physx is a cpu based technology that was adopted by aegia(which nvidia bought the rights to) to add special particle effects in games. some games kind of casually add it on and not much comes out of physx, where there are more or less 3 major games that physx was used to a good extent, Borderlands 2, Mafia 2, and Batman. As for future prospects of physx, the only recent game unmentioned that uses it is the f2p game Hawken(very poorly though). As for future outcomes, you may not see one very frequently, with AMD pretty much working with all of the devs due to the fact that AMD is in all 3 next gen consoles, and Amds Gaming Evolved Portfolio growing much more rapidly than Nvidias way its meant* to be played portfolio.
dude, you should have stopped after the first sentence. everything after that is inaccurate and fan-boy-ism. not something the OP was asking for and stuff most readers here are tired of looking at.
Im just stating what i believe is the more likely outcome. It's not that I'm amd partial(heck i built my friends computer with a 660), Im just stating what is more likely outcome, especially since AMD is currently being extremely aggressive with their Game Dev PR. Yesterday, I already made a statement saying that AMD cpus are likely to get a performance boost soon(as an intel owner as well) due to the fact that games are going to be more core optimized(in Crysis 3, AMD cpus score better than Intel Cpus, PS4 having 8 cores will lead 8 core optimization for the FX users. and Microsofts infinity will probably have something of 4 or more cores as well). I'm just generating future prospect. The only statement that was more opinionated is that I made one about hawken, which was the opinion of the general public with hawken as the physx is distracting.
I personally wish they'd use it more too, but the problem generally is most game devs dont want to bother programming something in that will only benefit a portion of the users. when they implement something like anti aliasing tricks, they would prefer it to be readily available to all users. That of course they are also getting monetary benefits from nvidia for their time, as games tend to have a deadline, especially if the dev is under a larger company(EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square Enix as very generic examples). I personally think it'd be nice to have more hjigh profile physx games, but almost being limited to one hardware, devs don't have as much as a drive to do so then say, add more content that everyone can benefit from. Time is more or less the commodity that prevents this.
gpu accelerated physic doesn't really take off even with heavy promotion from nvidia. amd try using bullet opencl approach but in one report amd themselves says that developer not interested with the stuff. like opencl case even if the software is cross platform specific optimization must be done on each architecture so that's mean more works in the developer side. i think developer will use physx (in fact might be more so than now) but most likely leave the gpu accerated part out from their games
Imo, PhysX is really nice but its not what I would call a buying point. Buying a Nvidia card because it has PhysX is not a real good reason, unless of course you only play Batman. Of course, if you have a tendency to go with Nvidia or you like their drivers and performance to boot too, then by all means go for it.
It really isn't worth buying just for the physx. Maybe if there were more games that had physx it would be worth it. I built several PC's in the past two years and always went with AMD cards, so I just wanted to try a Nvidia card for once and see how they are.