I find that life like graphics are boring. Cell shaded adds flare. I haven't seen a game today that looks as good as Shadow of the colossus.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Borderlands 2 PhysX Demo
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I find that life like graphics are boring. Cell shaded adds flare. I haven't seen a game today that looks as good as Shadow of the colossus.
*each* developer needs to pay for a license to use Havok
developers can use PhysX for *free* and according to the information Dan posted in this thread even *pays* developers and helps them use PhysX.
That's open for developers but it costs money for their competitors to use it.
How anyone can complain about this is beyond incredible!
AMD can pay Intel a truckload of money and each developer will still have to purchase a license to use it in their games. And AMD giving money to Intel to use Havok *is* giving moeny to their competitors...last I knew anyway AMD and Intel were competitors unless something has changed very recently?
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
You do understand that the purpose of being in business is to make money? I realize that they teach people that Capitalism == BAD in schools now but it's been this way for a very long time. Why it should surprise anyone that Nvidia does stuff to sell their cards is rather puzzling to me. I thought that was a given.
Which brings me right back to my own assertion that the game programmers are going to take advantage of whatever makes their job easier, and the producer is going to take what's easier on the budget as opposed to something that costs money.
The complainers need to understand that whether they like it or not game studios exist to sell games and graphics card manufacturers exist to sell graphics cards. Sometimes the two work together to help each other sell their stuff. This kind of business practice isn't anything new. If it seems unfair to AMD customers, well, nobody said life was fair.
Well i was talking about in the GPU market. Is the processor side not currently a landslide in favor of intel? Whereas the graphics side is a much closer battle.
You do understand that the purpose of being in business is to make money? I realize that they teach people that Capitalism == BAD in schools now but it's been this way for a very long time. Why it should surprise anyone that Nvidia does stuff to sell their cards is rather puzzling to me. I thought that was a given.
Which brings me right back to my own assertion that the game programmers are going to take advantage of whatever makes their job easier, and the producer is going to take what's easier on the budget as opposed to something that costs money.
The complainers need to understand that whether they like it or not game studios exist to sell games and graphics card manufacturers exist to sell graphics cards. Sometimes the two work together to help each other sell their stuff. This kind of business practice isn't anything new. If it seems unfair to AMD customers, well, nobody said life was fair.
So because a company does something you don't like but its capitalism and has been around for a while means you cant dislike it? That logic doesn't make any sense.
Anyways I wasn't surprised by it. In fact I knew it was coming. After all Nvidia did kill 3DFX.
I don't give care about Nvidia making money, I am more worried about how it affects the end user AKA us.
how it affects the end user is that you get either software physics with PhysX, Havok, or Bullet or you get hardware PhysX with an nVidia card.
Havok and Bullet don't yet offer hardware accelerated physics. PhysX does everything Havok and Bullet do (and for less cost than Havok) *plus* hardware acceleration.
What would you rather?
nVidia not develop hardware accelerated physics?
nVidia develop hardware accelerated physics, charge nVidia customers higher price tags for cards, and then offer AMD their source code to implement however they want?
What other option are you proposing here because it's not making sense to me from your posts.
Havok and Bullet don't yet offer hardware accelerated physics. PhysX does everything Havok and Bullet do (and for less cost than Havok) *plus* hardware acceleration.
What would you rather?
nVidia not develop hardware accelerated physics?
nVidia develop hardware accelerated physics, charge nVidia customers higher price tags for cards, and then offer AMD their source code to implement however they want?
What other option are you proposing here because it's not making sense to me from your posts.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
3DFX killed 3DFX. Nvidia (and ATI) just bought what was left.
Its not about that. Im talking about if Nvidia keeps this up AMD could fall to far behind to compete then guess what? Nvidia is free to do whatever they want and we will ether get a stagnate market where Nvidia says "Graphics are good enough so we are going to keep the current line of GPUs" or a monopoly where they can charge however much they want and people will have to buy it or they cant have it. No one save for the Nvidia Bigwigs will benefit from either.
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
I never said you can't dislike it. Some people seem excessively outraged and surprised by it though. I don't really have a dog in the fight as I wasn't intending on getting Borderlands 2 anyway, at least not until I finish my current backlog of games and it hits bargain bin prices on Steam.
That's a valid concern, which I certainly do understand. I'm not a huge fan of proprietary stuff myself. The problem is that you can't stop Nvidia from promoting PhysX, and you can't force game studios to not use it. I've already posted my own speculation, but I would ask how you solve it?
I never said you can't dislike it. Some people seem excessively outraged and surprised by it though. I don't really have a dog in the fight as I wasn't intending on getting Borderlands 2 anyway, at least not until I finish my current backlog of games and it hits bargain bin prices on Steam.
That's a valid concern, which I certainly do understand. I'm not a huge fan of proprietary stuff myself. The problem is that you can't stop Nvidia from promoting PhysX, and you can't force game studios to not use it. I've already posted my own speculation, but I would ask how you solve it?
Yeah the steam sale rocked this year. As for number two. I understand that its all good business, I just think it sucks that the major players cant come to agreement on a open platform that would make everything better for the people. Bust because its not as good for their wallet. And at that its not even the lower employes that are getting payed more its the guys at the top getting bonuses for taking a vacation that pays more than any 20 lower employes make in a year.
we've both asked and the only response so far is he wants nVidia's customers to pay for open source development while AMD customers benefit from it for free.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Well....artistically, yes. But speaking solely from a technological perspective, the graphics are really dated (today, that is). Go back and play it and you'll see what I mean. Playing it in low-res on the PS2 doesn't help, either.
PornoSatan
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,493
Gimmick
No I want Nvidia to suck it up and do something for the benefit of everyone. I own more than anyone's fair share of Nvidia products. Quit trying to troll me.
I have played it recently i also grabed the SoC and Ico combo in HD and it looks great. And using the emulator and cranking up the resolution is awesome on all games.
Regardless I would rather have the cell shaded because it seems to work for longer.
How is this trolling you?
You keep speaking in vague terms.
There's no other option unless we're just missing it.
What exactly do you mean you want nVidia to "do something for the benefit of everyone"?
That doesn't make any sense. You mean they should:
1. Not develop hardware accelerated PhysX
or
2. Develop hardware PhysX and let anyone use it for free
or
3. Stop development on PhysX and devote development to something like Bullet
or
4. Release PhysX source code for anyone to use it freely however they want
So you tell me what I've missed here as any other option.
Borderlands 1 used PhysX, well the software driven version of it anyway. Hardware PhysX seems like the next logical step and it looks really good. I just hope it performs well without players having to slap in a second card or lowering other graphical settings to accommodate it. Considering how hard Nvidia's pushing it though(FREE Borderlands 2 with any GTX 660 or higher purchase) I'm thinking they may have made physX not so resource heavy.
Anyway, I don't see them bringing back the dedicated PhysX cards without hardware physX becoming WAY WAY more widespread. I'm talking about at least 1/3 of new releases from this point onwards supporting it. Otherwise no one would bother buying them.
So that leaves mixed card setups which could potentially be a support nightmare with finger pointing on both sides no matter who you go to for support. Truth be told I don't think AMD card users would purchase a cheap nvidia card to dedicate to hardware physX unless a shit-ton of games started offering the option of hardware physX.
Seriously, I really like what they did with the physX and they picked the right game for it too considering that just about EVERYTHING in Borderlands has the potential to explode. Unfortunately it seems to brought forth some "Us vs Them" animosity between AMD and Nvidia owners that I'm definitely not fond of. I wish there was some way for AMD users to get in on this without having to just switch their main video cards.
If this was back when Batman: AA hit then it would have been possible(with the driver hack) but right now, after all that nvidia has done to hinder physx in a mixed card environment, it most definitely won't be so. While I'm glad I decided to switch back to Nvidia last month, I could have been in the same shoes as other AMD owners anticipating this game had I not gotten fed up with my 5870(fucking grey screens).
Anyway, I don't see them bringing back the dedicated PhysX cards without hardware physX becoming WAY WAY more widespread. I'm talking about at least 1/3 of new releases from this point onwards supporting it. Otherwise no one would bother buying them.
So that leaves mixed card setups which could potentially be a support nightmare with finger pointing on both sides no matter who you go to for support. Truth be told I don't think AMD card users would purchase a cheap nvidia card to dedicate to hardware physX unless a shit-ton of games started offering the option of hardware physX.
Seriously, I really like what they did with the physX and they picked the right game for it too considering that just about EVERYTHING in Borderlands has the potential to explode. Unfortunately it seems to brought forth some "Us vs Them" animosity between AMD and Nvidia owners that I'm definitely not fond of. I wish there was some way for AMD users to get in on this without having to just switch their main video cards.
If this was back when Batman: AA hit then it would have been possible(with the driver hack) but right now, after all that nvidia has done to hinder physx in a mixed card environment, it most definitely won't be so. While I'm glad I decided to switch back to Nvidia last month, I could have been in the same shoes as other AMD owners anticipating this game had I not gotten fed up with my 5870(fucking grey screens).
Your trolling me by posting to the people im posting to while not listening to what im saying. What i am saying is number 4 it would cost no one anything.
5. NVIDIA develops a properly scalable PhysX that seamlessly increases physics load based on the computation power present in the system. NVIDIA users are annoyed because hardware PhysX looks ludicrous, adds "fluff" gameplay features, and bogs down the GPU unnecessarily. AMD users are pissed because developers program minimal CPU-based physics once hired by NVIDIA, leaving a half-assed final product. In the end, everyone loses.
That's not trolling you.
For some reason you haven't though through what you're suggesting but if you want nVidia to release the source code of they PhsyX engine for everyone to use freely then that means nVidia developed PhysX with money that nVidia customers paid and AMD's customers get to benefit from at no cost to themselves.
How is that fair to nVidia customers?
baffling...how #4 not costing anyone anything? nVidia bought AGEIA and then spent millions of dollars developing PhysX further. You want them to release the source code whle claiming it "would cost no one anything". I hope you re-consider what you're writing here because it doesn't add up.
Do you honestly believe the current PhysX is the same thing they bought from aegia back in the day? Its not like you payed for it and it cost you nothing. Do you think that if Nvidia wasn't paying for PhysX ,buying it or developing it, that the GPU's they sell would have been cheaper. I hope you re-consider what you're writing here because it doesn't add up.
So we degraded to this? If Nividia developed it past what they had as source code they no longer use the source code and use their own version of it. Therefore it would cause them no harm to release it. But as it stands they keep it so no one else can use it. Hereby doing this hurts not only the competition but ever consumer as a whole.
At the time though, it was pretty fucking ridiculous to be honest. It looks rather nice on PCSX2 still.
Dynamic shadows, per-object motion blur, proper IK foot placement, volumetric particles, a physics simulation for swinging around while holding on to something, gigantic landscapes etc.
http://selmiak.bplaced.net/games/ps2/index.php?lang=eng&game=sotc&page=makingof
Thanks for the link. The game blew me away when I first played it. Well it still does. Its fun.
I think Nvidia is going to regret having released this video.
Half of Gearbox's customers are going to think they're getting their noses rubbed into the dirt for not having an Nvidia card, and many, if not most of them will think this video came from Gearbox. Gearbox must be pissed because this video is demonstrating the game looking bad on half of the video cards on the market.
OpenCL can do physics at least as well as PhysX, both in looks and performance; OpenCL runs like crap on Nvidia cards only because Nvidia isn't very enthusiastic about supporting the competition. If Gearbox had supported OpenCL as well as PhysX, it would look as good on ATI cards as it does on Nvidia cards.
Half of Gearbox's customers are going to think they're getting their noses rubbed into the dirt for not having an Nvidia card, and many, if not most of them will think this video came from Gearbox. Gearbox must be pissed because this video is demonstrating the game looking bad on half of the video cards on the market.
OpenCL can do physics at least as well as PhysX, both in looks and performance; OpenCL runs like crap on Nvidia cards only because Nvidia isn't very enthusiastic about supporting the competition. If Gearbox had supported OpenCL as well as PhysX, it would look as good on ATI cards as it does on Nvidia cards.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
I think you are being a bit too dramatic here. If Borderland is any indication of the sequel, Borderlands 2 should be a fantastic game even without debris and flapping cloth.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Yeah, no argument there, game was amazing when it first came out.
I actually just got the HD PS3 version today, this thread reminded me to pick it up. Didn't want to pay the $40 at release so I kinda forgot about it until now.
where do you come up with this stuff
mustang_steve
c[H]ewbacca
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,107
My take is that these cards should focus on output speed and quality, while the physics should be handled by the processor. Let DirectX handle all of this task management and have the cards just do what they're supposed to do.