I love to read these Nvidia hater comments, about pretty much everything Nvidia does from physx to 3D glasses. There was no widespreadly used accelerated physics engine for PC gamers, so Nvidia put in time and effort and decided to bring life to their "own" solution using the stuff Ageia had to offer, and yes, they made it with their hardware in mind. They did not chop of the hands of the guys at AMD or Intel or Microsoft, etc.. to do the same. How is that a bad thing is simply beyond my comprehension.
Some people just prefer to reduce everything down to a simplistic level. Unfortunately, it does tend to trample over the facts. Case in point
Yes, but Havok under Intel wouldn't run on a GPU and PhysX under Nvidia, would never run efficiently on a CPU.
Two points made. Two points fundamentally incorrect.
1. Intel introduced GPU accelerated Havok as HavokFX after aquiring Havok specifically to entice ATI and Nvidia to get on board. Intel opened the door. Developers decided to be lazy (whats new). ATI made big noises.
AMD acquired ATI and canned it's involvement. Nvidia acquired Ageia because the impetus had been lost with HavokFX and Nvidia needed GPU physics for their GPGPU ecosystem and saw the potential for marketing GPU game physics that HavokFX was intended to bring. Intel had no GPU hardware and without AMD on board lost interest very quickly.
2. "
PhysX under Nvidia would never run efficently on a CPU". CPU PhysX has always played second fiddle to GPU PhysX. Hardly surprising, since the company makes GPUs, not CPUs, but if you really wanted to find out about the coding you'd read the articles by the
original NovodeX/PhysX coder - but then, that would mean revising a lot of preconceived bullshit. And that just doesn't fit the paradigm that some people desperately cling to.
Nvidia would love to have consoles.
Yet you said it yourself. Nvidia doesn't have the tools to provide console hardware at the moment, so what's the point of even bringing it into a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the article? The console hardware is immaterial to Havok, or PhysX, or Bullet, or any game engine specific physics engine - ALL OF THEM RUN ON THE SAME X86 PROCESSORS.
It doesn't have to be earth shattering, just people see it in a much more positive way than PhysX.
No, its only people like you that see everything as World vs Nvidia. The industry is built on mutually beneficial partnerships. If this weren't the case, why did Microsoft choose to go with Nvidia GPU hardware and software for Azure rather than integrate an AMD solution which already exists in their console?
Cloud based gaming is nice, but you can't replace the local computer. Not yet.
Exactly. NOT YET. Some companies move the industry, and some companies follow it around like a flock of seagulls hoping for a tidbit to float their way after the ship has sailed past. Microsoft and Nvidia are where they are in their respective markets because they are proactive.
Unless MS roll Havok into D3D, which is very, very, very unlikely (I'm guessing
it's just another piece of the ecosystem for MS's cloud platform. Big picture beats narrow focus every time), Havok will remain proprietary middleware - it is no different to CPU PhysX or any game engine specific physics implementation. It is actually a pretty safe bet that if MS alter anything about Havok's implementation - whether licensing or functionality, that affects Nvidia's business model, the latter will rejig PhysX/Flex to accomodate the change - it isn't any different to how companies reassess in the face of competition - but until that happens it is pretty much moot
people who are fed up with paper debris and smoke everywhere, wouldn't mind to see PhysX to go away
Except that some people - the ones who don't have such a narrow-minded view of the industry, realize that gaming PhysX is (
and has always been)- just one facet of what the technology is used for. For example (
PDF) its scientific use for Tesla/Quadro deployments. Even in a gaming-only scenario, developers are happy to incorporate it if it doesn't cost them anything to do so - that is unlikely to change if Havok requires extra coding by the developers to implement. i.e. it is no different to what has been happening in the gaming industry since its inception. If this weren't the case, AMD and Nvidia wouldn't be sponsoring game titles.
Because TWIMTBP. They coerce developers into using their proprietary software that only accelerates on their own hardware. NVIDIA has NVIDIA's interests in mind, no one else's (especially gamers).
Nvidia paid $150 million for Ageia to acquire PhysX. How many companies buy IP just to give it away? Does this seem like a sound business model to you?
Nvidia offers licensing, and the only other GPU vendor declined to do so- repeatedly. The first time supposedly because they put their faith in HavokFX being their future. AMD came along and swallowed up ATI and promptly canned everything - including ATI's gaming development program.
So yeah, Nvidia is a big ol' nasty for charging a licensing fee (just as Intel/MS are doing with Havok incidentally), but I've never heard a word from the people railing against Nvidia's proprietary model actually calling out the company that helped put Nvidia in the cat bird seat to start with. AMD crushed not only PhysX's only credible alternative back in the day, but elevated TWIMTBP by cutting off their own inherited
GITG gaming development program.
..
go figure...