backtop

Software Blizzard Partners Up With Havok
Jon Lane (Blog) - September 14, 2006 2:27 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by AzureKevin.. on Sep 25 at 7:48 PM
Havok 4.0 will be featured in upcoming Blizzard games

For those of you who have been following the PC physics arms race, Havok might have just unveiled the equivalent of the hydrogen bomb.  Blizzard Entertainment, (in)famous for the incredible success of World of Warcraft, has just announced that the company has licensed the Havok 4.0 engine for use in new titles on the PC and Mac.

“Havok 4.0 will add power and flexibility to our development process,” said Mike Morhaime, president and co-founder of Blizzard Entertainment. “We’re looking forward to utilizing this technology with our upcoming games.”  Blizzard did not release names of its upcoming games during E3 this past May, but the company has acknowledged that new Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo titles are possibly in the works.

Although the Havok engine has been ported to just about every console made since 1999, last month Blizzard sent out a press released claiming that the company is committed to developing PC (and Mac) based games and will not focus on console development.

The Havok 4.0 engine was announced a little over two months ago.  Part of the Havok FX engine is the ability to use spare processing power from NVIDIA and ATI GPUs for physics calculations -- a feature which is certainly awed over across the board. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By PrinceGaz on 9/14/2006 2:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
Blizzard using Havok physics which basically makes the Aegia PhysX card useless.

Good to hear that new Starcraft and Diablo titles are on the way; a lot of people were unhappy about the total focus on Warcraft for the past few years.




RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By DukeN on 9/14/2006 3:03:40 PM , Rating: 5
Woot!! New Diablo!!!


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By noxipoo on 9/14/2006 3:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
where are the official acknowledgement that they are working on SC2, WC, D3? I know it's possible but I thought nothing was confirmed and people only got them from the random job postings on blizzard.com?


By shadowzz on 9/14/2006 4:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
old news

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6150919.html?q=blizza...

Reflecting on the existing franchises, Sams emphasized, "World of Warcraft and the Warcraft franchise is not the last and the only franchise we are going to operate within. We have two other very, very key franchises to our company's history and to our company's future success. The Diablo and Starcraft franchises are of the utmost importance to us as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new franchise from us at some time in the future ; there's certainly a desire to do so."


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By Alphafox78 on 9/14/2006 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Woot!! New Starcraft!!!!


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By cnimativ on 9/14/2006 4:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
Its funny when the news is on Havoc 4.0 liscence and a good numbers of the replies are "WOOT!! Star/Warcraft"!!!


By ElJefe69 on 9/16/2006 11:47:21 PM , Rating: 1
hahha, hell yeah. who cares about physics??!!

It's SC!!!!!!!

freakin 1024 x 768 SC with a little 3d thrown in, with like 1-2 new abilities for each race would make me spend 50 dollars in a heartbeat. That fabled Scraft remix people spoke about years ago


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By GhandiInstinct on 9/14/2006 4:23:32 PM , Rating: 1
As fun as Diablo was, Starcraft remains my favorite, though the two aren't the same genre I'll be happy to see a Starcraft MMO or Diablo MMO :).


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By GreenEnvt on 9/14/2006 5:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I still can't believe it's bo SO many years since starcraft came out, with no sequel. SC was a HUGE success, it's odd they didn't try to milk it yet.


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By AzureKevin on 9/14/2006 5:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't had the need to milk from it yet, for it's still quite popular. The longer they make us wait for a sequel, however, the more we'll want it and the greater the success it'll have when it's finally released. Smart bastards.


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By GhandiInstinct on 9/14/2006 6:43:45 PM , Rating: 1
I'll disagree, the kids that grew up on it now don't have time for a SC MMO, but if you're talking about an RTS(which I doubt) then yes.


By Tupolev22m on 9/14/2006 11:28:19 PM , Rating: 4
Starcraft is an RTS.... making it an MMO will do the same thing it did to Warcraft, kill the game for profit. Not saying thats not they want but I for one won't be switching over if they do that.


RE: Just what Aegia didn't want to hear...
By PrinceGaz on 9/15/2006 4:17:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The longer they make us wait for a sequel, however, the more we'll want it and the greater the success it'll have when it's finally released. Smart bastards.

Do you by any chance work for 3D Realms leading the Duke Nukem Forever team? ;)


By AzureKevin on 9/25/2006 7:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, I wish. Though, they do have (acceptable) reasons for taking so long, such as restarts, insufficient team, etc. They're not doing it for hype.

Anyway, what I said was meant for SC, mostly. It's still a very popular game and many people are still playing it. The same goes for Diablo II as well. They don't have a need to make a sequel to either of those games yet, since they are still popular, and they currently have WoW to keep people happy. But when they do announce sequels, you know it's going to be big and we're all going to hear about it.


By feelingshorter on 9/16/2006 3:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Starcraft was a great game but it probably DIDNT see as much $ as we think. There is only a CD-KEY for the regular starcraft and not the expansion. Meaning you can borrow your friend's expansion, install it, and play it online for free. That being said, all you would have to do is find a no cd crack and you get the game for free. Pirating wasnt as high back in the days of SC:BW but i'm sure some people discovered this right? I still play SC:BW online sometimes with friends. So much fun. They really do need to make a new SC and Diablo. I spent a lot of time playing Diablo also.


NEW GAMES!!!
By mimiman76 on 9/14/2006 3:47:34 PM , Rating: 4
I just hope that Blizzards new games dont have monthly payments and are online only...Thats the only reason I dont have WOW!




RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/14/2006 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, if you get the chance to play WoW, it's well worth the monthly fee. It's probably one of the few MMO's to date that I can honestly say are worth paying a fee for. Blizzard has done a good job of implementing new content fairly regularly, that adds to the experience. Now about those patch days........... =/


RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By noxipoo on 9/14/2006 4:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
games that require huge amounts of time endlessly isn't everyone cup of tea, thats why all those stupid EA sports games do so well.


RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By GhandiInstinct on 9/14/2006 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 1
I concur, the idea of a persistant gameplay adventure is not appealing to men in their college years or career years(though I know men that are established in an industry that play this game obsessively ignoring their wives and children...).

Think of it like this, there are no goals, because goals reappear every patch point, the idea is to keep you playing until the developers won't support it anymore which won't happen anytime soon, so it's persistance which gets very, very boring.

I myself don't enjoy games where your attacks conjure numbers, I'd like a more real fighting system.


RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By rushfan2006 on 9/15/2006 9:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Your opinion is your own and as such you are entitled to it. However, as a 30-something gamer myself and one of the YOUNGER players in a 100 person guild on WoW....I can tell you on a somewhat factual basis there is a very large amount of "career and post-college" aged men who play. A few of the guys in nearly 50 in fact, more people also have kids and spouses than those that do not in our guild. Finally it is a mix of professions and we also have a good bit of women (several are gf's/wives of other players in fact).

Finally, what a lot folks don't understand is yeah the game is important to keep things fresh but its the community of those you play with that is the real draw of making it fun.

I don't enjoy short games with limited options, limited tactics required...so we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this topic.



RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By Dfere on 9/15/2006 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes

I am in that crowd, but I quit my WOW account. I simply did not have enough time to "keep up" with anyone. I liked the social aspect, but when you do find people your age, it becomes quite frustrating when you start at the same time, then you are level 8 and they are 50.


RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By GhandiInstinct on 9/15/2006 11:26:57 AM , Rating: 1
You talka bout limited tactics and options, in WoW people's classes have one central role in a raid, which makes you bash the same buttons over and over, how is that overtly complex? This game is flawed beyond doubt.


RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By rushfan2006 on 9/18/2006 3:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well w/o doubt you are biased against it since you don't like it and I am biased for it because I enjoy the game. These are opinions and that's what makes life interesting, imagine if we all liked everything the same as everyone else....how boring.

Now on the direct issue at hand...first WoW isn't the first game to put your character in a singlular-like role as you hinted at -- I doubt it'll be the last either. Also, the tactics in a MMORPG like WoW isn't really the "bashing" of the buttons as you said (which I agree with you buy the way -- no direct skill in that part)...its knowing the class, with spell casters for example knowing what spell combos work best in which scenarios, its knowing the tactics involved to take down certain bosses. There are a lot of bosses the higher you progress that aren't simple tank and spanks...you have to do certain things in a certain order.

I enjoy that stuff...and then the whole PVP thing is fun.

When I want to really get tactical -- I don't turn to ANY rpg though...I load up a good RTS...currently something like Company of Heroes is sinking my time.



RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By rushfan2006 on 9/14/2006 4:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just hope that Blizzards new games dont have monthly payments and are online only...Thats the only reason I dont have WOW!


Huh? What an odd statement....World of Warcraft is currently the ONLY MMO that Blizzard has. As far as charging for it...um....that's the model that's been used for about a decade now for RPG's at least. You make it sound like Blizzard's only work is pay to play games.

Starcraft, Diablo and the Warcraft games --- all are non-mmo's and no monthly fees and all quite entertaining.

The one gripe I have with Blizzard's RTS games though -- not enough units.



RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By RMSe17 on 9/15/2006 9:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
The statement is not odd considering how profitable WoW is to Blizzard. It is basically a guaranteed money source that is constant, making profit much less dependant on release of new titles. If a company can secure several of these, they are set. For life. So, if a company is about making money, and they are, it would be in their business interest to make all games MMO with payed subscriptions.

quote:
As far as charging for it...um....that's the model that's been used for about a decade now for RPG's at least.
There is Guild Wars that my roommate plays... buy the game, play for free.



RE: NEW GAMES!!!
By rushfan2006 on 9/15/2006 9:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
Your logic nearly gives me a migraine...

First...do you understand the concept of averages? Do you comprehend the term "history". Do you know what "majority" means. Do you know what "minority" means.

Now, as plainly as I can state -- do some research on mainstreet MMO's.....you'll find the MAJORITY of them charge a monthly fee. Its been this way for YEARS. Is there a game here and there that doesn't...yes there is....however this is currently only one mildly successful mainstream MMO using the no monthly fee model, Guild Wars. (And yes I have it already btw -- didn't like it).

That was my point. One or two differences does not change the norm in series....if you have 10 cars over 10 years....each one of those cars, except one, costs say $50,000...the oddball car costs $25,000. Now then, someone says..."The norm costs of a car is about $50,000"...how relevant is it then for someone to say "Um...you're wrong try $25,000!". You see my point....the MAJORITY set the rule, the minority is what we call an EXCEPTION.

Secondly,

There are already announcments for new warcraft, starcraft and diablo titles AND there are some game companies that make other games but still make MMO's anyway...ever hear of Sony for example?



Super Realistic Physics....
By umerok on 9/14/2006 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
for when you require more vespene gas




RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By hellokeith on 9/14/2006 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by umerok on September 14, 2006 at 2:54 PM for when you require more vespene gas


WooHooo baby, Starcraft 2 all the way!!!!!!!!!!


Using a video card for physics is a bad idea. Most modern games are GPU-limited, so it'd just be taking away from the framerate. But software physics on the CPU, as is most common, is sufficient.. Half Life 2 proved that.

On the other hand, that AISeek add-in card would go a *long* way towards improving RTS's, especially Starcraft 2. Imagine 200 marines and firebats in a massive battle. :D


RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Vertigo101 on 9/15/2006 4:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Half-Life 2 proved that the masses are overjoyed by completely substandard and unrealistic physics.


RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Fnoob on 9/15/2006 7:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm? If not, could you please site a circa 04 game with better physics? HL2 was/is a benchmark, and Episode 1 was even better. I haven't played an FPS with better realism.


RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Vertigo101 on 9/17/2006 10:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
One look at the ropes in HL2 will tell you anything you need to know about that game. It's hardly real, or realistic.

Just because you haven't played a better game, doesn't mean that HL2's attempt at physics is accurate.


RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Fnoob on 9/18/2006 1:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
What would you consider a more realistic game then?

If you have a system that will run it at 1920x1200 with everything maxed out, it is glorious.

Please do LMK what FPS game you find better as I am sincerely curious.



RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Vertigo101 on 9/21/2006 8:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it looks pretty, and runs in a high-resolution, doesn't make it realistic.

Also not that "Realistic" != Realistic Physics

I'd say that GRAW is a more realistic game, but I still don't care for it.

As far as the best physics modeling in an FPS.....It wasn't a shooter, but most of the common objects in oblivion behaved much better than HL2's. (Magic effects non-withstanding...since they can't be 'realisticaly' modeled anyways)

For upcoming games, BioShock and Cell Factor are looking interesting, but real? Hardly.

From a physics perspective not many games are worth much. It's like being the best arm-wrestler in a secluded sect: You may think you're the best arm wrestler in the world, and all your friends might agree, but they're really just comparing a small segment of the total possible competition.

I'm not even going to get into the HDR implementation in HL2 either....It's also hardly realistic. If they could accurately simulate light, it wouldn't have a fancy name, and it wouldn't be an effect. They'd just call it light.


RE: Super Realistic Physics....
By Vertigo101 on 9/21/2006 8:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
Also, you mentioned 'a 2004 game that was better'?

Well, it reminds me of a joke...
"What's better than winning first place in the Special Olympics?"

"Not being handicapped!"

No offense to anyone out there in the SO. You have my full support and sympathy.


Dual core?
By Alphafox78 on 9/14/2006 3:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldnt it make sense to use the second core for physics instead of spare GPU power? I for one cant spare much GPU power but my second core is usually sitting idle, waiting for some action. or maybe have it use a dual core, if installed, instead of the GPU since not everoyne has a dual cpu obviously.




RE: Dual core?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/14/2006 4:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if I was not more descriptive in my earlier post. It does use the CPU not the GPU. My point is that for the same 249 or close to it, you can equip your computer with a very nice GFX card. Processors Intel or AMD actually do the calculations and legwork for Havok, opposed to PhysX which uses its special card with a special PPU (Physics Processing Unit) chip instead of a standard CPU. Now with Dual-Core, and soon Quad-Core and within the next 2/3 years Octal-Core (1 or 2 Chip implementations) we can pretty much say that CPU's have plenty of power to spare at the moment and Havok which is designed around having lots of extra core's for the many threads it creates. Havok is a better implementation simply because 249 for a co-processor (thats basically what it is folks) is pretty worthless when Havok is using the extra CPU power from the latest Dual-Core processors. Not to mention all the developers using Havok in their games, and not PhysX.


RE: Dual core?
By AndreasM on 9/15/2006 3:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
PhysX also utilises dual-cores, so in this respect there is no difference between Havoc and PhysX.


RE: Dual core?
By Alphafox78 on 9/15/2006 1:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Except for the part where you dont need a $250 add in card.


RE: Dual core?
By PrinceGaz on 9/15/2006 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo.


RE: Dual core?
By rushfan2006 on 9/14/2006 4:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think they are applying the assumption that "gamers" will likely keep pretty updated video cards in their rigs. And if you have like 512 mb - 1 gb of GPU ram, PLUS a dual core CPU with 1mb cache and 2-4 gigs of system ram and I really don't think you'd even notice the hit.....unless you were told about it (like this article just did)...;)



RE: Dual core?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/14/2006 4:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
True. I've got 512MB of GPU Ram, 4MB of Processor Cache, and 4GB of RAM.......... But I don't know of any performance hit I take in HL2(only Havok game I have worth mentioning) infact my FPS is around 250 at all times. (238 Average according to the Video Stress Tester :P)


S/W Physics
By cnimativ on 9/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: S/W Physics
By kamel5547 on 9/14/2006 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Part of the Havok FX engine is the ability to use spare processing power from NVIDIA and ATI GPUs


Why purchase card when you can use cards that you already have? You can just use your extra GPU when you upgrade as a PPU... rather nice IMO.

Throw in the quad-core CPU's coming and processing power isn't exactly going to be lacking at the moment.


RE: S/W Physics
By stmok on 9/15/2006 3:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why purchase card when you can use cards that you already have? You can just use your extra GPU when you upgrade as a PPU... rather nice IMO.


Clearly, you don't understand the difference in what physics features each solution can do. They are NOT the same when supporting particular features.

Aegia = API + Custom Accelerator => Full Physics features, more costly to implement.

Havok = API + GPU => most Physics features, not fully optimised for max performance as they're just grabbing the GPU to do some of the calculations. Cheaper and quicker to implement.

The question is down to which has the bigger developer support, and which can gain popular adoption. (Technology is funny like that...You could have the most powerful widget that's the best in everything, but if it isn't popular with the end-users, and without a bit of marketing, you ain't gonna get anywhere, and its very likely to be cancelled and withdrawn).


RE: S/W Physics
By tenguman on 9/14/2006 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hmmm software physics engine. Wonders how good this will work on PC.


Where have you been? Software physics have been used in PC games for years. One of the biggest ones was released in 2004, you might have heard of it...Half-Life 2. It used a modified Havok engine. Go to Havok's website and you'll see the list of games that use their Engine.


wow ...
By das mod on 9/14/2006 3:00:07 PM , Rating: 3
this does not look good for the early buyers/adopters of the physx card ....




RE: wow ...
By Frank M on 9/14/2006 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well, it's not hard to make stupid decisions look stupid.


RE: wow ...
By PAPutzback on 9/18/2006 10:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
Good one. The only person dumb enough to buy a Physics card is the guy that paid 250 bucks for the "Killer" NIC.


Ageia havok?
By drmo on 9/14/2006 8:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe this is a stupid question, but could Havok be modified to utilize the Ageia card? I mean, does Ageia insist that only their software be used with their cards?




RE: Ageia havok?
By Missing Ghost on 9/14/2006 11:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
The card is designed to work with their API. But it would be possible for somebody else to build an havok card I guess. That would be cool.


RE: Ageia havok?
By stmok on 9/15/2006 3:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you bother?

Havok only accelerates some physics features using the GPU (usually the secondary or 3rd video card for optimal performance), while Ageia's solution is the full monty of physics acceleration features. (I suspect with bigger performance benefits than the Havok solution, as that's expressly a hardware solution, and not a pseudo way).

The Havok solution is good for the short term, as its quicker and cheaper to implement. You can in theory have both solutions complement each other...But that would be exceedingly expensive for both the customer and developer.

The problem is software support. Its a bit of a "chicken and the egg" problem...You need to get a community of developers supporting your solution with the hardware you provide...Otherwise, its equivalent to getting the world's most powerful hand cannon, but you don't have any bullets for it! (as no one will become a source for the ammo!)

Games specifically written for physics solutions will benefit. Games that aren't built from the ground up to support either Ageia or Havok won't benefit at all.

Games that aren't built that way, but have physics "slapped on" as a last minute thing won't get any jump in frame rates, but they have slightly more eyecandy. (Like what was seen in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter).


Although, if you mean come up with an API that supports Ageia's card, GPUs and multi-core/CPU system, now that would be interesting. But that would be complicated as hell.


Hydrogen Bomb Indeed
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/14/2006 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yea, when Blizzard is basically synonymous with greatness, this is a huge deal for Havok. With Blizzard taking a stance to use Havok instead of PhysX, you pretty much throw a heavyweight into a lightweight arena. PhysX needs to get someone like EA, which while has not much to do with "Quality" it does have "Quantity" and that could give PhysX the jumpstart it will need to get into the market and make it worth the $249 Investment. However, GFX Makers are not making this easy, with excellent cutting edge GFX cards being had between $200-$300 dollars, $249 for a PhysX card seems a bit much. For right now Havok just 1-UP'd PhysX by an order of magnatude.......




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki