THIS is why we DID NOT want Dev support, Deus Ex will be first of many
  2 / 6    
Its a business decision, the guys who design graphics cards didn't talk to the game programmers at Eidos and say "hey you wanna annoy some nvidia owners".
The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.

So what can nvidia do about it. Well what I think is we need to acknowledge, from business model point of view, game devs develop for console because of how big the market is and we all know that's a big factor in games not working in 3D.

I think andysonofblob's idea is great BUT, it's just not happening, so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC.

Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D. An initial reaction to this might be "I've been getting this for free in patch's", but are we really getting 100% perfect 3D ready games out of this system?
This way nvidia can get game companies back on side(before they have too), get some money to the companies who will have to get staff to get the 3D right and we will get proper 3D ready games. win win win

Theirs also a good market providing for back catalogs as well.

If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?

Their's two possible scenarios out of this.

NVIDIA calls game DEV. "Hi we want to work with you to get your game 3D Ready for PC"

DEV "um were pretty busy trying to get it to work on console because of their low graphic specs and where expecting to sell a couple of million units on each, so I don't think I spare the devs. And um whats in it for us, giving you our time for free?"

NVIDIA " oh well there's at least ten people here who you say they won't buy the game, we could do it later, after the game release...."

DEV clunk beep beep beep

OR

nVidia "Hi we want to work with you on a $10 DLC for your new game.

dev "Ok i'm listening."

nVidia "either now, if you can spare the devs or later, we want to run thought the game with you guys and get it 100% 3D ready, that time spent can then be offered as a DLC."

dev" oh, ok, let me put you though to marketing"

:)
Its a business decision, the guys who design graphics cards didn't talk to the game programmers at Eidos and say "hey you wanna annoy some nvidia owners".

The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.



So what can nvidia do about it. Well what I think is we need to acknowledge, from business model point of view, game devs develop for console because of how big the market is and we all know that's a big factor in games not working in 3D.



I think andysonofblob's idea is great BUT, it's just not happening, so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC.



Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D. An initial reaction to this might be "I've been getting this for free in patch's", but are we really getting 100% perfect 3D ready games out of this system?

This way nvidia can get game companies back on side(before they have too), get some money to the companies who will have to get staff to get the 3D right and we will get proper 3D ready games. win win win



Theirs also a good market providing for back catalogs as well.



If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?



Their's two possible scenarios out of this.



NVIDIA calls game DEV. "Hi we want to work with you to get your game 3D Ready for PC"



DEV "um were pretty busy trying to get it to work on console because of their low graphic specs and where expecting to sell a couple of million units on each, so I don't think I spare the devs. And um whats in it for us, giving you our time for free?"



NVIDIA " oh well there's at least ten people here who you say they won't buy the game, we could do it later, after the game release...."



DEV clunk beep beep beep



OR



nVidia "Hi we want to work with you on a $10 DLC for your new game.



dev "Ok i'm listening."



nVidia "either now, if you can spare the devs or later, we want to run thought the game with you guys and get it 100% 3D ready, that time spent can then be offered as a DLC."



dev" oh, ok, let me put you though to marketing"



:)

#16
Posted 08/24/2011 11:04 AM   
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']
The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.[/quote]


Ah no doubt, thats it.
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']

The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.





Ah no doubt, thats it.

#17
Posted 08/24/2011 11:16 AM   
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 05:04 AM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']
Its a business decision, the guys who design graphics cards didn't talk to the game programmers at Eidos and say "hey you wanna annoy some nvidia owners".
The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.

So what can nvidia do about it. Well what I think is we need to acknowledge, from business model point of view, game devs develop for console because of how big the market is and we all know that's a big factor in games not working in 3D.

I think andysonofblob's idea is great BUT, it's just not happening, so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC.

Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D. An initial reaction to this might be "I've been getting this for free in patch's", but are we really getting 100% perfect 3D ready games out of this system?
This way nvidia can get game companies back on side(before they have too), get some money to the companies who will have to get staff to get the 3D right and we will get proper 3D ready games. win win win

Theirs also a good market providing for back catalogs as well.

If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?

Their's two possible scenarios out of this.

NVIDIA calls game DEV. "Hi we want to work with you to get your game 3D Ready for PC"

DEV "um were pretty busy trying to get it to work on console because of their low graphic specs and where expecting to sell a couple of million units on each, so I don't think I spare the devs. And um whats in it for us, giving you our time for free?"

NVIDIA " oh well there's at least ten people here who you say they won't buy the game, we could do it later, after the game release...."

DEV clunk beep beep beep

OR

nVidia "Hi we want to work with you on a $10 DLC for your new game.

dev "Ok i'm listening."

nVidia "either now, if you can spare the devs or later, we want to run thought the game with you guys and get it 100% 3D ready, that time spent can then be offered as a DLC."

dev" oh, ok, let me put you though to marketing"

:)
[/quote]

Not a bad idea IMO. I for one would gladly pay another $10 over the standard price if it guarantees proper 3D support. But it would have to genuinely be guaranteed, not the current "3D Ready" logo which is a total craps shoot.
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 05:04 AM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']

Its a business decision, the guys who design graphics cards didn't talk to the game programmers at Eidos and say "hey you wanna annoy some nvidia owners".

The market department at AMD-ATI contacted the marketing department at Eidos and talked money, because AMD-ATI knows it's playing catch up in a big way with nvidia in regards to 3D.



So what can nvidia do about it. Well what I think is we need to acknowledge, from business model point of view, game devs develop for console because of how big the market is and we all know that's a big factor in games not working in 3D.



I think andysonofblob's idea is great BUT, it's just not happening, so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC.



Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D. An initial reaction to this might be "I've been getting this for free in patch's", but are we really getting 100% perfect 3D ready games out of this system?

This way nvidia can get game companies back on side(before they have too), get some money to the companies who will have to get staff to get the 3D right and we will get proper 3D ready games. win win win



Theirs also a good market providing for back catalogs as well.



If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?



Their's two possible scenarios out of this.



NVIDIA calls game DEV. "Hi we want to work with you to get your game 3D Ready for PC"



DEV "um were pretty busy trying to get it to work on console because of their low graphic specs and where expecting to sell a couple of million units on each, so I don't think I spare the devs. And um whats in it for us, giving you our time for free?"



NVIDIA " oh well there's at least ten people here who you say they won't buy the game, we could do it later, after the game release...."



DEV clunk beep beep beep



OR



nVidia "Hi we want to work with you on a $10 DLC for your new game.



dev "Ok i'm listening."



nVidia "either now, if you can spare the devs or later, we want to run thought the game with you guys and get it 100% 3D ready, that time spent can then be offered as a DLC."



dev" oh, ok, let me put you though to marketing"



:)





Not a bad idea IMO. I for one would gladly pay another $10 over the standard price if it guarantees proper 3D support. But it would have to genuinely be guaranteed, not the current "3D Ready" logo which is a total craps shoot.

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#18
Posted 08/24/2011 12:23 PM   
The Witcher 2 supports Nvidia Surround, but wont run in Eyefinity across 3 screens, its all about business.
The Witcher 2 supports Nvidia Surround, but wont run in Eyefinity across 3 screens, its all about business.

#19
Posted 08/24/2011 12:33 PM   
[quote name='Arioch' date='24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1314166283' post='1283452']
Well don't be surprised if Nvidia decides to lock out 3D for AMD users in the future if Deus Ex doesn't get unlocked for us 3D Vision users.
[/quote]
Nvidia 3D vision is already locked out for AMD users.
When 3D is implemented in games, Nvidia doesn't have the power to block 3D for the other brands. If someone blocks, it's a developer decision : the developer is fully responsible, not Nvidia. (and it's the same situation the other way around when a game works on ATI and not Nvidia).

[quote name='andysonofbob' date='23 August 2011 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1314120826' post='1283215']
To my knowledge this is the first time the devs have purposefully blocked 3D.
[/quote]
Crytek did just that in Crysis 2 for ATI users when they blocked custom startup config files.
In Crysis 2, you have to force a specific config value in order to allow 3D mode on ATI graphics cards, with the latest patch this limitation has been removed so we can use 3D on ATI cards it once again, but nonetheless, the 3D options are still greyed out unless you manually enable it in the config files.

By being forced to tweak the ini files, I also discovered how to change convergence and how to enable the full dual-camera mode in Crysis 2. (convergence works well in reprojection mode, although it makes the artefacts around the gun much more visible). The dual Camera mode is indeed there in the game, but it's broken (completely unplayable)
Reprojection isn't a bad thing : if only Crytek did the rendering of the gun in a separate pass in order to avoid the extremely annoying artefacts right in your face and fix transparent objects issues, it could look just as gorgeous as proper dual-cam.

The iZ3D drivers work with Crysis 2 but the engine isn't 3D friendly : just like in it's predecessor, shadows are completely broken and most post-process elements cause issues.

Now, on the situation with Deus-Ex Human revolution : (this is just my opinion)
I think the conspiracy theories are completely wrong.
I don't think Eidos purposely blocked Nvidia 3D Vision, I believe two things happened simultaneously :
1- since they decided to implement 3D natively, they allowed themselves to use rendering techniques that the Nvidia 3D vision driver does not like (black screen or completely broken shaders). The exact same thing could have happened if they decided not to care at all about 3D and just do the rendering for 2D (Doesn't ring a bell ? Hint : Crytek)
2- since they worked with ATI to implement 3D, ATI got a head start. We have no idea yet whether or not they'll also implement Nvidia 3D Vision support. The exact same situation also happens the other way around when a developer works prior to the game release with Nvidia to improve the 3D Vision experience, ATI/iZ3D/DDD users have to wait for a patch, or hunt for config file tricks.
I know it is really annoying not to be able to play a great game on release date, but you'll have to bear with it for once.

I haven't bought this game yet, so I don't know how good/bad/configurable it is... I just not longer buy games on release date, it's kind of a habit I have from not having 3D Vision support for my dual-projectors. (AMD HD3D doesn't support it either by the way, I just have one because I need Eyefinity for the reliable dual-projectors Frame-lock).
I just would like to welcome you all to the "frustrated 3D gamers club", and remind you that this situation is the "usual" way of doing 3D.... when developers are not involved in 3D for your device.
So the next time you call for developers not to support 3D at all, just remember that this does not mean great 3D Vision graphics and free convergence : it actually means back to the era when not a single game worked on release and we had to wait for months until Nvidia finally released a new driver that allowed to barely launch the game, even with broken shadows, and when we were supposed to be happy just playing the thing with all shadows and postprocess turned off.

Developer support is a good thing. Some of them just need to be burned when they do bad support, so that they learn their lessons the first time and get it done right later.
[quote name='Arioch' date='24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1314166283' post='1283452']

Well don't be surprised if Nvidia decides to lock out 3D for AMD users in the future if Deus Ex doesn't get unlocked for us 3D Vision users.



Nvidia 3D vision is already locked out for AMD users.

When 3D is implemented in games, Nvidia doesn't have the power to block 3D for the other brands. If someone blocks, it's a developer decision : the developer is fully responsible, not Nvidia. (and it's the same situation the other way around when a game works on ATI and not Nvidia).



[quote name='andysonofbob' date='23 August 2011 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1314120826' post='1283215']

To my knowledge this is the first time the devs have purposefully blocked 3D.



Crytek did just that in Crysis 2 for ATI users when they blocked custom startup config files.

In Crysis 2, you have to force a specific config value in order to allow 3D mode on ATI graphics cards, with the latest patch this limitation has been removed so we can use 3D on ATI cards it once again, but nonetheless, the 3D options are still greyed out unless you manually enable it in the config files.



By being forced to tweak the ini files, I also discovered how to change convergence and how to enable the full dual-camera mode in Crysis 2. (convergence works well in reprojection mode, although it makes the artefacts around the gun much more visible). The dual Camera mode is indeed there in the game, but it's broken (completely unplayable)

Reprojection isn't a bad thing : if only Crytek did the rendering of the gun in a separate pass in order to avoid the extremely annoying artefacts right in your face and fix transparent objects issues, it could look just as gorgeous as proper dual-cam.



The iZ3D drivers work with Crysis 2 but the engine isn't 3D friendly : just like in it's predecessor, shadows are completely broken and most post-process elements cause issues.



Now, on the situation with Deus-Ex Human revolution : (this is just my opinion)

I think the conspiracy theories are completely wrong.

I don't think Eidos purposely blocked Nvidia 3D Vision, I believe two things happened simultaneously :

1- since they decided to implement 3D natively, they allowed themselves to use rendering techniques that the Nvidia 3D vision driver does not like (black screen or completely broken shaders). The exact same thing could have happened if they decided not to care at all about 3D and just do the rendering for 2D (Doesn't ring a bell ? Hint : Crytek)

2- since they worked with ATI to implement 3D, ATI got a head start. We have no idea yet whether or not they'll also implement Nvidia 3D Vision support. The exact same situation also happens the other way around when a developer works prior to the game release with Nvidia to improve the 3D Vision experience, ATI/iZ3D/DDD users have to wait for a patch, or hunt for config file tricks.

I know it is really annoying not to be able to play a great game on release date, but you'll have to bear with it for once.



I haven't bought this game yet, so I don't know how good/bad/configurable it is... I just not longer buy games on release date, it's kind of a habit I have from not having 3D Vision support for my dual-projectors. (AMD HD3D doesn't support it either by the way, I just have one because I need Eyefinity for the reliable dual-projectors Frame-lock).

I just would like to welcome you all to the "frustrated 3D gamers club", and remind you that this situation is the "usual" way of doing 3D.... when developers are not involved in 3D for your device.

So the next time you call for developers not to support 3D at all, just remember that this does not mean great 3D Vision graphics and free convergence : it actually means back to the era when not a single game worked on release and we had to wait for months until Nvidia finally released a new driver that allowed to barely launch the game, even with broken shadows, and when we were supposed to be happy just playing the thing with all shadows and postprocess turned off.



Developer support is a good thing. Some of them just need to be burned when they do bad support, so that they learn their lessons the first time and get it done right later.

Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter

#20
Posted 08/24/2011 12:35 PM   
[quote]Reprojection isn't a bad thing[/quote]

kill it with fire!!!
Reprojection isn't a bad thing




kill it with fire!!!

#21
Posted 08/24/2011 12:40 PM   
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='24 August 2011 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1314189627' post='1283589']
kill it with fire!!!
[/quote]
[img]http://img.over-blog.com/295x271/0/51/11/65/a-venir-3/Bucher.jpg[/img]
/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />
That was [b]not[/b] what I meant.

I also added : [b]"so that they learn their lessons the first time and get it done right later."
[/b]
Reprojection can be done right and works well in certain cases.
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='24 August 2011 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1314189627' post='1283589']

kill it with fire!!!



Image

/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />

That was not what I meant.



I also added : "so that they learn their lessons the first time and get it done right later."



Reprojection can be done right and works well in certain cases.

Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter

#22
Posted 08/24/2011 12:54 PM   
Seperate images rendered at 40- 60frame / eye, upsampled to 120fps / eye, thats OK. Looks good at lower res because acts like supersampling. Also you can turn interpolation off.

Mono 60frame plus bogus second view, limiting scope of use, not OK. Won't look good on low res, won't act like supersampling, but : "cut corners".
Seperate images rendered at 40- 60frame / eye, upsampled to 120fps / eye, thats OK. Looks good at lower res because acts like supersampling. Also you can turn interpolation off.



Mono 60frame plus bogus second view, limiting scope of use, not OK. Won't look good on low res, won't act like supersampling, but : "cut corners".

#23
Posted 08/24/2011 01:09 PM   
@ malmic-of-tesla

Making games cost an addition 25% if too expensive for me. :( I have to think long and hard with each and every purchase. As I keep saying I wish the devs just included thorough options in the graphics settings so we could fix any issue ourselves. This will support everyone, from lowliest laptop to uber quad SLI 3D desktop.
@ malmic-of-tesla



Making games cost an addition 25% if too expensive for me. :( I have to think long and hard with each and every purchase. As I keep saying I wish the devs just included thorough options in the graphics settings so we could fix any issue ourselves. This will support everyone, from lowliest laptop to uber quad SLI 3D desktop.

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#24
Posted 08/24/2011 02:23 PM   
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC...Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D...If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?[/quote]

Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.
Cheers,
DD
[quote name='malmic-of-tesla' date='24 August 2011 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1314183879' post='1283534']so, how about nvidia approach companies with the idea of offering 3D support as a DLC...Pay $10 for a DLC and you get perfect 3D...If your going to spend the money on the rig, the screen, the card and the game you might as well pay $10 to get it all working properly?



Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.

Cheers,

DD

#25
Posted 08/24/2011 03:03 PM   
[quote name='DickDastardly' date='24 August 2011 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1314198232' post='1283652']
Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.
Cheers,
DD
[/quote]

I really do understand the points you make in that argument, and I believe you're right about that being the end of any working 3D without paying for it, once such a precedent is set. But, like you said, to have a guaranteed good 3D experience, I would be willing to spend the extra money for it. I don't have any statistics of course, but it seems to me that most 3D Vision users would not be on a shoestring budget. I mean, like you said, if we have already forked out hundreds of dollars to run 3D in the first place, and you are already paying $50 on a AAA title, what's another $10? Honestly 10 bucks is not very significant in my opinion. And sure, the more games you play the more that will cost, but still, IF such a world was ever developed, I'm just saying that it would be worth it to me, rather than deal with all the frustration we've had to deal with lately. How many 3D Vision users who bought TW2 on the day of release would have been willing to pay another $10 to have it working right then, instead of waiting 3 months later to play the game?... I rest my case. :)
[quote name='DickDastardly' date='24 August 2011 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1314198232' post='1283652']

Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.

Cheers,

DD





I really do understand the points you make in that argument, and I believe you're right about that being the end of any working 3D without paying for it, once such a precedent is set. But, like you said, to have a guaranteed good 3D experience, I would be willing to spend the extra money for it. I don't have any statistics of course, but it seems to me that most 3D Vision users would not be on a shoestring budget. I mean, like you said, if we have already forked out hundreds of dollars to run 3D in the first place, and you are already paying $50 on a AAA title, what's another $10? Honestly 10 bucks is not very significant in my opinion. And sure, the more games you play the more that will cost, but still, IF such a world was ever developed, I'm just saying that it would be worth it to me, rather than deal with all the frustration we've had to deal with lately. How many 3D Vision users who bought TW2 on the day of release would have been willing to pay another $10 to have it working right then, instead of waiting 3 months later to play the game?... I rest my case. :)

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#26
Posted 08/24/2011 08:32 PM   
[quote name='DickDastardly' date='24 August 2011 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1314198232' post='1283652']
Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.
Cheers,
DD
[/quote]


---------------------------

I agree. They would all start charging more.
I recall the greed involved starting with COD MW2. They were getting apprx. 60 bucks for the Xbox version and then decided to stick it to PC users by charging $60 instead of the normal $50 at the time. Next thing you know, they are all trying to get $60 for a PC game. Forget about the fact that the user has to deal with all the issues that a PC version brings.
Games are too expensive now.
That is a terrible idea and would probably kill what's left of PC gaming in general and 3D gaming in particular.
I'm sure the companies selling games would prefer to be able to sell as many as possible, irregardless of the platform or GPU.
So my answer is---simply don't buy the games that pigeon hole you into a certain GPU or 3D solution.
The greed of the game publishers will take care of the rest.
[quote name='DickDastardly' date='24 August 2011 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1314198232' post='1283652']

Given that we've already all had to buy a fairly high end nVidia card (and realistically two if we want decent framerates in 3D) and one or more pairs of nVidia glasses (which are roughly double the cost of those from other brands), if any transfer of funds is necessary to get game devs to render things correctly in 3D it should be coming out of nVidia's pockets not those of users. I'm not saying I wouldn't be prepared to (grudgingly) pay $10 to get a couple of my favourite games working properly in 3D, but the point is it wouldn't just be a couple of games -as soon as one dev gets away with charging extra for 3D you can kiss all those games that just happen to work fine in 3D (with no extra dev help) goodbye, as in future they'd all be deliberately blocked for anyone who doesn't pay the 3D tax. And IMHO there'd be no quicker way to kill 3D than to make users pay an extra charge for every game they buy.

Cheers,

DD







---------------------------



I agree. They would all start charging more.

I recall the greed involved starting with COD MW2. They were getting apprx. 60 bucks for the Xbox version and then decided to stick it to PC users by charging $60 instead of the normal $50 at the time. Next thing you know, they are all trying to get $60 for a PC game. Forget about the fact that the user has to deal with all the issues that a PC version brings.

Games are too expensive now.

That is a terrible idea and would probably kill what's left of PC gaming in general and 3D gaming in particular.

I'm sure the companies selling games would prefer to be able to sell as many as possible, irregardless of the platform or GPU.

So my answer is---simply don't buy the games that pigeon hole you into a certain GPU or 3D solution.

The greed of the game publishers will take care of the rest.

#27
Posted 08/25/2011 11:03 AM   
[quote name='churnobull' date='25 August 2011 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1314270197' post='1284038']
---------------------------

I agree. They would all start charging more.
I recall the greed involved starting with COD MW2. They were getting apprx. 60 bucks for the Xbox version and then decided to stick it to PC users by charging $60 instead of the normal $50 at the time. Next thing you know, they are all trying to get $60 for a PC game. Forget about the fact that the user has to deal with all the issues that a PC version brings.
Games are too expensive now.
That is a terrible idea and would probably kill what's left of PC gaming in general and 3D gaming in particular.
I'm sure the companies selling games would prefer to be able to sell as many as possible, irregardless of the platform or GPU.
So my answer is---simply don't buy the games that pigeon hole you into a certain GPU or 3D solution.
The greed of the game publishers will take care of the rest.
[/quote]

But we aren't talking about raising the price of the game across the board, we are talking about charging for a DLC that allows you to play in 3D. The pricing of the stand alone game itself will not change. That way all of the 3D haters will be treated as a completely seperate entity and nothing will change for them. What would change for 3D Vision users (hypothetically speaking) is more games with properly working 3D and better support for it from the developers. As of right now, it doesn't seem like developers want to be hasseled with 3D.... give them financial incentive to do so and that might change. What's clear at this point is that things WILL NOT change as long as there are 1000s of forum posts out there on every gaming site that flame 3D as a gimmick. What incentive do the devs have for putting much time and effort into such a small niche market? Nvidia is the company making money off of 3d right now, not the developers. So I say throw 'em a bone and let's at least get the devs on the bandwagon.
[quote name='churnobull' date='25 August 2011 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1314270197' post='1284038']

---------------------------



I agree. They would all start charging more.

I recall the greed involved starting with COD MW2. They were getting apprx. 60 bucks for the Xbox version and then decided to stick it to PC users by charging $60 instead of the normal $50 at the time. Next thing you know, they are all trying to get $60 for a PC game. Forget about the fact that the user has to deal with all the issues that a PC version brings.

Games are too expensive now.

That is a terrible idea and would probably kill what's left of PC gaming in general and 3D gaming in particular.

I'm sure the companies selling games would prefer to be able to sell as many as possible, irregardless of the platform or GPU.

So my answer is---simply don't buy the games that pigeon hole you into a certain GPU or 3D solution.

The greed of the game publishers will take care of the rest.





But we aren't talking about raising the price of the game across the board, we are talking about charging for a DLC that allows you to play in 3D. The pricing of the stand alone game itself will not change. That way all of the 3D haters will be treated as a completely seperate entity and nothing will change for them. What would change for 3D Vision users (hypothetically speaking) is more games with properly working 3D and better support for it from the developers. As of right now, it doesn't seem like developers want to be hasseled with 3D.... give them financial incentive to do so and that might change. What's clear at this point is that things WILL NOT change as long as there are 1000s of forum posts out there on every gaming site that flame 3D as a gimmick. What incentive do the devs have for putting much time and effort into such a small niche market? Nvidia is the company making money off of 3d right now, not the developers. So I say throw 'em a bone and let's at least get the devs on the bandwagon.

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#28
Posted 08/25/2011 01:09 PM   
Things are about to change because cloud gaming ( onlive etc.) , next gen consoles, you just have to chill , & you don't HAVE to play the game on the release day, its riddled with bugs all the time even in 2D !!! Then how can you expect flawless 3D ?

Stubborness.
Things are about to change because cloud gaming ( onlive etc.) , next gen consoles, you just have to chill , & you don't HAVE to play the game on the release day, its riddled with bugs all the time even in 2D !!! Then how can you expect flawless 3D ?



Stubborness.

#29
Posted 08/25/2011 01:20 PM   
[quote name='SnickerSnack' date='24 August 2011 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1314140626' post='1283342']
I don't think we can assume Eidos is in Ati's camp considering they have already confirmed 3D Vision support for Batman Arkham City, which is published by Eidos.
.... I think.... at least Arkham Asylum was.
[/quote]
Batman Arkham City is being developed by Rocksteady Studios, eidos is just the publisher for this game?. I can understand others are irked by the news but imho deus Ex looks mediocre for the PC, and the color scheme is just naff, so for me i'm not at all disapointed :).
[quote name='SnickerSnack' date='24 August 2011 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1314140626' post='1283342']

I don't think we can assume Eidos is in Ati's camp considering they have already confirmed 3D Vision support for Batman Arkham City, which is published by Eidos.

.... I think.... at least Arkham Asylum was.



Batman Arkham City is being developed by Rocksteady Studios, eidos is just the publisher for this game?. I can understand others are irked by the news but imho deus Ex looks mediocre for the PC, and the color scheme is just naff, so for me i'm not at all disapointed :).

Windows 10 home x64
P9X79
i7-3820 @ 3.6-3.8 GHz
GTX 970 SSC
16GB 4x4 DDR3 RAM
SSD 850 PRO 256GB
VG248QE 144Hz

#30
Posted 08/25/2011 02:33 PM   
  2 / 6    
Scroll To Top