Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
^^^
Now that's facts
Now that's facts
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD don't need to see the GW source code to optimize hair-works though, AMD get to see the entire DX call stack which is the only thing they care about. If AMD can;'t do that then they have absolutely zeor right to be selling grpahics cards to consumers.
Just Thief as far as i know. ^^^^
That's a rather cynical view, Gogglay
That's not what the Open Source movement is about, besides, AMD cannot take credit for creations ensued from it as there is still an Open Source Licence credited to the developer of said items.
There's over 70 games with physx and that doesnt include gameworks in which physx is in. You compare that to 3 or 4 mantle games and 1 trueaudio game ?
Don't believe AMD but believe you when you just make crap up.
If a game dev focused entirely on profit like Ubisoft is offered gameworks for near free or a very low price for a game, lets say 50k, or they can buy the same thing but get to view source code but that license costs 2mil, then Nvidia can say they offer it but in reality no dev anywhere would chose to buy the more expensive option.
Oh look, an AMD thread dragged off-topic YET AGAIN. Do all Nvidia & AMD threads end up like this now? It's a sad state of affairs! Don's seem to do bugger all about it.
Have you RTM'ed any of it, That is what you need to do if you want to get the Dons to have a look.
Or post in here
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=164
Yeah, but PhysX has been out since 2004? 2005?
That's 10 or 11 years, which works out to an average of 7 games a year, out of all the games released in a year. I think Mantle managed that sort of level of adoption before it was discontinued (in its current state).
You have a go at D.P. for making stuff up, then proceed to pull numbers out of thin air just to make your point look good.
We do not know how much the Gameworks License costs, so bandying numbers about, like 2million is just as crazy as me saying it only cost 5 bucks.![]()
The only logical conclusion is that they priced it completely out of reach.
Read what I said again, the price I gave as a possibility was within the context of an example.
Did Nvidia offer the source code at any time till it was complained about, no. Do Nvidia tell you how much it costs for access to source code, nope, do we have a few Nvidia guys running around claiming that devs have access to the source code as a direct result of this, while ignoring the increased financial cost of such a licence and the very probably situation that no dev can afford it, yup.
I can't give an example of the potential financial difference between two versions of the licence without giving an example of the costs, I no where claimed this was the actual cost nor could anyone reasonably imply I did. The examples were to suggest if one license is very cheap and the other extortionately expensive then no dev will take the expensive option.
Some important questions would be, if the source code license wasn't dramatically increased to the point where devs are priced out of it.... why not just state them whatever the numbers are. The only logical conclusion is that they priced it completely out of reach.
But again the point stands that D.P. repeatedly in dozens of threads claims as a fact that devs had access to the source code of gameworks on whatever given game he's talking about and acting as if gameworks comes with the source code as standard, one of which he implies with no knowledge of it being true and the other which is completely false.
The point is Devs can have access to it. They just need the right license . How much it costs and if they do or do not have it is speculation on Both sides .
I think the point being made is you cant shoot down DP for speculating while doing exactly the same yourself
Ignores CDP confirmed it isn't modifiable for AMD.![]()
How much extra work is TA over the regular sound engineering done in AAAs?
Biggest stumbling block to adoption would surely be publisher bosses not coughing up extra cash?
true audio needs extra hardware, a signal processor. Its not just a software solution.