BIGtrouble77 wrote on Mar 10, 2018, 16:22:
Illegal or not, I hate this shit. When I worked at Babbages in the late 90's I had to put stickers on all of our games that said "Only works with 3dfx". It was complete bullshit... Nvidia, ATI and Matrox cards also worked perfectly fine at the time when using OpenGl.
Nvidia is pulling the same shit that was done to them decades ago. I don't have any patience for it and I'm shocked gamers are so quick to defend this kind of stuff. All these types of programs do is attempt to eliminate competition in a very sleazy, cheap way.
Well, at one time all the 3d games you could buy
were GLIDE games, and they only ran on 3dfx products (because GLIDE was 3dfx's API, of course.) When 3dfx first began manufacturing "3d" cards there were *no* Windows 3d APIs, and that's why 3dfx invented its own. Indeed, there was widespread speculation that Microsoft was going to buy 3dfx/GLIDE and that it would become the official Windows 3d API. Until 3dfx everything was 2d and that was when the Matrox Millenium was the GPU to have...;) Some companies tried to make their "own" 3d cards, using fledgling APIs, but compared to 3dfx's 15-30 fps capability at the time they were slide shows, literally ~5 fps--or less (ATi prior the ArtX purchase, Matrox, and even Intel with its i7xx series of discrete 3d cards which ran off of AGP system ram in place of using an onboard frame buffer like 3dfx--and several more. They were all so slow at rendering that none of them was an acceptable choice for "3d.")
I had a big GLIDE library in those days. There was no D3d or Windows OpenGL 3d API at the time. (And "OpenGL" derived from SGI served as the foundation for 3dfx's hardware and GLIDE, IIRC, as most of the original 3dfx founders were former SGI employees, again--IIRC). It wasn't until ~3-4 years later, around 2000, that D3d reached feature parity with Glide 3.x when it hit D3d 7, and then people like Carmack were pushing nVidia and OpenGL. A year later 3dfx abandoned GLIDE for D3d, bought a debt-ridden plant in Mexico from STB (had ~$500M in hidden debt, which 3dfx had assumed via the sales contract--*without realizing it*!), and then 3dfx went broke and in the end the pieces were scooped up by nVidia. It was a good lesson on why the tech engineers in a hardware company should Not also serve as its financial managers...;)
There is no law against any IHV selling only nVidia cards or only AMD cards, etc. Giving discounts for exclusive selling (either AMD or nVidia GPUs but not both) is also quite legal and above board for both companies. Volume discounts for both companies are of course quite legal, as well. But the hard fact is that neither nVidia or AMD could afford to pay enough to more than a couple of IHVs to exclusively sell one line of products but not the other. Right now demand for AMD GPUs is through the roof and it is a seller's market for both lines--because neither AMD or nVidia are willing to up production to meet the mining demand or willing to manufacture mining-exlusive GPUs that don't do video output, etc., strictly for miners. So if nVidia is paying IHVs to sell its GPUs exclusively it is costing them an arm and a leg to do it, in some fashion, because any hardware IHV who doesn't sell both cards will be losing a tidy sum...;) As I said, there are a couple of IHVs who do that for AMD and for nVidia, but only a couple. If AMD feels nVidia is being non-competitive then I would expect them to say so.
All that said, nVidia has a reputation among hardware IHVs in China of being pushy and demanding and threatening to affect their supply, but fortunately the IHVs can fight back and call their bluff through deals with AMD, etc. They did with giant Intel, remember, when AMD introduced the k7 (Athlon)--Intel rattled sabres for a long time but the mboard IHVs were not rattled--they upped their cooperation with AMD, instead. Intel soon saw the futility and stopped all of that, and recently paid AMD $1B cash for that long-ago behavior...;) Bottom line: I don't think that any IHV will be put over a nVidia barrel it does not want to be put over.
It is well known that I don't make mistakes--so, if you should happen across an error in something I have written, you can be confident in the fact that *I* did not write it.