NVIDIA does $5 million deal with Ubisoft

#1
It looks like NVIDIA spend $5 million to optimize Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed 5 and Watch Dogs. In fact AMD also is rumored to have invested a similar sum in Battlefield 4, exact details about these deals are unclear but word in cyberspace indicates this to be around $5 million to $8 million.

FUD Zilla reports the following on this:

We do know that Nvidia already has some Assassin’s creed demos with 4K textures that are supposed to look amazing as Nvidia agrees with AMD thinking that future of gaming is in 4K gaming. Our industry sources now tell us that it’s just AMD spending serious bucks on the Battlefield 4 deal. It turns out that the guys behind The way it’s meant to be played and Nvidia ISV (independent software vendor) relationship have spent about $5 million on their Ubisoft deal.

It involves two games, Assassins Creed 5 and Watch Dogs and our sources tell us that AMD was looking into a similar deal with Ubisoft, but it walked away simply as they believed that spending a similar or slightly higher amount on an AAA shooter like Battlefield 4 was a better deal – plus BF4 is the first game to support AMD’s new Mantle API, so it just made more sense.
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvidia_does_5_million_deal_with_ubisoft.html
 
#4
ugh 4K gaming?

I'll settle for 1080p, just give me 60FPS, good AA and bigger scope, better modeling, better effects.

4K is a waste of resources IMO.
 
#8
People like dennis are gonna start having a nvidia computer and amd computer for different games in order to get the best graphics possible.
 

Wag

Junior Member
#13
°°ToMmY°°;84308073 said:
they'll probably be exclusive to nvidia gpu cards.
I don't see how they'll manage that one. Either way I'm fine with that as I plan going 4k as soon as an affordable 4k/60Hz monitor comes out anyways.
 
#15
You don't make textures exclusive. Though it would make sense trying to push those features on a different card would result in a drop in FPS and more erratic Frame Latency.
 
#16
I take it you're still gaming in 240p?
Depends on the display size you use and the distance to the display. For many users a 1200P 120HZ/144HZ. In 2 years I will maybe think about 4k, before that it's just not worth it for me.
The point is machines for 2000+ and a display for 1500+ is rather niche and it will take years until 4k gaming comes even close to mainstream......
 
Q

Queen of Hunting

Unconfirmed Member
#17
is this how amd and nvidia plan on getting rich, if a pc gamers wants all the bells and whistle for each game they are gonna have to own two different computers ?
 
#20
4K gaming is a waste in the short term. But for higher resolution panels in a device like the Oculus Rift we would need 4K (at least) and 120fps. So let the GPU companies wave their cards around and accelerate each other. I'll sit here with 1080p and 60fps until the Rift is ready for real.
 
#23
4K seems like a bit of a waste at this point, I'd rather see the resources spent elsewhere than on this monster resolution. The fact that they are pushing it will be great for an eventual 4K Oculus Rift though.
 
#24
I wonder if Ubisoft did the old switcheroo to Nvidia....

Ubisoft rep: "Look at what we'll give you for $5million......"
Nvidia rep: "Sold"

A few years down the line, Nvidia get something totally different.
 

Wag

Junior Member
#28
If they spend that much... those games better look leaps and bounds above the console equivalents (they won't).
How do you know "they won't"? There's a big difference between a game at 2560x1600/60Hz w/all features turned on high and 1920x1080p w/some features on. That's the differences you get for paying extra for a PC version.
 
#29
Are there any visual features that are going to be exclusive to AMD cards in BF4?

I seriously doubt the 4K worthy textures are gonna be locked to Nvidia cards for these Ubisoft games.
 
#31
computer question... is it even possible to have an amd card and nvidia card on the same system and freely switch between the 2?

Now that most games are 'picking sides' I would totally get a nvidia card as well if this was possible.
 
#35
I hate this shit.

I can't have ATI and nVidia in my PC at the same time, so I have to make a choice as to which games I want to run better and which ones I'll have to accept running worse. That is the only end result of this practice.
 
#38
How do you know "they won't"? There's a big difference between a game at 2560x1600/60Hz w/all features turned on high and 1920x1080p w/some features on. That's the differences you get for paying extra for a PC version.
Holy cow, you got your hands on a PS4 and have games for it already? You must have an amazing time machine!
Just gonna use my memory of Ubisoft PC ports in the past and how disappointing their performance is based upon the visuals produced.

Assassins creed, far cry 3, etc...

I obviously cannot tell the future... but I can gather patterns from the past and estimate what it could be like.
 

Wag

Junior Member
#40
4k won't be all that expensive in a few months. Asus is putting out a 39" 4k/60Hz monitor that should be in the $1000-$1500 range. That's less than the first 30" 2560x1600 displays cost.
 
#41
4k won't be all that expensive in a few months. Asus is putting out a 39" 4k/60Hz monitor that should be in the $1000-$1500 range. That's less than the first 30" 2560x1600 displays cost.
Any details? £1000 is the point where I join the party.

Depends on the display size you use and the distance to the display. For many users a 1200P 120HZ/144HZ. In 2 years I will maybe think about 4k, before that it's just not worth it for me.
The point is machines for 2000+ and a display for 1500+ is rather niche and it will take years until 4k gaming comes even close to mainstream......
Right, but tech doesn't just suddenly appear in a mainstream product for a cheap price out of nowhere. It arrives at the enthusiast level first, then becomes mainstream when the price gets low enough. This is aimed squarely at enthusiasts. You won't even get 4k in mainstream gaming next-next gen, let alon this one.
 
#43
Only to have said kickstarter campaigns die because they couldn't manage their funds.
And they get 5m$ worth out of their program with EA and Ubisoft, how? To me it looks more of a waste. If half the kickstarters kick off and half of that half is good, it's still 25 new games to play.

P.S. I kind of understand AMD's motive, so ok, I will give that to them.. But Nvidia funding Ubi 5m$ for.. what? Artificial performance tweaks in Watch Dogs that inexplicably only work on Nvidia hardware? Shaders to purposefully handicap AMD?

I know this has been around since forever, but it has to stop.. It hurts everyone involved; IHVs, developers, consumers, everyone.
 
#44
Why would anyone be angry at this news. Both companies want to play progenitor to the new format. If 4k gaming is a goal for both companies, we should be happy they're aiming that high.
 
#45
Just gonna use my memory of Ubisoft PC ports in the past and how disappointing their performance is based upon the visuals produced.

Assassins creed, far cry 3, etc...

I obviously cannot tell the future... but I can gather patterns from the past and estimate what it could be like.
Yeah. Far Cry 3 is impressive looking but a 670gtx should be able to hold 60 @1080p but it can't.
 
#46
Silly Nvidia.

Nvidia, if you give me one of your new Battleboxes including a 4K monitor and a lump sum of US$50,000 I will over the next two years post screenshots all over the internet of the latest PC games running on your hardware.

The screenshots will be of a eyeball-melting quality and every one of them will be posted with your brand of hardware attached.

This will be worth far more than your deal with Ubisoft and for a far smaller price.
 
#47
Any details? £1000 is the point where I join the party.



Right, but tech doesn't just suddenly appear in a mainstream product for a cheap price out of nowhere. It arrives at the enthusiast level first, then becomes mainstream when the price gets low enough. This is aimed squarely at enthusiasts. You won't even get 4k in mainstream gaming next-next gen, let alon this one.
I do not think that will take so long. Before this gen HD at all was not really that common. With a big focus on on resolution in smaller devices and the little development there has been the past few years with PC monitors I would not be surprised if with a big push now it quickly becomes popular.

This is also not some special technology that will take a long time to decrease in price.