Why NVIDIA scares me?

Like many gamers, I was very excited when NVIDIA unveiled the latest FX series of cards. I was lucky enough to catch the unveiling during the Game Developers Conference in San Jose and witnessed a handful of very impressive displays of the FX?s prowess. During the GDC launch, I also became more familiarized with NVIDIA?s work in the world of graphics programming language development, known as Cg.

 Cg was released last June by NVIDIA, garnering press coverage here and there, but was left relatively untouched by the majority of the media. Since the inception of Cg, over 100 of the biggest names in game development, including Blizzard, Electronic Arts and Valve, have supported it. Classes have even sprung up at such universities as Harvard, MIT, and the University of Texas to teach the Cg language, just like any other computer language course. Why would something so widely endorsed by some of the biggest names gaming and secondary education scare anyone? Well, because I?m a journalist, I was born scared.

 Cg is not going to replace DirectX or OpenGL (though I think OpenGL is slowly being phased out). It?s not even developed to do so. Cg was developed to act as a layer over DirectX to allow for high-level shading APIs. Think of it as JavaScript or JScript for your gaming applications. It?s not the driving force behind the game; it instead ?enhances? your gaming experience. Those familiar with the many benefits JavaScript (Sun) and Jscript (Microsoft) provide your web-browsing experience are also familiar with the many headaches Sun and Microsoft have caused web programmers and the World Wide Web Consortium since the introduction of our respective HTML ?enhancement? layers.

 Before I rant, let it be known that NVIDIA has developed Cg intending for it to be used by all GPUs supporting DirectX 8.0 or higher. This does include ATI products (Radeon 8500 and above). Unfortunately, I don?t think ATI cares.

 In the big business world of computing, having your name in the forefront of new technology is huge. NVIDIA has done well by taking the initiative to develop a new language for game developers to use, doing away with the often difficult Assembly language the industry once embraced (embraced is used very lightly). However, I?m sure Sun developed JavaScript with the ?best intentions?, and I?m sure that Microsoft had the ?best intentions? when they decided not to incorporate the Java engine with any versions of Internet Explorer or Windows.

 Point being? If you want to survive in business, you need be a power hungry mongrel that stops at nothing to push your company to the top; it?s all about being able to spin yourself as an industry helping hand rather than a power hungry evil empire. If you really think Cg was developed solely for those game developers laboring hundreds of hours to develop one spin move in Madden 2003 in that darned assembly code, you?ve got another thing coming. There are numerous advantages that NVIDIA allows itself by investing millions of dollars into a code which they provide for free. You think JavaScript was developed because Scott McNealy was bored on a rainy day?

 For starters, developing the language and architecture of Cg allows NVIDIA to optimize the language and it?s instructions to for GeForce GPUs. This doesn?t mean that NVIDIA will purposely include rules that will cause the ATI GPUs to perform worse when using Cg, but I think there would be quite a few highly offended engineers at NVIDIA and ATI if we assumed that they built their GPUs to the same specification. Simply put, NVIDIA knows where the power lies in their GPU, and to assume that they wouldn?t mold Cg to play the GeForce?s strengths would be silly.

 Furthermore, companies that elect to use Cg are not paying any licensing fees to NVIDIA for the use of the language. However, don?t be surprised to see NVIDIA logos with ?The way it was meant to be played? on future games developed using Cg. Think of it as the ?Intel Inside? sticker on your computer. When consumers see this, they are more likely to trust the product being sold. Maybe not the consumers reading Sudhian and other tech sites, but there are plenty of uninformed consumers out there who need PCs that heard from someone that the ?Intel Inside? sticker makes their computer infinitely better than the rest. Putting an NVIDIA label on games using Cg could greatly increase the amount exposure NVIDIA receives and fuel a buying flurry for NVIDIA products, especially when the entry-level FX 5200 starts at only $79.

 Anyone remember the Glide vs. OpenGL days? They weren?t that long ago. For those of you who missed it, you could play in game modes similar to what you see now with OpenGL and DirectX, but several games blatantly favored one mode to the other. For example, I can remember playing NCAA Football ?99 on my old 16MB Riva TNT card. The game looked great, but I could only perform a juke move if I was using a 3DFX card. Guess who went out and bought a Voodoo card? Not having an industry standard for gameplay or showing blatant favoritism to another company for whatever reason helps no one but the fat cats in the front office. It does nothing but hurts consumers.

 Aside from the PC market, NVIDIA also has a stake in a little gaming console they call the Xbox. Could Cg be ported to the Xbox? Absolutely. The Xbox uses the same core GPU as the GeForce 3, putting it in the compatible spectrum of GPUs. With Microsoft?s willingness to buy up game producers in order to get more exclusive titles on the Xbox, one has to wonder if these games ported between the PC and Xbox will only be playable, or have the same gameplay features, on all current video cards. A Microsoft and NVIDIA alliance could turn out to be a very scary thing for gamers in the foreseeable future.

 Don?t let my ranting mislead you about the importance a language like Cg brings game developers, as it is a step in the right direction for a more, to steal a line from NVIDIA, ?cinematic? gaming experience. This has been a long time coming for the gaming industry. However, it?s always hard to trust a company who has blatant monetary interest in what could potentially monopolize the gaming market. I think I would trust Microsoft more than NVIDIA to develop something like Cg, as NVIDIA?s special hardware interest overshadows the ultimate goal consumers would like to see obtained: a great gaming experience no matter what video card you choose. Time will play it out for us, but I have a bad feeling on this one.

 

---