[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.