[benbreen]

Author here - thank you for this. I definitely don't claim to be an expert on the history of 3d graphics, and you clearly know a lot more than me about the detailed history of NVIDIA.

That said, starting in the early 1990s is missing the whole first half of the story, no? Searching Google Books with a 1980-1990 date range for things like "3d graphics" "art" or "3d graphics" "special effects" yields a lot of primary sources that indicate that creative applications were driving demand for chips and workstations that focused on graphics. For instance this is from a trade journal for TV producers in 1987: "Perhaps the greatest dilemma facing the industrial producer today is what to do about digital graphics... because special effects, 2d painting, and 3d animation all rely on basically the same kind of hardware, it should be possible to design a 'graphics computer' that can handle several different kinds of functions." [https://www.google.com/books/edition/E_ITV/0JRYAAAAYAAJ?hl=e...]

It's not hard to find more examples like this from the 1985-1989 period.

[evanweaver]

The idea didn't spring fully formed from SGI. It was a natural extension of 2D graphics accelerators which were initially used for engineering (high value, small market) and later for business applications generally and games (lower value, large markets). 3D acceleration took the exact same path, but the utility for gaming was much higher than the general business utility.

Of course graphics hardware was also used for more creative purposes including desktop publishing, special effects for TV, and digital art, so you will find some people in those communities vaguely wishing for something better, but artistic creation, even for commercial purpose, was never the market driver of 3D acceleration. Games were. The hardware was designed for gamers first, game programmers second, game artists a distant third, and for nobody else.

The closest thing to an "art computer" around that time was the Amiga which targeted the design/audio/video production markets.

[sonicanatidae]

Hi Ben,

It was mostly gamers. As a gamer from that time, the hardware was marketed to gamers, hard. I don't doubt that artists had an impact, but the world had many, many more gamers, than artists and gamers spend money for the best/mostest/etc.

I mainly know this from living through the CGA/EGA/VGA/SVGA/3D add-on card/3D era.

Thank you for taking the time to delve into this. While I may not agree with your conclusions, I respect your work, and the effort put in. :)

[benbreen]

I think we agree, just define terms differently -- video games are art! In other words, gamers are consumers of artwork, and that consumer demand for a new kind of art drove demand for the hardware to go with it. (Naturally that wasn't the only source of demand - engineering and research applications were there from the beginning too).

Edit: this discussion is interesting because I have always just taken it for granted that video games are a form of art. Clearly others don't see it that way, which is fair! Nevertheless, I think a strong case can be made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_as_an_art_form

[evanweaver]

Games are a medium for artistic expression but saying that 3D hardware was designed to improve art production, or that NVIDIA was first in market, is incorrect. The hardware was designed to improve the consumption experience of something that is a mix of programming, game mechanics (which are both math and psychology), and potentially various art forms including visual, music, and narrative. It all needs to add up to fun or it won’t find much of an audience.

Gamers aren’t primarily spending time or money for the art and neither was NVIDIA. I will grant that the hardware improvements did make the visual aspects more lifelike and detailed and that allowed for increased artistic range, but production costs generally increased accordingly.