Reverend at The Pulpit #10
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
- Status
aaronspink
Veteran
Miksu said:To me "it's a sequel to an enormously successful game" sounds like it's a second part of some series, not part X. So, I would guess Everquest 2 too (or mebbe Sims 2 or Half-Life2
Splinter Cell X is a place holder name for the sequel to Splinter Cell and I can't for the life of me understand by Ubisoft, etc, need to whore themselves out to nvidia. Well, guess that means one less video game that I'll be buying.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
Phew, here I was afraid it was going to be something I planned to play!Sage said:
posted at the [H]
couldnt have said it better myselfdavidj said:Can someone please explain the following to me.
Several months ago prior to the 6800 generation. Ati paid valve MILLIONS of dollars(this was OK of course), HL2 and any game using PS2.0 was the shiznit. ATI boards with PS2.0 capabilities were defined as next-gen or superior . Of course any nvidia owner at that time was just a foolish fanboy for buying "old or inferior technology.
NOW the 6800 is PS3.0 ready if you will and the x800 is not. Now that things are in reverse, PS3.0 is called unimportant. The 6800 is not considered next-gen at all, and a few future games will use PS3.0 well no big deal. Now all of a sudden Nvidia is involved in crooked,shady back room deals. Heck Ati & Valve through a damn party sent out press releases & the entire world new that MILLIONS had changed hands. But that was OK
Did I miss something here?????????
Bad_Boy said:posted at the [H]
couldnt have said it better myselfdavidj said:Can someone please explain the following to me.
Several months ago prior to the 6800 generation. Ati paid valve MILLIONS of dollars(this was OK of course), HL2 and any game using PS2.0 was the shiznit. ATI boards with PS2.0 capabilities were defined as next-gen or superior . Of course any nvidia owner at that time was just a foolish <bleep> for buying "old or inferior technology.
NOW the 6800 is PS3.0 ready if you will and the x800 is not. Now that things are in reverse, PS3.0 is called unimportant. The 6800 is not considered next-gen at all, and a few future games will use PS3.0 well no big deal. Now all of a sudden Nvidia is involved in crooked,shady back room deals. Heck Ati & Valve through a damn party sent out press releases & the entire world new that MILLIONS had changed hands. But that was OK
Did I miss something here?????????
PS3.0 on current cards is a checkbox feature. Yes, there are differences- but not many, and most that would be utilized are simply infeasible at this level of power.
PS2.0 was a MUCH larger difference in the scheme of things.
Let's take a look...
PS2.0 and 2.0b:
PS3.0
Hmm....
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Bad_Boy said:posted at the [H]
couldnt have said it better myselfdavidj said:Can someone please explain the following to me.
Several months ago prior to the 6800 generation. Ati paid valve MILLIONS of dollars(this was OK of course), HL2 and any game using PS2.0 was the shiznit. ATI boards with PS2.0 capabilities were defined as next-gen or superior . Of course any nvidia owner at that time was just a foolish <bleep> for buying "old or inferior technology.
NOW the 6800 is PS3.0 ready if you will and the x800 is not. Now that things are in reverse, PS3.0 is called unimportant. The 6800 is not considered next-gen at all, and a few future games will use PS3.0 well no big deal. Now all of a sudden Nvidia is involved in crooked,shady back room deals. Heck Ati & Valve through a damn party sent out press releases & the entire world new that MILLIONS had changed hands. But that was OK
Did I miss something here?????????
The difference is that ATI paid Valve millions to get the marketing deal and the pack-in/voucher for Half-Life 2. Nvidia is doing the same thing with this unnamed developer (which is fine) but in addition is insisting that said developer does not support cards that use SM2.0, which includes R350, NV3x, R420.
The only way the ATI/Valve position would be the same is if ATI had paid money, but insisted that ONLY SM2.0 be supported, and that all earlier cards (such as Radeon 8500, Geforce 4) which could use a SM 1.x mode were deliberately excluded from HL2's code.
Paying a developer to code for your card is not a problem. Paying for a developer to deliberately not support your competitor's cards and to orphan your own customers is not.
overclocked_enthusiasm
Regular
Nvidia is growing more and more desperate. That desperation is clearly expressed by Jen whenever he spends more time talking about ATI hardware than he does his own. The recent NVDA conference call was a perfect example of this. The only surprise in all of this is that it didn't happen sooner.
http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2004/06-30_a_english.php
3DCenter: How did you got working for ATI?
Richard: We met when we both worked for a little English company called 3Dlabs about 7 years ago, after that we spent a few years at NVIDIA and for the last two years we've been setting up and running ATI's developer relations group out here in Europe.
We both left 3Dlabs because it wasn't sufficiently competitive and was losing the race to produce great gaming chips. When we left NVIDIA two years ago the primary reason was that we didn't agree with some of the decisions which it took (about three years) ago when it turned away from technology and towards pure marketing. We also felt that we were working too much for NVIDIA's interests and not enough for the developers which didn't match our own win-win philosophy.
ATI was the obvious choice. They have the best gaming hardware money can buy, they're eager to lead the market both in terms of great value and fantastic technology, they have integrity and are here for the long haul. And when we spoke with ATI it was very clear they wanted to solve developers' problems with world-class support for industry standards like DirectX (HLSL) and OpenGL (GLSL) which really helps create win-win situations. All in all it's a great place to be.
3DCenter: In that respect, can you point out some of the differences you see between NVIDIA and ATI regarding company philosophy, teamwork, business ethics, processes, etc.?
Richard: The similarities are probably much as you'd expect, after all, both companies are competing in the same market, and these days they tend to handle many situations in the same kind of ways.
But the differences are pretty striking too. All the more so when you look deep inside.
ATI is the kind of company that NVIDIA always wanted to be. It's not just successful, but it is also technology led, inclusive, and is very honest, both with its customers and with its-self.
In every way I find it to be better than NVIDIA. I don't think many people were pleased to see the GeForce 2 effectively re-branded as the GeForce 4 MX, and the advent of Cg about two and a half years ago was a clear sign that NVIDIA was more interested in controlling the future of the graphics market than it was in giving gamers the best possible experience and value. More recently we've seen some questionable behavior from their drivers which resulted in a tremendous loss of public trust for them.
And, one single recent example serves to illustrate the difference in companies well: GDDR3 - the new type of memory which we're all putting on our high end graphics cards these days ...
ATI collaborated with the memory manufacturers to fully specify GDDR3, but at all times we allowed NVIDIA access to the specs and they were free to comment on it whenever they liked. In the end the final memory spec was approved without any company politics, and the standard was simply given away. That's the way ATI likes to work, we believe that open standards are the best way to move the industry forward, and we believe that our ability to compete in these areas of pure technology is a great company strength.
http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2004/06-30_a_english.php
3DCenter: How did you got working for ATI?
Richard: We met when we both worked for a little English company called 3Dlabs about 7 years ago, after that we spent a few years at NVIDIA and for the last two years we've been setting up and running ATI's developer relations group out here in Europe.
We both left 3Dlabs because it wasn't sufficiently competitive and was losing the race to produce great gaming chips. When we left NVIDIA two years ago the primary reason was that we didn't agree with some of the decisions which it took (about three years) ago when it turned away from technology and towards pure marketing. We also felt that we were working too much for NVIDIA's interests and not enough for the developers which didn't match our own win-win philosophy.
ATI was the obvious choice. They have the best gaming hardware money can buy, they're eager to lead the market both in terms of great value and fantastic technology, they have integrity and are here for the long haul. And when we spoke with ATI it was very clear they wanted to solve developers' problems with world-class support for industry standards like DirectX (HLSL) and OpenGL (GLSL) which really helps create win-win situations. All in all it's a great place to be.
3DCenter: In that respect, can you point out some of the differences you see between NVIDIA and ATI regarding company philosophy, teamwork, business ethics, processes, etc.?
Richard: The similarities are probably much as you'd expect, after all, both companies are competing in the same market, and these days they tend to handle many situations in the same kind of ways.
But the differences are pretty striking too. All the more so when you look deep inside.
ATI is the kind of company that NVIDIA always wanted to be. It's not just successful, but it is also technology led, inclusive, and is very honest, both with its customers and with its-self.
In every way I find it to be better than NVIDIA. I don't think many people were pleased to see the GeForce 2 effectively re-branded as the GeForce 4 MX, and the advent of Cg about two and a half years ago was a clear sign that NVIDIA was more interested in controlling the future of the graphics market than it was in giving gamers the best possible experience and value. More recently we've seen some questionable behavior from their drivers which resulted in a tremendous loss of public trust for them.
And, one single recent example serves to illustrate the difference in companies well: GDDR3 - the new type of memory which we're all putting on our high end graphics cards these days ...
ATI collaborated with the memory manufacturers to fully specify GDDR3, but at all times we allowed NVIDIA access to the specs and they were free to comment on it whenever they liked. In the end the final memory spec was approved without any company politics, and the standard was simply given away. That's the way ATI likes to work, we believe that open standards are the best way to move the industry forward, and we believe that our ability to compete in these areas of pure technology is a great company strength.
Nope, it's EQ2.jvd said:I'm going to go out on a limb and say everquest 2
Wunderchu beat you to it, "An interview with Richard Huddy & Kevin Strange".overclocked_enthusiasm said:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
SithSolo1 said:digitalwanderer said:
My thoughts exactly.
It's the principle though. Maybe next time it will be a Doom3 or a HL2.
It's not EQ2.
OMG, you mean it's Splinter Cell?!?!?John Reynolds said:
- Status