ClayMeow Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Uh...not really. Do you really think it would be a good business decision to allow a core part of functionality be controlled by your competitor? To benefit from PhysX you are required to have an nVidia card. That's the problem. To benefit from an open standard all you need is a card that supports the open standard...which requires no licensing and breeds competition to have the best implementation of said standard. The best analogue I can think of at the moment is the Direct3D versus Glide debacle in the 90s. Granted, it's not an open standard but it is a vendor-agnostic standard. If nVidia hadn't bought out Ageia it would be a different playing field - third-party vendor with no stake in who makes what cards. nVidia controlling the IP and licensing it out to ATI / whomever is the wrong way to go since they aren't neutral. Microsoft doesn't make graphics cards. Ageia had their opportunity and failed because they did the exact opposite of a "vendor-agnostic standard"....they required a separate card created by them. You can't blame NVIDIA for taking advantage of that debacle. ATI would have done the same if it had the money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 I have to say the fact that you can't run an NVIDIA card as a PHYSX card unless you have another NVIDIA card is rather annoying. IF NVIDIA wanted to push PHYSX, they could allow it to run with an ATI card as well. Also, if ATI paid to use PHYSX for implementation, then they would be paying to use both CPU and GPU technologies (as they already pay Intel to use x86 architecture). Um, no! NVIDIA offered it to AMD for FREE. NVIDIA has made PhsyX open to all, and AMD was/is just being stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) Ageia had their opportunity and failed because they did the exact opposite of a "vendor-agnostic standard"....they required a separate card created by them. You can't blame NVIDIA for taking advantage of that debacle. ATI would have done the same if it had the money. I agree that they failed. I was saying that if they hadn't done that and created an open standard where THEY did not manufacture cards it would have been ideal. Much like Microsoft and Direct3D. Do you not see that nVidia is doing the same thing? Um, no! NVIDIA offered it to AMD for FREE. NVIDIA has made PhsyX open to all, and AMD was/is just being stupid. Free and without strings are two very different things. Sure, it might not have cost them anything, but there are far more strings attached when your competitor owns IP that you're using. Edited March 10, 2010 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) Free and without strings are two very different things. Sure, it might not have cost them anything, but there are far more strings attached when your competitor owns IP that you're using. Exactly. I know I wouldn't accept a deal where the standard is owned by my main (and sole) competitor. NVIDIA could optimize all they want, while ATI would get the binaries as is and have to hope it works with their software and hardware. In the end, it would still work like crap on ATI... One more thing, we keep hearing PhysX this, PhysX that and how much potential it has... it's been out for how many years now and how many titles actually implement it so actually enhances the game? Yeah... It's obviously not getting anywhere Edited March 10, 2010 by Zertz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 I agree that they failed. I was saying that if they hadn't done that and created an open standard where THEY did not manufacture cards it would have been ideal. Much like Microsoft and Direct3D. Do you not see that nVidia is doing the same thing? Free and without strings are two very different things. Sure, it might not have cost them anything, but there are far more strings attached when your competitor owns IP that you're using. But don't you see that the two points you're trying to make are related? NVIDIA tried to do what you want and make it work on "all cards".... in fact, development on adding support to ATI cards had already begun by a third party team of people and was officially backed by NVIDIA. Now, what you said about MS developing DirectX and not being in that market, and thus not biased, does hold some merit. However, because Ageia was greedy and didn't go that route, that's not going to happen now, and that's not NVIDIA's fault. Could they theoretically sell off the PhysX division so it becomes a third, independent entity? In theory sure, though they have little incentive to do so, not to mention that loyalty to NVIDIA could still remain within that new entity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho_terror Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 I was saying that if they hadn't done that and created an open standard where THEY did not manufacture cards it would have been ideal. ideal for who? if that sounds like a viable way to make money to you, you are living in a fantasy world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 ideal for who? if that sounds like a viable way to make money to you, you are living in a fantasy world. If everyone wants your technology and all you do is license it and maintain it you can make a ton of money. Making hardware is risky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho_terror Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 I agree that they failed. I was saying that if they hadn't done that and created an open standard where THEY did not manufacture cards it would have been ideal. If everyone wants your technology and all you do is license it and maintain it you can make a ton of money. Making hardware is risky. how can your project be open source and charge a license fee? why would anyone pay you for something they can have for free? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 how can your project be open source and charge a license fee? why would anyone pay you for something they can have for free? Ask Sun, Google and other large corporations... Open source doesn't mean free Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho_terror Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Ask Sun, Google and other large corporations... Open source doesn't mean free admittedly i had to look this up to make sure i wasn't going mad, but this is how i understood "open source" was defined: Open source software — software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. surely if you have to pay for it, it's not really open source... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 admittedly i had to look this up to make sure i wasn't going mad, but this is how i understood "open source" was defined:surely if you have to pay for it, it's not really open source... yeah I always thought of open source as free for all to access, free for all to pitch in Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zertz Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 surely if you have to pay for it, it's not really open source... Sorry, I worded this wrong. Yes, the software is free, but unless you're Microsoft there isn't much money to be made on software alone anyway. 24/7, on site, technical support has a price though and it's not cheap! Anyway, open source graphics libraries on the PC haven't enjoyed much success so I don't see why physics would be an exception, but physics API's are going anywhere at all right now so who knows... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now