Nvidia Says PS4 Involvement Wasn't Worth the Cost

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]AMD lost 1.18B. NV made ~750mil. Who's making better decisions here?AMD laid off 1/3 of there workforce in the last ~2 years. NV hired 800.AMD depends on console's success this year (which are plummeting all around) to make money.NV decided to get your PC on your TV thus making a console pointless.Only 2.5% of 1600 developers are planning on making a game for 3DSonly 6.5% for wiiu.11.5 for the next ps4 & x720.The rest, all on tablets, phones, or PC. This is the last year of consoles. There won't be another xbox or ps5 after these have terrible sales. Nintendo just cut sales projections of their brand new consoles (wiiu by 17%) and cut software projections from 24mil units to 16mil! HOLY COW that's a huge drop for brand new products. Vita is a total failure because of no dev support and poor sales leading to devs dropping the platform. Shield and steambox will both allow an upgradable TV experience (pc gpu used for shield, change it yearly if you want, and Steambox is upgradable supposedly). Also both platforms are just launch products (ref platforms) as others will be able to put out a shield device or steambox. Say a shield with no touch screen, or a very small one just to launch the game device to tv not much else cutting cost etc...Companies can make their own version of steambox or shield and brand it (clones so to speak). An open platform will beat the stuck in stone consoles and developer support seems to show this. If sales suck on consoles this xmas devs will quickly kill projects.The assumption that games will be optimized for AMD due to consoles assumes they will actually sell in massive numbers. The fact is they only sell about 35mil/year TOTAL between nin/sony/ms. Phones/tablets/pc's DWARF these numbers and is why game devs are heading there in mass quantities. 350mil PC's sold last year. 900mil tablets/phones. Would you dev for 1.25B devices or 25-35mil consoles sold last year? OpenGL, WebGL, OpenCL and HTML5 will take over this year and next. Directx will be less important and game devs will save a ton of porting money. Get ready for a new era. With tablets already at 2560x1600 (setting this as norm now), I like our chances for better gaming experiences going forward (Intel pushing 4K hard from now forward, along with TV makers). Consoles won't be above 1080p for the next 8-10yrs. Even a tablet will blow by next gen xmas consoles next year, heck probably a phone in 2-3yrs. Consoles are dead, and sales/dev support shows this. You don't have to like the comment, this is just reality based on sales data and developer intentions.[/citation]


you are missing a lot of facts.

those figures are for first year release , NO console has ever had every developer hop on board in the first year. next gen consoles like this current gen really wont see a hike in sales until about the third year. and by then you can bet your "retarded-high-school-drop-out" brain that most devs will be deving for the next gen systems at that time.
 
[citation][nom]hagjohn[/nom]Considering a lot more games will be AMD (GPU/CPU) optimized, I think Nvidia has it wrong.[/citation]
Though i dunno, seeing that you program for an APU exactly the same way as a discrete CPU/GPU...not sure if it's really going to make a difference. Optimizing for AMD CPUs finally means optimizing for per core performance, which intel doesn't lack, and per thread performance, which will obviously benefit Intel too.
On the graphics side, however, it is possible that Nvidia (and Intel's integrated GPUs) suffer a bigger performance hit because of games optimizing for Radeons.
 
1 thing might come out of all of this, till now everybody was shouting get Intel for a rig to play games ... and the irony to all of these is that the new generation of consoles all have AMD behind them :)
 
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]AMD lost 1.18B. NV made ~750mil. Who's making better decisions here?AMD laid off 1/3 of there workforce in the last ~2 years. NV hired 800.AMD depends on console's success this year (which are plummeting all around) to make money.NV decided to get your PC on your TV thus making a console pointless.Only 2.5% of 1600 developers are planning on making a game for 3DSonly 6.5% for wiiu.11.5 for the next ps4 & x720.The rest, all on tablets, phones, or PC. This is the last year of consoles. There won't be another xbox or ps5 after these have terrible sales. Nintendo just cut sales projections of their brand new consoles (wiiu by 17%) and cut software projections from 24mil units to 16mil! HOLY COW that's a huge drop for brand new products. Vita is a total failure because of no dev support and poor sales leading to devs dropping the platform. Shield and steambox will both allow an upgradable TV experience (pc gpu used for shield, change it yearly if you want, and Steambox is upgradable supposedly). Also both platforms are just launch products (ref platforms) as others will be able to put out a shield device or steambox. Say a shield with no touch screen, or a very small one just to launch the game device to tv not much else cutting cost etc...Companies can make their own version of steambox or shield and brand it (clones so to speak). An open platform will beat the stuck in stone consoles and developer support seems to show this. If sales suck on consoles this xmas devs will quickly kill projects.The assumption that games will be optimized for AMD due to consoles assumes they will actually sell in massive numbers. The fact is they only sell about 35mil/year TOTAL between nin/sony/ms. Phones/tablets/pc's DWARF these numbers and is why game devs are heading there in mass quantities. 350mil PC's sold last year. 900mil tablets/phones. Would you dev for 1.25B devices or 25-35mil consoles sold last year? OpenGL, WebGL, OpenCL and HTML5 will take over this year and next. Directx will be less important and game devs will save a ton of porting money. Get ready for a new era. With tablets already at 2560x1600 (setting this as norm now), I like our chances for better gaming experiences going forward (Intel pushing 4K hard from now forward, along with TV makers). Consoles won't be above 1080p for the next 8-10yrs. Even a tablet will blow by next gen xmas consoles next year, heck probably a phone in 2-3yrs. Consoles are dead, and sales/dev support shows this. You don't have to like the comment, this is just reality based on sales data and developer intentions.[/citation]bullshit, tablets and phones are for kiddie games like angry birds, there are a few games out there that would be more "serious" but the game play on them is terrible at most, seen a FPS being played on the Galaxy S3 .. seriously the game play is lousy .. it just turns you into a retard when playing from a mobile device, tablets are for businesses not gaming devices. True games will always be a part of PC/Console industry.
 
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]AMD lost 1.18B. NV made ~750mil. Who's making better decisions here?AMD laid off 1/3 of there workforce in the last ~2 years. NV hired 800.AMD depends on console's success this year (which are plummeting all around) to make money.NV decided to get your PC on your TV thus making a console pointless.Only 2.5% of 1600 developers are planning on making a game for 3DSonly 6.5% for wiiu.11.5 for the next ps4 & x720.The rest, all on tablets, phones, or PC. This is the last year of consoles. There won't be another xbox or ps5 after these have terrible sales. Nintendo just cut sales projections of their brand new consoles (wiiu by 17%) and cut software projections from 24mil units to 16mil! HOLY COW that's a huge drop for brand new products. Vita is a total failure because of no dev support and poor sales leading to devs dropping the platform. Shield and steambox will both allow an upgradable TV experience (pc gpu used for shield, change it yearly if you want, and Steambox is upgradable supposedly). Also both platforms are just launch products (ref platforms) as others will be able to put out a shield device or steambox. Say a shield with no touch screen, or a very small one just to launch the game device to tv not much else cutting cost etc...Companies can make their own version of steambox or shield and brand it (clones so to speak). An open platform will beat the stuck in stone consoles and developer support seems to show this. If sales suck on consoles this xmas devs will quickly kill projects.The assumption that games will be optimized for AMD due to consoles assumes they will actually sell in massive numbers. The fact is they only sell about 35mil/year TOTAL between nin/sony/ms. Phones/tablets/pc's DWARF these numbers and is why game devs are heading there in mass quantities. 350mil PC's sold last year. 900mil tablets/phones. Would you dev for 1.25B devices or 25-35mil consoles sold last year? OpenGL, WebGL, OpenCL and HTML5 will take over this year and next. Directx will be less important and game devs will save a ton of porting money. Get ready for a new era. With tablets already at 2560x1600 (setting this as norm now), I like our chances for better gaming experiences going forward (Intel pushing 4K hard from now forward, along with TV makers). Consoles won't be above 1080p for the next 8-10yrs. Even a tablet will blow by next gen xmas consoles next year, heck probably a phone in 2-3yrs. Consoles are dead, and sales/dev support shows this. You don't have to like the comment, this is just reality based on sales data and developer intentions.[/citation]
You are also neglecting the fact that when a games is being development, 9/10 times it ends up being optimized for one or other console AND THEN only gets ported to PC. Even when consoles don't sell well it is devd that way to save cost.

So yes, games will be coming out to run better on AMD hardware since they are force to run on lower end AMD console APUs.
 
[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]AMD lost 1.18B. NV made ~750mil. Who's making better decisions here?AMD laid off 1/3 of there workforce in the last ~2 years. NV hired 800.AMD depends on console's success this year (which are plummeting all around) to make money.NV decided to get your PC on your TV thus making a console pointless.Only 2.5% of 1600 developers are planning on making a game for 3DSonly 6.5% for wiiu.11.5 for the next ps4 & x720.The rest, all on tablets, phones, or PC. This is the last year of consoles. There won't be another xbox or ps5 after these have terrible sales. Nintendo just cut sales projections of their brand new consoles (wiiu by 17%) and cut software projections from 24mil units to 16mil! HOLY COW that's a huge drop for brand new products. Vita is a total failure because of no dev support and poor sales leading to devs dropping the platform. Shield and steambox will both allow an upgradable TV experience (pc gpu used for shield, change it yearly if you want, and Steambox is upgradable supposedly). Also both platforms are just launch products (ref platforms) as others will be able to put out a shield device or steambox. Say a shield with no touch screen, or a very small one just to launch the game device to tv not much else cutting cost etc...Companies can make their own version of steambox or shield and brand it (clones so to speak). An open platform will beat the stuck in stone consoles and developer support seems to show this. If sales suck on consoles this xmas devs will quickly kill projects.The assumption that games will be optimized for AMD due to consoles assumes they will actually sell in massive numbers. The fact is they only sell about 35mil/year TOTAL between nin/sony/ms. Phones/tablets/pc's DWARF these numbers and is why game devs are heading there in mass quantities. 350mil PC's sold last year. 900mil tablets/phones. Would you dev for 1.25B devices or 25-35mil consoles sold last year? OpenGL, WebGL, OpenCL and HTML5 will take over this year and next. Directx will be less important and game devs will save a ton of porting money. Get ready for a new era. With tablets already at 2560x1600 (setting this as norm now), I like our chances for better gaming experiences going forward (Intel pushing 4K hard from now forward, along with TV makers). Consoles won't be above 1080p for the next 8-10yrs. Even a tablet will blow by next gen xmas consoles next year, heck probably a phone in 2-3yrs. Consoles are dead, and sales/dev support shows this. You don't have to like the comment, this is just reality based on sales data and developer intentions.[/citation]
To compare AMD and Nvidia directly really isn't the fairest of comparisons, is it? AMD is fighting a battle on two fronts against Nvidia and Intel. And despite the fact that both of their competitors are better funded and get more OEM contracts, AMD still makes improvements, especially on the graphics side of things. The integrated graphics in their APU's are the best integrated graphics around, far ahead of Intel, so I can see why Sony and Microsoft are going with AMD APU's. From a price/performance standpoint, AMD is hard to beat.

As for the second point of your rant, the part about consoles dying and being replaced by the mobile market, I find it hilarious. You sound like Michael Pachter, pulling facts out of your butt that have very little basis in reality. Nintendo dropped sales projections because they screwed up and they know it. They released their console early, thinking the early sales advantage would help them, but their console came off as overpriced, underpowered, gimmicky, and with very little in the way of killer 1st and 3rd party software support at launch, even now we're still waiting for decent 1st party games for the WiiU and only a handful of multiplatofrm games have made it to it. Reception for the PS4 has been far more positive. Right from the start the WiiU was derided by core gamers, the controller alone was enough to get it made fun of. On the other hand, most core gamers were very happy with the PS4 unveiling, minus not seeing the console itself.

Microsoft on the other hand seems to have a slightly different plan this gen. While Sony is heavily concentrating on the core gamer, Microsoft seems to want a decent sized share of both the core and the mainstream market. If the rumors are true, their plan is to have a slightly less powerful console, but sell it at a cheaper price and give it additional value by making it an all-in-one living room device, complete with tv tuner, DVR, web browser, Skype, and maybe even streaming cable channels, in other words one device that can do everything.

You mention the Shield and the Steam Box. The Steam Box may sell quite well, but Valve has yet to convince most console gamers. If you've seen the comments section on Steam Box articles on more mainstream sites, you'd see that gamers aren't convinced. It will be difficult for Valve to get the same kind of price/performance on an open system that gamers can get on a closed console, because a closed system means optimization. The smaller the form factor Steam goes with, the lower price/performance will get, if they go with a small, console-like form factor off the shelf PC parts won't fit it, meaning gamers will be paying the cost for the proprietary parts. Also, the launch price of the SteamBox won't be the actual launch price, because it's shipping with Linux and you'll need to pay extra for Windows to get decent games on it, even lower price/performance ratio. Shield on the other hand seems doubly overpriced. Most of what will release for Tegra 4 are standard, cheap, cell phone type games, if you want PC games on a Shield you will have to pay for a Shield and a gaming PC. That adds up quick. And your end result is playing games on a 5 inch 720p screen, seems like a fail to me when I can play console games on tv or monitor with almost the same PPD.

As for the mobile market, just because mobile hardware could easily catch console hardware before this generation is up, doesn't mean AAA developers and core gamers are going to magically jump ship. Not a single AAA game has released on a mobile platform at this point and you really think AAA developers and core gamers are going to suddenly hop over to tablets? Many AAA developers aren't going to take the risk of hoping over to another platform that coding for is entirely different, nor are they going to be satisfied with making games on cheap mobile budgets, not when high AAA budgets bring them closer to seeing their dreams realized in game form. Core gamers aren't satisfied with cheap little games that are made to entertain you for a few minutes at a time while you're bored and away from your house, they want long games that are of the quality of a Hollywood movie or even higher.

Mobile gaming will always have a big install base due to the fact that so many smartphones and tablets sell, but that doesn't change the fact that consoles have found a niche, a market that while small compared to the mobile market, has been steadily growing for years. As long as that market exists, there will always be a home for consoles. And I don't see that market dying anytime soon.
 
I feel that it might have to do with a few factors, like nVidia might not like having to deal with making deals with console makers on the level that AMD is. ATI was already doing it and with at least Microsoft, ATI/AMD wasn't actually in charge of fabbing the chips. Microsoft was, which gave Microsoft a lot of flexibility

ATI licensed out the tech to Microsoft, and then, Microsoft pretty much used the same fabs that ATI/AMD uses. Since the tech is licensed out, this gives Microsoft full control on price reduction.
 
[citation][nom]myromance123[/nom]This doesn't mean the games will be better for AMD hardware. A good example, Saints Row 3 which was in one way or another meant to have been focused more towards AMD hardware.Yet from my personal experience, using a HD7850 with Catalyst 12.8 and 13.1, it suffers low framerates when set to ultra. (Drops to 30fps and lingers there at 1920x1080 with constant explosions). Jumping to an Nvidia 680 with 304 drivers, it works smoothly and lingers at 60fps at 1080p. I know the difference in hardware performance is there, but I would have thought the AMD cards would have greatly benefited from the devs working with AMD. This wasn't the case, and in forums there are even AMD specific problems with the game.[/citation]

You should try the new drivers mate. If you gonna bash on AMD dev teams, at least do it with their latest work. I believe we are on 13.3 beta now.
 
It's obvious they chose AMD because they make CPU's, GPU's and APU's. Plain and simple. Why go to NVIDIA for a custom made GPU, than Intel for a custom made CPU and then whoever else needs to be in the picture. Too much to manage.
 
I'm not too much into all the "behind the curtains" dealings and tech, but is there anyway that Nvidia is working on an x86 CPU or maybe even an APU of it's own? Just a thought.
 


Its possible I guess since these things have a VERY long development cycle(upwards of 5 years).
Since Nvidia already has a few well performing Tegra CPU, its entirely possible.

The thing is, IS IT WORTH IT? Would they be able to break into the market? Sure they have a lot of vendor ties, but still, it would not be a simple thing as just having a better product.
Not to mention it would need to compete on a price/performance AND a power consumption front. Nvidia has never been good at appropriate pricing.
 
[citation][nom]redeemer[/nom]Sorry but Nvidia was not invited back, and that is the real reason! Nvidia cannot provide an X86+GPU based SOC like AMD can. This sounds like typical Nvidia butthurt![/citation]

It's cute that people choose to ignore that what nvidia says makes perfect sense. That and while having a combined CPU/GPU is a plus they didn't follow that structure with past consoles so don't pretend it's the end all/be all of reasons.
 
So much butthurt in this thread, wow. Makes me wonder if people is writing while being sit or standing.

Anyway, Sony said Devs wanted X86 and for nVidia to get the X86 license, Intel would have charged a hefty hefty sum alright. And since nVidia has a terrible track record for working with others, makes sense to me. They have the same Ego as Sony did before the PS3 blunder.

AMD was the smart choice for Sony and AMD needs the market share and recognition BAD. So, it's a good overall deal for AMD and Sony. Intel and nVidia still are so big, they shouldn't care, but it's a lost business opportunity for them and I'm DAMN sure it's going to hurt them down the road.

Cheers!
 


I agree, it may not make sense from a pure profit point of view. But from a PR and development standpoint I am sure it will "hurt them down the road", as you say.
 
the next gen consoles are going to be vastly outperformed by their cpu counterparts, look to see an epic fail in the next gen and a paradigm shift away from "kiddie toy" consoles like xbox/ps3/wii and people taking advantage of the massive power of "enthusiast" computers.
 
Tamasi said. "Having been through the original Xbox and PS3, we understand the economics of [console development] and the tradeoffs."
Click to expand...

maybe Nvidia realized their mistake after all the game developers up and left the PC market and killed their video cards sales.

too bad they didn't warn AMD
 
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Anyway, Sony said Devs wanted X86 and for nVidia to get the X86 license, Intel would have charged a hefty hefty sum alright.[/citation]

i don't think so. i think if possible intel might want to keep all the x86 license to themselves even if some of the tech are not theirs. remember the last settlement between nvidia and intel? if i'm not mistaken one of the agreement was to ban nvidia permanently from getting x86 license.

[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom] Intel and nVidia still are so big, they shouldn't care, but it's a lost business opportunity for them and I'm DAMN sure it's going to hurt them down the road.Cheers![/citation]

maybe it's a lost for nvidia but for intel? i don't think so. what console this generation using intel processor?

 
[citation][nom]poohbear2005[/nom]I think Both companies made a solid move. Nvidia is focusing on the mobile sector which the market is rapidly shifting in favor of. While AMD is trying to evolve the pc sector to be even more mainstream by making it simpler, affordable, energy efficient and more powerful. Eventually AMD will have x86 APUs running on mobile devices and Nvidia will have to change its goals. As I see it AMD is focusing on the long run while Nvidia is pushing arm based computing to satisfy current market demand. Maybe eventually all software will be coded to run perfectly fine on arm.[/citation]

intel and amd are working so their processor can fit into mobile device such as tablets and phones while ARM trying doing the reverse. maybe we are not going to see ARM based dekstop anytime soon but right now ARM trying to enter low power server market and intel does not like that. right now intel are using their manufacturing process advantage together with their Atom processor to compete with ARM
 
They're right. Selling GTX 660s under 680 moniker and then selling what would be the original 680 (if 7970 wasn't so underwhelming) for over double the money a year later is a much better deal for them.
 


Although your comment is not relevant, let me explain something.
Naming schemes mean nothing, you cna not say the GTX680 is mroe of a GTX660! Its all about viability. The GTX Titan is not a VIABLE consumer option.

Look at it like this.
GTX Titan : 7.1 billion transistors and 2,688 CUDA cores.
GTX 680 : 3.54 billion transistors and 1536 CUDA cores.
GTX 580 : 3 billion transistors and 512 CUDA cores.
GTX 480 : 3 billion transistors and 480 CUDA cores.

Now look at the above, can you see the pattern? The transistor count remains relatively the same across the "usual" flagships from Nvidia but the CUDA core count increasing incrementally with revisions/refreshes of architecture and markedly for new architectures like Kepler.

Since Titan has MORE THAN DOUBLE the transistor and more than 5 time the cores than the GTX580.
HOW THE HELL can you say the GTX680 is technically in the same range as the GTX560 and GTX660??!?!?!?

Should I post the transistor count and CUDA count for those two mid range cards as well to prove my point?
 
Lol is all i have to say nvidia it was smarter and cheaper for Sony and Microsoft to come to you and they wanted x86 something you don't have.

It wasn't Amd coming to them.

Wasn't a big thing well Amd expects 20% of their profit to come from consoles alone this year. And that is with the consoles not being very popular until later.
 
[citation][nom]Soda-88[/nom]They're right. Selling GTX 660s under 680 moniker and then selling what would be the original 680 (if 7970 wasn't so underwhelming) for over double the money a year later is a much better deal for them.[/citation]


there were leaked slides indicating that the 680 was supposed to be something like a 670ti, which makes alot of sense because of the fact that its so similar to the 670 already. the only reason why it came up in that state was due to Nvidia at that point of time not being able to get enough GK110 for the consumer market, so most of their focus on better chips went into the business market, where they get more of their money from. If you think that the 680 was supposed to be a 660, then...
 


Although you are making sense. I believe it was more of a naming shuffle around that made the enthusiast THINK the GK110 is sill the mainstream consumer flagship. Read my above reply to Soda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom