AMD: Devs only use PhysX for money

[theforce]

Nvidia has failed to convince the developers of an actually good game to implement Physx. I have played some games using Physx like Risen but it was a CPU implementation rather than running on the GPU.

If Nvidia had faith in their product they wouldn't have to pay developers to actually use it. I can understand a developer that wants to add some minor physics in its game like Risen but then again it doesn't require a Nvidia card to run and it happily runs on the CPU.

I can't understand Nvidia fans wishing for Nvidia to pay a ridiculous amount of money to a developer just to create a title that will gimp the experience for ATI users. What stops ATI from doing the same thing using another type of technology that is intentionally gimping the experience for Nvidia users.

Hopefully PhysX will die and Nvidia will have to create hardware that runs the damn code faster rather than creating little schemes to increase their sales. If Fermi doesn't deliver Nvidia will have to resort to Batman techniques to remain competitive.

Don't get me wrong, but l just want games that l will run on any hardware. I don't want to be swapping cards every time l want to play a game that supports either closed technology from either company.

 

[dmxdex2020]

yes its annoying how desprate nvidia get to try and crush ati. i hope games in the future games are coded to run the same for both ati and nvidia as i dont want to go to nvidia due the how pricey their products are and for the simple fact i dont like them and them antics they just remind me of microsoft and im sorry to admit it i run a dodgy copy as i refuse to pay that kind of money for an O/S.

 

[Bergkamp]

yes its annoying how desprate nvidia get to try and crush ati. i hope games in the future games are coded to run the same for both ati and nvidia as i dont want to go to nvidia due the how pricey their products are and for the simple fact i dont like them and them antics they just remind me of microsoft and im sorry to admit it i run a dodgy copy as i refuse to pay that kind of money for an O/S.

Pay what kind of money? Win 7 has been pretty much dirt cheap till recently, and it's still not ridiculous.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

People will go out and buy another GPU if a killer title comes out that shows people why they should do that - and hardware accelerated physics is capable of just such a distinction if someone has the balls to run with it.

Everyone who games has a graphic card already. Most of those people do not have a motherboard that has two or more graphic card slots.

Repacing a new graphic card is a big step to take for a lot of people, who don't like to open up their case. Replacing the motherboard is far more forbidding.

 

[Amnesia]

Depends people said the same thing about hardware 3D rendering when the first generation of 3D hardware came along and games were using software 3D engines like quake 1.

it.

did they ?
personally i was wowed by it

Nvidia has failed to convince the developers of an actually good game to implement Physx. I have played some games using Physx like Risen but it was a CPU implementation rather than running on the GPU.

only played the demo but i thought Batman was great

 

[Andric]

a developer with a great game making it to only run on one type of crd woudl be very stupid. It would severely limit its appeal and be very poor publicity - the nv ony stuff in batman showed how that could be. doubt nvidia even woudl want that

 

[Andric]

also as I undestand it nvidia wouldnt let ati build physx drivers for their hardware, but would allow them for a feee to make calls to thier implementation - you really think nvidia woud optimise it for the ati shader model?
Ati also claim that when they made an approach to nvidia about using physx nv said no in private

 

[Amnesia]

a developer with a great game making it to only run on one type of crd woudl be very stupid. It would severely limit its appeal and be very poor publicity - the nv ony stuff in batman showed how that could be. doubt nvidia even woudl want that

What ?

 

[dmxdex2020]

Pay what kind of money? Win 7 has been pretty much dirt cheap till recently, and it's still not ridiculous.

Still costs too much.

 

[wolvers]

Physx makes my blood boil, I hope it fails miserably.

 

[Owenb]

Physics won't be widely supported until consoles can do it and the current consoles aren't powerful enough. In ~12 months time we will have APU monster CPU's from both AMD and Intel and right now IBM's new Power7 CPU's can operate on up to 32(?) threads. Given that traditional games rarely use more than two threads there will be a lot of unused CPU power to run physics on.

 

[Orangey]

There won't be a new xbox for a few years, that Natal guff is basically copying Nintendo's strategy of crap hardware but casual-baiting motion control games. Sony will never admit defeat and keep chugging along with their "10 year lifecycle", nobody wants to make new consoles.

And most people don't notice how badly console graphics have aged because their arse is slumped on a couch 15 feet from the telly.

 

[Mr Paul]

Physics won't be widely supported until consoles can do it and the current consoles aren't powerful enough. In ~12 months time we will have APU monster CPU's from both AMD and Intel and right now IBM's new Power7 CPU's can operate on up to 32(?) threads. Given that traditional games rarely use more than two threads there will be a lot of unused CPU power to run physics on.

I thought the SPE's in the PS3's cell could happily do it.

 

[Calabi]

I think Nintendos Wii has exposed the fallacy that people always go for better tech and that spending billions to build a console that renders a few more polygons and then sell it at a loss is a very good money making strategy.

 

[mmj_uk]

I thought the SPE's in the PS3's cell could happily do it.

Yes you're correct Cell is very good at physics and I think Physx is even a licensed part of Sony's PS3 SDK.

Games like Uncharted do use a lot of physics but most of it goes unnoticed, people seem to think that it only involves blowing things into thousands of pieces.

 

[Corasik]

Love it or hate it, Microsoft have managed to get DirectX, Direct3D, DirectInput, DirectDraw etc accepted by the vast majority of PC game developers.

Surely the next logical one is DirectPhysics, both the CPU and GPU manufacterers could write drivers for DirectPhysics, so it wouldnt matter if you had an 80core main cpu, or a powerfull graphics card to help the physics windows would suport the lot.

 

[theforce]

Well Microsoft will probably not release a new console in the near future since they will be focused on Natal. Natal has its uses. I loved the fact that you can change channels only by using hand gestures.

Sony is about to release a new controller and since the PS3 has failed to win the consoles wars l can't see Sony spending another few billions to create a new console.

Nintendo on the other hand has the most underpowered console and it would be wise to release something that while more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox won't cost a fortune to buy. To sum it up l think Nintendo will be the first of the three companies to release a new console. While the PS3 and Xbox360 have nice exclusive games you can't beat Mario and Zelda. I wish Nintendo would get their act together and release my fave racing game, F-Zero on the Wii or hopefully as a launch title on a new console.

This year will be a good year for PC gaming with exclusive titles such as Civilization V, Starcraft 2, C&C 4, Guild Wars 2, another wow expansion pack and hopefully Diablo III.

 

[kylew]

Why would ATI bother with GPU accelerated physics if developers didn't actually want it in their games?

D3D isn't an open standard and it has for the most part won out against OpenGL so there goes another of his arguments.

Granted developers aren't keen on being tied to using PhysX, they'd rather have a choice of implementations but thats a different story.

And A3D isn't a great example, it was and probably still is the best at what it does and didn't die due to being a proprietary standard.

Open and opensource aren't the same thing.

Direct X isn't open source, it is however open, anyone can use if they wish.

 

[kylew]

Thats all Nvidia need to do, get someone to put Physx into a game. A really good game like Grand Theft Auto 5. So that you cant play it without it or its really gimped. Then Nvidia will have won. Ati will be forced to buy the tech off of Nvidia or face disgruntled customers whom may emigrate.

Then other Developers will know whom to go with and physics in games will take off like a rocket.

Think about that for a second.

What do you think is more likely to happen? People go out and buy a new GPU to play it, or people simply don't buy the game?

Add to that the likelihood of rockstar potentially impacting the amount of people that buy their game, and you've got a situation that simply won't happen.

Compulsory GPU physics will only be implemented when it runs on any GPU regardless of brand.

 

[Rroff]

Open and opensource aren't the same thing.

Direct X isn't open source, it is however open, anyone can use if they wish.

PhysX is just as "open" as directx is in that regard, anyone can use the API if they wish, anyone can develop their own hardware implementation - the only stipulation is they need to interface with it via CUDA.