Batman AA fiasco: Who's telling the truth?

[thilanliyan]

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991

From Richard Huddy at AMD,
"AMD received an email dated Sept 29th at 5:22pm from Mr. Lee Singleton General Manager at Eidos Game Studios who stated that Eidos’ legal department is preventing Eidos from allowing ATI cards to run in-game antialiasing in Batman Arkham Asylum due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter.

NVIDIA has done the right thing in bowing to public pressure to renounce anti-competitive sponsorship practices and given Eidos a clear mandate to remove the vendor ID detect code that is unfairly preventing many of Eidos’ customers from using in-game AA, as per Mr. Weinand’s comments. I would encourage Mr. Singleton at Eidos to move quickly and decisively to remove NVIDIA’s vendor ID detection.

It’s also worth noting here that AMD have made efforts both pre-release and post-release to allow Eidos to enable the in-game antialiasing code - there was no refusal on AMD’s part to enable in game AA IP in a timely manner."

 

[Wreckage]

Batman AA is not our property. It is owned by Eidos. It is up to Eidos to decide the fate of a feature that AMD refused to contribute too and QA for their customers, not NVIDIA.

If it is relatively trivial, Mr. Huddy should have done it himself. The Unreal engine does not support in game AA, so we added it and QAed it for our customers. As Eidos confirmed (Not allowed to post links here, but check PCper for Eidos' statement) AMD refused the same opportunity to support gamers with AA on AMD GPUs.

Pretty clear AMD is to blame and they are just trying to whine about it.

 

[Qbah]

Looks like nVidia is trying to undick their dick move. Trying is the proper term as the backlash seems to be getting even worse due to this whole mess not getting resolved in a hasty manner.

Eidos blames nVidia.
ATi blames nVidia.
nVidia blames Eidos.

2 vs 1

 

[Lonyo]

Looks like nVidia is trying to undick their dick move. Trying is the proper term as the backlash seems to be getting even worse due to this whole mess not getting resolved in a hasty manner.

Eidos blames nVidia.
ATi blames nVidia.
nVidia blames Eidos.

2 vs 1

NV blame ATI not Eidos.
ATI blame Eidos and NV.
Eidos say it's not their fault, and then blame NV.

 

[Compddd]

nvidia just keeps getting worse and worse

 

[Kakkoii]

http://brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/11/4/batmangate-amd-vs-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx

 

[Wreckage]

http://brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/11/4/batmangate-amd-vs-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx

That all seems reasonable, although it's 5 pages long.

 

[Skunkwourk]

That all seems reasonable, although it's 5 pages long.

did you read the conclusion? they implicate nvidia

 

[nitromullet]

At first glance, my initial impression is that say that someone is lying... Most likely either NVIDIA or Eidos. I say this because if AMD was to blatantly falsify, forge, or make false claims about emails from Eidos, they would probably end up in a pretty serious legal dispute with Eidos, and NVIDIA could probably sue for damages as well. I believe the emails presented by Huddy are legit.

However, looking at this a bit more carefully... Perhaps no one is lying per se. If you read the emails from Lee Singleton, he mentions that he is taking advice from their legal team not to change code NVIDIA has written. At no point does he say that NVIDIA has advised or warned them against allowing AA to function on ATI cards.

Of course, it begs the question of why the Eidos legal team would be reluctant to allow changes made to the NVIDIA provided code. Are there stipulations for receiving assistance from NVIDIA, or is it an Eidos policy not to meddle with code provided to them by hardware manufacturers? Either of these would be sound business decisions IMO.

At the end of it all, it looks like what will have to happen for ATI hardware to have in game AA is for ATI to provide Eidos with code that enables AA on ATI hardware. It will be up to Eidos to make the code from ATI and NV play nice with each other.

 

[Jovec]

The realities are getting lost in this mess.

Nvidia's TWIMTBP program involved some combination of direct cash, programming support, and cooperative marketing dollars (ie. Nvidia will fund $1 million worth of Batman ads). In exchange they get game, box, tv, and other ad logos and other marketing benefits that Nvidia feels is worth some value. I'm sure part of this arrangement is exclusivity on the marketing.

Now, it's possible Eidos offered to promote ATI if they outbid Nvidia, but there is no way Nvidia would allow ATI to get any marketing promotion while they still had the contract. In other words, ATI's choices were to either

1) Outbid Nvidia for Batman
2) Send programmers to implement their AA code completely behind the scenes and for free
3) Do nothing.

Given the trend towards shorter games, paid DLC, in-game advertising, and other money making endeavors, it will be terrible if devs/pubs look to (fairly trivial) programming code as a way to offset some costs. This is not a good trend for gamers.

By the way, this kind of thing happens all the time in business. Ever wonder why your favorite restaurant serves either Pepsi products or Coke products, but not both?

 

[Wreckage]

The realities are getting lost in this mess.

Nvidia's TWIMTBP program involved some combination of direct cash, programming support, and cooperative marketing dollars (ie. Nvidia will fund $1 million worth of Batman ads). In exchange they get game, box, tv, and other ad logos and other marketing benefits that Nvidia feels is worth some value. I'm sure part of this arrangement is exclusivity on the marketing.

Do you have a link that proves this?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Who cares! This whole argument is ridiculous and has gone on way too long. It's just anti-aliasing, if you can't get over a couple of jagged edges then you need to lower your standards. Are you playing the game or are you just taking screen-shots? Besides, the game doesn't look that great anyways. AMD is such a whiny baby about everything. They are always playing the victim and pointing the finger instead of taking actions themselves.

 

[Schmide]

This is the killer

What got AMD seriously aggravated was the fact that the first step of this code is done on all AMD hardware: "'Amusingly', it turns out that the first step is done for all hardware (even ours) whether AA is enabled or not! So it turns out that NVidia's code for adding support for AA is running on our hardware all the time - even though we're not being allowed to run the resolve code!
So… They've not just tied a very ordinary implementation of AA to their h/w, but they've done it in a way which ends up slowing our hardware down (because we're forced to write useless depth values to alpha most of the time...)!"

Not only locking them out but artificially slowing them down. Ouch.

 

[Wreckage]

Who cares! This whole argument is ridiculous and has gone on way too long. It's just anti-aliasing, if you can't get over a couple of jagged edges then you need to lower your standards. Are you playing the game or are you just taking screen-shots? Besides, the game doesn't look that great anyways. AMD is such a whiny baby about everything. They are always playing the victim and pointing the finger instead of taking actions themselves.

What's even more ammusing is AA does work on ATI cards. They just have to enable it through the control panel instead of in game. Granted in runs slower on comparable ATI cards, but most games do.

did you read the conclusion? they implicate nvidia

I'm guessing you did not read it, this is the first line.

"There are only two conclusions you can make."

They blame AMD's lack of developer support.

 

[Schmide]

What's even more ammusing is AA does work on ATI cards. They just have to enable it through the control panel instead of in game. Granted in runs slower on comparable ATI cards, but most games do.

WTF selective amnesia? You know darn well there is differences between MSAA and FSAA yet you continue with this same old tirade. Please stop!

I'm guessing you did not read it, this is the first line.

"There are only two conclusions you can make."

They blame AMD's lack of developer support.

this same old tirade. Please stop!

 

[Wreckage]

I did not write the article.

"Secondly, if AMD is constantly criticizing nVidia as a company and deployed strategies, it would be nice to finally hear some positive AMD-related experience from the developers. Naturally, AMD needs to earn that respect first "

 

[nitromullet]

Who cares! This whole argument is ridiculous and has gone on way too long. It's just anti-aliasing, if you can't get over a couple of jagged edges then you need to lower your standards. Are you playing the game or are you just taking screen-shots? Besides, the game doesn't look that great anyways. AMD is such a whiny baby about everything. They are always playing the victim and pointing the finger instead of taking actions themselves.

We care because it represents more than just AA in Batman. If the allegations are true, it represents a whole way of doing business that it detrimental to the future of PC gaming for consumers.

 

[Creig]

However, looking at this a bit more carefully... Perhaps no one is lying per se. If you read the emails from Lee Singleton, he mentions that he is taking advice from their legal team not to change code NVIDIA has written. At no point does he say that NVIDIA has advised or warned them against allowing AA to function on ATI cards.

Of course, it begs the question of why the Eidos legal team would be reluctant to allow changes made to the NVIDIA provided code. Are there stipulations for receiving assistance from NVIDIA, or is it an Eidos policy not to meddle with code provided to them by hardware manufacturers? Either of these would be sound business decisions IMO.

At the end of it all, it looks like what will have to happen for ATI hardware to have in game AA is for ATI to provide Eidos with code that enables AA on ATI hardware. It will be up to Eidos to make the code from ATI and NV play nice with each other.

I thought the only changes necessary for the in-game AA to function properly on ATi cards is the removal of the Vendor ID check. I'm pretty sure I could provide them that "code" myself if needed (and I'm not a programmer).

 

[Schmide]

I did not write the article.

"Secondly, if AMD is constantly criticizing nVidia as a company and deployed strategies, it would be nice to finally hear some positive AMD-related experience from the developers. Naturally, AMD needs to earn that respect first "

No but you draw the wrong conclusions and basically lie by omission. It makes you look bad and makes the board look bad.

 

[nyker96]

I looked at the situation like this. We all can agree that ATI want this game to have AA running on their cards that's to their benefits. The code that's in this game already shown to work fine on ATI cards by those who hacked this game. I will speculate this next point although it is logical that both Eido and NV knows this AA code will run on ATI cards since they tested the game out before release. Now that leads to the logical conclusion the vendor lockout code is the only obstacle to ATI running this game not the AA code. Now who is to blame depends on who put in the lockout code? if it is Eido it could just be a legal concern. if it's NV then anti-competitive practices is possible. In all we third parties cannot be sure of who is responsible for this code so no blame can be definitely given here. but one fact is certain, ATI can not be responsible for this vendor locking code. so the blame is either Eido or NV according to available facts.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

We care because it represents more than just AA in Batman. If the allegations are true, it represents a whole way of doing business that it detrimental to the future of PC gaming for consumers.

How is offering exclusive features a new business practice? These days when both ATI and Nvidia cards offer more than sufficient performance for the majority of games (due to them being mostly console ports or based off a 5 year old engine (Source)), they must find a way to differentiate themselves. Low quality console ports are what is detrimental to the future of PC gaming. I can see the argument from both sides but I think you guys are being over dramatic over an "okay" game.

 

[Creig]

I did not write the article.

"Secondly, if AMD is constantly criticizing nVidia as a company and deployed strategies, it would be nice to finally hear some positive AMD-related experience from the developers. Naturally, AMD needs to earn that respect first "

You mean, like this Nvidia "respect"?

Yep, nVidia is being 'brilliant' all over again! But don't forget this is not the first time, you also have that Crysis affair that never got serious media traction.

Personally, I despise such things and if they would appear with such attitude of us putting a Vendor ID lock in the game, I would throw them out of the office. They can f**k off with such a low attitude... but I guess they know that so they're not even daring to ask!

That's the kind of respect Rodney Dangerfield would be proud of.




And then there's the conclusion:

After carefully reviewing statements released by all sides, talking to developers, there isn't much left. Forum members on Batman: Arkham Asylum Forums and AMD themselves all changed vendor ID on their cards and got equal functionality as one experienced on nVidia cards. This happened at the time when nVidia members both claimed that Batman AA code is proprietary to Eidos and that no vendor ID locks is implemented in the code. "Hands in a cookie jar" is the only parallel we can draw here."

/end speculation

 

[lavaheadache]

WTF selective amnesia? You know darn well there is differences between MSAA and FSAA yet you continue with this same old tirade. Please stop!



this same old tirade. Please stop!

he will not stop cause he can not stop. This situation reminds me of the very excellent role Dustin Hoffman played in Rainman. Wapner at 8 anyone?

 

[Schmide]

How is offering exclusive features a new business practice? These days when both ATI and Nvidia cards offer more than sufficient performance for the majority of games (due to them being mostly console ports or based off a 5 year old engine (Source)), they must find a way to differentiate themselves. Low quality console ports are what is detrimental to the future of PC gaming. I can see the argument from both sides but I think you guys are being over dramatic over an "okay" game.

I think you're not realizing what a slippery slope this is and how important standards are to developers.

 

[thilanliyan]

nm...read it wrong.