Assassin's Creed - decision to remove DX 10.1 support

[Hauk]

Upon first reading the article my conspiracy theory gears did start turning. Admittitly I had no knowledge either way of the game, bugs, etc. It just sounded like nV may have had a hand in things.

On further review, Ubi says they plan to remove DX 10.1 due to bugs due to bugs.

I'm retitling the thread accordingly.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
The situation we are looking at- AC rendering DX 10.1 on ATi hardware had massive rendering issues in certain situations.

Massive rendering errors in a situation that the reviewer didn't even notice his first time playing the game

The other issue is that periodically ATI hardware experiences a glitch where the "bloom/glare" effect goes crazy. This is clearly a rendering error, but it's not something you encounter regularly in the game. In fact, this error only seems to occur after you first load the game and before you lock onto any targets or use Altaïr's special "eagle vision" -- or one of any number of other graphical effects. In our experience, once any of these other effects have occurred you will no longer see this "glaring" error. In fact, I finished playing AC and never noticed this error; I only discovered it during my benchmarking sessions.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Massive rendering errors in a situation that the reviewer didn't even notice his first time playing the game

Oh wow, that is a good point. Based on the content of the article there is simply no way he possibly played the game through having the patch installed, then noticed the errors when he was benchmarking as he needed to revert back to a clean install of the game- just couldn't happen.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work

You have a good point- could you please list off what rendering feature doesn't work? Without that, your point becomes utterly unrelated to the topic at hand.

The situation we are looking at- AC rendering DX 10.1 on ATi hardware had massive rendering issues in certain situations. This could have been caused by some faulty code on Ubi's part, issues with ATi drivers or hardware, or problems with the API itself. Whatever the case may be- the problem wasn't going to fix itself for free. As a publisher- what business choice would you make to rectify the situation given that reverting to the DX10 path meant losing no rendering features? Out of the mountain of possible and likely scenarios nV paying someone off or doing something underhanded makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The renderer never worked right- that is a fundamental issue some of the less coherent loyalists are ignoring. Could Ubi have maybe gotten it working right if they spent the time and effort on it? Perhaps they could have. How much would it really have been worth to them? A mild boost in aa performance for a very small segment of the people that bought the game IF correcting the rendering issues didn't reduce performance more then the gain they were seeing when the engine wasn't working right.

What doesn't work? How about the whole DX10.1 codepath thing?

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Massive rendering errors in a situation that the reviewer didn't even notice his first time playing the game

Oh wow, that is a good point. Based on the content of the article there is simply no way he possibly played the game through having the patch installed, then noticed the errors when he was benchmarking as he needed to revert back to a clean install of the game- just couldn't happen.

Of course under context of the reviewer played trough in 1.0, it is under the 1.0 v.s. 1.02 section and the reviewer wouldn't mention it unless he played through 1.0. Anandtech is respectable and there's noway the reviewer would lie like that

And the issues weren't massive, read the anandtech review.

In one case, there's an edge that doesn't get anti-aliased on any hardware except ATI HD 3000 with version 1.00 of the game. There may be other edges that also fall into this category, but if so we didn't spot them.

The other issue is that periodically ATI hardware experiences a glitch where the "bloom/glare" effect goes crazy. This is clearly a rendering error, but it's not something you encounter regularly in the game. In fact, this error only seems to occur after you first load the game and before you lock onto any targets or use Altaïr's special "eagle vision" -- or one of any number of other graphical effects. In our experience, once any of these other effects have occurred you will no longer see this "glaring" error. In fact, I finished playing AC and never noticed this error; I only discovered it during my benchmarking sessions.

Yeah, wow sounds game breakingly major to me too.
Try to make sure the things you say are based in truth and reality.

The fact of the matter is, after 1 month and a SINGLE patch, Ubisoft decided to throw away a hardware feature is quite astonishing. You make it sound like Ubisoft made an effort and toiled away for months and worked with hardware vendors before considering this last resort which is plainly untrue. hey could just have not touched it all all if it's such small issue. It would take less work to just put a little selector for DX10 or DX10.1 in the menu for ATI owners so they can make their own choices if Ubisoft didn't want to fix it. If EAX sound or support for the right mouse button dissapeared, you'd be singing to a different tune.

I'm no Ati fanboy, I've owned always the best value from both companies but this is just anti progress.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work

You have a good point- could you please list off what rendering feature doesn't work? Without that, your point becomes utterly unrelated to the topic at hand.

The situation we are looking at- AC rendering DX 10.1 on ATi hardware had massive rendering issues in certain situations. This could have been caused by some faulty code on Ubi's part, issues with ATi drivers or hardware, or problems with the API itself. Whatever the case may be- the problem wasn't going to fix itself for free. As a publisher- what business choice would you make to rectify the situation given that reverting to the DX10 path meant losing no rendering features? Out of the mountain of possible and likely scenarios nV paying someone off or doing something underhanded makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The renderer never worked right- that is a fundamental issue some of the less coherent loyalists are ignoring. Could Ubi have maybe gotten it working right if they spent the time and effort on it? Perhaps they could have. How much would it really have been worth to them? A mild boost in aa performance for a very small segment of the people that bought the game IF correcting the rendering issues didn't reduce performance more then the gain they were seeing when the engine wasn't working right.

Did you even read?

This is where the waters get a little murky. Why exactly would Ubisoft removes DirectX 10.1 support? There seems to be an implication that it didn't work properly on certain hardware -- presumably lower-end ATI hardware -- but that looks like a pretty weak reason to totally remove the feature. After all, as far as we can tell it only affects anti-aliasing performance, and it's extremely doubtful that anyone with lower-end hardware would be enabling anti-aliasing in the first place. We did notice a few rendering anomalies with version 1.0, but there wasn't anything that should have warranted the complete removal of DirectX 10.1 support. Look at the following image gallery to see a few of the "problems" that cropped up.

In one case, there's an edge that doesn't get anti-aliased on any hardware except ATI HD 3000 with version 1.00 of the game. There may be other edges that also fall into this category, but if so we didn't spot them. The other issue is that periodically ATI hardware experiences a glitch where the "bloom/glare" effect goes crazy. This is clearly a rendering error, but it's not something you encounter regularly in the game. In fact, this error only seems to occur after you first load the game and before you lock onto any targets or use Altaïr's special "eagle vision" -- or one of any number of other graphical effects. In our experience, once any of these other effects have occurred you will no longer see this "glaring" error. In fact, I finished playing AC and never noticed this error; I only discovered it during my benchmarking sessions.

So why did Ubisoft remove DirectX 10.1 support? The official statement reads as follows: "The performance gains seen by players who are currently playing AC with a DX10.1 graphics card are in large part due to the fact that our implementation removes a render pass during post-effect which is costly." An additional render pass is certainly a costly function; what the above statement doesn't clearly state is that DirectX 10.1 allows one fewer rendering pass when running anti-aliasing, and this is a good thing. We contacted AMD/ATI, NVIDIA, and Ubisoft to see if we could get some more clarification on what's going on. Not surprisingly, ATI was the only company willing to talk with us, and even they wouldn't come right out and say exactly what occurred.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I for one . Am thankful that AT did this indepth review and got to the trueth. Even tho the author couldn't come right out and say it . WE know why and who made the developrer install this patch. IT was NV trying to stop Progress!!!! WERE'S ROLLO?

What would I say to this beat to death "issue"?

A developer removed DX10.1 from their game.

Some people think NVIDIA coerced them to do so, even though they have no proof that is the case.

Some people think you should have some evidence before you accuse.

I agree with the latter, won't convince the former to change, don't have an ATi card, so there's not much for me to say on this.

The conspiracy will have to continue without me.

 

[BFG10K]

I find it ironic certain folks are willing to overlook the graphical problems in AC with DX10.1 and jump straight to conspiracy theories. Every site I've seen cover the problem has admitted to varying degrees of rendering issues (even Rage3D, which is historically pro-ATI).

I think everyone here admits there were rendering errors, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the errors could've been fixed and whether ATi hardware could still expect a reasonable performance gain.

Put it this way, if nVidia had DX10.1 and ATi only had DX10 do you think events would have played out the same way, in a TWIMTBP title no less? I sure as heck don?t.

As has been pointed out the same publisher supported SM 3.0 but not 2.x in another game, again to nVidia's advantage.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I find it ironic certain folks are willing to overlook the graphical problems in AC with DX10.1 and jump straight to conspiracy theories. Every site I've seen cover the problem has admitted to varying degrees of rendering issues (even Rage3D, which is historically pro-ATI).

I think everyone here admits there were rendering errors, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the errors could've been fixed and whether ATi hardware could still expect a reasonable performance gain.

Put it this way, if nVidia had DX10.1 and ATi only had DX10 do you think events would have played out the same way, in a TWIMTBP title no less? I sure as heck don?t.

As has been pointed out the same publisher supported SM 3.0 but not 2.x in another game, again to nVidia's advantage.

Actually, what happened was, Ubisoft didn't want to hear you complain for the next 18 months if they didn't get it fixed. So, they opted to remove the problem instead of bearing the brunt of your criticism while trying to get it right. Cowardly? Maybe. So it's all your fault BFG.

Seriously though. I think they did the right thing. In there eyes, this could have been the "fix".
After all, there aren't any more rendering issues on 10.1 hardware right? At least none that I have heard of. So, in a sense, they did fix it, probably a lot faster than actually working on new coding.

 

[BenSkywalker]

For all those saying I didn't read the press release- the problems are WIDELY reported and well known. He did not document them properly at all in his press release but you can find them easily enough. Build 1.0 had serious rendering issues under the DX10.1 code path- those were removed when the game was patched. You can quote the article until you are blue in the face, this is an old topic that has been discussed already a while ago. He is very late to the party. Not sure if it was planned that way to try and fling some mud shortly before a launch or not, but it has been known about for some time.

Put it this way, if nVidia had DX10.1 and ATi only had DX10 do you think events would have played out the same way, in a TWIMTBP title no less?

For the sales AC saw on the PC side? It would have been no different from Ubi's end, the exception may have been that nV was willing to rewrite the code themselves using their own developers and money. That title will be lucky to recoup port costs, it made them a ton of money on the console side. Considering they could fix the problem and the only 'expense' was a relatively minor performance hit while using AA for a very small slice of their customers- from a business perspective it made sense.

 

[Cookie Monster]

At the end of the day, nothing can be said or done. Why? Well theres no hard evidence to justify all these "controversial" claims.

But IMHO, if nVIDIA supported DX10.1 where the situation was exactly the opposite, i can see nVIDIA spending their resources to help Ubi with DX10.1. What does this tell you? nVIDIA has a very, and i mean VERY good dev relationships compared to ATi. When they introduce new features, they dont just advertise them to the devs but actually go beyond that and give support/help to the devs to realise the true potential of those features. That is why S.M 3.0 was such a biggy, not to the eyes of the consumer but to the devs. It was something new and shiney to play with and just so happened to be released at the right time. Theres a reason why "GPU GEM" series are such a success amongst game devs. This is one aspect id like ATi to improve. (and as been wishing for a long time)

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think everyone here admits there were rendering errors, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the errors could've been fixed and whether ATi hardware could still expect a reasonable performance gain.

Which is why I asked if any subsequent ATI patches fixed the problem. Going by their monthly releases, they should have at least 3 driver updates since AC released. If one of those driver releases was able to fix the problems with V1.0 + DX10.1, then I would say ATI folks would actually have a reason to be upset.

Otherwise, I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up. If you want DX10.1 and are willing to deal with the "occasional rendering error", install Assassin's Creed @V1.0 and don't patch it. There's nothing forcing you to patch on play and nothing glaring that needed to be patched from my V1.0 playthrough.

Put it this way, if nVidia had DX10.1 and ATi only had DX10 do you think events would have played out the same way, in a TWIMTBP title no less? I sure as heck don?t.

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not to say NV wouldn't be better off having Ubi just pull 10.1 support if that fixed the problem and kept folks on forums from demanding a fix for a broken feature.

As has been pointed out the same publisher supported SM 3.0 but not 2.x in another game, again to nVidia's advantage.

And who said TWIMTBP didn't have its advantages? Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. If a vendor like NV gives a developer free hardware to work with and proactively helps them in game development, it would stand to reason their hardware will be better supported. Maybe ATI/AMD should've started up their GAME! program sooner.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Seriously though. I think they did the right thing. In there eyes, this could have been the "fix".

i agree.

perhaps a real fix is layered deep into coding that require alot time to recode. This is a quick fix to make everyone happy.

 

[BFG10K]

For the sales AC saw on the PC side? It would have been no different from Ubi's end, the exception may have been that nV was willing to rewrite the code themselves using their own developers and money. That title will be lucky to recoup port costs, it made them a ton of money on the console side. Considering they could fix the problem and the only 'expense' was a relatively minor performance hit while using AA for a very small slice of their customers- from a business perspective it made sense.

If you're to argue from that angle it then begs the question why Ubisoft even bothered implementing DX10.1 in the first place.

nVidia certainly didn?t help them so it must?ve come out of their own pocket.

The question then becomes if nVidia leaned on them to remove it rather than fix it and I think the answer is yes, much like it wasn't a coincidence that a certain past Ubisoft title only had SM 3.0 but not SM 2.x, a TWIMTBP title where it was clearly to nVidia?s advantage if this happened.

 

[BFG10K]

Which is why I asked if any subsequent ATI patches fixed the problem. Going by their monthly releases, they should have at least 3 driver updates since AC released. If one of those driver releases was able to fix the problems with V1.0 + DX10.1, then I would say ATI folks would actually have a reason to be upset.

When was it established the problem was at the driver side and therefore needs a fix at the driver level?

Otherwise, I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up. If you want DX10.1 and are willing to deal with the "occasional rendering error", install Assassin's Creed @V1.0 and don't patch it. There's nothing forcing you to patch on play and nothing glaring that needed to be patched from my V1.0 playthrough.

People are getting upset because this is looking like TWIMTBP marketing muscle at play.

And who said TWIMTBP didn't have its advantages? Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

What advantages? Removing DX10.1 is not an advantage to anyone except nVidia sales & marketing. It doesn?t help either ATi or nVidia gamers.

If a vendor like NV gives a developer free hardware to work with and proactively helps them in game development, it would stand to reason their hardware will be better supported.

Being better supported is one thing, leaning on the developer to cripple the competition is another. Sure, money might not directly change hands but there?s a lot spent on marketing and promotion from nVidia?s side.

And TWIMTBP doesn?t imply nVidia hardware is generally better supported. As an example look at Unreal 2 engine game stuttering which nVidia has acknowledged is a driver issue but 19 months later still hasn't been fixed, and many are TWIMTBP titles.

Meanwhile the competition runs the games without issue. This is one of the main reasons TWIMTBP annoys me; it?s basically a stamp that tells me I can expect problems on nVidia hardware.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
When was it established the problem was at the driver side and therefore needs a fix at the driver level?

It wasn't, which is why I asked. My point is that if Ubi chose to fix their product by removing a broken feature, what right does a vendor or users of that particular vendor's products have to complain? If ATI was able to demonstrate a driver fix for DX10.1 and AC then pulling the feature would warrant a complaint. Otherwise removing the feature is simply a bug fix.

People are getting upset because this is looking like TWIMTBP marketing muscle at play.

No, people are getting upset because they don't like NV and are looking for any excuse to pile on. Hell, not a single person in this thread was able to contribute their own experience about this change, which shows how unimportant it really is. We already know few people are running DX10 (~10%), and even fewer of those are running DX10.1.

What advantages? Removing DX10.1 is not an advantage to anyone except nVidia sales & marketing. It doesn?t help either ATi or nVidia gamers.

You pointed out a case where NV's latest cards with the latest SM version were supported and ATI's were not at launch. That is an advantage of working closely with a developer and providing considerations (even if not monetary). This is no different than how business gets done in any industry anywhere.

Removing DX10.1 is an advantage to Ubi as they do not need to fix the rendering problems in AC that everyone, including yourself, continually gloss over.

Being better supported is one thing, leaning on the developer to cripple the competition is another. Sure, money might not directly change hands but there?s a lot spent on marketing and promotion from nVidia?s side.

You have no proof of that, spending marketing dollars and supporting game developers is just good business when you're in the business of selling video cards.

And TWIMTBP doesn?t imply nVidia hardware is generally better supported. As an example look at Unreal 2 engine game stuttering which nVidia has acknowledged is a driver issue but 19 months later still hasn't been fixed, and many are TWIMTBP titles.

It was supported just fine when it released as is every current game I've run and installed over the last 2 years on NV graphics hardware. No point in rehashng this debate, you expect games to be supported ad infinitum and will again with your GTX 280.

Meanwhile the competition runs the games without issue. This is one of the main reasons TWIMTBP annoys me; it?s basically a stamp that tells me I can expect problems on nVidia hardware.

Doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. Doesn't seem to be the case with Mass Effect either, which was developed with an ATI GPU. What TWIMTBP games have given you problems besides the aging Unreal 2 and DX8 games you maintain lists for again?

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. Doesn't seem to be the case with Mass Effect either, which was developed with an ATI GPU. What TWIMTBP games have given you problems besides the aging Unreal 2 and DX8 games you maintain lists for again?

For being a game that was developed using an ATi GPU (Like you stated), it doesn't have lots of shaders on screen like typical ATi GPU developed games (Half Life 2 Ep 1/2...) or /Xbox 360 Ported games like Gears of War or Lost Planet which have pixel shaders everywhere... But yes, usually TWIMTBP games have issues with nVidia hardware like Far Cry, other games run faster on the riva's card like Far Cry too, Assassin Creed. TWIMTBP is more of a marketing scheme than a bug finder and optimization program.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
People are getting upset because this is looking like TWIMTBP marketing muscle at play.

Really? Why is that BFG- links to evidence of this?

<crickets chirp, time passes>

 

[Nemesis 1]

Sky walker. Its not about the Game AC . Its about suppressing Tech . Just like NV did with SLI .

Stay on topic, this is your last warning

-ViRGE

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
When was it established the problem was at the driver side and therefore needs a fix at the driver level?

It wasn't, which is why I asked. My point is that if Ubi chose to fix their product by removing a broken feature, what right does a vendor or users of that particular vendor's products have to complain? If ATI was able to demonstrate a driver fix for DX10.1 and AC then pulling the feature would warrant a complaint. Otherwise removing the feature is simply a bug fix.

Well that's my whole point. I do have a right to complain because removing a feature =/= a bug fix. Since when does taking something away from the launch version constitute a bug fix? Maybe next time they should remove sounds or levels or characters that have bugs.

I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release.

Honestly, how can you not stand up for yourself? What if I sold you a car an you complained the rear brakes were dragging? Do I have a right to remove your rear brakes and tell you it's fixed? What if I sold you a house with a leaky roof? Maybe I should just remove that too? What if I sold you a cellphone with a sticking button?

You wouldn't stand for any of those examples, same for this. You bought something with the notion that whatever was included and no company should EVER remove something because they're too lazy to fix it. There's no brownie points in real life, don't give me the line it's too hard to fix and not supported widely enough. Suck it up, you launched with the feature, I bought it and it was reviewed with the feature, that feature better stay in the game.

It's not about poor Ubisoft and how everyone in this thread hates Nvidia, this is about MY right as a consumer. Frankly, Ubisoft can rest in peace I will never buy another game from them if this pattern of behavior continues.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
When was it established the problem was at the driver side and therefore needs a fix at the driver level?

It wasn't, which is why I asked. My point is that if Ubi chose to fix their product by removing a broken feature, what right does a vendor or users of that particular vendor's products have to complain? If ATI was able to demonstrate a driver fix for DX10.1 and AC then pulling the feature would warrant a complaint. Otherwise removing the feature is simply a bug fix.

Well that's my whole point. I do have a right to complain because removing a feature =/= a bug fix. Since when does taking something away from the launch version constitute a bug fix? Maybe next time they should remove sounds or levels or characters that have bugs.

I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release.

Honestly, how can you not stand up for yourself? What if I sold you a car an you complained the rear brakes were dragging? Do I have a right to remove your rear brakes and tell you it's fixed? What if I sold you a house with a leaky roof? Maybe I should just remove that too? What if I sold you a cellphone with a sticking button?

You wouldn't stand for any of those examples, same for this. You bought something with the notion that whatever was included and no company should EVER remove something because they're too lazy to fix it. There's no brownie points in real life, don't give me the line it's too hard to fix and not supported widely enough. Suck it up, you launched with the feature, I bought it and it was reviewed with the feature, that feature better stay in the game.

It's not about poor Ubisoft and how everyone in this thread hates Nvidia, this is about MY right as a consumer. Frankly, Ubisoft can rest in peace I will never buy another game from them if this pattern of behavior continues.

Way over the top morph. What have you noticed that you are missing since the patch?

And here is an interesting tidbit.

Your rigs in your sig contain the following vid cards:

X1950GT
X3100 Intel
ATI Rage Pro
ATI M5 Mobility

Now, which one of these cards do you use to play assassins creed in DX10.1?

Or have you not updated your rigs?

"I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release."

Wow. Does that include the rendering errors?

 

[Acanthus]

Ubisoft is notorious for doing crap like this.

Its nothing new that theyd simply pull a feature rather than devote resources to fix it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If you're to argue from that angle it then begs the question why Ubisoft even bothered implementing DX10.1 in the first place.

nVidia certainly didn?t help them so it must?ve come out of their own pocket.

That must be because of the vast green wing conspiracy too

The question then becomes if nVidia leaned on them to remove it rather than fix it and I think the answer is yes, much like it wasn't a coincidence that a certain past Ubisoft title only had SM 3.0 but not SM 2.x, a TWIMTBP title where it was clearly to nVidia?s advantage if this happened.

Find me a single publisher anywhere that is willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars(minimum) to fix a bug whose only end impact is a minor performance boost to a very small portion of users on a game that sold as few copies as AC. You find me one, and I will consider your comment with a lot more weight, right now it seems to be far below your capacity to entertain such an assinine notion. If AC was the next Crysis, pushing out a million units and being the defacto standard for high end benching, maybe- and even then it would be a maybe- you could consider pulling support for 10.1 a possible conspiracy candidate.

All logic dictates at this point that Ubi would have pulled support for 10.1 if nVidia didn't exist at all. No matter how you look at it, what angle you approach it from unless it is a rather rabid flag waver for ATi- it made no sense from a business perspective to support it, and the end impact was a minor performance hit while using AA for a small portion of customers over using a render path that didn't work right.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BFG10K
When was it established the problem was at the driver side and therefore needs a fix at the driver level?

It wasn't, which is why I asked. My point is that if Ubi chose to fix their product by removing a broken feature, what right does a vendor or users of that particular vendor's products have to complain? If ATI was able to demonstrate a driver fix for DX10.1 and AC then pulling the feature would warrant a complaint. Otherwise removing the feature is simply a bug fix.

Well that's my whole point. I do have a right to complain because removing a feature =/= a bug fix. Since when does taking something away from the launch version constitute a bug fix? Maybe next time they should remove sounds or levels or characters that have bugs.

I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release.

Honestly, how can you not stand up for yourself? What if I sold you a car an you complained the rear brakes were dragging? Do I have a right to remove your rear brakes and tell you it's fixed? What if I sold you a house with a leaky roof? Maybe I should just remove that too? What if I sold you a cellphone with a sticking button?

You wouldn't stand for any of those examples, same for this. You bought something with the notion that whatever was included and no company should EVER remove something because they're too lazy to fix it. There's no brownie points in real life, don't give me the line it's too hard to fix and not supported widely enough. Suck it up, you launched with the feature, I bought it and it was reviewed with the feature, that feature better stay in the game.

It's not about poor Ubisoft and how everyone in this thread hates Nvidia, this is about MY right as a consumer. Frankly, Ubisoft can rest in peace I will never buy another game from them if this pattern of behavior continues.

Way over the top morph. What have you noticed that you are missing since the patch?

And here is an interesting tidbit.

Your rigs in your sig contain the following vid cards:

X1950GT
X3100 Intel
ATI Rage Pro
ATI M5 Mobility

Now, which one of these cards do you use to play assassins creed in DX10.1?

Or have you not updated your rigs?

"I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release."

Wow. Does that include the rendering errors?

1st of all, it is the principle of the thing, how far can you let it go? Maybe EAX support or HDR lighting? sorry I'm a poor college student who can't afford a 9800GTX or HD3870. According to you I shouldn't have an opinion because I don't have the money to back it up?

In the end, murder is murder, it's all the same whether you're murdering Jack Osbourne or Ghandi.

As for the rendering errors, might as well have left it in and allowed players to choose DX10 or 10.1, it would take less work while buying them time to fix it, the whole, we shipped it now we're not even going to attempt to fix it thing is over the top.

Ubisoft is responsible for supporting features that are included in the Gold master release.

Ask anyone if removing features is a logical way of fixing bugs.

Try looking at it not from some Nvidia fanboy perspective, but from a consumer perspective. Oh how the balance of opinion has shifted, back in 2004/2005 ATI fanboys used ot back up DX9.0b, saying DX9.0c is a minor update and not needed, now look how the tide has changed and all the Nvidia fanboys are decring DX10.1, calling it, suprise, suprise, a minor update and not needed.

How about, not standing in the path of progress, regardless of which company is supporting which feature?

 

[BFG10K]

My point is that if Ubi chose to fix their product by removing a broken feature, what right does a vendor or users of that particular vendor's products have to complain?

This is a fair point but my issue was why it was removed. If Ubi removed it because it wasn't worth their resources to fix it then that's fair enough, but if nVidia leaned on them through TWIMTBP, either directly or indirectly, that's what I have a problem with.

You pointed out a case where NV's latest cards with the latest SM version were supported and ATI's were not at launch. That is an advantage of working closely with a developer and providing considerations (even if not monetary). This is no different than how business gets done in any industry anywhere.

Again supporting SM 3.0 isn?t the issue, it's the fact SM 2.x wasn't and why. If Ubi decided it wasn't worth support SM 2.0 that's fine but hard to justify given SM 1.x could only run on ancient video cards and would thusly be too slow, so in reality all it ended up doing is disadvantaging ATi?s SM 2.x cards.

nVidia working closely with the developer should make nVidia?s cards better, not make competitors? cards worse. Making competitor?s cards worse is anti-competitive practice which is illegal.

Removing DX10.1 is an advantage to Ubi as they do not need to fix the rendering problems in AC that everyone, including yourself, continually gloss over.

I'm not glossing over anything; I fully acknowledge there were rendering issues.

You have no proof of that, spending marketing dollars and supporting game developers is just good business when you're in the business of selling video cards.

Let's see:

• Title 1 supports SM 3.0 and 1.x but not SM 2.x. nVidia's cards either do SM 3.0 and 1.x while ATi's best cards (2.x) are forced to run 1.x.
  
• Title 2: nVidia doesn't support DX10.1, ATi does, but Ubi decide to remove the feature. Note this is after Ubi invested resources to build a DX10.1 path in the first place.
  
• Both titles are TWIMTBP which receive nVidia marketing funding.

Looking at that evidence inductively what conclusion do you reach? I know which one I do.

It was supported just fine when it released as is every current game I've run and installed over the last 2 years on NV graphics hardware. No point in rehashng this debate, you expect games to be supported ad infinitum and will again with your GTX 280.

When released? So what?s the expiry date of TWIMTBP and where do nVidia state it? And why aren't the logos removed after said expiry date?

Furthermore why are the titles still listed in the TWIMTBP program?

http://www.nzone.com/object/nz...twimtbp_gameslist.html

Let?s see what nVidia tells us about the program:

The Way It's Meant To Be Played
Your most important equipment for playing today's hottest games is not armor or weapons, but NVIDIA graphics hardware. Equip yourself with the power of NVIDIA processors so you can play games the way they're meant to be played.

What is TWIMTBP?
The Ultimate "Install and Play" Experience: With NVIDIA® hardware powering your PC, you can unleash stunning cinematic graphics and lifelike characters at blazing speeds. So, look for the "NVIDIA®: The way it's meant to be played" seal on games and PC hardware for the ultimate "install-and-play" experience.

The Hottest Games Developed and Optimized on NVIDIA: The performance, compatibility, and reliability of NVIDIA GPUs make them the platform of choice for PC gamers worldwide. That's why today's hottest games are developed on NVIDIA, to be played on NVIDIA.

Would you say the above adequately describes the UT2004 situation? I wouldn?t. In fact I?d call it false advertising and even outright lying.

?The game is too old? doesn?t cut it given it?s still on the list. If it?s ?too old? nVidia should remove it with a ?due to driver issues we?ve removed the title from our TWIMTBP program and we no longer support it?.

And ad infinitum? That?s cute. UT2004 launched in Mar 04 while G80 launched in Nov 06. That?s 20 months which is much less than your 3 year cut-off. In fact it?s less than two years. Of course it?s ?ancient? now given 19 months have since passed and the issue still hasn?t been fixed.

Doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.

That?s sort of my point given TWIMTBP is likely the reason we lost DX10.1 in the first place.

What TWIMTBP games have given you problems besides the aging Unreal 2 and DX8 games you maintain lists for again?

Currently: Call of Duty, Call of Duty UO, Fear Extraction Point, Fear Perseus Mandate, Vampire Bloodlines.

In the past: too many to list.

 

[BFG10K]

Find me a single publisher anywhere that is willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars(minimum) to fix a bug whose only end impact is a minor performance boost to a very small portion of users on a game that sold as few copies as AC.

I didn't see an answer to my question: why did Ubi bother implementing DX10.1 in the first place?

Implementing it would have almost certainly been more expensive than fixing it.