Matt, you get my eternal gratitude for starting the article mentioning the Amiga as the start of graphics co-processors. It is exciting to have a platform that will help blaze the way on finding solutions to our multi-processor problems. While it might be much easier to split up a graphics task into a million simultaneous pieces, the mother-lode will be to find that same process for all programming, and I have no doubt there are more than a few minds working on that problem right now.
Too bad there are again multiple standards working against the consumers. I've read somewhere that Nvidia was in talks with AMD to bring CUDA to the ATI cards, but I don't have much hope for that.
We need an OPEN standard for GPGPU and another for Physics on the GPU. And no, DirectX doesn't count.
@Dexomega: Do they use GPGPUs in the manner that the article is talking about?
I'm more worried how long it's going to take game devs to program these sorts of games. As we reach near-real graphics, all the textures and artwork is only going to become a greater burden in terms of time spent, and I'm afraid that will lead to even longer game dev cycles (which I feel are a little too long already).
Obviously, they could forgo hyper-detail work in favor of stylized art, but the trend still seems to point towards making graphics more and more life-like.
If the cost is reasonable from the consumer perspective, what is the problem with a long development cycle? The wait between sequels? Frankly in that case I'd be more concerned with the lazy pursuit of sequels over interesting, original IPs.
The cost will not be reasonable. I know this, you know this.
With our current state of graphics games are costing $60+ while often times putting less content on the disc than we would have gotten last generation and charging us extra $$ for DLC. If we are wasting so much time and money in development that the games look real, you can bet your ass you'll be taking out a second mortgage for that must-have title.
@Hello Mister Walrus: until mccain i think everyone thought of maverick as a good thing. I guess when you apply it to some old dude everyone starts thinking being a maverick is a bad thing.
look at Mel Gibson in the movie Maverick! now he was cool!
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
GPGPU!!!
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
We need an OPEN standard for GPGPU and another for Physics on the GPU. And no, DirectX doesn't count.
05/13/09
05/13/09
baltimore
who's your friend?
you!
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
I'm more worried how long it's going to take game devs to program these sorts of games. As we reach near-real graphics, all the textures and artwork is only going to become a greater burden in terms of time spent, and I'm afraid that will lead to even longer game dev cycles (which I feel are a little too long already).
Obviously, they could forgo hyper-detail work in favor of stylized art, but the trend still seems to point towards making graphics more and more life-like.
05/13/09
If the cost is reasonable from the consumer perspective, what is the problem with a long development cycle? The wait between sequels? Frankly in that case I'd be more concerned with the lazy pursuit of sequels over interesting, original IPs.
07/03/09
The cost will not be reasonable. I know this, you know this.
With our current state of graphics games are costing $60+ while often times putting less content on the disc than we would have gotten last generation and charging us extra $$ for DLC. If we are wasting so much time and money in development that the games look real, you can bet your ass you'll be taking out a second mortgage for that must-have title.
05/13/09
Seriously, ever since that first post and comment I cannot stop laughing hysterically at this pic! ^_^
05/13/09
05/13/09
Jeeze, this took some digging!
[gizmodo.com]
05/13/09
05/13/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
01/16/09
Please don't say that word.
01/16/09
look at Mel Gibson in the movie Maverick! now he was cool!
01/16/09