Interesting article. Judging by Dell's (the CEO) calm attitude towards "haters", I personally believe that he truly has something revolutionary to offer.
I think Dell makes money the same way other scammers make money, produce as much hype as possible with half truths, and by the time people figure out what is real, you'll have already cashed in.
I guarantee he is optimizing his entire company for fancy demos. He'll sucker some idiot big company into buying his technology, then we'll never ever see it in a product.
Most likely. They already got a $2million innovation grant from the government. Now they're working on better shadows and fancier worlds... mere demo stuff.
How is that indicative of anything but a thought-out publicity strategy?
If one were in the perpetual-motion machine business, taking a calm attitude towards haters would be pretty much the only option, since there would be no way to argue with them.
... and if he were not in the perpetual-motion machine business taking a calm attitude wouldn't be a bad idea either. So logically it's not a very informative data point.
Nevertheless, I did watch him interviewed and give the real-time interactivity demo to an AU gamer mag a few months ago (I think it's still on Youtube).
I know a bit about the traditional polygon rendering pipeline and I was quite impressed with his response to his critics.
I'm reserving judgment since there are still big unanswered questions. But I would not expect him to be satisfying my curiosity with answers if his strategy is a legitimate attempt to develop the technology with a bigger partner (e.g. a console company or first-party studio).
As someone who knows more than 'a bit', I can tell you, it smells like snake oil from miles away. All the obvious signs are there: needlessly bashing existing tech, handwaving around very hard problems and demo videos that are staged to hide the obvious flaws from the untrained eye.
Plus, they've been hyping up the same tech for years now, with very little progress. People keep throwing the same criticisms at them, and they keep delivering very unimpressive responses.
If they've indeed scored $2 million of government grants already with this demo, as others allege, then it couldn't be more obvious: it's a zombie company designed to look impressive and leech off investor money, nothing more. It's centered around tech that has already been explored thoroughly by academia and industry, and we know where the practical problems lie in turning it into a viable game tech.
Comments
Interesting article. Judging by Dell's (the CEO) calm attitude towards "haters", I personally believe that he truly has something revolutionary to offer.
Only time will tell though.
I think Dell makes money the same way other scammers make money, produce as much hype as possible with half truths, and by the time people figure out what is real, you'll have already cashed in.
I guarantee he is optimizing his entire company for fancy demos. He'll sucker some idiot big company into buying his technology, then we'll never ever see it in a product.
These things are predictable as clockwork.
Most likely. They already got a $2million innovation grant from the government. Now they're working on better shadows and fancier worlds... mere demo stuff.
Mmmm, and what if it's real? What if he earns even more that what he already has because people and companies alike think he's a fraud?
All I can say is good for Dell.
How is that indicative of anything but a thought-out publicity strategy?
If one were in the perpetual-motion machine business, taking a calm attitude towards haters would be pretty much the only option, since there would be no way to argue with them.
... and if he were not in the perpetual-motion machine business taking a calm attitude wouldn't be a bad idea either. So logically it's not a very informative data point.
Nevertheless, I did watch him interviewed and give the real-time interactivity demo to an AU gamer mag a few months ago (I think it's still on Youtube).
I know a bit about the traditional polygon rendering pipeline and I was quite impressed with his response to his critics.
I'm reserving judgment since there are still big unanswered questions. But I would not expect him to be satisfying my curiosity with answers if his strategy is a legitimate attempt to develop the technology with a bigger partner (e.g. a console company or first-party studio).
As someone who knows more than 'a bit', I can tell you, it smells like snake oil from miles away. All the obvious signs are there: needlessly bashing existing tech, handwaving around very hard problems and demo videos that are staged to hide the obvious flaws from the untrained eye.
Plus, they've been hyping up the same tech for years now, with very little progress. People keep throwing the same criticisms at them, and they keep delivering very unimpressive responses.
If they've indeed scored $2 million of government grants already with this demo, as others allege, then it couldn't be more obvious: it's a zombie company designed to look impressive and leech off investor money, nothing more. It's centered around tech that has already been explored thoroughly by academia and industry, and we know where the practical problems lie in turning it into a viable game tech.