Richard Huddy - Gaming Scientist Interviewed

[triss]

If they could do any why not do all? 'Some' just sounds like they have things to hide in other contracts, while they have a few they feel suits their argument. How ever they want to dress it up I can guarantee someone will pick it to death, contracts are in place to protect both parties, bound to be parts in it that make both amd and the developer look bad. But this is how contracts are. Go read your contract of employment and tell me how bad it makes your employers look for protecting their interests.

Above everything else, isn't it a little unprofessional for a multi billion dollar company to be publishing private contracts online? It could drive clients away, who would want to deal with a company that would throw legally binding contracts online to settle a petty argument? I can't think of many that would. Some of the clients I deal with are as big if not bigger then amd, they would absolutely loose their **** if someone started displaying their contracts online.

Exactly this any contracts that have such a clause in them would be not able to made public imo and ofc AMD know this its just hot air,, How about improving gaming via drivers(not saying amd drivers are bad i mean from both sides) or new gpu's we can buy atm rather then this he said she said show boating that end of the day solves nothing

 

[Marine-RX179]

The key is in the wording, 'some'. Let's cherry pick contracts that put us in a good light and use it as a PR stunt. Equally nvidia could do the same. All a little childish tbh.

But it could go both ways. Why should AMD show Nvidia other contracts as well that are not specifically related to their agreements with developers regarding the use of specific graphic features or functions? Showing them more than only necessary information will no doubt just be exploited by Nvidia marketing which they are oh so good at.

Remember how Nvidia marketed that they have dx12 advantage over AMD because they has huge % more cards that would support it? Look beyond the big % difference that Nvidia quoted and put into real world context, does it matter that the GTX400 series would support dx12 and HD6000 series doesn't by the time dx12 is release toward the end of 2015?

Nvidia is very good at making things sounding far better than the reality really is when it comes to marketing and PR; AMD on the hand are noobs in comparing to them in this department...they can't even hold an conference properly or present their advantage in an attractive manner (or hyping it up far beyond what it really is)

 

[LtMatt]

If they could do any why not do all? 'Some' just sounds like they have things to hide in other contracts, while they have a few they feel suits their argument. How ever they want to dress it up I can guarantee someone will pick it to death, contracts are in place to protect both parties, bound to be parts in it that make both amd and the developer look bad. But this is how contracts are. Go read your contract of employment and tell me how bad it makes your employers look for protecting their interests.

Above everything else, isn't it a little unprofessional for a multi billion dollar company to be publishing private contracts online? It could drive clients away, who would want to deal with a company that would throw legally binding contracts online to settle a petty argument? I can't think of many that would. Some of the clients I deal with are as big if not bigger then amd, they would absolutely loose their **** if someone started displaying their contracts online.

They're offering the ones Nvidia had a problem with and went public about. I'm sure they will put forward any GE contract to be honest tips. If what they're claiming is true, it needs to be exposed and stopped in my opinion. The likely hood is it probably is true, if it was not Nvidia can easily prove it. If they stay silent, or refuse to let the GameWorks game devs who informed AMD of these 'contract clauses' speak out then that is an admission of guilt. Paying a dev to use GameWorks, but then putting a clause in that prevents them from providing any performance optimizations for AMD products using GameWorks is unhealthy whatever way you look at it in my eyes. Interested to see what comes of this.

 

[Rusty0611]

Matt you need to understand that the offering up of contracts is just not a feasible proposition. It's hot air.

 

[LtMatt]

Matt you need to understand that the offering up of contracts is just not a feasible proposition. It's hot air.

AMD have offered up theirs. Do you think they're lying and are just saying it just because they know Nvidia won't offer up any GameWorks contracts, regardless of possible guilt? I respect that opinion, but currently i disagree.

 

[_Alatar_]

Please ask someone on twitter to send all GE contracts to you and see if you get them.

You'll never see them because they're contracts between multi billion/million dollar companies. Releasing contracts like that is a huge kick in the face of the development/publishing companies. And might even be illegal depending on the contract in question.

Especially if they're recent.

Not that it matters. It's AMD that needs to prove NV's guilt, not NV who needs to prove their innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty. Something even months of PR efforts hasn't been able to do.

 

[triss]

AMD have offered up theirs. Do you think they're lying and are just saying it just because they know Nvidia won't offer up any GameWorks contracts, regardless of possible guilt? I respect that opinion, but currently i disagree.

I think they know Nvidia wont due to legal reasons with the other party in the Contract and AMD knows that, And its why they themselves have said some since there probaly a few they cant for similar reasons
This doesnt mean the contracts for either are bad it's just not something thats allowed to be made public and happens a lot with business

Go ask apple or, take another industry like cars or w/e to go show all contracts made with other partys, not going to happen

 

[LtMatt]

AMD have a close relationship with Nixxes and Tomb Raider. I expect they have their permission to share the contract if needed. Can't imagine them offering to do that if it would alienate a close relationship.

 

[Rusty0611]

AMD have offered up theirs. Do you think they're lying and are just saying it just because they know Nvidia won't offer up any GameWorks contracts, regardless of possible guilt? I respect that opinion, but currently i disagree.

It's not that it's more the legal position of them. Contracts also aren't unilateral - you have to get consent from the other parties too.

As I say mate, it's just hot air .

 

[LtMatt]

It's not that it's more the legal position of them. Contracts also aren't unilateral - you have to get consent from the other parties too.

As I say mate, it's just hot air .

Do you know that AMD don't have permission from Nixxes to share? I'm betting they do, otherwise it would seem daft to offer it out to multiple journalists.

 

[triss]

Do you know that AMD don't have permission from Nixxes to share? I'm betting they do, otherwise it would seem daft to offer it out to multiple journalists.

Do you know all Nvidia's partners on the contracts have agreed and Nvidia has declined due to the contracts being dodgey?
Really LT i can see what your saying but just because one side says they have some they can share doesnt mean the other has too or that they even need too, As i said go ask most companys to share there contracts wont happen.
And if we like it or not Nvidia isnt required to do so

 

[Rusty0611]

Do you know that AMD don't have permission from Nixxes to share? I'm betting they do, otherwise it would seem daft to offer it out to multiple journalists.

They may do but do nVidia even if they wanted to? That's not the only legal issue over a proposed sharing of contracts either I was just giving an example. There's no such precedent I'm aware of, where a market dominated by a small number of companies (in this case 3 if you include Intel), whereby they share contracts just because one of them calls them out on it. There's all kinds of commercial sensitivities involved too.

Hot... air...

 

[LtMatt]

Do you know all Nvidia's partners on the contracts have agreed and Nvidia has declined due to the contracts being dodgey?
Really LT i can see what your saying but just because one says thay have some they can share doesnt mean the other has too or that they even need too, As i said go ask most companys to share there contracts wont happen.
And if we like it or not Nvidia isnt required to do so

I've not said anything about Nvidia, because they haven't offered anything. I'm just talking about what AMD have offered up, the Tomb Raider contract which Nvidia used when responding to Ryan Shrout trying to justify GameWorks as a counter argument.

They may do but do nVidia even if they wanted to? That's not the only legal issue over a proposed sharing of contracts either I was just giving an example. There's no such precedent I'm aware of, where a market dominated by a small number of companies (in this case 3 if you include Intel), whereby they share contracts just because one of them calls them out on it. There's all kinds of commercial sensitivities involved too.

Hot... air...

Nvidia won't, especially if these contract clauses are true. I expect AMD will though, if it will prove a point.

 

[Rusty0611]

Nvidia won't, especially if these contract clauses are true. I expect AMD will though, if it will prove a point.

No they won't of course not. And I say that even if there aren't clauses which set out to damage AMD.

As to whether there are any such clauses - who knows? Anybody speculating is 100% guessing. The refusal to release said contracts doesn't imply wrong-doing either. It's just what the mass majority of companies would do. It doesn't make sense.

 

[_Alatar_]

I wonder when the AMD crowd will start demanding that game developers release the source code for their games because we need to know there's nothing hurting AMD there. And if they don't they're guilty!

And they should also release all their contracts between all companies they've made and all their employees, just so we know there's no foul play there either. And if they don't they're guilty!

 

[Marine-RX179]

Honestly I don't think this whole accusation of GameWorks's sabotage is going to go anywhere. AMD can make all the noise they want, but Nvidia know full well that they can't touch them even "if" they were guilty

The only way it would ever get proven would have to be an "inside job" with members of developers leaking the relevant evidences- which they won't may it be because of contractual reasons or for they own well-being. And then there's no legal mean of forcing Nvidia to hand-over the contracts for reviewing (even if it was to neutral legal parties rather than AMD). So all there's left with is acquiring the contracts via hacking, which in itself is illegal.

So in conclusion, Nvidia and the developers working with them would be the only know about the truth about the true natural of GameWorks, and for the users, their speculations would forever remain divided

I do agree with the points that Rusty made about buying games basing on the games itself rather than who develop/publish it.

Buy the game if:
- It has good gameplay, story, not buggy (to the point of ruining the experience)- Highest priority
- Good graphic (not the highest priority)

Don't buy the game if:
- The gameplay itself is crap and the story is boring
- Buggy and performance so bad making the experience worse than the console version

And most importantly...DON'T pre-order games before reviews, no matter how much the developers/publishers try to tempt you to open your wallet with "exclusive rewards" or "early access" etc.

 

[_Alatar_]

If AMD have proof in the form of emails etc. as they say they could easily sue and have the whole thing investigated.

Go through proper channels as they say.

But they wont, because all they have is a PR campaign.

 

[Rusty0611]

Last game I pre-ordered was errr The Last of Us on PS3.

I never pre-order games unless I want to play it IMMEDIATELY. I don't understand pre-ordering PC games. You're at the mercy of the developers with regards to bugs etc. Russian roulette almost.

 

[Gregster]

Last game I pre-ordered was errr The Last of Us on PS3.

I never pre-order games unless I want to play it IMMEDIATELY. I don't understand pre-ordering PC games. You're at the mercy of the developers with regards to bugs etc. Russian roulette almost.

You can get some cracking prices if you pre-order early, so if it looks like something I will play and the price is right, I don't mind pre-ordering. Full price is a no though (I did get BF4 pre-ordered though from Origin).

 

[Mei]

12pages! has any1 mentioned what a sexy man he is yet!? (*´∀｀*)