Batman AA fiasco: Who's telling the truth?

[GaiaHunter]

Your comment is the reason why there should be a vendor check. You said AA performance worst compare to the AA from CCC. Now who is responsible for that? The ones to developed the game? The ones that made AA made AA possible? Or ATI?

The dilema is this. If Nvidia allows ATI to run its code, then fanbois will say Nvidia deliberately put down ATI's performance. If Nvidia disallow ATI to run its code, then fanbois will say Nvidia is "blocking" what is open standard. So clearly, it is a lose lose saturation ofr Nvidia, score for ATI.

Can a NVIDIA card work on ATi drivers or vice-versa? Nope they can't. Now that is NVIDIA and ATi code.

The code in question here is standard (as standard go in these matters) AA under DX code.

The code isn't telling cards how to do AA - it is giving them instructions when and where to do AA.

The AA output is still solved by the company hardware and drivers.

That is why ATi cards can use the NVIDIA code.

Yep, originally the engine didn't support AA, but since then both ATi and NVIDIA drivers can use a brute force approach, and so are able to apply AA.

What this code do is save hardware resources - it doesn't make the game prettier.

 

[Seero]

And what if nVidia makes ATI run their code AND blocks them?

I gave up on the rest of your post, it was just way out there.

Is there really anyone who still thinks it is as simple as ATI shipping them a bit of code?
Do people really think ATI would bother sending them multiple emails over weeks of time, if the problem could simple be solved by sending a piece of standard code, that they already have available as an example elsewhere.

Obviously the problem is more complicated than what most posters are making it out to be.

It is the matter of fact that, with the right amount of money to Nvidia, you can have that vendor ID check removed too. Definitely not complicated. Show us how the digital world should be. No one will stop you have paying someone to recode the whole thing so everyone can enjoy. Or, you can do it in a way only benefits ATI user. It is your call.

Or you can simply buy a Nvidia card to enjoy AA with all other Nvidia users.

Complicated?

 

[akugami]

The code is not special, but Nvidia did own that piece of non-special code that ATI never submit. So your conclusion have a piece of non-special to be free for anyone basically?

The vendor lock is nothing but to protect ownership of Nvidia's non-special code. In other words, the vendor who owns the code is protected. If every single program should be free for everyone, then you really think programmers/companies will work their butt off? If the vendor lock must be removed, then ATI will never write something that helps gamers, and Nvidia will not waste resources also. Who is the loser here? Not the vendors, but us, the gamers

Your argument is extremely flawed. If I bought the game then I did not get anything for free. I paid for it. I don't care who provided the written code to run the game. I paid for the game. I want it to work on my hardware.

ATI has provided plenty of funding in the past without stipulating that the developer lock out features from other companies. The bottom line is that nVidia and Eidos engaged in practices that if taken further would only hurt consumers. Nothing you argue has changed this fact.

I don't care what nVidia paid for and what Eidos paid for. I only care about my own interest. It doesn't matter to me that nVidia paid for it. If I bought the game then I expect it to work on my system as fully featured as technically possible. I don't want it to exclude features because of hardware bias. That's the bottom line.

When I buy a game, buy a game mind you not get it off of a torrent, I didn't get anything for free. I paid for it. If Eidos or any other developer lacks the resources

And apparently free software works just fine if you haven't heard about the open source software movement. Even Microsoft incorporates open source code in certain situations. Maybe it doesn't work or make sense in every situation but companies like Red Hat seem to make a decent living off of providing software for free.

I am a gamer, and love new techs, new methods to reduce lag, enhance graphics and gameplay. Those new stuffs are never free. Dx11 is meant to make programming easier and able to utilize hardwares better, but it isn't free. You need to own either vista or 7, alone with a video card that supports Dx11. None of these are free. Shall Dx11 be used by Mac user?

You are using the same flawed argument again. When I buy a Radeon 5870 I didn't get those new features such as DX11 in the new Radeon 5xx0 series free. When I buy a Geforce 285 I didn't get PhysX free. I paid for it. When I bought my ATI or nVidia card, they got my money for the hardware. If they can't afford to sell it at a lower price, then they need to look at their operations and cut the fat or raise prices. If the product is not selling then they have to figure out why and fix it. That's business. When I buy a game or buy new hardware, I do not get a single thing for free. I paid for it. That's what buying is.

If ATI or nVidia gave me free hardware then they can stipulate that it run only certain features on certain software I buy. The fact that I have to pay good money means I have expectations for how my hardware interacts with my software. But yeah, if you like getting screwed by faceless corporations then all the power to you.

You know that Nvidia's card are priced higher then ATI. Many choose to buy ATI simply because it is cheaper. Nvidia uses that extra money not only on its own development, but also game developers. Batman is one of the games that got Nvidia's support before it has a publisher. Is this a bad thing?

Have you ever domate money on freewares? What did you actually do to help programmers to make better code?

Uhh...what world do you live in? Yes, ATI is cheaper but the reason that people buy nVidia is because they have provided better hardware in the past few years. Excepting the ATI Radeon 9700's, nVidia has provided equal or better hardware. Look at the Radeon 4xx0 series. They didn't sell well because they are cheap, they sold well because they provided value.

And once again, for the millionth time, ATI does provide financial support for games. All they ask is for some advertisement. They don't engage in practices that hurt consumers as seen by nVidia.

I haven't felt left out on any of it for a long time now, around the time I ditched my 1800xt. This is one area everyone in this forum knows is a factor before they buy their parts. It is one of the reasons, one of the main reasons, people are willing to pay a bit more for nVidia. This is what nV is going for, and if you check out the gaming forums, people are not upset with nV or Eidos over this situation overwhelmingly. This is just part of the gaming market now.

[SNIP]

Overall they got way more positive rep then you seem to realize. Step away from the tech forums and into the general gamer forums. If you do, you'll get a glimpse as to why nVidia held such a dominant market position over the 4xxx series despite what the overwhelming majority of tech enthusiasts thought

I agree that nVidia has provided a bit more value than ATI until the Radeon 4xx0 series. ATI really hasn't really had a winner from the Radeon 9700 series until the 4xx0 series. While the X1800 and X1900 were competitive they didn't really do much or do it better than competing products from nVidia. Heck, my last card before the 4870 was an 8800GTS simply because the 8xx0 series kicked rear.

I disagree on the bad PR nVidia and Eidos are getting. Things like this usually start out at the tech forums and a lot of gamers usually ask buying advice from their tech oriented friends. I know for a fact that a few of my gamer friends ask me to build their systems or at least ask for buying advice if they just want to get something like a Dell.

Finances and market share can take a bit of time to change. These type of things do take a lot of time to change but the fact that ATI's finances look at heck of a lot better means that they are doing something right and if they continue then they should chip away at nVidia's market share. After all, ATI didn't drop down from owning nearly half of the market to having only 1/3 of the market over night. It took hard work and years of bungling for that to happen.

Any code written by ATi absolutely they have the right to lock it. That said, I haven't heard of them authoring any code for any of the upcoming DX11 titles at all, just offering support and guidance. Either way though, any code ATi writes themselves should absolutely fall under their guidelines for usage. In a real world sense, that is locking out about 70% of PC gamers at the moment though, so it will likely take a much larger incentive for them to get it done then just donating the code at this point.

Well, I think the point is that one can garner exclusives if enough money is involved. And you don't even have to code it yourself. Just pay the developer enough money. Again, the Xbox 360 RPG Blue Dragon game comes into mind. This game sold pathetically little in comparison to what it probably could have sold on the PS3. MS paid enough money to the developer that it didn't matter how well it sold since they got paid regardless. This is still a business and business is all about the almighty dollar. It doesn't matter to them who pays them so long as the developer makes money. I just feel that if we continue down this path, it's bad for consumers.

Not only does ATi run the game extremely well, it runs AA in Batman too, use the CCC. The real issue is the level of performance it offers. nV's workaround is far more sophisticated- and if people would drop the ranting loyalist bit they may happen to notice that ATi's AA in Batman looks better then nV's.

I have no problem with optimizations that make the game work better on your hardware. Again, the problem is locking out features wholesale.

I guess the best way to put this would be to have nV fans freak out if any game comes with Eyefinity support. I honestly hope that it is widely supported and I'm sure as hell not going to throw a hissy fit if it is. ATi owners bought the card knowing that was a probability and was paid for in the price of purchase. nV owners buy their cards knowing that extra attention in game is expected and paid for in the price of purchase.

Dunno about other people because I consider myself an enthusiast and not a fanboy. I have zero problem with PhysX, CUDA, or Eyefinity. Or any other exclusive hardware features. If nVidia provides what I want I will just buy their hardware. You will never see me argue against CUDA inclusion in an app or PhysX in a game. I might argue about the technical merits or relevance of the tech but I will never argue about its inclusion in a game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The code isn't telling cards how to do AA

Actually, the code is doing exactly that.

Your argument is extremely flawed. If I bought the game then I did not get anything for free. I paid for it. I don't care who provided the written code to run the game. I paid for the game. I want it to work on my hardware.

You would have paid $10 less and gotten more then the console port that is going to make at least 5 if not 10 times more money and you think you are getting a bad deal? You pay less, and get more. You would just be upset because of jealousy that nVidia owners got more still. That is rather heavly on the side of loyalist.

Look at the Radeon 4xx0 series. They didn't sell well because they are cheap,

You are correct there, they didn't sell well period in relative terms.

I disagree on the bad PR nVidia and Eidos are getting. Things like this usually start out at the tech forums and a lot of gamers usually ask buying advice from their tech oriented friends.

And would you inform them of the reality that running ATi hardware some games won't be able to use all the features? Despite that the tech enthusiast community may think, this is the message that gamers are hearing. Buy ATi if you are broke seems to be the popular consensus. Honestly the AA issue in batman seems to be a non factor for the most part, PhysX is a much larger concern. ATi fans can still use AA fairly easily.

Finances and market share can take a bit of time to change.

I don't think I could disagree much more in this segment.

For the first time for a long time Markham, Ontario-based ATI Technologies managed to leave NVIDIA behind in terms of market share in desktop standalone market segment. Currently ATI commands 55% of the market, up 17% from the previous quarter. NVIDIA supplied 42% of graphics chips for desktops during the Q3 2004, down 16% from the previous quarter.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20041026150740.html

I just feel that if we continue down this path, it's bad for consumers.

This how the console market has always worked, and based on sales numbers most PC gamers have run like hell to the consoles. These things are not determined by people in a suit giggling about srewing people over. People vote with their wallets, and overwhelmingly they have voted that they like that method.

 

[NIGELG]

Actually, the code is doing exactly that.



You would have paid $10 less and gotten more then the console port that is going to make at least 5 if not 10 times more money and you think you are getting a bad deal? You pay less, and get more. You would just be upset because of jealousy that nVidia owners got more still. That is rather heavly on the side of loyalist.



You are correct there, they didn't sell well period in relative terms.



And would you inform them of the reality that running ATi hardware some games won't be able to use all the features? Despite that the tech enthusiast community may think, this is the message that gamers are hearing. Buy ATi if you are broke seems to be the popular consensus. Honestly the AA issue in batman seems to be a non factor for the most part, PhysX is a much larger concern. ATi fans can still use AA fairly easily.



I don't think I could disagree much more in this segment.



http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20041026150740.html



This how the console market has always worked, and based on sales numbers most PC gamers have run like hell to the consoles. These things are not determined by people in a suit giggling about srewing people over. People vote with their wallets, and overwhelmingly they have voted that they like that method.

Might I ask what is your source when saying the ATI 4800 series didn't sell well??

 

[Seero]

Your argument is extremely flawed. If I bought the game then I did not get anything for free. I paid for it. I don't care who provided the written code to run the game. I paid for the game. I want it to work on my hardware.

Didn't the game work on your hardware?

ATI has provided plenty of funding in the past without stipulating that the developer lock out features from other companies. The bottom line is that nVidia and Eidos engaged in practices that if taken further would only hurt consumers. Nothing you argue has changed this fact.

Again, didn't the game work on your hardware?

There is a function in the game that will only be enabled with a Nvidia card, and you can use it once you plug in a Nvidia card. No?

I don't care what nVidia paid for and what Eidos paid for. I only care about my own interest. It doesn't matter to me that nVidia paid for it. If I bought the game then I expect it to work on my system as fully featured as technically possible. I don't want it to exclude features because of hardware bias. That's the bottom line.

You do have the all the features. You however disagree the conditions of which some features requires. Try to read the EUA and you shall find that you have agreed the way it is coded.

When I buy a game, buy a game mind you not get it off of a torrent, I didn't get anything for free. I paid for it. If Eidos or any other developer lacks the resources

Again, didn't the game work on your hardware?

And apparently free software works just fine if you haven't heard about the open source software movement. Even Microsoft incorporates open source code in certain situations. Maybe it doesn't work or make sense in every situation but companies like Red Hat seem to make a decent living off of providing software for free.

hahaha.
Red Hat
Please get your facts straight. I can create something and allow others to use it for free, or I can charge whatever price i see fit. The only question is, will people buy it. If I write something that requires another program, then I need to pay that program too. Linux code, itself, is free. Programs developed from it, may not. Programmers can't bundle programs made by others and sell it without sharing profits, or alter programs made by others without authorizations.

Rat Hat don't make living for free. No one can make living for free. Fees can be paid by advertisement, which some program appears to be free, yet someone paid for the program for you so that you will look at its ads.

Nvidia did not charge any fees to Eidos or Rocksteady for the program to run on its hardware because the coding itself is based open standards. Nvidia have no rights to force programs written by others to behave differently on varies hardwares. Nvidia do have these rights if the code belongs to them.

You are using the same flawed argument again. When I buy a Radeon 5870 I didn't get those new features such as DX11 in the new Radeon 5xx0 series free. When I buy a Geforce 285 I didn't get PhysX free. I paid for it. When I bought my ATI or nVidia card, they got my money for the hardware. If they can't afford to sell it at a lower price, then they need to look at their operations and cut the fat or raise prices. If the product is not selling then they have to figure out why and fix it. That's business. When I buy a game or buy new hardware, I do not get a single thing for free. I paid for it. That's what buying is.

Yes, you don't need to pay extra to ATI when you run Dx11 apps, but you do need to pay the Dx11 apps, as well as an OS that supports it. That does not mean you have all the rights to own or use any programs ATI has written in Dx11. If ATI decided to write a game based on Dx11, you still need to pay for it. If ATI decided to write a game based on Dx11 that only works on ATI cards, you still need to pay for it. Nvidia user can buy it, but it won't run. If ATI decided to write a game based on Dx11 that only works on its own card that supports Dx11 at no charge, then you can have it for free. ATI can also create a program that works only on its competitors hardware for free. This way, even though you own a ATI card that support Dx11 under a Dx11 supported OS, you can't run it. Vice Versa.

In simple terms. Ones can write a piece of code and decide what environment it runs in, and how it behaves. The solo question is, will it sale. The less restriction on environment, the better. For example, a game will sale better if it runs under any OS and hardware then a game that only runs on specific OS and hardware. As an argument for this thread, the one who wrote such code, is Nvidia.

If ATI or nVidia gave me free hardware then they can stipulate that it run only certain features on certain software I buy. The fact that I have to pay good money means I have expectations for how my hardware interacts with my software. But yeah, if you like getting screwed by faceless corporations then all the power to you.

You paid for the video card, then you can do anything on it, use it the way you like. You paid for a game, then you must play it the way you have agreed, have you read the EULA? Once you click "Accept" it means you will only use its program the way it is specifies. Again, MSAA can only be enabled by Nvidia cards. Complaint to ATI or Eidos if you believe that is not the ways it should be played. No where on the box said that you can enable MSAA on ATI video cards.

Uhh...what world do you live in? Yes, ATI is cheaper but the reason that people buy nVidia is because they have provided better hardware in the past few years. Excepting the ATI Radeon 9700's, nVidia has provided equal or better hardware. Look at the Radeon 4xx0 series. They didn't sell well because they are cheap, they sold well because they provided value.

I am not trying to judge which invested more into the gaming industry. The fact is, Nvidia created a piece of code in Batman: Arkham Asylum that enables AA. The fact is, Nvidia owns that piece of code. The fact is, ATI don't have a piece of code that allows the same functionalities to be enabled. ATI may have helped other games, but not Batman: Arkham Asylum, and have not create codes that benefits its user like Nvidia did. Yes, it is not your fault, or mine, but definitely not Nvidia. Why are you defending ATI for not making the game better for ATI user? Why are you attacking Nvidia for making the game better for Nvidia user? All you need to do is to buy a Nvidia card and you can enjoy ingame AA, for free.

And once again, for the millionth time, ATI does provide financial support for games. All they ask is for some advertisement. They don't engage in practices that hurt consumers as seen by nVidia.

Once again, didn't the game work on your hardware? The part that allows MSAA belongs to Nvidia, and they have control over it. You shouldn't buy the game if you believe otherwise.

You can keep saying "It should...", but "It doesn't..." You brought the game to play, not to dictate the way it is coded. Whether Nvidia should allow ATI user to run their code does not depend on whether you brought the game, or your hardware configurations.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Actually, the code is doing exactly that.

Yes and no.

It tells the hardware where/when to apply the AA. The hardware then uses general nvidia/ati (if hacked to allow it) AA techniques controlled by the driver.

That is why this code works on Ati if allowed. If the code was using some special nvidia optimized technique it wouldn't work.

 

[Schmide]

I'm going to have to go back and tie together some half truths, falsities and FUD scare tactics. Your argument is becoming quite lame and repetitive. Some quantification needs to be done. Not only to figure out your motives but what you are truly trying to show.

The issued with deferred rendering using AA under DX9, or the render to texture style workaround that they are using? Or are you simply talking about a vendor ID lockout over DX caps? Which issue would you like to discuss?

This proof that you understand the issue, yet you still believe that it's not a DirectX supported operation. More later in the post.

The issue is with deferred rendering, not HDR. You sure you want to debate these points?

I believe this (blod) is an attempt to get me to back down. To make me fear that I couldn't keep up. It is becoming obvious that BenSkywalker understands the issue yet continues to classify it as outside DirectX.

It is a limitation of Sweeney's engine, nVidia created a workaround for their own cards. This is not a diversion, it is what happened. nVidia took care of their customers, most people consider that a good thing. If I go to Burger King and get shitty fries I don't expect McDonalds to take care of the problem for me

and

That is a workaround, Sweeney could have had that built into the engine by default, but he didn't.

and

Oh, and another thing- if you think Eidos couldn't come up with it, why the hell didn't Sweeney do it in the fitst place?

and

The code isn't telling cards how to do AA

Actually, the code is doing exactly that.

Created is the wrong word. They implemented it. As for this not being a diversion, that is disingenuous. It is solely an attempt to place blame on Sweeney or ATI sans nVidia. The fast food analogy is just irrelevant, there ain't no freaking fries standard! (Seriously who put the straw in strawberry? Mother Nature did...) Distraction!

Wow, maybe do a bit of research first. I listed multiple types of AA that DirectX does not support at all, including hardware controlled methods and ones that were never part of the DirectX API. As someone with as much experience as you have, it should be simple to spot them

and

The problem is with the engine, not the API. The engine under DX9 doesn't support AA with deferred rendering. Go ahead and look it up

Really it doesn't support them? How the crap do they make it work? Is there another API they go through? Do they make calls directly to the driver? Maybe they open a port and talk directly to the card?

API? I thought this wasn't a DirectX solution. Either it uses the tools in the API or it doesn't. I call paradox.

From all the information I have seen that is what I am fairly certain they are doing, although I have not looked at the source code.

and

It isn't a supported approach to AA, it is a very creative workaround to an issue with a game engine.

I'm glad you agree, yet continue your rhetoric. You still have yet to show how said implementation is outside of DirectX calls and CAPS. Please do so?

In the end, all this crap comes down to the tools you use and how you classify them. An analogy, you could claim that the nVidia green is unique to them, but if you draw a pixel in that color using DirectX is the green implemented by nVidia, DirectX, or both?

 

[lopri]

The talk about how UE3 engine doesn't support AA natively or how lazy AMD's devrel is, is disingenuous. AMD has disclosed that it did maintained a 'normal' relationship with the developer (up to a point, after which it took a downturn) and tested/recommended how AA should be handled in this game. Also was revealed that the publisher's legal department advised against allowing in-game AA to AMD cards. In other words, it was the lawyers, not techies, made that call.

This incident is simply a case where NV outbid AMD for a game's co-marketing, and took the opportunity to change the rule-of-the-game to an unprecented area. (really makes you think about where Fermi stands) AMD has already lost the bidding, and there isn't anything it can do about it (at least when it comes to Batman: AA) so it decided to publicly cry foul.

Some folks seem to think it's OK for game developers to auction off otherwise-mundane in-game features to the higher bidder, then I'd say that position is a valid one. Certainly not mine, since my interest is that of a consumer's - as Akugami's posts aptly show. But as I stated at the beginnig, it's diseigenuous to call it other than what it actually is.

 

[akugami]

[Snipped out insignificant portions of the argument and this is what was left]

Dude, your arguments are full of fluff. I've pointed out the flaws in them. You keep going off on tangents when I point out the flaws in your arguments. I don't think I will be able to change your mind or hold a real conversation with you since you keep changing your arguments when you lose. It's almost like Wreckage 2.0 here.

Actually, the code is doing exactly that.

I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was the code isn't tied to some specific capability that can only be provided by an nVidia card. The implementation, while understandably not optimized for ATI cards, is somewhat standard in implementation. Enough that it doesn't require anything special to run on ATI cards. I think we can drop this issue on what the code can or can't do. I've said my piece on how I feel about this. I do think it was a smart move business wise by nVidia. Just that it's a bad move for me as a consumer.

You would have paid $10 less and gotten more then the console port that is going to make at least 5 if not 10 times more money and you think you are getting a bad deal? You pay less, and get more. You would just be upset because of jealousy that nVidia owners got more still. That is rather heavly on the side of loyalist.

A lot of game engines are already portable to a degree. Not saying there doesn't need to be debugging and recoding involved in porting the console game to a PC but much like porting a game from one console to another, the cost is much less than creating a new game from scratch. If they can't afford to charge $10 less on a PC version then they need to raise the price. That is a business decision.

But to claim I or anyone else is getting anything free as Seero has done is a flawed argument. If I paid for it then I'm not getting anything for free. If they can't afford to sell a game at price X then they need to raise the price, not add it in, or get more funding in deals (such as the ATI or nVidia support). Simple as that. If there is a lot of value added then I would indeed be willing to pay more money for the game. I've bought collector editions of certain games for the extras and will continue to do so. I don't buy the more expensive versions often but if the value add is there, I will do it.

Again, I understand this from a business perspective. I just don't like it from a consumer standpoint.

Look at the Radeon 4xx0 series. They didn't sell well because they are cheap,

You are correct there, they didn't sell well period in relative terms.

Not cool, you didn't fully quote what I was saying. The full line is "Look at the Radeon 4xx0 series. They didn't sell well because they are cheap, they sold well because they provided value." You tried to make it look like I was agreeing the Radeon 4xx0 series didn't sell well by only quoting the first half of my sentence. Agree or disagree, shoot the argument down or not, but don't play quoting games to try to misrepresent what I said.

Now, I don't think they sold as well as ATI would have liked but they sold much better than the Radeon 2xx0 or 3xx0 series and certainly judging by ATI's finances after the release of the 4xx0 series they sold enough where they weren't losing much money. Considering the state of the economy and how poorly ATI has done in the last two years, their financial state has made a huge improvement.

Finances and market share can take a bit of time to change.

I don't think I could disagree much more in this segment.

/shrug

It is not solely enthusiasts that make up sales for ATI and nVidia. To a degree it is OEM's that dictate a lot of the money that ATI and nVidia will see. OEM's will usually follow in the footsteps of the enthusiasts and contracts are signed ahead of time. The fact that nVidia has done so well in the enthusiasts sector almost dictates that they will get more contracts in the mobile sector. People tend to forget that ATI and nVidia were neck and neck in marketshare years back and it took years of blundering for ATI before dropping so low.

The discrete market may show ATI with only 1/3 of that niche while nVidia has about 2/3's of it but if we look at the overall market ATI currently has roughly 20% of the overall GPU market while nVidia has 25% with Intel taking about 50%. It's not a huge stretch to imagine ATi slowly chipping away a couple of more percentage points to even things out by providing better bang for the buck as in the Radeon 4xx0 series and grabbing a few more OEM contracts. Some markets change drastically, some take a while to show change. I think the GPU market is one that can take a quarter or two to show changes unless one company seriously screws up.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

This how the console market has always worked, and based on sales numbers most PC gamers have run like hell to the consoles. These things are not determined by people in a suit giggling about screwing people over. People vote with their wallets, and overwhelmingly they have voted that they like that method.

I'm not entirely sure if that's true, granted, I don't have any numbers, but I'd imagine the number of dedicated PC gamers that have switched over to consoles is relatively small. Regardless of how you look at it, the PC is a superior platform in all respects apart from ease of use, and anyone who has gotten past that barrier to entry.. well, I just don't see them giving up on the advantages.

I get the feeling that the expansion consoles have been seeing in the past few years is due mainly to groups that didn't actually play games before, due to the fact that they did not exist back in the heyday of PC gaming (either physically or as a market force).

I firmly believe that any 'wallet voting' going on with regards to consoles, console exclusives and DLC is because people are stupid and/or illinformed.

 

[evolucion8]

Your comment is the reason why there should be a vendor check. You said AA performance worst compare to the AA from CCC. Now who is responsible for that? The ones to developed the game? The ones that made AA made AA possible? Or ATI?

The dilema is this. If Nvidia allows ATI to run its code, then fanbois will say Nvidia deliberately put down ATI's performance. If Nvidia disallow ATI to run its code, then fanbois will say Nvidia is "blocking" what is open standard. So clearly, it is a lose lose saturation ofr Nvidia, score for ATI.

Totally wrong, I never said that the performance was worse, stop twisting my posts!! I only said that the image quality was considerably worse. Using the forced Anti Aliasing in the CCC looks much better.

Originally Posted by BenSkywalker
Overall they got way more positive rep then you seem to realize. Step away from the tech forums and into the general gamer forums. If you do, you'll get a glimpse as to why nVidia held such a dominant market position over the 4xxx series despite what the overwhelming majority of tech enthusiasts thought

While is true that Steam isn't the most reliable source for hardware stats, it gives you a pretty idea of what going out in the gaming community. The HD 48x0 series simply outsold the GTX series, period.

All videocards stats

GTX series__________6.61%
HD 48x00___________8.17%

DX10 GPU

GTX series__________9.42%
HD 48x0___________11.66%

The GTX series includes the GTX 260+, GTX 275, GTX 280, GTX 285 and GTX 295
The HD 48x0 series includes the HD 4830, HD 4850, HD 4870, HD 4890 and HD 4870X2

Considering that the HD 48x0 competes not only with the GTX series, but with the 9800, GTS series and 8800 series, its doing quite well.

 

[BenSkywalker]

This proof that you understand the issue, yet you still believe that it's not a DirectX supported operation.

This is getting obnoxiously tiring. Did Eidos write an API? No. Did Eidos even create a game engine? No. Eidos was working with U3.5 and it does not support AA under DX9. That is point of fact. Is it possible using DX calls to get around this? Yes, nVidia proved this. Is it possible to have a driver hack to get around this? Yes, ATi proved this. Are any of these function supported by the game engine natively? No, they are not. Hug a printed copy of the DX API if it makes you feel better, in the real world the technique was not supported by the engine they paid a hefty sum to use, nV put it in. ATi was offered, they said no. It is ATi's fault, there is no question about it. Unless you are a die hard communist, I don't see how there can really be a debate. It is not nV's job to try and compensate for ATi- no matter how you want to look at the situation. If ATi wants to compete in the gaming market they are more then welcome to do so- the rules have not changed from what they ever were.

You still have yet to show how said implementation is outside of DirectX calls and CAPS. Please do so?

I will do that, the instant you can show where someone has said any such thing.

Also was revealed that the publisher's legal department advised against allowing in-game AA to AMD cards. In other words, it was the lawyers, not techies, made that call.

I've pointed that out, the frothing at the mouth rabid ATi fans want to pin it on nV no matter what. From my perspective, even if nV did do it they have every possible right to do so. At this point I think it would be nice when nV pays for this years CoD DLC instead of them paying for the profoundly ungrateful ATi fans they put a vendor ID lock on that too(let the ATi fans pay the $15 the console players do).

This incident is simply a case where NV outbid AMD for a game's co-marketing, and took the opportunity to change the rule-of-the-game to an unprecented area.

Glide anyone? No, nVidia isn't remotely in the league of what we have already seen, not anywhere close. This game runs very well on ATi hardware, it runs AA on ATi hardware, the AA on ATi hardware looks better then nV hardware. What we have is epeen fanboys pissed that a game they won't ever play loses a benchmark.

Regardless of how you look at it, the PC is a superior platform in all respects apart from ease of use,

And game selection.

While is true that Steam isn't the most reliable source for hardware stats, it gives you a pretty idea of what going out in the gaming community. The HD 48x0 series simply outsold the GTX series, period.

I've torn this utterly ignorant stance to threads so many times I don't feel like doing it again. Besides the obvious ignoring of the majority of sales in the 48xxx segment on the nV side(which is in the 4850/4830 bracket) the Steam numbers also dump the 4770 into them too. I've linked all the numbers several times, actual sales numbers, revenue numbers, they all come out the same. The 4xxx parts sold about half of what their nV counterparts did.

 

[evolucion8]

Glide anyone? No, nVidia isn't remotely in the league of what we have already seen, not anywhere close. This game runs very well on ATi hardware, it runs AA on ATi hardware, the AA on ATi hardware looks better then nV hardware. What we have is epeen fanboys pissed that a game they won't ever play loses a benchmark.

Probably for the ones who cares about benchmark scores.

I've torn this utterly ignorant stance to threads so many times I don't feel like doing it again. Besides the obvious ignoring of the majority of sales in the 48xxx segment on the nV side(which is in the 4850/4830 bracket) the Steam numbers also dump the 4770 into them too. I've linked all the numbers several times, actual sales numbers, revenue numbers, they all come out the same. The 4xxx parts sold about half of what their nV counterparts did.

Why it is ignorant? Its real data, who told you that the HD 47x0 is dumped in there? Do you have any proof? Even if it does, it competes against the GTS 250 and it do fairly well. Only in your dreams the HD 4800 series sold half of the GTX series. The HD 48x0 series offered much better price, better 8x FSAA performance, DX10.1 and even XFX started to sell them, because the nVidia's boat was sinking because of the high costs of the GTX manufacturing and the little profits. A huge chip that was expensive to buy in the first place, a more expensive cooling solution plus an expensive PCB due to it's 512/448 bit BUS interface which is competing against the two times smaller RV770 with a two times less complex 256-Bit BUS PCB and offering identical performance?

If the HD 48x0 didn't sell that well, why nVidia had to drop the prices of the GTX 280 and GTX 260 and they had to create a GTX 260+ to remain competitive? Heck you can even check the Newegg SKU's and can see that Newegg have 42 different SKU's of the GTX series and 42 different SKU's of the HD 48x0 series. If the GTX outsold the HD series, why both are even? Spreading such lies and empty arguments, you are just derailing the thread with off topic stuff and even though I just did the same. I don't have anything to say to you about this anymore, I will stay in topic from now on.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Only in your dreams the HD 4800 series sold half of the GTX series.

Work on your reading comprehension, seriously. I never said that, my post isn't edited, read it again.

The HD 48x0 series offered much better price, better 8x FSAA performance, DX10.1 and even XFX started to sell them, because the nVidia's boat was sinking because of the high costs of the GTX manufacturing and the little profits.

nVidia made ten times the profit ATi did for the last quarter. Seriously, you are going to want to research this subject a lot more before debating it

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

And game selection.

Out of all the platforms, the PC still has the best selection of games in terms of breadth.

As well as *generally* the best gaming experience, although I don't know how much longer that will be true for.

 

[SolMiester]

This is getting obnoxiously tiring. Did Eidos write an API? No. Did Eidos even create a game engine? No. Eidos was working with U3.5 and it does not support AA under DX9. That is point of fact. Is it possible using DX calls to get around this? Yes, nVidia proved this. Is it possible to have a driver hack to get around this? Yes, ATi proved this. Are any of these function supported by the game engine natively? No, they are not. Hug a printed copy of the DX API if it makes you feel better, in the real world the technique was not supported by the engine they paid a hefty sum to use, nV put it in. ATi was offered, they said no. It is ATi's fault, there is no question about it. Unless you are a die hard communist, I don't see how there can really be a debate. It is not nV's job to try and compensate for ATi- no matter how you want to look at the situation. If ATi wants to compete in the gaming market they are more then welcome to do so- the rules have not changed from what they ever were.

.

Enough said really, I dont understand myself why ATi owners are having a go at nV?

 

[Schmide]

This is getting obnoxiously tiring. Did Eidos write an API? No. Did Eidos even create a game engine? No. Eidos was working with U3.5 and it does not support AA under DX9. That is point of fact. Is it possible using DX calls to get around this? Yes, nVidia proved this. Is it possible to have a driver hack to get around this? Yes, ATi proved this. Are any of these function supported by the game engine natively? No, they are not. Hug a printed copy of the DX API if it makes you feel better, in the real world the technique was not supported by the engine they paid a hefty sum to use, nV put it in. ATi was offered, they said no. It is ATi's fault, there is no question about it. Unless you are a die hard communist, I don't see how there can really be a debate. It is not nV's job to try and compensate for ATi- no matter how you want to look at the situation. If ATi wants to compete in the gaming market they are more then welcome to do so- the rules have not changed from what they ever were.

I'll hug it, if it affirms my stance. I never claimed it was supported by the engine, I claimed it was supported by DirectX. See below.

Whatever they paid they got bad DirectX code, as it did not do or selectively ignored the required checks to see if the hardware supported the rendering sequence.

I will do that, the instant you can show where someone has said any such thing.

Is this too complicated for you on a technical level? Do you understand how they are doing AA and that it isn't anything remotely like DX's AA support? If a game comes out with accumulation buffer style SSAA built into the engine because ATi wanted it coded that way it would be nV's job to get support up and running on their boards, it is not covered under the DX spec.

It isn't a supported approach to AA, it is a very creative workaround to an issue with a game engine.

Bold above. Either you check the caps bits in D3DMULTISAMPLE_TYPE add values for MultiSample and MultisampleQuality in the CreateDepthStencilSurface call or you believe it is not supported. You're using this standard tool to get an effect. If they code a feature supported by the DirectX CAPS bits and ignore it based on the vendor string, they are ignoring the standard.

 

[Schmide]

Enough said really, I dont understand myself why ATi owners are having a go at nV?

I own ATI, nVidia, AMD, and Intel, I'm writing this on a gtx260. I'm having a go at ignoring standards. Check my history, I support nVidia on anything that isn't a dirty marketing trick. I recommend their products quite often.

So GTFO with your divisive words.

 

[Seero]

I'll hug it, if it affirms my stance. I never claimed it was supported by the engine, I claimed it was supported by DirectX. See below.

Whatever they paid they got bad DirectX code, as it did not do or selectively ignored the required checks to see if the hardware supported the rendering sequence.

Bold above. Either you check the caps bits in D3DMULTISAMPLE_TYPE add values for MultiSample and MultisampleQuality in the CreateDepthStencilSurface call or you believe it is not supported. You're using this standard tool to get an effect. If they code a feature supported by the DirectX CAPS bits and ignore it based on the vendor string, they are ignoring the standard.

I said:

If having MSAA is such an easy task and you claim that you know how, why don't you write it out and send it to Eidos so all ATI user can enjoy AA without the need of "Hacking"? Either you ...

You said

It's not easy. It has, on the other hand, been shown in other engines and papers. If it is the method we all think it is.

I know it can be done. I am not saying I know how, but I am not blind as Nvidia has done it. Now my question is why not all other engines support MSAA.

Now you say

Whatever they paid they got bad DirectX code, as it did not do or selectively ignored the required checks to see if the hardware supported the rendering sequence.

I am a bit lost here. Are you saying some ...coughNvcough... paid someone to write bad code so some hardware can't run MSAA? Or are you saying that the original code is badly done?

If it is something trivial, ATI would have fixed it. The source code was uploaded to ATI's ftp server for solutions to the AA problem. Are you saying that someone paid ATI not to fix it?

ATI would have removed those problematic codes if it was as trivial as you said, but they did not. Why they fix it? The source code was give to ATI long before the game was released, would you have fix that if you are given the source code? could you? If you do know a thing or two about programming, that any locking mechanism can be undone when the source code is reviewed. Why didn't ATI fix the problem when they have the chance? Those e-mails clearly showed that Eidos was requesting resolutions from ATI, and what had ATI done about it? Eidos clearly stated that Rocksteady will have to start from sketches if they must support AA natively. What was ATI's responses?

Yes I can pretend I know, but there is no point doing so. I won't able to fix it even if I can see all the source codes. If you think you can, contact ATI and tell them that you are willing to enable MSAA in batman on ATI's behalf. Otherwise, your knowledge isn't really being useful here as no one is about to do it in this thread anyways.

It appears that you are the only one who have the heart to resolve the problem, while others simply ask to remove vendor check. However, if you do have a solution, here is really not the place to put it. Besides, I do believe ATI have people who can fix it. The question is why didn't ATI fix it. You know that DirectX API can not be blocked by Nvidia. It can only be done by MS. Are you suggesting someone paid someone who works in MS to do it? or someone paid MS to do it? Is it worth all that paying for a game that no one would have thought of having such success? May be it is just me, but I really thought that batman was going to be a sucky game before it was released.

Sorry I don't know how to put it better, so I put it as it is.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Enough said really, I dont understand myself why ATi owners are having a go at nV?

Here remains the focal point.

It is consumers that can buy one vendor or the other or GOD FORBIDS BOTH having a go at NVIDIA and EIDOS!

People paid for their hardware and paid for their software.

No one is asking for anything free - they paid or could be paying in the future in similar situations.

The situation is simple - NVIDIA paid EIDOS to have AA on BATMAN:AA and not allow ATi to have AA on BATMAN:AA.

It isn't a special code that only works for NVIDIA cards - it is a standard code that any somewhat current DX compliant card can handle.

Saying it is because of this or that is just BS!

Sincerely I don't care for this game. But I care for the precedent it opens - AS A CONSUMER.

You know some people don't need to wear a T-Shirt with some brands and eat and drink the shit those brands vomit - they can think by themselves.

This makes perfect sense from NVIDIA point of view - I'm not sure if it makes as much from EIDOS point of view - some people can't understand why Blizzard games always sell so well and why fucking WoW is the biggest money maker PC game on the face of Earth.

If NVIDIA is doing this, it is completely bad business for ATi not doing it, which could mean pretty much any game with DX11 on the making at this time would have DX11 exclusively done on ATi hardware.

If you can't figure the ramifications for the consumer choices in the future, well what can we do?

Jumping on accusing people from being this or that fan because they are defending their CONSUMER and WALLET points of view, and are especially worried about their freedom of choice in the future, is not on to say the least.

Or will you like in the future to have check what features are supported by ur NVIDIA or your ATi or even maybe your Intel (?) GPU, even though any of those GPUs can do all of them but are just being locked because your vendor lost a bid?

What will the ramification of this mean for the future of PC gaming and hardware industry?

Probably this is an overreaction, as in the end I can't see anyone winning this (maybe Intel if is interested), and this is more like a momentary strategy, because until NVIDIA can deliver Fermi/GF100/GT300, they don't have the fastest GPU anymore.

So it is quite easy, why CONSUMERS (of course some are just ATI fanboys) are whacking at this situation, while NVIDIA fanboys or some "lets save the companies" dudes are trying to convince the consumers that they should be happy and kiss the feet of companies of NVIDIA because they are so kind and only made this for the benefit of their consumers and for none personal benefit.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I said:

If it is something trivial, ATI would have fixed it. The source code was uploaded to ATI's ftp server for solutions to the AA problem. Are you saying that someone paid ATI not to fix it?

ATI would have removed those problematic codes if it was as trivial as you said, but they did not. Why they fix it? The source code was give to ATI long before the game was released, would you have fix that if you are given the source code? could you? If you do know a thing or two about programming, that any locking mechanism can be undone when the source code is reviewed. Why didn't ATI fix the problem when they have the chance? Those e-mails clearly showed that Eidos was requesting resolutions from ATI, and what had ATI done about it? Eidos clearly stated that Rocksteady will have to start from sketches if they must support AA natively. What was ATI's responses?
.

It is easy solution - they just need to remove the vendor check and it is working. Wait they can't cause it is NVIDIA code so EIDOS doesn't allow that to be changed.

Guess they can send a similar pile of code. Wait they can't because that would be similar to the code of NVIDIA, so a blatantly COPY of NVIDIA code!

 

[Schmide]

error post

 

[Schmide]

I said:

I know it can be done. I am not saying I know how, but I am not blind as Nvidia has done it. Now my question is why not all other engines support MSAA.

Now you say

Whatever they paid they got bad DirectX code, as it did not do or selectively ignored the required checks to see if the hardware supported the rendering sequence.

I am a bit lost here. Are you saying some ...coughNvcough... paid someone to write bad code so some hardware can't run MSAA? Or are you saying that the original code is badly done?

I'm saying Microsoft tells every developer to make rendering decisions based on the CAPS* bits, not the vendor string. It is bad coding otherwise. It could be the most elegant code, but if it doesn't follow protocol it would be considered bad.

* CAPS capabilities of the card

If it is something trivial, ATI would have fixed it. The source code was uploaded to ATI's ftp server for solutions to the AA problem.

and

ATI would have removed those problematic codes if it was as trivial as you said, but they did not. Why they fix it? The source code was give to ATI long before the game was released,

and some below.

The source was never sent to ATI only builds were.

Are you saying that someone paid ATI not to fix it?

WTF? This is absurd. I never even hinted this.

would you have fix that if you are given the source code? could you? If you do know a thing or two about programming, that any locking mechanism can be undone when the source code is reviewed.

Hell yeah I could fix it, comment out one line that does the vendor ID check, but this isn't the issue and I don't have and wouldn't be given access to such codes. Not without a bunch of paper, both monetary and legal.

I would add that any fix should be balanced with the appropriate checks and queries. Nothing is as trivial as it seems. It should never have gotten this far to begin with. Either you understand the controversy or not.

Why didn't ATI fix the problem when they have the chance? Those e-mails clearly showed that Eidos was requesting resolutions from ATI, and what had ATI done about it? Eidos clearly stated that Rocksteady will have to start from sketches if they must support AA natively. What was ATI's responses?

I don't think they show that.

Yes I can pretend I know, but there is no point doing so. I won't able to fix it even if I can see all the source codes. If you think you can, contact ATI and tell them that you are willing to enable MSAA in batman on ATI's behalf. Otherwise, your knowledge isn't really being useful here as no one is about to do it in this thread anyways.

This is almost offensive. Analyzing something, giving perspective on things, correcting poor assumptions, sharing my knowledge and experience is very different than looking over thousands of lines of code.

I don't think it would be fair to compare knowledge on rendering systems with you, BenSkywalker sure, but so much of what you are saying is just plain absurd and over simplified.

It appears that you are the only one who have the heart to resolve the problem, while others simply ask to remove vendor check. However, if you do have a solution, here is really not the place to put it.

Did I ever offer a solution or claim to have one? You seem to really have a problem with my analysis of this issue. I hope you would review what I have said and check it against what you are asking.

Besides, I do believe ATI have people who can fix it. The question is why didn't ATI fix it.

As much as you seem to want to make this AMDs issue, it really falls squarely on nVidia and Eidos. The only question I have ever asked is: Why did nVidia and or Eidos make rendering decisions based on the vendor sting?

You know that DirectX API can not be blocked by Nvidia. It can only be done by MS. Are you suggesting someone paid someone who works in MS to do it? or someone paid MS to do it? Is it worth all that paying for a game that no one would have thought of having such success? May be it is just me, but I really thought that batman was going to be a sucky game before it was released.

This is so reductio ad absurdum and a strawman. I neither said or inferred anything above, especially anything to do with payments. Please avoid any future generalizations based on my statements.

 

[Pantalaimon]

The 4xxx parts sold about half of what their nV counterparts did.

Really? Could you point me to the data that shows that specifically the GTX line sold double the amount of the HD 48XX parts?