AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

[Mar 08, 2010, 7:58 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

An article on THINQ talks with AMD senior manager of developer relations Richard Huddy about plans to promote AMD's open approach to GPU-accelerated physics at the Game Developers Conference. Along the way he takes a shot at PhysX, NVIDIA's proprietary physics solution, saying he's not aware of any developers besides Epic who are using PhysX for any reason other than finances: "They’re not doing it because they want it; they’re doing it because they’re paid to do it. So we have a rather artificial situation at the moment where you see PhysX in games, but it isn’t because the game developer wants it in there," he tells them. "I’m not aware of any GPU-accelerated PhysX code which is there because the games developer wanted it with the exception of the Unreal stuff," he continues. "I don’t know of any games company that's actually said 'you know what, I really want GPU-accelerated PhysX, I'd like to tie myself to Nvidia and that sounds like a great plan'." Thanks Mike Martinez and Ant via Slashdot.

View

50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

10.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 20:01

Manfromx

No one here thinks it's kind of funny Nvidia has to pay for it? I understand Nvidia thinks it's the cats ass but it seems like developers don't. I certainly think hardware physics is a good idea. Especially since I love simulations. However I think if any one of these two companies tries to have their own version, thus screwing the other side out of part of the game it's really a loss for us as a whole. Something like OpenCL seems more promising. Anyone remember the early days of 3d hardware? There was Rage3d, Glide, Virge, Rendition, Mystique etc. One card would work with a few custom built games but you were out of luck if no one wrote for "your" card. Those days were exciting to be out on the cutting edge, but it sucked if you ended up with the wrong card for the latest game. The games industry is much better for things like Direct X and OpenGL.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:50

Agent.X7

Whoops!




Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:49

Agent.X7

Kevin Lowe wrote on Mar 8, 2010, 19:32:
Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 8, 2010, 19:30:
This is a dumbass fucking statement. "Oh hey, we charge people for Havok, so we think people that use PhysX just use it just because it's free." Well, yeah you stupid jackass. Who would pay for something when something just as good is free? The only reason not to is because you don't want to code for hardware physics acceleration. (Which I believe is what PhysX requires in order to get it for free...)

He's just pissed that nobody is putting ATI accelerated Havok in games...
ATI, which is owned by AMD, charges for Havok, which is owned by Intel? Wow. That's not just regular ballsy, that's superballsy.

Havok is an independently run subsidiary of Intel. Havok costs major bucks to buy a license for. ATI has an agreement to provide hardware acceleration for Havok. I never said ATI was charging for Havok, but I imagine they make some sort of money for games that use hardware accelerated Havok. (Of which there are none.)




Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:48

TychoCelchuuu

I don't care why they use it, PhysX is cool. I'm glad someone's paying developers to make their games cooler. Of course, my computer can't really run it, but it's fun to look at the gameplay videos of the fog in Batman or Mirror's Edge. And perhaps some day in the future my 8800GTS will be a dedicated PhysX processor.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:42

MMORPGHoD

AMD's physics solution may suck, but PhysX is nothing to rave about either. PhysX seems like a bust after all this time and probably won't take off until future consoles take better advantage of it.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:32

Kevin Lowe

Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 8, 2010, 19:30: This is a dumbass fucking statement. "Oh hey, we charge people for Havok, so we think people that use PhysX just use it just because it's free." Well, yeah you stupid jackass. Who would pay for something when something just as good is free? The only reason not to is because you don't want to code for hardware physics acceleration. (Which I believe is what PhysX requires in order to get it for free...) He's just pissed that nobody is putting ATI accelerated Havok in games... ATI, which is owned by AMD, charges for Havok, which is owned by Intel? Wow. That's not just regular ballsy, that's superballsy.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:30

Agent.X7

This is a dumbass fucking statement. "Oh hey, we charge people for Havok, so we think people that use PhysX just use it just because it's free." Well, yeah you stupid jackass. Who would pay for something when something just as good is free? The only reason not to is because you don't want to code for hardware physics acceleration. (Which I believe is what PhysX requires in order to get it for free...)

He's just pissed that nobody is putting ATI accelerated Havok in games...




Seven Star Gaming - Sayre, PA

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:28

the_culture

'you know what, I really want GPU-accelerated PhysX, I'd like to tie myself to Nvidia and that sounds like a great plan'," Hhaahah. Personally I think that PhysX junk is just marketing hype and is no real benefit to the consumer. For me, it's just another screen I have to click through.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:27

born2expire

For a new or struggling developer nvidia's support/finances is great, I dont see AMD supporting many developers. Lame troll attempt from AMD.

Re: AMD: Games Only Use PhysX for Cash

Mar 8, 2010, 19:19

Cutter

Or conversely, maybe they do want PhysX and just don't want to pay for it. But hey, I guess that would mean going out and asking devs industry wide instead of just saying they don't.




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >