The Nvidia DLC

[kremator 1065]

This thread is to debate openly, whether such a DLC would be viable, useful and a decent revenue stream for BIS.

What I would be interested in, and the poll should show it, is whether there are enough Nvidia owners, that would be willing to spend some money on a DLC that would offload some of the more intensive graphics parts of Arma3 to the Nvidia GPU? Should enough money be made, perhaps even some even fancier effects, like cloth simulation etc, could be put in over time.

I would like AMD owners to also please post their concerns or lack of concern. Perhaps even some BIS DEVs could chip in with technical difficulties, or opportunities, considering that it would be a paid DLC.

I'm sure that there will be some passionate responses from our community. I've put up a poll, but never having made one, it may go all horribly wrong.

[nodunit 397]

...So I take it this is satire? If you're serious then this would fall under the features territory but BI said will be free, you're comparing systems of function to content.

[VanZant 48]

Voted no, and i use an Nvidia card which was 800€. Why? Because we are starting to want to pay for every single problem, fix or feature, apart for the product itself. I have no problem with HQ content, but for fixes no thanks. Next time will be if we want to pay for Mantle or DX12.

[papanowel 120]

What about those 70% INTEL's GPU Owner? :cool:

[major_shepard 82]

That's the new business guys

One single DLC for one single bug/single asset missing in this game...:rolleyes:

[vegeta897 13]

I don't think optimization should be a paid DLC. Imagine the huge number of complaints from people who buy it without understanding that it only benefits Nvidia cars. Or, people who buy it and then upgrade to an AMD card. It's full of problems. Either do it as a standard part of the game's updates or don't do it at all.

[GrillsBears 1]

All my gaming PC GPUs except the first (Orchid Rightous 3d) have been Nvidia and I currently use a 2 year old GTX 680 SLI system.

Voted no because it's in BIs and Nvidias mutual interest to get their act together and release these fixes for free. BI get to show off what their engine is capable off, so more people buy their games and Nvidia get to show off what their cards can do, so more people buy their GPUs.

I don't see why I should pay for that - if anything, charging me money for those fixes would finally drive me away either from BI or Nvidia, because I don't really like to give my money to companies ripping me off.

Edited May 31, 2014 by GrillsBears

[znooptokkie 14]

I dont get the point of this thread. I own a AMD card and have no problems with graphics or frames at all.

The only time i get bad frames is when the server frames are low and with a vast count of enemies, when AI kills the cpu.

What other problems do Nvida users encounter in arma compared to amd users?

Edit: I dont play on public servers. So maybe its another story about the performance.

[lukio 18]

NVidia owner and No.

Why? Because this community is divided enough as is. Adding in (performance) fragmentation due to different hardware (basically like a dongle) is the last thing we need.

[[frl]myke 14]

Such things don't belong into a paid DLC but realized as an engine option for every nVidia user (i have AMD GPU). So i voted no because paid DLC. Make it free for all and i'd vote yes.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

Paid DLC for features and fixes is much closer now than it was last week. Once the infrastructure is in place it will naturally creep in to incentivise DLC purchases.

[mr burns 132]

I´m calling AMD card fraud :E

No. Seriously, bad idea. Stahp.

And be nice to each others :)

edit: Reasons according to poll:

1) i´d rather have them optimize the shit out of their system for the sake of following all-around standards *i.e.

2) What about AMD users? (oO)

3) my one 260 gtx wouldn´t make a difference anyway

*kick physx (which is in silly use as of now)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Mr Burns

[vegeta897 13]

Paid DLC for features and fixes is much closer now than it was last week. Once the infrastructure is in place it will naturally creep in to incentivise DLC purchases.

Let's not start ridiculous rumors, okay? BIS has said nothing but the opposite of that. Nothing in the new DLC model has anything to do with locking out engine features. It re-emphasized the separation of content and features.

[Beastly-Skids 10]

Using a 780ti and I voted yes. I only play one game these days and see myself playing it for years. I would pay to keep the game current and up to date to a point. Quite happy with current performance except for when there is a lot of AI in one area, not sure this would fix that problem however.

800+ hours in arma 3 and less than 10 hours playing multiplayer, so my use of Arma is probably not the norm. I mostly play SP or as a Helicopter Sim in the editor.

[Valken 622]

Pay to fix performance and limited to a single vendor when EVERYONE WHO HAS PURCHASED the game has already paid for what SHOULD have been fixed and works across the status quo - Intel/AMD cpu and AMD/Nvidia GPU?

[MavericK96 0]

Voted no because if anything like this was to be added, it shouldn't be a paid DLC.

That said, I do own nVidia and would love to see something like this. However, I think the performance issues are deeper than this.

[petek 62]

nVidia owner and voted "no". Reasons pretty much been covered - optimisation shouldn't be paid for.

Cheers

[frostwyrm333 1]

And which Nvidia feature do you crave? Physx particles? New wonder post-processing AA? Optimized for 32x FSAA? 3D?

[maddogx 13]

NVIDIA card user here but do not think this would be a good idea. If they're going to farm anything out to the GPU, then it should be something other than pretty eye-candy effects, and it should be done in a way that all users can benefit (i.e. using OpenCL).

[calin_banc 19]

This thread is to debate openly, whether such a DLC would be viable, useful and a decent revenue stream for BIS.

What I would be interested in, and the poll should show it, is whether there are enough Nvidia owners, that would be willing to spend some money on a DLC that would offload some of the more intensive graphics parts of Arma3 to the Nvidia GPU? Should enough money be made, perhaps even some even fancier effects, like cloth simulation etc, could be put in over time.

I would like AMD owners to also please post their concerns or lack of concern. Perhaps even some BIS DEVs could chip in with technical difficulties, or opportunities, considering that it would be a paid DLC.

I'm sure that there will be some passionate responses from our community. I've put up a poll, but never having made one, it may go all horribly wrong.

1st: worst idea ever or probably you like to be milked for money at every turn.

2nd: that should have been done already. Still doing it on the CPU is bad coding.

[roshnak 41]

I think charging for better performance is a really bad idea.

NVIDIA card user here but do not think this would be a good idea. If they're going to farm anything out to the GPU, then it should be something other than pretty eye-candy effects, and it should be done in a way that all users can benefit (i.e. using OpenCL).

Isn't pointless eye candy exactly the sort of thing that should be farmed out to the GPU? If you are going to take advantage of the capabilities of a specific brand of GPU, such as Nvidia's PhysX stuff, shouldn't it be relegated to eye candy so as not to negatively impact users who don't have Nvidia cards?

[stilton 0]

...this is satire?

Is it satire? or just stupid?

I thought satire was supposed to be 'mocking' something, considering there is nothing comparable that BIS are doing.. And their only recent foray into DLC'ing would be an optional go-kart addon... I dont see the parallel.

Also if this goes through.. I want to the first to request a Cape-dlc for my soldier, offloaded to my graphics card please. The all important cloth simulation.

That or final-fantasy-hair DLC.. rendered on my GPU ofcourse.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Stilton

[CyclonicTuna 87]

This doesn't make any sense to me. How is this supposed to be a DLC? This should be a patch, you can't expect people with diffrent engine architecture to play toghether, that is definetly going to give problems.

Edited June 1, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[sxp2high 23]

AMD owner, no I wouldn't buy Mantle DLC either :raisebrow:

This is almost like a Shadow DLC or Anti-Aliasing DLC. No thanks. Games aren't shopping carts where you put a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Although we seem to be heading in that direction...

I would, however, DONATE money to BIS if they release good content for all, for free. I already did with the supporter edition! Star citizen made $44 Mio. that way...

Edited June 1, 2014 by sxp2high

[maddogx 13]

Isn't pointless eye candy exactly the sort of thing that should be farmed out to the GPU? If you are going to take advantage of the capabilities of a specific brand of GPU, such as Nvidia's PhysX stuff, shouldn't it be relegated to eye candy so as not to negatively impact users who don't have Nvidia cards?

The point I was trying to make is that I would hate if they invested valuable programmer time (which this would require) into creating any kind of pointless eye candy. This would be a terribly wasteful idea, regardless if it was released as a free patch or as paid DLC.

Those extra GPU cycles would be better served crunching any data that is currently bottlenecking the game on the CPU side (if at all possible), not calculating some crap like wavy cloth and fancy particles. Any such improvements should obviously be part of the core engine, not some paid DLC. No one said anything about "charging for better performance".