Crysis 2 being re-designed for GTX580

[VoodooProphetII]

Are you playing with words here or are you missinformed even though it was discussed way more than 100 times on many forums.
It was NVIDIA who made such agreement with Eidos to block ATI cards from using the in-game antialiasing in Batman. Eidos had nothing to gain from blocking the ATI cards except from the money they received from NVIDIA.

The problem is some developers are like whores, they can be bought. If there was not such agreement, Eidos would not have any worries about being sued by NVIDIA.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991


NVIDIA: The Way It's Meant To Be Gimped.

Amazing.... Not. What did Nvidia say about this whole incident? Frankly I thought it was pretty good that they worked with EIDOS to get AA to work on the UE3 seen that (if my memory serves me correct) no other game using the same engine before had AA working in the game.

But hey, I'm just the guy in the general public who sometimes jump to conclusions before I get the full story.

[Oztopher]

I think the point of it is that nvidia got AA working with UT3, yes. But they kept it to themselves by supposedly blocking ATI cards from running it.

OK, this is business, they paid for it, stuff like this happens. But frankly, i don't like these practices, along with many other users. The fact that these types of things happen in business all the time DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just expressing my opinion

[VoodooProphetII]

I think the point of it is that nvidia got AA working with UT3, yes. But they kept it to themselves by supposedly blocking ATI cards from running it.

OK, this is business, they paid for it, stuff like this happens. But frankly, i don't like these practices, along with many other users. The fact that these types of things happen in business all the time DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just expressing my opinion

Maybe AMD/ATI should start getting more involved with game developers to ensure that their hardware run the game in all its glory. What makes me upset is the fact that ATI seem to just blame every problem in a game on Nvidia and the media and ATI users just seem to go with the flow and belief everything that has been said except if it is something to the contrary.

It is great to see that ATI is bringing out brilliant hardware (I've been an AMD user for years now), I just wish they would get more involved with the game developers to further improve the way their hardware run every new game.

[Oztopher]

Yeah, i agree with you about AMD not doing their work - nvidia works with eidos (after AMD refused to), gets AA working, and now AMD expects it to work on their hardware (which it might), but nvidia holds it with the IP ownership.

But still, i don't like these types of things happening. From any company.

And the point about AMD working with codemasters on DX11 for F1 2010. It still works on nvidia hardware right? Maybe lacking in normal performance compared to other games, but nv said themselves they haven't sorted their drivers for it yet. Which i would like to see the outcome of.

[trinibwoy]

I think the point of it is that nvidia got AA working with UT3, yes. But they kept it to themselves by supposedly blocking ATI cards from running it.

Yes, we would all be better off if nVidia did nothing at all. ATI cards still wouldn't have AA but we would all feel warm and fuzzy inside. My cold heart boggles at the sentimental nonsense people apply to video cards.

[Oztopher]

Hey, those weren't my words, i was just expanding on the situation

Love you too

[trinibwoy]

Yeah wasn't referring to you specifically, just the general notion that AMD is some sort of charity case. They are big boys and can take care of themselves.

[Manicdan]

i wonder what it would take to have it enabled.

if they are given a demo of the game, spend an hour testing IQ on a few cards, and say their all good, would they enable it?

[Heinz68]

Yes, we would all be better off if nVidia did nothing at all. ATI cards still wouldn't have AA but we would all feel warm and fuzzy inside. My cold heart boggles at the sentimental nonsense people apply to video cards.

Luckily it doesn't all depend on NVIDIA if ATI cards has AA, NVIDIA sure doesn't own a patent for it.

One think is DEFINITELY sure, we would be better off if neither NVIDIA or AMD can influence and pay the game developers to code games so they run not as good on competing cards or block some futures completely.

Let the game developers do the coding and if they can't, they're in the wrong business.

I have a hard time to believe that somebody who buys product from both vendors and like to have such option would approve such dirty practices.

[VoodooProphetII]

Luckily it doesn't all depend on NVIDIA if ATI cards has AA, NVIDIA sure doesn't own a patent for it.

One think is DEFINITELY sure, we would be better off if neither NVIDIA or AMD can influence and pay the game developers to code games so they run not as good on competing cards or block some futures completely.

Let the game developers do the coding and if they can't, they're in the wrong business.

I have a hard time to believe that somebody who buys product from both vendors and like to have such option would approve such dirty practices.

It all depends on how you look at it. Personally I don't see it as dirty tricks, but most people do so I guess I'm wrong.

[VoodooProphetII]

Yeah, i agree with you about AMD not doing their work - nvidia works with eidos (after AMD refused to), gets AA working, and now AMD expects it to work on their hardware (which it might), but nvidia holds it with the IP ownership.

But still, i don't like these types of things happening. From any company.

And the point about AMD working with codemasters on DX11 for F1 2010. It still works on nvidia hardware right? Maybe lacking in normal performance compared to other games, but nv said themselves they haven't sorted their drivers for it yet. Which i would like to see the outcome of.

No worries. I'm also just saying how I see things or maybe not see things...he he he

[Manicdan]

It all depends on how you look at it. Personally I don't see it as dirty tricks, but most people do so I guess I'm wrong.

it sounds like your taking a persons opinion too personally

no one here should say your wrong, but we're discussing a gray area where some people might see it as black, others white. we also only see about 10% of the truth. if someone comes out saying that nvidia held a gun to their head, his bias is clearly against nvidia (unless there really was a gun). so most of these discussions are about the "what if" that make up the other 90%, and based on those "what ifs" determines whether people feel it was right or wrong.

[VoodooProphetII]

it sounds like your taking a persons opinion too personally

no one here should say your wrong, but we're discussing a gray area where some people might see it as black, others white. we also only see about 10% of the truth. if someone comes out saying that nvidia held a gun to their head, his bias is clearly against nvidia (unless there really was a gun). so most of these discussions are about the "what if" that make up the other 90%, and based on those "what ifs" determines whether people feel it was right or wrong.

Very true. And sorry if I sound like I am taking it personally. "what if" is a good way of looking at the situation.

[trinibwoy]

One think is DEFINITELY sure, we would be better off if neither NVIDIA or AMD can influence and pay the game developers to code games so they run not as good on competing cards or block some futures completely.

Agreed, good thing neither of those scenarios describes what happened.

[Katzenschleuder]

at first i thought you were gong down the same old "physx is only used in games where nvidia pays the dev... bla bla bla", rather you're talking about gpu accelerated physx, which i doubt very much this game has as it's main target is the console crowd.

so, let me get this straight, because nvidia is spending money to help game devs incorporate tech that provides a benefit to nvidia's customers, that makes them bad? i for one appriciate the TWIMTBP program because when i see that badge on a game i know my gpu will be able to rock all the extra features without issue. nvidia spends money on game devs in many ways, none of which are bribes. they have a full testing lab for debugging, they give devs every type of gpu (even unreleased eng samples), they give them programmers... all for the purpose of seamless integration with their hardware.

now, if crysis2 is using the standard physx physics engine, then i can see why crytech is reaching out to nvidia. the standard physx engine will run on everything from the wii to an i7 which makes it ideal for a multi-platform game, and no-one knows how to implement that better than nvidia.

You refuse to see the reality. I have seen myself that money is being paid and/or resources spent under the condition to deliberately give the users of the other GPU-dev a clear disadvantage, even though there is no technical reason for it.

So you are not paying the better GPU-dev, but the one who has more determination to ruin the experience for those who dare to buy products from the competition!

[trinibwoy]

Examples or proof would be nice. Otherwise you're just some guy on the internet saying stuff.

[[XC] Oj101]

If I spend a lot of money developing a new technology why should I allow my competitor to use the same technology for free? Hell, if it gives me an advantage over him I'll do anything to stop him from using it for free - I'd patent my design. The same applies here. If Nvidia used their resources (finances) to get AA working on the UE3 engine, why should they not block it from working on ATI hardware? Nvidia isn't a charity, and neither is any corporation out there. Even private hospitals exist solely to make money. This is a capitalist world where you do whatever it takes to get in front or die trying.

[VoodooProphetII]

OT

Oh Jonathan.... Would you belief me if I said that I'm holding a GTX 580?

[[XC] Oj101]

I would.

/cries

[VoodooProphetII]

I would.

/cries

Nah... I'm just kidding. I'll see if temptation fades by the time our local supplier gets stock.

But back to the topic at hand. I'm pretty excited to see what comes out of this 2mil that Nvidia paid Crytek. What do you think?

[[XC] Oj101]

I think it means that you'll be the only one in this thread that can play the game

By the way, 3.9GHz 1.475v (yes, WCG is STRESSFUL!!), 3GHz NB 1.35v, 2x Gentle Typhoons in push/pull @ 1450RPM, 41'c, DDR1600 6-6-6-18 1.52v, GTX260 @ 675/1500 (GPUGrid crashes after a few days with more) 40% fan speed 66'c. Yes, I've been busy

In all honesty, if this means it'll run better on Nvidia only I'm happy. At the same time if AMD pays 4mil and it runs twice as well on AMD only I'm still happy. It's not being crippled for the opposing platform, merely enhanced for their own.

[trinibwoy]

It's not being crippled for the opposing platform, merely enhanced for their own.

A key distinction many people can't seem to grasp.

[Hell Hound]

Redesigned for nvidia gtx means,this is designed for nvidia gtx.Example-FPS Creator X10.This eliminates freedom of choice when purchasing gpu hardware.Either buy nvidia or you can't use the software.This does nothing for the community,only the nvidia party.lol the only way for them to keep it from being a console port is to add physx ha ha.

[[XC] Oj101]

Sorry for quoting myself, but:

Nvidia isn't a charity, and neither is any corporation out there. Even private hospitals exist solely to make money. This is a capitalist world where you do whatever it takes to get in front or die trying.

No matter how much a company may try to sugar coat it, NON of them give a damn about the community and exist for one purpose only: To get richer Welcome to Capitalism 101, and people are me why I support Communism

[Hell Hound]

That's why consumer's won't support those who spit in their face.But it doesn't matter they will get bailed out.