PC graphics and GPU conspiracy???

Okay here somthing that I%26#39;ve always wondered. Now every now and then a PC gaming dev puts out a game so outrageously insane in graphical output that anyone without a $700 GPU will be left in the dust. Now I%26#39;ve thought about this, wouldn%26#39;t it make more sense for PC gaming devs to put out games that the majority would be able to enjoy and hence gain bigger market share and software sales? Then it hit me, that because gaming piracy is so rampant on PC such and move wouldn%26#39;t help at all. But instead creating games that can only be run on the newest $700 cards can be a way of making profit if say the GPU companies ATI and Nvidia give a kick back on every card sold to these devs. Thats the only way I can see games like Crysis being profitable, since only a handful of people can even run it, it only makes sense for them to be taking kick backs on the high end GPU sales sales. At $700 a GPU it%26#39;s not totally inconceivable that say $50-$100 makes into the pocket of developers that create games like Crysis because lets face it without games like Crysis these cards would be useless. So in short game devs get money from GPU sales to make games that only the top end GPUs can run.  PC graphics and GPU conspiracy???
Yes! And we could all still be playing Pong!PC graphics and GPU conspiracy???
[QUOTE=''Axed54'']Yes! And we could all still be playing Pong![/QUOTE]Doesn%26#39;t answer my question are the game devs taking a kick back on GPU sales. Since they aren%26#39;t gonna sell many copies of the games cause lets face it most will just prirate the games. They have to make a profit in some means. 
Not really. Most of the people that buy $700 video cards also know how to pirate games. I dont think thegame makers and GPU guys are together in any real way for the sake of mutual profiting. These cards are sold so high because theres not a huge demand for them and they still need to make a profit. The parts inside a premium Ferrari arent worth $200,000+. But the lack of demand for them forces them to sell it at those prices to still gain good profits. Not sure what everyone%26#39;s obsession is with absolutely having to run games at max. Having a great video card now with games that look good now, will still mean you%26#39;ll be playing games that look good later. Maybe not the best, but i doubt it%26#39;ll detract from the enjoyment much. Millions of people bought HL2. I dont think millions of them ran it at mac when it came out.Frankly, i think its dumb that games are coming out with hardware that can max it. PC games should come out with graphics so high that no hardware could ever run in within a year at max settings - that way a game will still look good even as you upgrade down the line. Or at the very least implement upward graphical sacling (like adding polygons to models to makethem smoother as you have hardware that gives 60+ FPS in performance). Not sure why most PC games dont take the advantage of PC%26#39;s upgradability much.
Nobody%26#39;s answering my question what I said was those who own these $700 cards know how to hook up on private servers so will most likely pirate the games anyway. So the only way I can see these game devs making any money off these high end games is to take a cut on GPU sales? Honestly without these devs Nvidia and ATI would be outta business, they%26#39;re hardware is only good if there is software able to take advantage of it.
first off, Crysis is supposedly going to be really scalable, so even today%26#39;s mid-range cards will run it. Second, Devs make games so graphically intensive because GPU tech advances at a breakneck pace. a new top of the line card comes out about every year, and if the games can be maxed out as soon as they come out they get dated really quickly.Now, the notion that game developers get kickbacks from GPU manufacturers is a bit ridiculous if you ask me. Periodically a game will advertise a certain brand of video card, but I really doubt that they get secret kickbacks.
[QUOTE=''pimperjones'']Nobody%26#39;s answering my question what I said was those who own these $700 cards know how to hook up on private servers so will most likely pirate the games anyway. So the only way I can see these game devs making any money off these high end games is to take a cut on GPU sales? Honestly without these devs Nvidia and ATI would be outta business, they%26#39;re hardware is only good if there is software able to take advantage of it.[/QUOTE]But they dont... People just buy them. Not everyone buying these high-end games have high-end hardware. 
[QUOTE=''Mediocre_man90'']first off, Crysis is supposedly going to be really scalable, so even today%26#39;s mid-range cards will run it. Second, Devs make games so graphically intensive because GPU tech advances at a breakneck pace. a new top of the line card comes out about every year, and if the games can be maxed out as soon as they come out they get dated really quickly.Now, the notion that game developers get kickbacks from GPU manufacturers is a bit ridiculous if you ask me. Periodically a game will advertise a certain brand of video card, but I really doubt that they get secret kickbacks.[/QUOTE]If not why make the games so hardware rich, wouldn%26#39;t you just be isolating more users with lower end PCs? I can%26#39;t see those GPU%26#39;s being worth anymore than $400 dollars tops, they are marketed at $700 so where%26#39;s the extra $300 going? I have a friend who use to work at ATI and he told me that ATI and Nvidia can sell there top of the line cards for $400 a pop and still have very good profit margins. Which begs the question? Why are they marketed at $700 when they can be sold at $400 and still be more than profitable. I%26#39;ve also noticed that GPUs have become more and more expensive each and every year with CPU becoming cheapers and cheaper each year. There must be a reason for the increase in GPU prices if not to compensate for the high piracy issues in the PC market by giving high end devs GPU kick backs I don%26#39;t see how the industry can even survive.

Oh yea...name me one game what requires a 700 dollar card and leaves everyone in the dust? No one is asking you to run it at 2054x1280 rez on maximum graphics. If settings one option to ''medium'' instead of ''high'' means a $200 difference in videocard cost then why not stick with the cheaper option?  
Nvidia, the way it%26#39;s meant to be played.
[QUOTE=''DarKre'']Oh yea...name me one game what requires a 700 dollar card and leaves everyone in the dust? No one is asking you to run it at 2054x1280 rez on maximum graphics. If settings one option to ''medium'' instead of ''high'' means a $200 difference in videocard cost then why not stick with the cheaper option? [/QUOTE]Ain%26#39;t nobody arguing with you relax there cowboy. What I mean%26#39;t was that GPU%26#39;s are being over priced so that devs can take a kick back due to low software sales. I%26#39;m glad you can read and comprehend my article.

They price above $400 because the demand for these cards is inelastic at such prices. The profit lost from selling less cards is more than made up by the increased profit margin of each card. Oligopoly. Take an econ class if you want to know more about this one. Not just that but companies must also re-coup losses incurred while developing such cards, not just the parts used to make them.

Developers making games extremely graphic intensive is a completely different story. They do so because at the pace hardware increases, their games would look dated very, very quickly.  It%26#39;s a bit of keeping up with the jones. Cournot Competition (more econ!) The person who doesn%26#39;t buy a game because their system cannot run it will most likely upgrade their hardware eventually at which point they can play the game and (might) buy it. Its purely marketing, the turn over rate on hardware makes games look increasingly less appealing if they look dated just a couple months after release. Go back and look at games made in 2004-2005 (probably the lower end PCs hardware level) and compare it to a games nowadays. The difference is night and day. If you develop games for hardware of the past you will find people look downwards upon them because so many gamers nowadays won%26#39;t even look at a game doesn%26#39;t have top-notch graphics.

Also, many games (Crysis especially included) are developed to run on a large range of hardware so as to not descriminate agianst lower end PCs.
Well apparently my ATI x850 will be able to play crysis. So...  I don%26#39;t think there is any conspiracy.
okay, did you read my post at all? games are made so hardware intensive because they need to stand the test of time. If a game can be maxed out the day it comes out, it will look horrible in a couple years due to newer games that utilize newer technology.And the guy that made the Ferrari comparison hit the nail on the head.seems to me that you really aren%26#39;t looking for answers, as you%26#39;ve already ignored the ones you%26#39;ve gotten.
Some type of secret kickback program would certainly be of interest to the SEC as well. Advertising is a different story, and of course, Nvidia must pay to have their logo on the startup screens of the games it appears on. Hardly any secret there.If the Nvidia and ATI were kicking back money to game developers, who gets the money? Which companies I mean. Microsoft and Sony? Blizzard? NCSoft? A little bit to every single developer? Your logic seems a bit illogical. Does Monroe kick back money to car manufactuers when the top-of-the-line car shock is purchased?
[QUOTE=''pimperjones'']Okay here somthing that I%26#39;ve always wondered. Now every now and then a PC gaming dev puts out a game so outrageously insane in graphical output that anyone without a $700 GPU will be left in the dust. Now I%26#39;ve thought about this, wouldn%26#39;t it make more sense for PC gaming devs to put out games that the majority would be able to enjoy and hence gain bigger market share and software sales? Then it hit me, that because gaming piracy is so rampant on PC such and move wouldn%26#39;t help at all. But instead creating games that can only be run on the newest $700 cards can be a way of making profit if say the GPU companies ATI and Nvidia give a kick back on every card sold to these devs. Thats the only way I can see games like Crysis being profitable, since only a handful of people can even run it, it only makes sense for them to be taking kick backs on the high end GPU sales sales. At $700 a GPU it%26#39;s not totally inconceivable that say $50-$100 makes into the pocket of developers that create games like Crysis because lets face it without games like Crysis these cards would be useless. So in short game devs get money from GPU sales to make games that only the top end GPUs can run. [/QUOTE] Great conspiracy theory!  There could be some truth to, but I think we%26#39;d have heard rumors about these kick-backs by now.  Then again, it%26#39;s a known fact (searcth The Inquirer (brittish tech site, NOT gossip column) that Nvidia%26#39;s The Way it%26#39;s Meant to Be Played campaign involves NVidia paying engineers to tweak PC games so they%26#39;ll run better on NVidia hardware and drive up sales.
[QUOTE=''XaosII'']Not really. Most of the people that buy $700 video cards also know how to pirate games. [/QUOTE] Irrelevant - if NVidia makes the $700 sale and gives the dev the kick back, it doesn%26#39;t much if the game is pirated.
Answer: NO!
[QUOTE=''Jack_Summersby''][QUOTE=''pimperjones'']Okay here somthing that I%26#39;ve always wondered. Now every now and then a PC gaming dev puts out a game so outrageously insane in graphical output that anyone without a $700 GPU will be left in the dust. Now I%26#39;ve thought about this, wouldn%26#39;t it make more sense for PC gaming devs to put out games that the majority would be able to enjoy and hence gain bigger market share and software sales? Then it hit me, that because gaming piracy is so rampant on PC such and move wouldn%26#39;t help at all. But instead creating games that can only be run on the newest $700 cards can be a way of making profit if say the GPU companies ATI and Nvidia give a kick back on every card sold to these devs. Thats the only way I can see games like Crysis being profitable, since only a handful of people can even run it, it only makes sense for them to be taking kick backs on the high end GPU sales sales. At $700 a GPU it%26#39;s not totally inconceivable that say $50-$100 makes into the pocket of developers that create games like Crysis because lets face it without games like Crysis these cards would be useless. So in short game devs get money from GPU sales to make games that only the top end GPUs can run. [/QUOTE] Great conspiracy theory! There could be some truth to, but I think we%26#39;d have heard rumors about these kick-backs by now. Then again, it%26#39;s a known fact (searcth The Inquirer (brittish tech site, NOT gossip column) that Nvidia%26#39;s The Way it%26#39;s Meant to Be Played campaign involves NVidia paying engineers to tweak PC games so they%26#39;ll run better on NVidia hardware and drive up sales. [/QUOTE] Should mention - this is all out in the open, not an insider%26#39;s secret. 
[QUOTE=''Jack_Summersby''][QUOTE=''XaosII''] Not really. Most of the people that buy $700 video cards also know how to pirate games. [/QUOTE] Irrelevant - if NVidia makes the $700 sale and gives the dev the kick back, it doesn%26#39;t much if the game is pirated.[/QUOTE] Only if the kickback was enough to cover the entire purchase of the game, and only if the entire amount of that wen to the devloper whose game was pirated.But, then again, even IF the above is true, a pirated game is ANOTHER $50 the developer lost (in theorey) regardless how much of a kickback they received. If you received a $50 kickback, but lost a $50 sell due to a pirate, would you feel okay?