. Take any marketplace figure, any way you like it with multiple parties(three or more) involved. Assign them all a given marketshare. Increase the total sales for the market a given percentage and do the same adjustment for one of the board vendors in particular and move the others around as you like. Try it a few times and see how frequently the marketshare changes for the company whose sales increase mirrored the industry as a whole, make special note of when they decline.

Not big on reading what others say, are you? Heaven forbid we use actual formulas and math to discuss it.

 

[dksuiko]

It's the fight we've all been waiting for!

The Tireless Rebutter vs. The Tireless Rebutter!

Grab your popcorn and buy your drinks now because this fight is scheduled for infinite rounds!

 

[Althornin]

but we dont loathe demalion.
besides, its more like
The Philosopher vs Ferrous Cranus

 

[Ollo]

Yes, round 9 is shaping up quite good.

*opens another can of beer and sits back*

 

[BenSkywalker]

I had a reply typed up an deleted it. This isn't worth it any more. If the deal happens it happens. It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved and that was the point of the discussion.

 

[demalion]

I had a reply typed up an deleted it. This isn't worth it any more.

Your approach to replying to disagreement is never worth it unless everyone else shuts up. That is why I recommend you stick to local editing for more productive use of it.

If the deal happens it happens.

True, though what the deal is remains to be seen.

It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved

That is the problem: no it was not. You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate it.
That doesn't mean Valve won't do it, it means the argument for them doing it that you provided was self-conflicting, based on excluding inconveninet factors, and focused on supporting your belief system.
Neither of us has any exclusive monopoly on actuality, all we have is available information and reasoning, if we choose to employ them.
Your method of argument is based on excluding the reasoning and information in opposition to what you want to believe, without any justification besides your own desire to exclude them and without any recognition of any criticism of your own belief.

and that was the point of the discussion.

Yes, making your statement does seem like it was the only point of the discussion for you. The problem is that you believe your stating something is the same thing as it being demonstrated to be valid, and think that support is based solely on dismissing anything besides your own statements.

EDIT: How do you like that?

 

[BenSkywalker]

It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could work out well for all parties involved

 

[demalion]

Get back to me now that it is more suited for your reply, and I'll get back to you when I return.

 

[demalion]

And you did not demonstrate how it could work out well for all parties involved "very clearly", thanks to that self-conflicting argument based on excluding inconvenient factors and focused on supporting your belief system to which I referred. Maybe if "very clearly" is synonymous with "in a completely flawed fashion"?...oh wait, it isn't.

It comes down in the end to your saying "You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate it" can't be a valid reply to "It has been very clearly demonstrated how it could for all parties involved"...because it doesn't have the word how.

Let's try this then: "You said it could work out well for all parties involved, you did not demonstrate how it could."

So, to make it easy for you, how does that change in wording invalidate the rest of the post? How does it change the rest of the discussion before that? It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it just removes the factor you've been reduced to nitpicking about. With it removed, where does that leave us?

 

[Dave Baumann]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/23/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

The game will make its public debut next month at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the trade show of the gaming industry, at the booth of graphic chip developer ATI. A non-interactive theater will show gameplay (much like id Software and Activision (ATVI: Research, Estimates) debuted "Doom III" last year).

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

 

[jb]

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

So Can I start another thread about how HL2 is ATI only then

Thanks for the info Dave.

 

[John Reynolds]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/23/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

The game will make its public debut next month at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the trade show of the gaming industry, at the booth of graphic chip developer ATI. A non-interactive theater will show gameplay (much like id Software and Activision (ATVI: Research, Estimates) debuted "Doom III" last year).

I guess that puts this one to bed for the time being.

It also puts to rest the nasty rumor of it being an exclusive X-box title that Evil over at evilavatar.com was spreading.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Unless its XBoxII only

 

[Mark]

Unless its XBoxII only

oh! Nice!