Mafia II will feature PhsyX and No X for ATI

[saikamaldoss]

Why Nvidia is doing this..


New York, NY – May 18, 2010 – 2K Games announced today a partnership with NVIDIA® to bring NVIDIA PhysX® technology to all versions of Mafia® II, the epic mobster crime drama coming to the PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, Xbox 360® video game and entertainment system from Microsoft and Windows PC. Additionally, the Windows PC version will feature a thorough integration of NVIDIA PhysX and 3D Vision technology into 2K Czech’s Illusion Engine™. Mafia II will be the first Windows PC game ever to utilize the NVIDIA APEX Clothing module, providing an immersive gameplay experience in the world of 1940s and 1950s Americana.

The integration of PhysX and NVIDIA APEX technology, including the APEX Clothing and Particle modules, enable the city and personalities of Empire Bay to truly come alive on Windows PC. The NVIDIA APEX Clothing module allows for more dynamic movement in clothing, making in-game characters even more realistic and reactive to environmental conditions. With the implementation of NVIDIA APEX Particles, players are engulfed in lifelike explosions that are bigger and brighter, including weapon fragments, in-game debris and destructible environments that are amplified in both quantity and realism through the integration of APEX Particles. For example, a pistol fired into a glass pane will emit hundreds of glass shards; a shotgun blasted through a wooden landing will splinter the wood; and a Tommy Gun will chip into a brick or stone wall to methodically fracture and break it into pieces.


this is really bad and people will hate NVIDIA for this and i will pary People to File-A-Case against Y2k for favoring a particular brand of GCARDS..

this really is bad guys.. one hell of a game and we will not be able to enjoy it for a simple reason we did not buy a oven to play it this time..

or els the ATI version should cost 30% cheaper. because we are not getting the complete game with all goodies...


Link 1 2

[digibucc]

I was looking forward to this too.

I really hate Nvidia for doing this stuff.
instead of trying to advance technology generally, they want to monopolize the industry.
money is great and all but what they do is bad for technology advancement.

[Phxprovost]

dont worry open cl is gonna come marching in and save the day any second now.....


But honestly....why this surprises anyone is beyond me. As long as Nvidia is in business get ready to be plagued by the proprietary physics engine thats not really a physics engine.

[Mussels]

dont forget one thing: none of the consoles do hardware physX, they do it software.

So technically all Nvidia SHOULD get is a higher FPS... unless dodgy things are done like batman AA.

[AsRock]

Maybe it has Havok for ATI ?. And hopefully they will not take away more than needed from a none nvidia running pc.

Maybe they will do it how Metro is and allow you to pointlessly turn it on as you you will get is massive lag when some thing does go pop.

Do i have the feeling nv are throwing more money to people to do this ? yes and why not if you have it you telling me you would not after spending so much money on it ?.

Although i do think nv should stop blocking people running ATI based PC's with nv cards and should be forced to support and not block it.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by AsRock

Maybe it has Havok for ATI ?. And hopefully they will not take away more than needed from a none nvidia running pc.

Maybe they will do it how Metro is and allow you to pointlessly turn it on as you you will get is massive lag when some thing does go pop.

Do i have the feeling nv are throwing more money to people to do this ? yes and why not if you have it you telling me you would not after spending so much money on it ?.

Although i do think nv should stop blocking people running ATI based PC's with nv cards and should be forced to support and not block it.

games dont suddenly swap physics engines like that. If it runs PhysX it runs physX - it just falls back to software PhysX when no hardware acceleration is present.

[Mr McC]

Not really a problem: I won't buy the game and the company can decide whether it is in their best interests to get cosy with Nvidia whilst alienating ATI users. How many DirectX 11 cards have ATI sold? I encourage others to refrain from buying this game, indeed, although I currently own one of their cards, if ATI were to take this approach, my advice would stand.

Of course, I am assuming that the game will be visually inferior on ATI cards (like Batman and Just Cause 2); however, this may not be the case as Nvidia's participation in "development" does not necessarily guarantee a superior game when using their hardware. In any event, as a matter or principle, this stinks.

[Marineborn]

seriosly is anyone suprised by ngreedias moves in the past year, im not a fanboy but theve not been doing very well and will do anything to try to get a upper hand.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by Marineborn

seriosly is anyone suprised by ngreedias moves in the past year, im not a fanboy but theve not been doing very well and will do anything to try to get a upper hand.

I agree, and I expect to see increased "development" input from Nvidia as they are unable to compete at the hardware level. The 480 is the fastest single-GPU card, but most people see the 5870 as a superior and more balanced product. The trick is to ensure that "most people" don't support this kind of crap by buying the game.

[InnocentCriminal]

I can't vote in the poll due to a missing option... "I don't like nVIDIA, but I don't actually care." If the game is good then I'll still buy it. So far all the PhysX titles that have appealed to me I've been disappointed with. Not due to the lack of PhysX but due to the fact games not holding my interest enough.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by InnocentCriminal

I can't vote in the poll due to a missing option... "I don't like nVIDIA, but I don't actually care."

That option is provided, you simply don't vote

[InnocentCriminal]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

That option is provided, you simply don't vote

Which is what I have done or if you like... haven't done.

[AsRock]

Originally Posted by Mussels

games dont suddenly swap physics engines like that. If it runs PhysX it runs physX - it just falls back to software PhysX when no hardware acceleration is present.

Shame though huh. Well hopefully they will not strip more than is needed from the game so you get real crappy explosions when really your comp could of done it in the 1st place without a nv card.

With this going on i think nv should be forced tro allow ATI cards run with a nv card.

BTW how good are the work arounds for that ?. Might be worth picking up a nv card.

[ToTTenTranz]

The only hardware PhysX game I ever bought is Mirror's Edge, because it cost like 2€ during the Steam Holiday sale... and I regret it.

I would gladly pay for Batman AA, but I won't, for a matter of principle.
Likewise, I'll never pay for a game that has exclusive features for cards from one company or another.
There are lots of open standards for pretty much everything now, physics included. It should be of the developer's responsability to embrace open standards and promote an equal market competition for the gaming hardware.

To buy a game corrupted with payed up closed standards (or even drastic "performance optimizations") is to degrade the gaming/hardware PC industry, and I won't be a part of that.


Same with some ultra-invasive DRM infected games, like Assassin't Creed II.


With that said, I spent over 150€ in PC games over the last 6 months.

[Mr McC]

ToTTen, I completely agree with your point of view.

I have also spent more than €100 on games over the last few months and, for the most part, I have managed to avoid draconian DRM and this type of proprietary bullshit. Other games are available and to a large extent we dictate the actions of the companies. That said, I was surprised and disappointed to see Assassin's Creed II amongst the Steam best-sellers: for some people games are simply games and DRM or proprietary technology remain irrelevant; others are more concerned about the wider implications of their transactions. Are we right? I think so, but our voices will remain unheard whilst the companies continue to see profit.

[rpsgc]

Oh well, another game I won't be buying.

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

I'd score it IF its a good game. Played BatMan AA without physx back then because my framrate would chug when it was on full.. and it still provided me with a good gameplay experience. Physx would just be additional icing, but is not necessary for me.

I don't get the 'they should use Havok for ATI cards' answer though.. isnt Havoc another software physics middleware that has no hardware acceleration?.. it'd run on any pc with any vid card..

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Of_Iceland

I don't get the 'they should use Havok for ATI cards' answer though.. isnt Havoc another software physics middleware that has no hardware acceleration?..

but if it is possible to get equal or superior effects using software - would you want hardware acceleration just because? even if it is not better, and it is proprietary and holding back advancement?

If you were fine without it, then havok is for you as it makes it better while not needing proprietary hardware.

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Of_Iceland

it'd run on any pc with any vid card..

exactly ... what's wrong with that? the point for me is they should use havok or something else non-proprietary , instead of Physx for all cards, so there is a standard and everyone can advance it together.

[newtekie1]

Don't care, so I won't get some eye candy that likely wouldn't have been in the game anyway if nVidia didn't put it there, big deal.

I don't see any problem here.

Originally Posted by digibucc

but if it is possible to get equal or superior effects using software - would you want hardware acceleration just because? even if it is not better, and it is proprietary and holding back advancement?

If you were fine without it, then havok is for you as it makes it better while not needing proprietary hardware.

The effects you get with software PhysX, which is what you get when the game is run on the consoles or non-nVidia hardware, is pretty much exactly what you if they were to use a non-hardware accelerated Havok implementation. The software version of PhysX is the same as Havok, it runs on the CPU and hence it runs on all hardware, and capability wise it is just as good as Havok.

I think many people seem to be confused with the belief that without nVidia hardware, you get NO physics in the game at all, and that isn't the case. You just miss out on the pretty eye candy that hardware acceleration makes possible. You won't get dynamic splintering wood, dynamic glass breaking, and dynamic concrete chips when you shoot them. Instead you get pre-programmed breaking, like we've seen in games for years, and like we've seen in every Havok game in existance. You also miss out on the volumetic interactive smoke/fog, which Havok isn't capable of.

And don't forget, Havok is a close proprietary system also. It just runs on any CPU, just like software PhysX.

So what do the people with ATi hardware get? The same experience they would have gotten if the game was using Havok...yep, they're really getting screwed there...

[robn]

Not trying to be an ass here;

Really what should happen is ATI pay for equivalent extra features for ATI users.

There is no justification for price difference: ATI, Intel, S3, etc. users get the *normal* game at normal price. NV users get NV-subsidised *extra* features for brand loyalty and high electric bills.

Illusion dev team get more money, meaning they'll be around to make games in the future; they are good guys from track record.

But it does hurt the strength of the PC platform ...for that I still don't like it.

[EastCoasthandle]

With their stock slipping from over $18 to just over $12 in the last 40 days it's no surprise. In the end it won't create stockholder confidence.

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Originally Posted by digibucc

but if it is possible to get equal or superior effects using software - would you want hardware acceleration just because? even if it is not better, and it is proprietary and holding back advancement?

I agree, why wont they develop a middleware that dedicate a core from a multicore procie for dedicated physics calculation... or push through that opencl for calculating it and be pioneers at the same time.

Originally Posted by digibucc

exactly ... what's wrong with that? the point for me is they should use havok or something else non-proprietary , instead of Physx for all cards, so there is a standard and everyone can advance it together.

Well theres Open Dynamics Engine, Bullet, etc.

[HalfAHertz]

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Of_Iceland

I agree, why wont they develop a middleware that dedicate a core from a multicore procie for dedicated physics calculation... or push through that opencl for calculating it and be pioneers at the same time.


Well theres Open Dynamics Engine, Bullet, etc.

They won't do any CPU optimizations because:
1)Not everyone runs a 4+ core system
2)they don't sell any CPUs
3)There is no profit in FOSS Software

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

With their stock slipping from over $18 to just over $12 in the last 40 days it's no surprise. In the end it won't create stockholder confidence.

Who?

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Originally Posted by HalfAHertz

They won't do any CPU optimizations because:
1)Not everyone runs a 4+ core system
2)they don't sell any CPUs
...

well of course, the option to toggle extreme physics will be in an "on or off" state. Not everyone runs 2 cores or above yes.. but the chances of one having a multicore procie is higher than a user with an nVidia physix capable card.