As much as Sup Forums hates gaming, has it not been a net positive for technology?

As much as Sup Forums hates gaming, has it not been a net positive for technology?

Gaming has driven technology development, i.e with the development of video games which requires GPU for design purposes, in addition consumer GPUs to run them. This has also lead to GPGPU technology which is being used for AI and other scientific purposes.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ooLO2xeyJZA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'm of the opinion that the free market is always right. The side effect of a pretty stupid hobby is better computer components, therefore the stupid hobby is justified. Even something that was completely retarded like the PS3 still managed to bring good into the world due to the Folding@home app.

>nuclear weapons shouldn't be regulated, just leave it to the market

Sup Forums only "hates" gaming because Gunu Loonaxx doesn't have any good games. Same people who trot out the manchild go back to Sup Forums etc etc are sitting around watching cartoons for 8 year old Japanese girls and shitposting all day and night.

>Let me take a general principal, and an extreme example in order to completely disprove it, instead of accepting it as "generally true."

No, your free market coment was beyond stupid and you're too retarded to see why.

...

You realize that no modern western country has a totally free market? They all have large governments providing public goods and market intervention.

>environmental issues shouldn't be regulated, let's just leave it to the market!
>child labour laws shouldn't be needed, let's just leave it to the market!
>we don't need grain reserves, just leave food stability to the market!

The third one is about british india and the dozens of millions who died because the british turned over agriculture to the free market.

Not him, but shut the fuck up and take it to Sup Forums, or stop being a faggot who takes every statement to its most ridiculous extremes and absolutes.

Compare that to the USSR where tens of millions more died to artifical state-controlled famine and concentration camps.

>has it not been a net positive for technology?
It was... until it stopped and started to cater to normies. That's how we got tablets and lost EEE PC.

>nuclear weapons shouldn't be regulated, just leave it to the market
I actually agree with that.

But don't forget 1939, when hitler declared war on poland. Lots of people died then too.

See I can bring up unrelated things too

Sup Forums and /leftypol/ need to fuck off desu

>This extreme example didn't work so let's go totally free market like a lawless african state

Many other thing need a good gpu, not just pointless gaming, so Sup Forums is right. Also consumers buy many phone and console with outdated hw and they are used for gaming too, so potentially it hurts the development of hw.

The most ironic thing in technology, is that entertainment "made" the most advancement: video games, movies and porn. If computer users were
>adults
doing
>productive work
we would be still using P2 tier shitboxes because honestly you don't need more for Excel.

What the fuck is leftypol?

Have you ever played on beowulf cluster? I don't think so.

Beowulf clusters are a niche use case not used by most of the population.

>leftypol?
The name says it all doesn't it?
Its a board on a certain other chan, which instead of gassing the Jews wants to gulag the rich (As you see there really isn't much difference at all).

Wait so they're commies that want to genocide everyone instead of regular pol capitalists that want to genocide everyone?

all the shit paradox made
don't need anything else

>Wait so they're commies that want to genocide everyone
No, just the rich (they don't want it to be true that these are also the Jews)

> pol capitalist
Just the Jews (They know the Jews are also the rich)

If it weren't paid for by consumers, it would've been by the government. The loss of (competent) workforce due to manhours wasted 'gaming' is not a good compensation for the supposed free market-driven advancement of technology.

Same argument could be made for smartphones. Whatever is in your pocket would've never been so versatile and powerful if normalfaggoterinos didn't buy it en masse.

Yes, a lot of technology available to the average consumer today would not be available if the gaymer market didn't create mass demand for them.

He could have named literally any commie country and had the same result. Famines OCCASIONALLY happen under capitalism, feudalism, etc. And its due to stuff we didnt know much about, like potato plagues. Every communist country underwent a famine, the only potentially excusable one was china for similar reasons to the potato famine.

>implying that members of Sup Forums-unit don't play video games
OP, Sup Forums just hates Sup Forums. Sup Forums is filled with complete idiots.

But he is right? Name one counrty without any market intervention by the government.

No, gaming drove normies to technology, making their uninformed and uncritical opinions the majority. It created an environment where inferior products can outsell the superior ones because of marketing. Normies made marketing more important than quality, and we all suffer from it.

>being this braindead
spotted the gaymer

No they just want to force cuckold relationships and being general faggots.

Without those normies you would have no consumer products to buy in the first place. You would have to pay massively more or deal with inferior products.

Do you think consumers would have access to parallel processors as powerful as even midrange gamer-oriented GPUs if the videogame market didn't create the demand for them? Gamer hardware has opened a lot of doors for hobbyists/amateurs into areas that were previously exclusively the domain of governments, large corporations, or large education institutes. Sure, gamers "waste" the potential of the hardware, but without them the hardware wouldn't exist in the first place.

That's a ridiculous statement. As if any and all tech is only made for gaming, lol.

>Do you think consumers would have access to parallel processors as powerful as even midrange gamer-oriented GPUs if the videogame market didn't create the demand for them?
Of course, are you saying these advancements in power have only been made possible for the purpose of gaming? Are you joking, or just very dumb?
>Gamer hardware
Is mostly regular hardware packed into boxed with cool explosions and words like 'X-treme' written on them.

forgot to quote you there

ahahaha

"Gamers" have been by far the largest source of demand for more powerful consumer computer hardware in the last 20 years, especially when it comes to things like GPUs which the vast majority of consumers have 0 use for outside of things such as videogames.

>Is mostly regular hardware packed into boxed with cool explosions and words like 'X-treme' written on them.
All consumer grade GPUs are gamer hardware. That is what they are designed for and who they are marketed to.

>All consumer grade GPUs are gamer hardware
Again, ridiculous. A GPU is a GPU, there is no such ting as "gamer hardware". There is just hardware marketed toward gamers. This idea that gamers are the only thing that drives companies to create more powerful hardware is so out of touch with reality, I don't even know where to begin explaining you're wrong.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or don't know how the market works.
Noone is saying computers wouldn't be more powerful if it wasn't for gamers, but the technology would not have been made available to the average Joe for cheap if the demand didn't exist, and the biggest reason the demand did exist is gamers, in particular for mass parallel processors like GPUs. What the fuck does your typical user need a GPU's computational power for in the absence of games? Most software can't even make use of a multi-core CPU effectively. Powerful parallel processors would still exist without gamers, but only in the enterprise market - the cost out of reach of the average Joe. Gamers brought the technology to the consumer market.

It's "gamer hardware" because it is created in response to demand from gamers and marketed towards them. They are created with the primary goal of running videogames in mind.

>This idea that gamers are the only thing that drives companies to create more powerful hardware is so out of touch with reality
If you are going to miss the point of my posts on purpose then stop replying to me and wasting my time.

user is faggot positive.

Regardless of what you think about video games, it is undeniable that the rise of gaming as a popular hobby has encouraged the development of faster and cheaper computer hardware in a way that would not have happened otherwise.

>What the fuck does your typical user need a GPU's computational power for
Video encoding, bitcoin mining, even just running multiple screens, 3D rendering. Sure greater demand has made things cheaper, I don't see why we wouldn't have equally powerful hardware without gaymers though. Also, games more than anything else is equal to sloppy programming. Nobody cares about writing efficient code because they expect people to just buy a new GPU instead. Without gamers your hardware would last longer, therefor it wouldn't matter if the initial buying price was a bit higher.

>video encoding
>bitcoin mining
>3D rendering

>typical user

Yes? We're talking about typical users in a world where gayming doesn't exist. Those people, us, would be the typical users.

Before the voodoo cards, the only way to get decent 3D performance was to get a 4000$ SGI box, and without games, SGI would have the 3D monopoly forever, and things like CAD engineering would not be not even as close as they are today.

Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=ooLO2xeyJZA

Don't forget gamers are the only reason PC's have any multimedia capibility at all, the state of audio was abysmal on PC's before Adlib. If you were in a creative job you needed Apple, Commodore or SGI, PC's were basically spreadsheet boxes.

>without games, SGI would have the 3D monopoly forever
kek, you're insane if you actually believe that. Things like CAD engineering exist with or without games.

All of the things you listed are examples of things that were made available to the mass consumer market as a side effect of the hardware being created by gamers, the amount of people doing those things alone would not create demand on the level that gamers do.

>I don't see why we wouldn't have equally powerful hardware without gaymers though.
You would, but it would be enterprise grade hardware and would be appropriately expensive.

>Sure greater demand has made things cheaper
Exactly. And that demand only exists in a big enough way to influence the market because of gamers.

>Nobody cares about writing efficient code because they expect people to just buy a new GPU instead. Without gamers your hardware would last longer, therefor it wouldn't matter if the initial buying price was a bit higher.
Conjecture bordering on complete falsehood.

They can exist, but the scale changes when you have to pay 4 times more for the machines, AND don't get the same performance as there is no competition.

The typical user in a world without games uses their computer for web browsing and maybe an office suite. Video encoding, bitcoin mining, and 3D rendering have never been typical use cases of consumer hardware.

>Conjecture bordering on complete falsehood
Please be either joking, or not a programmer, preferably both.

>how we got tablets and lost EEE PC.

:( I had an HP Mini 311 (still have it actually) that was pretty great. Played Doom 3 at 45 fps no problem thanks to dedicated GPU. I miss netbooks. I guess we have chromebooks at least now, which you can usually take chromeos out of.

GPU offloading is mostly still not a thing.
But what you say is indeed true on the CPU world, and it would still be a thing on a gamingless world, except with the performance going up on a slower pace and artificial crippling everywhere to justify buying the new hardware.

Free market butt hurt?

planned obsolescence has nothing to do with games, it has existed for much longer

You're confusing planned obsolescence with lazy coding, the two might have similar results, but very different motivations. A software company doesn't gain anything at all by having inefficient code that only runs on new hardware, if anything they are losing sales because of it. The existence of gaming however made it so that buying a new and more powerful computer every few years has become normal, so software companies can largely afford being lazy.

Even without games they would want to do that, and would use a lot of artificial limitations on the OS to enforce people to buy, as they would not have "natural ways" to do so.

Certain things being cheaper isn't necessarily a net positive. Especially when considering you're expected and damn near forced to buy new products long before your current one stops working.

Software developers are usually not makers and sellers of hardware. They have no reason to want to write inefficient code other than laziness. There is no financial gain for them if their users need to buy new hardware to run their products.

While you're right with most companies, microsoft still profits off it, by going in a "chicken and egg dillema" with intel.
You have to buy the new intel hardware to run the new windows, and you need to buy the new windows to take full advantage of the new intel hardware.

>The existence of gaming however made it so that buying a new and more powerful computer every few years has become normal
I don't know if you remember what it was like in the 90s but computers today last longer than ever, a brand new top of the line computer in the mid-90s would be obsolete within 6 months. Unless you want to run every game that comes out in the next 5 years maxed out at 60fps or whatever, then even a mid-range computer is serviceable for videogames for many years. Sure, I know computers became obsolete quickly in the 90s partly because of the speed at which hardware was advancing, but software developers were also plenty lazy in assuming you had a brand new Pentium w/ MMX and if you didn't well fuck you.

I also reject your claim that everybody just writes lazy/inefficient code on purpose. There are a lot of examples of poorly written software, but this is a result of the fact that the barrier of entry to software and game development is much lower these days, and so just because of the fact there are more developers there are going to be more bad developers. However there are also a lot of well optimised pieces of software/games that will run fine on hardware that is multiple generations out of date, which is unprecedented in the history of the microcomputer. Hell, I'm still rocking my stock 750ti and I may have to crank some settings down a bit but it's perfectly usable for even modern AAA blockbusters still.

There are limits to how efficient you can make code, the hardware does have limits you know.

>War is the same thing as a famine caused by bad economic ideas
I mean, Hitler and Stalin are both shitbaggers but those are two different things entirely. Hitler taking away the gun rights of the Jews however,....

What the fuck does the food reserves has to do with free market... Are you brain death or something?

>Africa
>Free market

Untrue.

I mean first part. Second part about man children is true.

>software developers were also plenty lazy in assuming you had a brand new Pentium w/ MMX and if you didn't well fuck you
>I also reject your claim that everybody just writes lazy/inefficient code on purpose.
So, which is it?

How about you actually talk about the principle behind the free market that people like Adam Smith (the guy who wrote the most influential economics book, the Wealth of Nations) was actually talking about: a market with only very sparse gov't regulation in places where it was absolutely needed (ala worker's/consumer's rights and environmental management) and otherwise free to do whatever the hell it wanted between the multiple companies involved, instead of the idiotic AnCap stance to prove that your even stupider communistic/socialistic stance (which has failed before multiple times) is the right way?

Past vs present tense, software today is much more conscious of the fact that not everyone is running the latest $5000 CPU and is written appropriately.

There's no reason in developing things and doing them in mass production, for a small niche of people using it. Wasting that energy on tiny interests is lame, that's why the free market works, because creates industries around what most people like, and those industries get better and better to give the best specs at the smaller prices.

You're high, the only difference is hardware being powerful enough to give developers more leeway without their inefficiency becoming apparent to the end user. That is until you decide to run multiple of these 'conscious' products at once.

I still feel like you're ignoring the main body of the lengthy post I wrote.

He is right, because in big civilizations free market must serve the unified government, and not otherwise (because all countries are government centred)

gaming, plus smartphones, sure

He says "gamer hardware" because NVIDIA and AMD focus their products on them. Now the multimedia content is generating a market, soon we will see well designed high end computers

Yeah they'really used by "adults" doing "work"

> Excel , Productive Work
Choose one.

Oh boy, you're a snowflake on a bubble.

Still whining because the price of rx480 is sky high because the mining farms.
Pity.
Also the PS4 and Xbox one use ayymd jaguar, but feel free calling that an advanced architecture.

No one is forcing you, with gnuloonix you can stay with your old hardware for a while.

Not sure what you see as the main body, I see most of it as filler with some exaggerations mixed in.
>There are limits to how efficient you can make code
Of course, I doubt you are saying these limits are frequently met though?

This is true, my (t)rusty old Pentium 3 still runs ubuntu just fine. It doesn't like HD video though.

not him, but if there were no government in the context of computer tech how would gaming not be useful in driving technology development?

Medicine? Travelling?
Gaming is for home computing, but tech is everywhere.

Also, the internet is decentralized... Government doesn't do that much about it. You can have a country were CP is legal and mounting your own servers to the internet (if you can reach the cables and technology)

>consumers will already pay more for eco friendly shit, despite already paying taxes on govnt research
You act like some company would buy out all the national parks and cut down the trees, despite the parks actually making decent money on government scrap funding
>child labor laws
education is worth much more profit in the long, why should you regulate teenagers who would actually benefit from a job
>grain reserves
>implying we still have/use grain reserves
and? the prevalence of other fields using tech rapidly doesn't mean gaming doesnt support the growth of it
besides, medical cosmetic surgery seems to be growing rapidly in terms of tech and thats not government subsidized

>You can have a country were CP is legal
Where is that?

Video games have opened up the consumer market for high end components, but they haven't driven the development of new technology. Supercomputers for stock markets and weather models have done that. The R&D departments of large tech companies aren't sitting around thinking of how to squeeze an extra few fps out of Witcher 3.

Technically, invest into hijacking the internet cable in the middle of the ocean, and create your own autistic country.

Yeah, actually gaming help them a lot. Doing long distance surgeries or showing the patient how the surgery works via 3d renders

I'm onto it. Feel free to join the modafinil laden loli heaven.

ideally it should advance ai since you are fighting against them in story mode but that has not been the case at all
the gpu crap is just the texture shit and they are able to process raw textures but only if you have the newest tech which means not everyone can use it
the storyline of games are now getting worse and worse as well since it follows a very narrow narrative

I don't know why you feel the need to single out video games when people will sink hundreds of hours into more banal shit that cost more in the long run and aren't nearly as fun.
Like going to church every Sunday.

>it should advance ai
Ha, I remember thinking this would happen. But like you said, people care more about pretty textures. Sad.