Batman AA fiasco: Who's telling the truth?

[Cookie Monster]

ATi cannot be held responsible? Tell them to step up their dev relations, something that hasn't happened in the past 6 or so years..

 

[nitromullet]

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).

The point is that (apparently) the Vendor ID check is in the NVIDIA code, which Eidos is either unwilling or unable to change because of either real or perceived legal reasons.

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.

Let them differentiate themselves by offering new features (e.g. PhysX), and not gimping standard features like AA on the competitor's hardware.

I think you're oversimplifying this if you think this discussion only pertains to this one game. I already played it on the 360 (I agree, it's just "okay"), but the politics of what goes on between hardware vendors and developers concerns me as a consumer.

 

[evolucion8]

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.

Please, you seems to forgot that ATi has the fastest single GPU on the market right now, pathettic.

ATi cannot be held responsible? Tell them to step up their dev relations, something that hasn't happened in the past 6 or so years..

Regardless of the AMD"s poor relationship with developers, the Anti Aliasing is a DirectX feature which is supported at the hardware level of both hardware vendors, the same hack that nVidia did to allow Anti Aliasing on Deferred Rendering is the same hack utilized by ATi because both cards are DX compliant.

Games like Battleforge, STALKER COP and HAWX have the ATi logo, its not even a half of games compared to the ones which have the nVidia logo, but there's some progress there.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Regardless of the AMD"s poor relationship with developers, the Anti Aliasing is a DirectX feature which is supported at the hardware level of both hardware vendors, the same hack that nVidia did to allow Anti Aliasing on Deferred Rendering is the same hack utilized by ATi because both cards are DX compliant.

Im not going to say who is right or wrong because of the lack of evidence regarding this issue. Theres just too many pieces of the puzzle missing to say company A is the bad guy while company B is innocent.

What I am saying is that if ATI had good relationships with game devs as nVIDIA, this problem would of never occurred. The fact of the matter is that Edios chose and implemented nVIDIA's AA solution to the final version of the game. Whether or not this was because of some sort of bribery (which there is lack of evidence to suggest so) or nVIDIA actually supported the devs and helped them out (I mean who wouldn't like a company that sent some of their best software engineers/programmers/unreleased hardware to debug/test your code and help improve on it?) which there is evidence that they have done such acts do so on numerous occasions (im not talking about Edios but toward game devs in general).

This vendor lock filtering is indeed bad for us consumers, but when we look from say nVIDIA's perspective, why would they freely give away all that money/time invested to their biggest rival AMD? Neither companies are charity firms, and to me nVIDIA had the ability to invest time and money to this game while AMD couldn't or not so much than the former. I would not be surprised if AMD acted the same as nVIDIA if their situations were reversed.

 

[SlowSpyder]

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.



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.

You said that they stated "There are only two conclusions you can make." Then you say that they blame AMD's lack of developer support. I guess this is just another one of the 'facts' that you only care to talk about in the video forum?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Im not going to say who is right or wrong because of the lack of evidence regarding this issue. Theres just too many pieces of the puzzle missing to say company A is the bad guy while company B is innocent.

What I am saying is that if ATI had good relationships with game devs as nVIDIA, this problem would of never occurred. The fact of the matter is that Edios chose and implemented nVIDIA's AA solution to the final version of the game. Whether or not this was because of some sort of bribery (which there is lack of evidence to suggest so) or nVIDIA actually supported the devs and helped them out (I mean who wouldn't like a company that sent some of their best software engineers/programmers/unreleased hardware to debug/test your code and help improve on it?) which there is evidence that they have done such acts do so on numerous occasions (im not talking about Edios but toward game devs in general).

This vendor lock filtering is indeed bad for us consumers, but when we look from say nVIDIA's perspective, why would they freely give away all that money/time invested to their biggest rival AMD? Neither companies are charity firms, and to me nVIDIA had the ability to invest time and money to this game while AMD couldn't or not so much than the former. I would not be surprised if AMD acted the same as nVIDIA if their situations were reversed.

I think most people are forgetting the consumer is spending money on a product too and that they aren't charity firms or the "parents" of companies.

If a certain game claims to be PC Windows and I own a piece of hardware that is DX10.1 certified, than I expect my game to be able to run basic nowadays features like AA if the game supports it.

It is not the case of some DX7 compatible graphics card being able to run DX9/10 games - it is about a card that can do AA do AA in a game that have that feature.

The gaming platform is Windows and DX. The hardware needs to be designed to work under Windows and then additional software needs to be designed to work under both Windows and hardware compatible with Windows.

This situation is been overblown compared to its actual importance at the present, but things like this need to be avoided or games will stop from being "PC Windows" and it will start to be "PC ATI" or "PC NVIDIA" and then maybe "PC INTEL+XXX+YYY+ZZZ" "PC AMD+ATI+XXX+YYY+ZZZ" etc.

Sincerely I don't care if anyone is guilty or not. I want to go to a store, PAY for a game and not to be bothered if it will work on my PC because I've a certain vendor hardware component.

We do this nowadays for PC Windows as we do for consoles. We have hardware that is compatible and fulfill Windows requirements, we pay, we have software working.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Good read . This is exciting stuff. Just imagine when Intel larrabee is out . Intel will not be a monoply . Think about it . If intel paid Dell 6 billion in bribes and they were a monoply . Think of what they can pay Game developers to develop for Larrabee.

Intels slogan . The way games used to be played has changed . New player with hugh deep deep pockets who is willing to pay to play . Thats intel . I love this article . It opens so many doors for intel to walk threw. Pay to play has a nice ring to it .

 

[Schmide]

Nemesis seriously. This is an ATI, Eidos nVidia thing. The one controversy Intel isn't in and you have to bring them into it? Lame agenda.

 

[Compddd]

Why is Nemesis always spouting Intel is god in every thread? Cut it out.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nemesis seriously. This is an ATI, Eidos nVidia thing. The one controversy Intel isn't in and you have to bring them into it? Lame agenda.

Why lame . If what I read is true . Intel will pay to play its that simple. Plus in discret graphics there is NO monoply. Talking about larrabee is = to Fermi.

Besides if game developers are taking $$$ for favors Intel entering the picture is beyond big its hugh . I can see were the developers are waiting on those millions and according to most Intel is willing to pay for market share. So ya Intel does belong in this .

Its just that larrabee isn't here yet . But when it arrives you can bet their will be more than one game developed for larrabee.

Intels has a luxury here . They aren't a player yet. So they can wait it out. When games are ready they will be. I suspect when we see hydra chips on M/B Larrabee will be right behind it .

I am sure that you have read or heard ATI is cutting some legacy crap out of there GPUs . Same is being said about hydra and intel . I personnally don't see why either should support Dx9 or older Dx8,7 . No need for intel to add that crap to software.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Well, Intel is quite a tall Lady and Nemesis seems to like those. Of course, AMD is a tiny sexy thing now with her new ATI implants, so I can see some flirting going on there. Than you have that green dude that wants to boss everything around with its CUDA, PhysX, billion huge xtor numbers...

You can see what is going on Nemesis head...

 

[Schmide]

Why lame . If what I read is true . Intel will pay to play its that simple. Plus in discret graphics there is NO monoply. Talking about larrabee is = to Fermi.

It's lame, it has nothing to do with this topic and only serves to forward some unknown agenda you seem to be pushing. If you want to jerk off to larrabee start a new thread.

This is discrete issue between ATI/AMD, Eidos, and nVidia.

So Xnay on the Intelaye FFSaye.

 

[Nemesis 1]

It's lame, it has nothing to do with this topic and only serves to forward some unknown agenda you seem to be pushing. If you want to jerk off to larrabee start a new thread.

This is discrete issue between ATI/AMD, Eidos, and nVidia.

So Xnay on the Intelaye FFSaye.

It has everthing to do with this topic . You read the article you decide whats true. But if the $$$ is real . Intel belongs here. If money is all it takes to get game developer developing for you which this thread is about . Intel entering the scene is hugh because Daddy has deep pockets. Really isn't this what is being discussed here. Game developers and there interactions with ATI NV. So when larrabee arrives don't you think the landscape will change. its threads like these I love . I link them and wait and wait .

So when we start hearing about Intel paying off game developers. I will have this thread to reach back to and slapp shit out of anyone from ATI or NV that dare say intel cheats LOL. Intel is guilty of having alot of $$$ thats all I see . They aren't afraid to spend it either . I live for these kinds of threads . Its better to stick a thread like this up someones ass rather than getting shoe all mocked up.

 

[Schmide]

You are the only one in the world putting them in this issue. They're not a player, maybe one day they will be but until then, zip it. Seriously, I know you get a chubby when you think of Intel, but please please leave them out of this and stop derailing this thread. I beg of you!!!

 

[bryanW1995]

Im not going to say who is right or wrong because of the lack of evidence regarding this issue. Theres just too many pieces of the puzzle missing to say company A is the bad guy while company B is innocent.

What I am saying is that if ATI had good relationships with game devs as nVIDIA, this problem would of never occurred. The fact of the matter is that Edios chose and implemented nVIDIA's AA solution to the final version of the game. Whether or not this was because of some sort of bribery (which there is lack of evidence to suggest so) or nVIDIA actually supported the devs and helped them out (I mean who wouldn't like a company that sent some of their best software engineers/programmers/unreleased hardware to debug/test your code and help improve on it?) which there is evidence that they have done such acts do so on numerous occasions (im not talking about Edios but toward game devs in general).

This vendor lock filtering is indeed bad for us consumers, but when we look from say nVIDIA's perspective, why would they freely give away all that money/time invested to their biggest rival AMD? Neither companies are charity firms, and to me nVIDIA had the ability to invest time and money to this game while AMD couldn't or not so much than the former. I would not be surprised if AMD acted the same as nVIDIA if their situations were reversed.

well, nvidia pr has a long history of dirty tactics, amd pr has a long history of incompetence. If their roles were reversed and this was an amd TWIMTBP - equivalent title, they probably would have written code for eidos that made physix run perfectly and put the nvidia cards in the best possible light...

 

[Nemesis 1]

You are the only one in the world putting them in this issue. They're not a player, maybe one day they will be but until then, zip it. Seriously, I know you get a chubby when you think of Intel, but please please leave them out of this and stop derailing this thread. I beg of you!!!

What you don't read or research . Games are already being developed for larrabee and I am not talking about Project offset . So even tho larrabee isn't here yet . Intel has given the game developers all necessary tools to build game around larrabee. So ya no larrabee yet . But games are already being developed . Do your own research.

 

[Schmide]

What you don't read or research . Games are already being developed for larrabee and I am not talking about Project offset . So even tho larrabee isn't here yet . Intel has given the game developers all necessary tools to build game around larrabee. So ya no larrabee yet . But games are already being developed . Do your own research.

WTF is your problem. This is about a issue between ATI/AMD, Eidos, and nVidia. This isn't about future technology, it's about a suspected pay to play controversy and what happened with this one game. Intel is not involved!

 

[Nemesis 1]

WTF is your problem. This is about a issue between ATI/AMD, Eidos, and nVidia. This isn't about future technology, it's about a suspected pay to play controversy and what happened with this one game. Intel is not involved!

Well it seems they were talking about more than 1 game in article I read. No were not talking about future hardware. We are discussing payola. Intel has games being developed right NOW TODAY. It is relavent , It real relavent if game developers take cash for favors. if Intel pulls an NV type deal . Who will scream the loudest . Ya only get 1 guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbPUzhWeeI&feature=related

 

[Schmide]

Well it seems they were talking about more than 1 game in article I read. No were not talking about future hardware. We are discussing payola. Intel has games being developed right NOW TODAY. It is relavent , It real relavent if game developers take cash for favors. if Intel pulls an NV type deal . Who will scream the loudest . Ya only get 1 guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbPUzhWeeI&feature=related

You'll seriously do anything to jerk off to Intel huh. Including ruin a perfectly good thread with this crap. I wash my hands of your thread crapping lameness. Re-read the article, then start a new thread on Lamerbee.

 

[jsadie]

You guys are all missing the point
Batman does not natively support AA in game - but you can force it via the CP
NVIDIA sent engineers to help code and debug In-game AA for their hardware
They put a vendor ID on that code so that only their hardware can run it
ATI had the option to do the same - they chose not to
Now they want the game developers to remove the ID lock from the code - The vendor cannot do that as the code belongs to NVIDIA - they wrote it.
It is irrelevant that ATI hardware can run the same code and get the same results as NVIDIA hardware - the point is that the code belongs to NVIDIA
ATI can either pay NVIDIA to use their code - or write their own for inclusion in the game engine to enable them to run AA too in-game.They cannot have it both ways

 

[dflynchimp]

You guys are all missing the point
Batman does not natively support AA in game - but you can force it via the CP
NVIDIA sent engineers to help code and debug In-game AA for their hardware
They put a vendor ID on that code so that only their hardware can run it
ATI had the option to do the same - they chose not to
Now they want the game developers to remove the ID lock from the code - The vendor cannot do that as the code belongs to NVIDIA - they wrote it.
It is irrelevant that ATI hardware can run the same code and get the same results as NVIDIA hardware - the point is that the code belongs to NVIDIA
ATI can either pay NVIDIA to use their code - or write their own for inclusion in the game engine to enable them to run AA too in-game.They cannot have it both ways

It seems to me:

1. Nvidia did help with the dev cycle surrounding Batman:AA
2. They did incorporate some of their proprietary code

But:

1. Changing vendor ID's allow ATI hardware to run AA without any problems.
2. Eidos says they can't remove the vendor ID lock since that part of the code is Nvidia IP.

The logical conclusion to draw from this is that Nvidia struck a deal with Eidos to help them test and debug the game, and IN RETURN, Eidos will allow Nvidia to insert a line of code in the game that locks out ATI hardware from running AA EVEN THOUGH the hardware is perfectly capable of running the in-game AA code.

What Nvidia is doing here is protecting its investment, which also extends to PhysX mix n' match with ATI. They will run their PR mill to death but the truth is they want to lock ATI out of the equation, and their justification is that they spent money on this game. For some this might be enough, and for others not so much.

I draw parallels from this to Apple's locking the iPhone to AT&T, even though the hardware is perfectly able to run on other cellular providers. Both of these are clear examples where exclusivity is due not so much to hardware compatibilities as it is to business deals and market competition. Bottom line is the world ain't perfect, and companies love making consumers choose.

 

[dev0lution]

Well it seems they were talking about more than 1 game in article I read. No were not talking about future hardware. We are discussing payola. Intel has games being developed right NOW TODAY. It is relavent , It real relavent if game developers take cash for favors. if Intel pulls an NV type deal . Who will scream the loudest . Ya only get 1 guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbPUzhWeeI&feature=related

Can you please tell your Intel sources to use some of the payola you insist will be so huge (not that they're paying to get Core 2 Quad Extreme and other logos splashed on all those titles intros now or anything) to actually get some more multi-threading going on?

~kthxbye

 

[jsadie]

It seems to me:

1. Nvidia did help with the dev cycle surrounding Batman:AA
2. They did incorporate some of their proprietary code

But:

1. Changing vendor ID's allow ATI hardware to run AA without any problems.
2. Eidos says they can't remove the vendor ID lock since that part of the code is Nvidia IP.

The logical conclusion to draw from this is that Nvidia struck a deal with Eidos to help them test and debug the game, and IN RETURN, Eidos will allow Nvidia to insert a line of code in the game that locks out ATI hardware from running AA EVEN THOUGH the hardware is perfectly capable of running the in-game AA code.

What Nvidia is doing here is protecting its investment, which also extends to PhysX mix n' match with ATI. They will run their PR mill to death but the truth is they want to lock ATI out of the equation, and their justification is that they spent money on this game. For some this might be enough, and for others not so much.

I draw parallels from this to Apple's locking the iPhone to AT&T, even though the hardware is perfectly able to run on other cellular providers. Both of these are clear examples where exclusivity is due not so much to hardware compatibilities as it is to business deals and market competition. Bottom line is the world ain't perfect, and companies love making consumers choose.

Exactly !!!!

Simple solution for AMD - write your own code for in-game AA or continue to use the CP enabled brute-force method.

Pretty stupid that the engine does not allow native AA by the way - but i guess that's what you get from console ports.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I would agree . ATI should write its own code. I think that when DX11 games are released ATI should do the same as NV is doing now . I also think that ATI /Intel will play nice together. Maybe AMD won't lock nv out but Intel will . But intel won't lock ATI out I like the way you guys are thinking . I just hope down the road when Intel ati are working against NV you all feel the same as now . Ya want something bad enough you'll get it . But at what cost to consumers. NV opened another can of whoopass on its self . Future shall prove this to be case.

 

[Painman]

I'd prefer it if TWIMTPB stuck to things that nV is exclusively capable of, because when it starts bleeding into hardware independent things like this AA codepath, it really starts to become cheeseball and stinks of business deals and Quid Pro Quo like the iPhone/AT&T situation.

But hey. TWIMTBP is a PR campaign. It's about market share, not the hardware.

1 full Cheese Wheel to Rocksteady for their central role in this fiasco. They allowed their product to be swept up into this maelstrom of 3rd party marketing drivel and become a conduit for it.

1/2 of a wheel to nVidia. You're so frantically swinging your big green dick, Jen-Hsun, whacking anyone and everyone including your own customers, that you swung it underneath your own foot. Again.

1/2 of a wheel to ATi. Quit being a bunch of whiny ass tittie babies and compete. Your PR campaign sucks. your AIB partners suck. "Get in The Game!"? Take your own frackin' advice.