Maybe Ubi's port group had a limited budget and timeframe and needed to decide what features would make launch. These are all decisions that need to be made during production and if NV is proactively offering development support and hardware and ATI is not, then how would it be any surprise NV hardware is better supported for that title?
Again supporting SM 3.0 isn't the issue, it's the fact SM 2.x
wasn't. If you have constraints you don't go around supporting 1.x on cards clearly too inferior to run the game in the first place, and then miss out a competitor?s chunk altogether. At the time everything in ATi's lineup higher than 8500 class hardware had SM 2.x so that?s one hell of an overlook.
So what's the bigger evil? Cutting support of a broken feature, or running a game with rendering problems? As Ben has argued over and over, it seems a pretty clear cut case of cutting their losses and going with the path of least resistance instead of having to answer demands for a fix as to why their DX10.1 renderer is broken.
That's one possible explanation. Another is that TWIMTBP leaned on them. Again this wouldn?t be the first time that TWIMTBP was a detriment to gamers.
Also you're making a pretty big assumption Ubi invested resources into enabling DX10.1. Most likely it was just enabling the feature without making changes to the DX10 renderer, resulting in the problems that forced it to be pulled.
Mine isn?t an assumption, yours is. How can you "enable the feature" without making changes to the renderer? That?s kind of like saying ?the SM 3.0 feature was enabled by enabling the feature but not changing the renderer?.
It?s not just a tick that magically transforms code you know.
No it doesn't adequately describe the UT2004 situation as that would be one of yesterday's hottest games. Did UT2004 play properly on whatever NV hardware you were running at the time? Of course it did. Games aren't going to be supported forever, if you expect that you should get it in writing from your software and hardware vendors (good luck with that) or adjust your expectations.
But in the other thread you told us you expect 3 year compatibly and at the time G80 was released UT2004 was less than
two years old. So what then, have you changed your tune?
For someone with so much contempt towards the TWIMTBP program you sure have place a lot of emphasis and expectations on a list.
I have contempt for TWIMTBP because it doesn?t deliver on its promises. All of the crap at the top of the page doesn?t apply to numerous games on that list.
Somebody reading that page might think ?cool, game X is on there so I?ll go with nVidia because I want maximum enjoyment from game X?, only to find a buggy stutter fest waiting for them.
That's like saying "well, we need to erase the names of all those teams on the Stanley Cup, since they're clearly no longer the champions even though they were at the time."
Actually it?s nothing like that given nobody is implying those teams are still champions. nVidia?s page is implying that though. It tells us the benefit of TWIMTBP and then lists titles that are part of that program, thereby making the inference that one can expect the promises of TWIMTBP to be delivered in said games.
And possibly another situation where NV decided resources were better used elsewhere. I've been very pleased with the support of every game I've played since I purchased a G80 in Jan 07 and if ignoring a bug in an older title contributed to that level of support I have no complaints. TWIMTBP for nearly 2 years, without a doubt.
That?s great and all but it doesn?t change the fact that there are numerous TWIMTBP titles in that list that still don?t work properly to this day and weren?t working properly when they were less than your three year old limit.
Again what is your response to this? Has your 3 year goal-post been narrowed since we last talked?
You may be happy to accept marketing lies but I?m not. If it?s on that list it needs to either deliver on its promise or it needs to be removed.
You said the competition often runs the title without issue in TWIMTBP titles when that's clearly not the case in this instance with AC and many other recent titles. Just another example of your grass is greener (maybe redder?) perspective.
Nope, I can list numerous examples but it?s a waste of time.
How about Tomb Raider Legend which was a total stutter fest on nVidia hardware until they rushed an emergency beta driver to fix it? So much for TWIMTBP ?working closely every step of the way with the developer?. The game?s installer even tells people that nVidia will work better for next generation content.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming...raider_legend_review/4
To quote them:
Naturally, the next-gen screenshots looks far better and users are left with the impression that they will have a better gaming experience on NVIDIA hardware. Imagine our surprise when, having enabled Next Generation Content, the game suffers from routine pauses not just during action-packed sequences, but basic running and turning manoeuvres.
As for other games, let?s take Far Cry:
1.0: failed to run on nVidia SM 3.0 hardware.
1.1: banding and other IQ issues on NV3x hardware.
1.2: the touted SM 3.0 patch which was recalled due to stuttering on nVidia hardware.
1.3: still stuttered on nVidia hardware such as a 6800 Ultra. I experienced this first-hand.
1.4: Allowed ATi cards to support HDR + AA long before nVidia hardware could.
Meanwhile I played the game several times across all of those patches (except 1.2 which was recalled) with both a 9700 Pro and X800 XL without a single issue.
I could go on an on but it?s largely a waste of time with you. As long as the game is outside your little nebulous of currently played games you somehow don?t think it doesn?t matter.