Game Devs Only Use PhysX For the Money, Says AMD

arcticstoat writes "AMD has just aimed a shot at Nvidia's PhysX technology, saying that most game developers only implement GPU-accelerated PhysX for the money. AMD's Richard Huddy explained that 'Nvidia creates a marketing deal with a title, and then as part of that marketing deal, they have the right to go in and implement PhysX in the game.' However, he adds that 'the problem with that is obviously that the game developer doesn't actually want it. They're not doing it because they want it; they're doing it because they're paid to do it. So we have a rather artificial situation at the moment where you see PhysX in games, but it isn't because the game developer wants it in there.' AMD is pushing open standards such as OpenCL and DirectCompute as alternatives to PhysX, as these APIs can run on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. AMD also announced today that it will be giving away free versions of Pixelux's DMM2 physics engine, which now includes Bullet Physics, to some game developers."

Comments

come on, AMD...

[toastliscio]

A few months ago I bought a new pc after years, and it has an AMD cpu but an nVidia gpu (it's assembled by myself). For hardware compatibility reasons it would appear obvious to buy an AMD/ATI gpu, but the problem is, I use Linux. And AMD graphic drivers on linux still suck compared to nVidia's. Why don't they shut up and strive to make decent drivers? They would get new customers, including me.

Re:Maybe

[Sir_Lewk]

Not everyone includes "pretty" in their "good game" equation. Doom can still hold it's own against modern games in terms of actual fun.