NV: Everything under control. 512-Fermi may appear someday. Yields aren't under 20%

[Genx87]

I don't think you can prove there were no plans to add AA into the game before nV showed up.

and the davs claimed the code was nVs so they couldnt enable it on ATi cards even if they wanted to.

Why not? This isnt hard to figure out. The devs said they werent going to implement it and they werent until Nvidia showed up.

The devs didnt say that. They said they added the id check. The code is outside Nvidia's routine. Nvidia said the code was free to use on all vendors. Nvidia didnt make a demand it not run on anything but ATI cards. If this is what they do, then why do TWIMTP games often run as good or better on ATI cards? Why wouldnt Nvidia force the developers to not run any optimized or customized code or hell for that matter the game itself on ATI hardware?

 

[GaiaHunter]

What do you mean? Before Nvidia showed up there were no plans for AA in the game. So yes, we can definitively say there wouldnt be AA in that game.

"NVIDIA CHARGE TO SAVE US FROM LACK OF AA!!!"... Or were they "invited"?

This kind of action is very popular in consoles.

For example, another annoying feature that keeps getting more popular is DLCs. Are the devs just adding extra features that weren't planned or just finding a way to charge more for the same product?

Additionally downsides are seen in the ability to mod some games - and Modding is one of the things that gives PC gaming a incredible edge over consoles - look at the popular game series Total War. Compared to some mods out there the original games are such a pale thing. Of course why would you buy Sega/CA DLCs unit packs when a mod can dozens of realistic units with art models that are awesome compared to the ones made by the dev? Lets make it harder to mod!

I'm not a socialist or a communist that thinks profit is evil, but there needs to be a moral line - we aren't here (or shouldn't be) to rape each other. Some of these trends we see, are really annoying for the consumers.

I bet you hate DirectX then right? Wish we were stuck in OpenGL land?

I dislike windows monopoly and the lack of credible/hassle free (as in hassle free not free, although if it is free I won't complain) alternatives (especially for gaming). Media Player? Nope, VLC and Winamp. IE? No - Firefox. MS Office? No, OpenOffice.

 

[evolucion8]

Nvidia didnt lock them out though. The developer decided to make that decision. Nvidia provided the code, the developer chose who gets to use it.

Why not? This isnt hard to figure out. The devs said they werent going to implement it and they werent until Nvidia showed up.

The devs didnt say that. They said they added the id check. The code is outside Nvidia's routine. Nvidia said the code was free to use on all vendors. Nvidia didnt make a demand it not run on anything but ATI cards. If this is what they do, then why do TWIMTP games often run as good or better on ATI cards? Why wouldnt Nvidia force the developers to not run any optimized or customized code or hell for that matter the game itself on ATI hardware?

Totally wrong. The Developer's Legal Team told the developers itself to keep the code unchanged, because it was an nVidia propietary code to implement Multi Sampling Anti Aliasing and the code came with the DeviceID check. Stop spreading false claims.

" I’m surprised and pleased by authorised NVIDIA spokesperson Lars Weinand’s clarification that “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.”

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.

I trust that you will also confirm that no similar activity will take place on any other games?"

There's more:

"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...)!""

Source: http://forums.techgage.com/showthread.php?t=5313

There's more!!http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/11/4/batmangate-amd-vs-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx

The explanation given by Rocksteady was that the nVidia "used some special technique that couldn’t reliably be expected to work on AMD hardware and that EIDOS has done some sort of QA test on AMD hardware and found problems." On August 12, 2009 - less than 48 hours after the initial version of the code marked with "MSAA Trademark NVIDIA Corporation" was uploaded to AMD's FTP server - Rocksteady uploaded new version of the code that still didn't allow for in-game MSAA of ATI hardware.

AMD contacted Rocksteady and Eidos again and the immediate response from the developer was that there was at least one more build before they went final, and that Rocksteady would try to get that

 in. The odd situation that we have here is that code was proprietary to nVidia is identical to the standard advice both companies used ever since DirectX 10.1 came out and sorted out Anti-Aliasing calls. As we all know, DirectX 10.1 removes excessive passes and kills the overhead that happened in development of the original DirectX 10.0. Even if you have DirectX 10.0 hardware, in most cases that DX10.0 overhead is run over by DX10.1 if developers had adjusted their approach to MSAA.

By late August, Rocksteady got back to AMD and stated "that they [Rocksteady] will look back and try to sort that one out for Day One patch, but that it was too late to hit the Golden Master. We were expecting that Day One patch would contain that MSAA-enabler. They made a clear statement it is Rocksteady's intention to enable MSAA on our hardware. When the Day One patch arrived, we were disappointed that it didn't contain that support."

Rocksteady gave a clear intention to enable in-game AA code on AMD cards with a statement that found its way to Beyond3D Forum: "The form of anti-aliasing implemented in Batman: Arkham Asylum uses features specific to NVIDIA cards. However, we are aware some users have managed to hack AA into the demo on ATI cards. We are speaking with ATI/AMD now to make sure it’s easier to enable some form of AA in the final game."

Things turn out even more interesting when the game was released. On Batman: Arkham Asylum Forums, people experimented with nVidia code and got it to run on ATI hardware in a very trivial way - by changing vendorID from ATI to nVidia. On September 11, AMD's Ian McNaughton posted a very interesting post claiming that by changing the VendorID from ATI to nVidia; you would not only get AA selection inside the game, but also higher performance. There was a thread on Eidos' forums that explained how to enable in-game AA on ATI hardware, but it went the way of dodo birds:
"We don't know what happened there, we don't know did nVidia went back and stated "Hey, we wrote this code and pushed through our own QA and it is not O.K. for you to loosen it up and let it run on anyone's hardware but ours."

"We don't know if EIDOS or Rocksteady went back and think up some sort of excuse - I don't know, but proprietary claim I suspect, comes from some kind of track record from nVidia that the code was made by them and that they didn't wanted to allow it to run on our hardware.
I am not sure why Eidos came to such a conclusion that there was a rendering problem. People have been able to experiment to run that nVidia code on AMD hardware and as far as I am aware, never met a problem making it run. If you were to go to EIDOS discussion forum about this for the moment, they have posted how to turn the Anti-Aliasing on through the Catalyst Control Center, you can notice that one forum poster posted immediately after how to make in-game control work on AMD hardware. As far as I know, there is no issue about it. So, I suspect that EIDOS must have got confused, they probably had reports of corruption because of some other problem we had on that particular build of the game. They also might have pressure; it is my guess from nVidia - not to allow this MSAA code to run on our hardware."

 

[Skurge]

snip."

Thanks a lot for that. Saved me a lot of digging.

 

[evolucion8]

Thanks a lot for that. Saved me a lot of digging.

hehe

 

[Genx87]

My memory must not be that great. I thought there was a story just a couple of months ago where EIDOS admitted they put the ID check in there. I dont have the time or effort to search for it. So Ill take this as proof that is not the case.

But this really sounds like a case of he said she said. The only thing I can take from that is AMD simply didnt step upto the plate. The legal dept interjecting themselves is SOP. They dont want EIDOS sued over changing code. I retract my statement the developer put the ID check in there. So we are back to the problem of AMD not offering up enough support and doing the wait and see approach.

If this is truely how it went down I honestly dont have a problem with it. AMD didnt do anything for their customers, Nvidia did, thus Nvidia customers get a value add. It isnt like Nvidia changed the game engine and prevented something that is native to the platform from working on AMD hardware. Maybe AMD should get off their ass and write a routine for this engine and be done with it, and stop playing the victim.

 

[Genx87]

I dislike windows monopoly and the lack of credible/hassle free (as in hassle free not free, although if it is free I won't complain) alternatives (especially for gaming). Media Player? Nope, VLC and Winamp. IE? No - Firefox. MS Office? No, OpenOffice.

And yet DX has taken us very far and squashed OpenGL. That was my point.

 

[Voo]

My memory must not be that great. I thought there was a story just a couple of months ago where EIDOS admitted they put the ID check in there. I dont have the time or effort to search for it. So Ill take this as proof that is not the case.

But this really sounds like a case of he said she said. The only thing I can take from that is AMD simply didnt step upto the plate. The legal dept interjecting themselves is SOP. They dont want EIDOS sued over changing code. I retract my statement the developer put the ID check in there. So we are back to the problem of AMD not offering up enough support and doing the wait and see approach.

If this is truely how it went down I honestly dont have a problem with it. AMD didnt do anything for their customers, Nvidia did, thus Nvidia customers get a value add. It isnt like Nvidia changed the game engine and prevented something that is native to the platform from working on AMD hardware. Maybe AMD should get off their ass and write a routine for this engine and be done with it, and stop playing the victim.

So Ati should disable all DX11 code paths for Nvidia GPUs in the games they worked on? Or to be more exact let the Nvidia GPU compute all the stuff but just don't let it display it, for some obscure arguments that are afterwards proven to be plainly wrong? And when Nvidia provides a patch so that the codepath works for their cards too just get the legal departement to step up and assure that the patch never appears?

You really think that's a morally aceptable practice and want to encourage that behavior? sigh, that's the problem with fanboys, they really try to justify even the most shady practices of "their" companies..
No I'm not saying that Ati is the saint here, since they did some rather dubious things in the past too, but that's just no excuse, if Ati did something alike and then pointed to this incident as an excuse that would be just as bad..

 

[badb0y]

My memory must not be that great. I thought there was a story just a couple of months ago where EIDOS admitted they put the ID check in there. I dont have the time or effort to search for it. So Ill take this as proof that is not the case.

But this really sounds like a case of he said she said. The only thing I can take from that is AMD simply didnt step upto the plate. The legal dept interjecting themselves is SOP. They dont want EIDOS sued over changing code. I retract my statement the developer put the ID check in there. So we are back to the problem of AMD not offering up enough support and doing the wait and see approach.

If this is truely how it went down I honestly dont have a problem with it. AMD didnt do anything for their customers, Nvidia did, thus Nvidia customers get a value add. It isnt like Nvidia changed the game engine and prevented something that is native to the platform from working on AMD hardware. Maybe AMD should get off their ass and write a routine for this engine and be done with it, and stop playing the victim.

Honestly, fanboy or not, that's the dumbest thing I have ever read.

 

[MrK6]

Honestly, fanboy or not, that's the dumbest thing I have ever read.

lol'd :awe:

 

[GodisanAtheist]

And yet DX has taken us very far and squashed OpenGL. That was my point.

DX doesn't only work on Microsoft's GPUs though...

 

[Dribble]

DX doesn't only work on Microsoft's GPUs though...

Microsoft don't make GPU's they make OS, and yes it does only work on Microsoft's OS unlike OpenGL which works on pretty well everything.

 

[Skurge]

Honestly, fanboy or not, that's the dumbest thing I have ever read.

LOL, good one.

 

[Skurge]

Microsoft don't make GPU's they make OS, and yes it does only work on Microsoft's OS unlike OpenGL which works on pretty well everything.

He was trying to prove the point that M$ don't lock out other companies from using DX.

 

[Genx87]

He was trying to prove the point that M$ don't lock out other companies from using DX.

That isnt what I was trying to show. I was trying to show propretary standards have moved us forward at a rate faster than open standards.

 

[Skurge]

That isnt what I was trying to show. I was trying to show propretary standards have moved us forward at a rate faster than open standards.

Nah, I wasn't arguing with that point, I was just making what GodisanAtheist was trying to say clear.

 

[GaiaHunter]

That isnt what I was trying to show. I was trying to show propretary standards have moved us forward at a rate faster than open standards.

But only for a certain environment.

You keep comparing DX to physX and the like from NV.

But the fact is MS and windows is a defacto monopoly, Linux and OSX notwithstanding.

While DX allowed us to move faster by "directing" the Hardware companies into the same direction, the fact is that the same hardware companies also pressure MS to integrate new functions in DX.

So when you compare MS and DX to NVIDIA and its proprietary standards it is far from the same thing - NVIDIA isn't a monopoly. ATI is there pressuring NVIDIA and vice-versa.

In this case, the proprietary standards of NVIDIA are closer to openGL than to DX, since it splits the market instead of unifying it.

 

[thilanliyan]

If this is truely how it went down I honestly dont have a problem with it. AMD didnt do anything for their customers, Nvidia did, thus Nvidia customers get a value add. It isnt like Nvidia changed the game engine and prevented something that is native to the platform from working on AMD hardware. Maybe AMD should get off their ass and write a routine for this engine and be done with it, and stop playing the victim.

As others have mentioned before, in light of your stance on the AA issue, should DX11 be locked out in games like Dirt2, Call of Pripyat, or Battleforge so it can't run on nVidia cards since ATI obviously put in the effort for that?

 

[Genx87]

As others have mentioned before, in light of your stance on the AA issue, should DX11 be locked out in games like Dirt2, Call of Pripyat, or Battleforge so it can't run on nVidia cards since ATI obviously put in the effort for that?

That is apples and oranges. Unless you are going to tell me a game developer will have ATI come in and write their entire engine for them?

Considering ATI cant be bothered to write an AA routine for this game that caused an uproar 9 months after the fact. Your hypothetical scenario is very unlikely.

But I wouldnt have a problem with ATI locking out Nvidia cards from any code ATI writes that enhances the experience for ATI consumers.

 

[Genx87]

But only for a certain environment.

You keep comparing DX to physX and the like from NV.

But the fact is MS and windows is a defacto monopoly, Linux and OSX notwithstanding.

While DX allowed us to move faster by "directing" the Hardware companies into the same direction, the fact is that the same hardware companies also pressure MS to integrate new functions in DX.

So when you compare MS and DX to NVIDIA and its proprietary standards it is far from the same thing - NVIDIA isn't a monopoly. ATI is there pressuring NVIDIA and vice-versa.

In this case, the proprietary standards of NVIDIA are closer to openGL than to DX, since it splits the market instead of unifying it.

I'd liken PhysX to Glide. A step towarda a unified standard. Glide pushed the market forward until DX took over. OpenGL got left in the dust.

 

[thilanliyan]

That is apples and oranges. Unless you are going to tell me a game developer will have ATI come in and write their entire engine for them?

Considering ATI cant be bothered to write an AA routine for this game that caused an uproar 9 months after the fact. Your hypothetical scenario is very unlikely.

But I wouldnt have a problem with ATI locking out Nvidia cards from any code ATI writes that enhances the experience for ATI consumers.

nV didn't write the UE3 engine either...the AA code wasn't anything "special" as is mentioned in evolucion8's post. It's a standard AA implementation from what I read. It is just locked out by the vendor ID check, which is why it runs fine when you remove that lock. Still think it's apples and oranges?

From evolucion8's post:
"The odd situation that we have here is that code was proprietary to nVidia is identical to the standard advice both companies used ever since DirectX 10.1 came out and sorted out Anti-Aliasing calls."

 

[Genx87]

Nah, I wasn't arguing with that point, I was just making what GodisanAtheist was trying to say clear.

k

 

[Genx87]

nV didn't write the UE3 engine either...the AA code wasn't anything "special" as is mentioned in evolucion8's post. It's a standard AA implementation from what I read. It is just locked out by the vendor ID check, which is why it runs fine when you remove that lock. Still think it's apples and oranges?

Yes I do, the code was written by Nvidia for Nvidia customers. It really doesnt matter if it can run on ATI hardware. Why the UE3 engine doesnt do this natively within DX10 is baffling though.

You are suggesting ATI would lockout codepaths for another vendor. Unless they wrote the game engine for the dev I dont see how that is the same as bolting on code that allows for an enhancement. Nvidia afaik didnt lock out the DX10 path for ATI cards, only the ability for their cards to utilize Nvidia code for AA.

 

[railven]

Yes I do, the code was written by Nvidia for Nvidia customers. It really doesnt matter if it can run on ATI hardware. Why the UE3 engine doesnt do this natively within DX10 is baffling though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, from that info posted above - to me it seemed nVidia used generic/standard code and slapped a Vendor ID at the end - thus making it proprietary.

They didn't actually write the code, well aside the vendor lock.

It's like me paraphrasing/plagiarism your post but because I post it - it is therefore my post.

If it were "proprietary" why would a simple vendor ID switch unlock the function? Doesn't seem very "proprietary."

You are suggesting ATI would lockout codepaths for another vendor. Unless they wrote the game engine for the dev I dont see how that is the same as bolting on code that allows for an enhancement. Nvidia afaik didnt lock out the DX10 path for ATI cards, only the ability for their cards to utilize their code for AA.

Didn't nVidia do something similar during the AC fiasco? They locked out vendor code to prevent DX10.1 hardware from benefiting?

EDIT: Well, the publishers did, on their own, as we're told...just like Rocksteady did this on their own...as we're told haha. Gotta love conspiracy theories

 

[Genx87]

Correct me if I'm wrong, from that info posted above - to me it seemed nVidia used generic/standard code and slapped a Vendor ID at the end - thus making it proprietary.

They didn't actually write the code, well aside the vendor lock.

It's like me paraphrasing/plagiarism your post but because I post it - it is therefore my post.

If it were "proprietary" why would a simple vendor ID switch unlock the function? Doesn't seem very "proprietary."

I dont know how the code is actually written. But regardless if they tried to make it their own, they provided it did they not? If it was so generic what stopped ATI from doing the same? According to the article EIDOS approached both hardware vendors seeking their help. ATI didnt provide anything, Nvidia did. And to this day has ATI bothered to provide code to fix this situation or instead are they relying on EIDOS to remove the ID lock which Nvidia apparently has granted months ago?