Assassin's Creed - decision to remove DX 10.1 support

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
Really? Why is that BFG- links to evidence of this?

<crickets chirp, time passes>
I'm still waiting for you (and Roy Taylor) to tell me why UT2004 is listed at nZone as a TWIMTBP title.

"Equip yourself with the power of NVIDIA processors so you can play games the way they're meant to be played."

Uh-huh. :roll:
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: 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.
Knowing Ubi, one of their programmers realized they could do it without too much trouble, so they did it. Then they realized it was broken and they aren't putting any further work in to the game besides fixing critical bugs, so they pulled it. Ubi is plenty cable of being stupid on their own, they don't need NVIDIA's help.;)
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Knowing Ubi, one of their programmers realized they could do it without too much trouble, so they did it. Then they realized it was broken and they aren't putting any further work in to the game besides fixing critical bugs, so they pulled it. Ubi is plenty cable of being stupid on their own, they don't need NVIDIA's help.;)

this happens alot in software engineering, bfg gotta get used to it ;D

developers would often try to use the newest version API, as long as it works during testing. If, later on, the software fail to work due to something new implemented in the newest version of api, it would be real easy to just swap it with an older, more stable, more familiar version of API.

a merge setup can be made in a few min to patch the software with older api.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
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.
Believe what you want I suppose, to jump from cost-effective bug fix to TWIMTBP conspiracy given the circumstances in this case is a far leap to make.

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.
But NV was making their cards better in this case....if working with the developer meant support for their latest supported SM. I don't know the specifics of why Ubi didn't support SM 2.x at launch, maybe it didn't port over from the console as well and required additional coding. 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?

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

If you're comfortable running the game as-is no one is taking that away from you. Its not like DX10.1 was patched in, then the patch was pulled and made unavailable, it comes in the box and isn't removed unless you manually patch the game.

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.
You forgot:
  • AC with DX10.1 results in rendering errors.
I still don't see a problem with the SM anecdote. If AC released with DX10.1 and DX9 and somehow didn't support DX10, what's the problem? The hardware either supports it or not. Developers make decisions on what features and APIs to support all the time. This isn't any different than numerous transitional periods, like GF4 and R300 with DX8.0 vs 8.1/9 etc.

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. The alternative would without a doubt result in investing resources to fix the problem.

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.
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.

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.

?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?.
For someone with so much contempt towards the TWIMTBP program you sure have place a lot of emphasis and expectations on a list. 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." That list is composed of all titles in the TWIMTBP program, not a running list of supported titles only......again with the sports theme, that's like saying John Elway is on the Bronco's all-time roster, so you should expect to see him play this Fall.

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

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

In the past: too many to list.
So they've trimmed it down to 3 titles, all of which are older titles that pre-date G80. I'll have to see what the problems are with FEAR, as I have the Platinum pack just haven't gotten around to opening it and installing it. Certainly progress with older titles while maintaining as good or better support than the competition in current titles.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: mwmorph
I bought the game and it included the feature, it'd better still have it a month after release.

As for the rendering errors, might as well have left it in and allowed players to choose DX10 or 10.1

This highlights my point about folks making a stink of the issue when it doesn't even affect them. If you're going to argue so vehemently about something, you might want to inform yourself a bit better about the issue before you take off into orbit. As I said earlier, the feature is still in, DX10.1 was included in V1.0, the launch version of Assassin's Creed. No one is taking the feature away from you unless you patch your game, and considering it was a nearly identical port from the consoles, is completely playable start to finish as-is (I can verify this, as I actually own the game). So once again, if you are comfortable playing the game with the potential risk of rendering errors, go for it, no one is stopping you.......
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Really? Why is that BFG- links to evidence of this?

<crickets chirp, time passes>
I'm still waiting for you (and Roy Taylor) to tell me why UT2004 is listed at nZone as a TWIMTBP title.

"Equip yourself with the power of NVIDIA processors so you can play games the way they're meant to be played."

Uh-huh. :roll:

I'm wondering why an Anandtech Moderator is working so hard to derail this thread with his personal agenda of complaining about UT2004 not being perfect in Windows XP?

Can you explain to us how your post is on topic in a thread about Assassin's Creed and DX10.1?

Shouldn't you be deleting it, and all the other complaints about ancient games you've posted in this thread that have nothing to do with Assassins Creed?
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
Originally posted by: mwmorph


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?

I'm sorry, but your are taking this way out of perspective. You're equating removing a feature that probably has as much downsides as upsides ( extra performance vs render errors) to the intentional taking of human life. And your making this argument even tho. it doesn't affect you and isn't likely to anytime in the future (you're a poor student and unlikely to upgrade video cards soon).

 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
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.

You still haven't listed any logical proof NVIDIA was involved at all- you've only listed two instances where Ubisoft made decisions that didn't harm NVIDIA.

If Ubisoft was under NVIDIA's control why would DX10.1 have been in there in the first place?

You're just assuming NVIDIA had influence, you have no proof.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

Going by the "logic" you're using in this thread:

Ubisoft put DX10.1 in the game because they were under ATi control. This must be so because it benefitted ATi and was detrimental to NVIDIA.

Ubisoft removed DX10.1 because NVIDIA took control. This must be so because this benefitted NVIDIA, not ATi.

Or could there be a third (and possibly other(s)) answer?

Maybe Ubi put it in because they thought it would be easy, their programming team gave them an estimate for fix that was higher than the installed user base merited, so they moved on to other things.

I know this second alternative isn't as full of intrigue and drama, but IMO if you're going to accuse people of immoral business practices you really should have better proof than "That might be what happened".

:roll:
 

hooflung

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,190
1
0
You know nRollo, BFG is as big as an nvidia fanboi as you are. Your problem is he sees bullshit when its right in front of him while you will duck your head in the sand. There is no way I will buy this game on the PC and now it won't even share space on my PS3. I am sick of Ubisoft's crap and I am sick of Companies using cheap tricks to get the latest sales in their consumer market where the cards suck anyways.

I have an 8800 SLI setup. I have an HD38X0 setup and am in the market for another card for a new PC in the works. In the end AMD and Nvidia are going to have to huddle in the corner together or Intel is going to blitz them both in many sectors. Nvidia is not the same green camp it was where it was beloved. Its ravenous and pompous. TWIMTBP is a farce and it has been for quite some time. BFG makes a good point. If you are going to put a label on it then follow it through. This rat race crap is only turning our beloved platform into a wham-bam-thankyou-mam market where you can't reliably buy a game today and expect it to work tomorrow.

Simple enough, DX 10.1 should have stayed in. Problems should have been fixed. It might not be based on conspiracy but nRollo that is exactly what you have. Period, and for good reason. They might as well have pulled the trigger because their own marketing farce has cought up with them. You want to deny that then thats your bag, you get free stuff from them so what does it matter to you what I, the paying customer, think.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
That?s sort of my point given TWIMTBP is likely the reason we lost DX10.1 in the first place.

I had a long post typed out, but I realized it wasn't worth it. You are far too intelligent to do anything but laugh at the assertion that a buggy render codepath getting removed is a corporate conspiracy. That statement demonstrates a truly profound ignorance on your part which I know you don't have.

Are you being paid by ATi directly, or is AT redistributing funds for your promotion of ATi?
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: hooflung
You know nRollo, BFG is as big as an nvidia fanboi as you are. Your problem is he sees bullshit when its right in front of him while you will duck your head in the sand. .

your own pointless jabs make you lower than he is.

I don't see the point of this thread.

why would ATI want a game to run with rander error on their card? of course they don't. pulling this feature off is actually a bigger benefit to ATI so ppl don't run into randering errors using their cards.
 

solofly

Banned
May 25, 2003
1,421
0
0
I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know what was said but this is my take on the situation, besides Nvidia playing dirty with Ati as they always had. Actually better yet, this is what NV feels towards 10.1 themselves...

The funny thing about this is (To me). After actually "talking" to the guys over at Nvidia's devrel and driver team at editors day. They really could care less about devs supporting DX 10.1. They are far more interested in there PhysX engine getting it up and running in games.

This was written by (rather a nice guy) ChrisRay, an Nvidia Salesman (like rollo here) at another forum.
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
And how is that playing dirty? Why would nVIDIA care for DX10.1 if their products dont even support it? You expect them to help Ubi out with a feature that they dont even support? Makes no sense to to me.

 

solofly

Banned
May 25, 2003
1,421
0
0
I'm not just referring to this gaming but gaming industry in whole. I've been around long enough to see what the scoop is and I don't need any proof to know that Nvidia is a sneaky, dirty player. But don't get me wrong here, to me they're all the same scam, Intel, MS, AMD, you name it. They take your money and make you wait for months for fixes and full functionality.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
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.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
I had a long post typed out, but I realized it wasn't worth it. You are far too intelligent to do anything but laugh at the assertion that a buggy render codepath getting removed is a corporate conspiracy. That statement demonstrates a truly profound ignorance on your part which I know you don't have.

Are you being paid by ATi directly, or is AT redistributing funds for your promotion of ATi?
Unlike some members of this board I am not paid to promote anything, nor do I work for any IHV. Everything I post is of my own free will and all of the hardware I buy is out my own pocket including five of my last six cards being nVidia cards (again out of my own pocket) rather than being handed to me in exchange for marketing like some other people on this board.

I've picked nVidia in the past because of quieter coolers, super-sampling and more recently a much bigger performance advantage and quicker working AA in modern titles.

But that doesn't mean I have a blind loyalty to any other company and when I smell a rat I'll post it. The "fakeness" of TWIMTBP really gets to me especially when certain nVidia employees defend it as if somehow old games still listed in the program are no longer relevant despite the promises still being plastered on the page.

Again I don?t have a problem with Ubi removing the DX10.1 for their own reasons, nor do I expect people to use a buggy path. My problem is if TWIMTBP was somehow involved in ?convincing? the developer to remove it. That?s what I take issue with.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
I'm wondering why an Anandtech Moderator is working so hard to derail this thread with his personal agenda of complaining about UT2004 not being perfect in Windows XP?

Can you explain to us how your post is on topic in a thread about Assassin's Creed and DX10.1?

Shouldn't you be deleting it, and all the other complaints about ancient games you've posted in this thread that have nothing to do with Assassins Creed?
You want to know the relevance of my TWIMTBP comments then read the article:

Reading between the lines, it seems clear that NVIDIA and Ubisoft reached some sort of agreement where DirectX 10.1 support was pulled with the patch. ATI obviously can't come out and rip on Ubisoft for this decision, because they need to maintain their business relationship. We on the other hand have no such qualms. Money might not have changed hands directly, but as part of NVIDIA's "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" program, it's a safe bet that NVIDIA wasn't happy about seeing DirectX 10.1 support in the game -- particularly when that support caused ATI's hardware to significantly outperform NVIDIA's hardware in certain situations.
They point to TWIMTBP as the cause and my comments about other games are to demonstrate past examples where TWIMTBP has been a detriment to gamers.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
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.

By your assertions none of this is possible, somehow a marketing campaign determines everything in its' entirety about the gaming market. Forget things like ATi packing the Vista logo on parts that don't have drivers at all for Vista- that is perfectly fine. ATi marketing is good and wholesome and pure when they lie- nVidia is evil when they have nothing to do with something you think smells fishy despite every shred of logic for every reasonable person pointing to a business decission being made by another company entirely.

Unlike some members of this board I am not paid to promote anything, nor do I work for any IHV.

You are an ATi FUD agent, if you want to admit it or not if you are paid or not.

The "fakeness" of TWIMTBP really gets to me especially when certain nVidia employees defend it as if somehow old games still listed in the program are no longer relevant despite the promises still being plastered on the page.

You cling to a legacy OS, that is your right. I don't comprehend why you have such a hard time understanding support for legacy OSs isn't going to be as up to date as newer ones. As far as your obsession with a marketing campaign I can't even begin to understand that.

Again I don?t have a problem with Ubi removing the DX10.1 for their own reasons, nor do I expect people to use a buggy path. My problem is if TWIMTBP was somehow involved in ?convincing? the developer to remove it. That?s what I take issue with.

There is less then nothing to implicate nVidia had anything to do with it outside of one completely out of line comment by a rabid ATi advocate on an ATi fansite. This topic was covered when it happened, ATi PR may have pushed a check to AT now to get some press out of this, but this discussion had been had sometime ago, we all knew what was happening and why it was happening.

More then likely the 10.1 code path was remnants of the 360 port of the game they couldn't get working right on the PC.

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.

Do they need to explain on TWIMTBP website that an 8800Ultra won't work in an ISA slot?

I find it particularly humerous that you playing both sides of the fence on this particular issue. You want to talk about how TWIMTBP is negatively impacting Vista gaming but then continue to slam them for issues that don't exist in Vista. If you have ruled out Vista then you have ruled out DX10.1 by default, if you want to have a serious discussion about it then update your OS and several of your concerns over games on their list goes away.

That isn't to say that TWIMTBP is anything but a marketing tool- it is somwhat amusing to see you get so worked up over it. Why don't we do a gut check on that?

ATI CrossFireX? is the ultimate multi-GPU performance gaming platform. Enabling game-dominating power, ATI CrossFireX technology enables two or more discrete graphics processors to work together to improve system performance. For The Ultimate Visual Experience?, be sure to select ATI CrossFireX ready motherboards for AMD and Intel® processors and multiple ATI Radeon? HD graphics cards.

Game dominating power. You don't have The Ultimate Visual Experience in your computer- why not? ATi is telling me that CrossfireX is the ultimate solution for gaming- so obviously they are the best in the market, so why aren't you running them? ATi is saying it, it is there marketing campaign. Let's see how impartial you truly are.