47 replies to this topic

[sdy284]

http://www.overclock...com/news/26182/

what do you guys think about this

[Deathmineral]

I've always kind of felt that was the case anyway, since most of the gaming these days is done on consoles something like physx probably isn't the first thing game developers consider when they are creating their games. Though I don't think it's true that only one game studio wants physx, you see it in a lot of smaller indie titles as well and I'm not so sure nvidia would feel it's worth the effort to get physx out there with games that won't sell really well, that's just my thinking on it though.

[flareback]

I wouldn't put it past Nvidia. I think they should just let the game developers make the games as they see fit.

[sdy284]

Though I don't think it's true that only one game studio wants physx, you see it in a lot of smaller indie titles as well and I'm not so sure nvidia would feel it's worth the effort to get physx out there with games that won't sell really well, that's just my thinking on it though.

although it really would help explain why some titles like Batman Arkham Asylum uses PhysX beautifully (meaning the dev's were planning on using it) in comparison to other games in which physx doesn't really add much to the game (meaning devs threw it in as an afterthought)

[Deathmineral]

That's one of the problems I have with physx, it can really improve games like batman arkham asylum but then there are some games that have it and I find myself wondering why they have it. For example, just picking out some of the games I've played that have it and it doesn't really look like it could make an improvement are Trine, Valkyria Chronicles, and dark sector, I can't really make any comparison for valkyria chronicles but it doesn't really look like the game does anything that would actually use physx to it's advantage, but trine and dark sector I've played both of those on pc without physx, because I can't get it to work and don't know why, but then I've played them on PS3 and there is really no difference between the two versions and I'm assuming the PS3 version is taking advantage of physx.

Oh and for anyone that wants it, here is a list of all the games that use physx, http://www.nzone.com...xgames_all.html.

Edited by Deathmineral, 10 March 2010 - 12:54 AM.

[joel.monteiro]

tube light!!
y will game developers want physx in their game because Nvidia pays them to,they will loss their sales with ATi it doesnt make ne sence

[ccokeman]

It seems that ATI wants to push an open standard and thats all they really have at the moment. When you don't have something attack the other company line.

ATI has been offered the use of PhysX and Nvidia states they also support open standards as well as their own proprietary Physics engine. When you are backed into a corner with no workable solution then you lash out and that has been ATI's tactic on the subject of Physics since the Batman debacle.

The effects you see will vary from game to game but Dark Void is an example of a great implementation of Nvidias PhysX. Wheres the ATI Implementation ........

[IVIYTH0S]

Eh, whatever. It's a little sleezy but if that's how they wanna spend their money instead of moving on from the g200's than it's on them

[psycho_terror]

this explains why just cause 2 uses havok as it's main physics engine, but offers the option of physx powered 3D water.

now while the 3D water is totally superfluous, it's probably the best looking water i've seen in a game since crysis. even if nvidia is forcing physx on developers, as long as it's not detrimental to the game i'm all for it. it's a great technology and the sooner it becomes mainstream the better.

[ClayMeow]

It seems that ATI wants to push an open standard and thats all they really have at the moment. When you don't have something attack the other company line.

ATI has been offered the use of PhysX and Nvidia states they also support open standards as well as their own proprietary Physics engine. When you are backed into a corner with no workable solution then you lash out and that has been ATI's tactic on the subject of Physics since the Batman debacle.

The effects you see will vary from game to game but Dark Void is an example of a great implementation of Nvidias PhysX. Wheres the ATI Implementation ........

QFT.


Furthermore, even if NVIDIA pays developers to implement PhysX, that's not bribery...hell, I'm wondering why some of you think that's a bad thing at all? Bribery is forcing someone to do something...bribery would be if NVIDIA said "our drivers aren't going to support your game unless you implement PhysX." Bribery isn't, "hey, I know you weren't planning on using PhysX, but if you do, we'll pay for your time and effort."

Besides, I don't know if I fully believe that they actually pay the developers money, but I know they do provide support and will even send their own employees over to developers to work alongside them and aid them in their implementation if the developer wants them to do so...same goes with 3D Vision implementation.

As ccokeman said, it just seems like ATI is grasping at straws here, and even if they're 100% correct, I fail to see anything wrong with that business practice.

[Waco]

It seems that ATI wants to push an open standard and thats all they really have at the moment.

However you look at it I think we can all agree that an open standard would benefit everyone and hurt no one.

Edited by Waco, 10 March 2010 - 07:49 AM.

[psycho_terror]

However you look at it I think we can all agree that an open standard would benefit everyone and hurt no one.

that's a nice daydream, but in reality open standards benefit those that don't put in the work, and hurt those that do.

if nvidia had funded openCL instead of CUDA then everyone including their competitors would benefit, but nvidia would have been hurt financially. keeping CUDA proprietary means they can recoup their development costs.