AMD and NVIDIA have Monopoly on entire Market

i was doing some think and just wanted an opinion

this has to do with price fixing and controlling the entire video game market (what we buy such as pc, 360, ps3 and wii)

i think it has to do with unfair business practice to.

ok we know that amd and nvidia make all the pc video card chips and they also make all the video chips that go inside the newest consoles.

ok if a console game dev makes a game strictly for the console (single gpu in mind) and they port it to pc shouldnt the game work pretty good?

i mean amd and nvidia make the video chips so they make the drivers for those video chips

they know how the game devs can program their hardware (espicially on consoles) right?

well when they make the video chips on the video cards for pc shouldnt they know how to make the pc driver work really good?

i mean its not like they dont know the hardware they are building
the hardware that goes inside the consoles is usually a stripped down video chip that goes to pc

i mean nvidia and amd know the tech espicially sense the tech is theirs


ok here is my point now

if you have a pc that is pretty good or better then the consoles (which isnt hard to do because when consoles came out that was 6 years ago and the tech that was in them was 1 year old already) so basically the tech inside the consoles is alike 7 years old

shouldnt the games that are ported to newer PC`s work flawless?
dedicated vga ram....tons of vram gddr5
dedicated system ram....tons of it and dd3
quad core and 6 core systems that run at 4.0ghz and up?

ok shouldnt amd and nvidia have the ports to pc working GREAT by now?

NO THEY DONT DO THEY?
7 year old tech that cant be ported to run 100% of the original glory and for that matter it should be 500%
the systems at these days just destroy the 7 year old tech

so who is responsible for this catastrophic failure?

who controls the systems we buy?

is it the game devs?
i dont think so and let me say why?

the game devs for console are doing their job good (they design for the console specs so they can get the most out of their game)
why design for multi-gpu when the system you are designing for is single gpu?

ok here we go:

nvidia and amd actually control the silicon
they know the specs of the gpu`s they make for pc and consoles

should it not be their responsibility to make sure the chips are kind of compatible from pc to console?

if you look at the chip specs for pc vs consoles you will see they are rated exactly the same way down to what pixel shader version they support and how many mpixels and polys it can render
all kinds of specs that are very similar to the pc vcard specs


so anyhow
where does amd and nvidia really make their money?

they make their moneys on pc for ONboard video
omfg believe me you want that contract with dell or hp or compaq or whoever

now they also make tons of $$$ from consoles too

they really do not make their money from add in pc vcards
i know they make some money but that is not their bread and butter

their bread and butter is consoles and onboard video on pc (laptops and desktops)

what is the reason they should make their drivers work great for pc add in video cards?

it would really make more sense to make the drivers bad and make ppl on pc convert to console
and then just buy a cheap laptop or desktop with onboard video

they sell 2x the amount if they do it that way.
actually maybe more because i think amd is inside the wii and 360
so if they get you to convert to console then they sell 3x because you would buy a 360, wii and pc

nvidia only gets 2x for pc and ps3

either way it makes good business sense to not make the vcard driver for pc work 100% great dont it?

you do know the longer that nvidia and amd sell the same part over and over it gets better for them

ex:
original 360 chip was way big and expensive when it came out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#List_of_revisions

 

You forget one important thing console is a set hardware type, it won't change, it's same hardware through every single ps3 or xbox360 or wii. So game dev he can extract 100% performance because he knows what hardware to optimize it for.

PC theirs million's of hardware configuration different cpu's, ram's, motherboards, graphics cards, different sound cards. So technically it's nightmare to get everything working well together, hence why driver's often perform differently for people, what might be good for one hardware config might not be same for other persons.

 

actually it's a duopoly and they actively compete against each other, I doubt there is price fixing here, could be wrong tho

 

It's still different hardware as there are many different video cards out on the market as NVidia and AMD compete with one another. Not just that, but a PC and a Xbox 360 or PS3 do not have the same softwares/drivers.
If you directly ported a game then you would lock out just about anyone who doesn't have the same setup as the consoles... and that means everyone.

There isn't any price fixation, not as long as they both compete with one another the way they do. There is no monopoly if it's two companies as a monopoly implies one company is in control of everything.

 

agreed. according to the usdoj, they are operating within the law

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-amd-ati-graphics,6311.html

 

i was referring to that lawsuit in my last post. the department of justice cleared both companies.

 

Intel.

 

they both guilty of this, one raises there prices and there stuff still sells like hot cakes, so there other does the same thing in turn. instead of prices going down there going up. they wana see who can make the most expensive card and sell the most.

I think nvidia is winning there, sticker prices of some of there cards are more then most ever other part in the pc, hell prices for the cards, border line rent money for a month.

 

What does that make Mircosoft and them controlling 99% of PC OS market?

 

they dont own 99% of the market. damn close to it though



source...
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

 

if amd decided to form a treaty with nvidia of some sort, i would image we would all be screwed.

 

PC market not cell phone or others by that they own 96% MS need competition in the OS world by that chart alone it shows that there is none where as there are 2 major companys in GPU Amd/Nvidia and that no where as lopsided neither is the Intel/Amd battle

Cause there is no major competition for MS in the OS world. Win7 is best OS they had since XP, so i kinda expect win7 to become the new XP

 

I've been saying this in another thread before, our technology is not as good as people think it is. We're far behind, either that, or nvidia/amd are gimping it on purpose. No reason it shouldn't work 10x better with newer hardware.

and lol at whoever mentioned optimization, ram is ram, hardware is hardware. It should go much faster.

but then again, OP, you have to realize when you're playing a port on PC you're most likely playing at higher settings than the console version (probably somewhere in between low/medium) so that takes off some performance, but overall I agree with the performance parts. Price fixing part don't really care, out of our control anyway since they're untouchable.. who else will release gpus

 

Nah, i bet that over the years, nVidia or AMD could have bought each other in various oportunities. But they didnt, so they dont get friggin high fines for monopoly. Instead, both work within the same price ranges. True competition is pretty slim. A price drop here, a new product there. But, the price ranges, those wich get mentioned in every review of every video card and that keep beign the same year after year, well, those dont change at all.

You'll see that both nVidia and AMD cards have their spot. See how much money you can spend for an upgrade, and youll find a card in that price range. If its an AMD card, one step up or down and you'll find a nVidia card. If its a nVidia card, one step up or down you'll find an AMD card.

The market do seem pretty much fixed for me. There is no mobility in prices nor product categories. The only mobile thing is technology, but that doesnt even count cuz technology its always improving. Its expected to improve. But prices...

Anyway, i think that the OP is missing the point. Hardware isnt the main difficulty when you port from consoles to PCs. The main dificulty is programming for fixed hardware. My bet is that current developers must do crazy low level programming to keep up the performance of their games in consoles, and that CANT be ported to a diverse hardware platform as a PC just as that.

 

^ I guess so but remember how much the GTX260/280 fell in price when the 4000 series was released, gotta be some competition there

 

For the OP and the other individual who think hardware is hardware, completely not true. Thats like saying that an intel chip functions identically as a AMD chip. If that were the case then the pin counts, transistor counts, etc. would all be the same and you would never have to upgrade any other system hardware. They are 2 completely different things.

Porting a game from a console that is running only the game, to a PC that is running a OS, virus scanner, and the millions of other possible programs that people may be running in the background is again very hard. They don't have to worry about conflicts with other programs from a console, but who's to say that someone's favorite toolbar that is running isn't going to cause a major conflict with whatever game you are trying to run. Should the hardware makers be responsible for testing every variable in PC configs out there? They test the most common ones. You wanna talk about REALLY raising the price of manufacturing, you could literally make millions upon millions of different computers with just the components released since Vista came out.

This reminds me of the old apples to oranges comparison. They may both be fruit (ie: they both run games), but they are not the same.

 

It's called globalization, the young companies lack the resources to come up with a competitive product in mainstream consumer markets like these.

 

Yes, could be, but not necessarily. See, for AMD who didnt have a new card by that time, that nVidia charged so much for their cards its actually a benefit cuz they know of the ppl who think "i'll wait for AMD so prices go down". So, AMD could get some potential customers in the range of ppl that actually matters, midrange and lower. Enthusiasts are the few. If nVidia can sell them an overpriced card to them while AMD prepares its thing, the better, if not, sales will get up when they lower the prices when AMD launches their cards.

So, nVidia earns a little extra money while AMD doesnt have a thing to "compete" and after that, both companies get stuck down in the never changing price ranges.

If nVidia, or whatever company that has the lead, launches a card at reasonable prices, it would be worse for both. Why? Cuz AMD would have to lower their prices more to be able to "compete". AMD launchs cards at lower prices than expected, so nVidia has to follow that trail if it wants to keep selling its products. Both companies must lower their prices thus, lowering the price ranges. Wich is unintended.

You can earn more if you want to catch competitors prices if the competitor starts from a much higher point, since you'd need to lower your prices by a lesser degree to be able to "compete".

For example:

Case 1:

Company A launchs 500 usd card since its the first one to be able to launch something new.
Company B launchs later a 380 usd lesser performing card so its at a far cheaper price to be able to sell well at launch.
Company A reduces prices to 400 usd so ppl dont massively turn to the lesser performing but much cheaper B card.

then you have a 20 usd margin between the two cards, and at that margin, the desition of buying one or another card its pretty much a matter of "taste".

Case 2:

Company A launchs card for 400usd first.
Then, company B must launch card at a even lower price if it wants to have that "really cheap and great card" punch in their sales. Say, 330 usd. Since at 380 usd it'd be a too unimportant margin between the two cards and ppl would turn to the 400 usd better performing card without that initial "punch" in their sales as a "good performing very cheap card".
Company A then lowers their price so the product doesnt seem too expensive. Say, 350 usd, maintaining that 20 usd margin between the A and B products.

See the difference?

In both cases, one company gets the attention of the public as a "great" performing option with a little higher price. And the another company gets the attention of the public as "good" performing much cheaper option. But in one case, since the starting point was lower, both companies end selling their products in a lower price range.

I dunno if my logic its really logical, but i guess that thats the way i understand it. Hope you see my point

 

IMO, the cards are as cheap as they dare make them - in general.
Performance cards will always have a price premium because they dont sell anywhere near as many as the mainstream cards.

The penalties for price fixing are nothing to be sniffed at.
They can be taken to court in every area of the world they trade in and given HUGE fines, it would be a financial, stock holder, legal and PR nightmare for them.
As mentioned earlier, look what happened to Intel.