Haha, nope mine would gone too. I'm a developer, but not of games :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Printable View
Haha, nope mine would gone too. I'm a developer, but not of games :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
really? i have to say, that when i spend money on a high dollar nvidia card i enjoy knowing that nvidia have spent lot's of money, time, and effort making sure that the card will work well with many of todays most popular games. i have no problem with nvidia lending devs a hand with validation and testing, if the competition isn't devoted to ensuring their product will satisfy their customers, then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mads321
again, really? nvidia DOES warn you that they helped with development, they place the [nVIDIA TWIMTBP] logo on the back of the box and in the opening credits for the game! again, i as an nvidia customer, like this. when i buy a game with the TWIMTBP logo i know my card will have no problems playing the game with eye candy and awesome framerates. amd simply GIVES devs money (codemasters, dirt2, $1,000,000) for development and no-one would ever know without some research. also, i believe the "slippery slope" arguement is a bit stale here, as this has been going on for years from both sides and never has the x game for y hardware prediction come true. not with hl2, fc2, dow2, or baa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mads321
ive never seen an ati branded game not work with NV parts, except for dx10.1 or 11 but if NV supported it i would bet that it will work.
and having an NV logo on the game shouldent mean warning if u have a non NV card you will be missing basic features
Thats obviusly not what i meant.. Of course Nvidia should be working their asses of, ensureing new games run great on their cards - all GFX manufacturers should be.Quote:
really? i have to say, that when i spend money on a high dollar nvidia card i enjoy knowing that nvidia have spent lot's of money, time, and effort making sure that the card will work well with many of todays most popular games. i have no problem with nvidia lending devs a hand with validation and testing, if the competition isn't devoted to ensuring their product will satisfy their customers, then so be it.
Where the line is crossed, is when the game ends up with standardized features, working exclusively on Nvidia's GFX. That's what i mean when I say Nvidia should "simply get the hell out of the software delvelopment".
Yes, they should be there for optimizing purposes, NOT for making cheesy deals under the table, making standardized features consciously disabled, only to favour Nvidia's cards over the competition.
Yes indeed, again! The TWIMTBP-logo tell's me that nvidia has helped optimizing the game, NOT consciously disabled features, only to favour Nvidia's cards over the competition. This is exactly where the line is crossed.Quote:
again, really? nvidia DOES warn you that they helped with development, they place the [nVIDIA TWIMTBP] logo on the back of the box and in the opening credits for the game! again, i as an nvidia customer, like this. when i buy a game with the TWIMTBP logo i know my card will have no problems playing the game with eye candy and awesome framerates. amd simply GIVES devs money (codemasters, dirt2, $1,000,000) for development and no-one would ever know without some research. also, i believe the "slippery slope" arguement is a bit stale here, as this has been going on for years from both sides and never has the x game for y hardware prediction come true. not with hl2, fc2, dow2, or baa.
Who gives a flying :banana::banana::banana::banana: about how much money they spew at the developors, as long as they don't expect to have their freaking cards run standardized features exclusively :shrug:
if nvidia didnt help them, the game would probably run worse for everyone, and the game just wouldnt have AA for anyone, like GTA4.
If you think there was some sabotage or conspiracy or something, you dont understand that developers typically have near total control over their own games, and that developers typically want their game to be as good as possible. Cause, ya know, they get the vast majority of their money from the sales of the game, not from hardware companies.
so, im really not buying the narrative that people are trying to create here: an ominous evil nvidia who has immense control over how games are made, and this innocent ati, who could be doing so well in these games if it wasn't for evil nvidia and their shysterism.
^ This.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Rockstar did the same with their Rage engine ( thus why GTA 4 is a jaggy fest from the early 90s ) Deferred rendering is ideal when you want to use high lighting counts as the render cost for full scene dynamic lighting is much much lower. The devs usually consider it a fair compromise to have all of these fancy shadows. However using DX10-11 AA *can* be supported (key word can ; as mentioned GoWs PC DX10 AA support is sketchy )
I still think their response is a tad :banana::banana::banana::banana:y and ignorant but perhaps that is just me...:p:
I remember BF2s release. Nvidia had a TWIMTBP add inside the boxes saying something along the lines of "With Geforce 7 series gpus you get advanced effects not available with the competition" Now I believe in this case that was merely due to a lack of SM3 on current gen ATI hardware but It kind of reminded me of this a tad.
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Yep, and all the complainers wouldn't care. But because Nvidia put in their time, effort, $$$ etc to get it for their consumers all of a sudden it's a goddam tragedy.
Honestly as time goes by the ATI shills are getting more and more pathetic, Nvidia is a 'business' and honestly I'm surprised they do not do more underhanded back alley dealings to get your 3-sizes too small panties in a bunch. Just use the hack, get more mature with your complaints or just shut up already! The mindless partisanship that gets more and more acute is really getting on my nerves.
Have to disagree and agree with some of you. Nvidia is about business but what they fail to understand is by further polarizing the industry in more fronts just causes the PC gaming to falter further from consumer frustration.
/agree and if you notice these "games meant to be played" anytime there is a problem with an ATI driver that isnt the fault of ATI. The developer never issues a fix...almost always denying the claim the bug even exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
this just happened. i dont think you have one of the six.Quote:
Originally Posted by jstutman
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
By all means, please enlighten all of us oh master of knowledge. Your three troll posts on the thread thus far haven't added much value to my life. Are you withholding information that would settle this debate once and for all?Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Why don't you tell us how this AA algorithm is both superior and at the same time inappropriate for ATI cards? Tech specs please, this is after all, a technology forum!
Now is your time to shine and show us all how much you know about game development!
As opposed to previously knowing that the game was built on the Unreal Engine 3? And therefore missing a basic feature? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Granted, when I made my comment I dont have "facts" to back it up, but ANY person who has played any PC game in the last several years from a large developer should see how the "$$$$" comes before the games, with a few exceptions from developers. Why so many patches for bugs that could have been found by a indie developer? Why do they release half completed games, why are some games programmed to benefit one vendor and not the other? It all boils down to the money game.
So what this boils down to is money.
AMD/ATI didnt give the software developer money they dont include the code.
Nvidia pays a software developer to include code that gives AA.
Well seen as I own an AMD/ATI graphics card, I dont see no point in buying the game if it doesnt contain all the features, the only people who really lose out is the people selling the game . . . tough luck, plenty of other games I can buy probally clear it in a few days & get rid of it anyway.
Other games dont get restricted like this, I wonder how much money Nvidia paid, at the end of the day if everyone was like me the people who made the game will end up losing out anyway.
It's a pity Nvidia dont spend more money on sorting out their drivers, having to switch drivers so that I get higher fps in one game to another, or having to disable sli so a game doesnt crash or sli doesnt work with one driver or gets broken in the next, thats why I got rid of my GTX295.
How do you do this? Can somebody help me out. I'd like to try. I am downloading the demo now.Quote:
Additionally, the in-game AA option was removed when ATI cards are detected. We were able to confirm this by changing the ids of ATI graphics cards in the Batman demo. By tricking the application, we were able to get in-game AA option where our performance was significantly enhanced.
Dunno if this works, but could be worth a shot:Quote:
Originally Posted by SamHughe
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads...tor_v1.22.html
Regardless, it probably doesn't work exactly as it would with an ATI card. It's no secret that Unreal Engine 3 does not natively support AA (it uses deferred lighting) and the claim that being TWIMTBP certified locks out ATI from working with the developers is completely untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
I see this bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: as a piss poor move on nvidias part. I believe this is all connected with batman. I think batman was suppose to be a "revolutinary" turning point for nvidia. Thats why they killed physx on ati cards at the same time. I have a ageia ppu for my ati card that has worked for years till now and this really stinks. They basically made the game a nvidia only game, and if you own a ati card there just fooling you into thinking that its same game. HONESTLY, IF I BUY THE GAME, I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE WHOLE GAME! not just some parts of it, and I should be able to use it any way I like. It should be sold as a different game for less money if you own ati hardware then, since im paying for the extra development done by nvidia and not using it. If your a NVIDIOT you can suck the part from my butt to my belly. I cant see this helping us as consumers one bit, and believe me this is a line in the sand. I vote with my dollars and Ati you deserve it. Ati is only advancing technology not kock blocking it. If you think adopting propietary standards with "conditions" help us, than there is no hope for us. Ever wonder why blue ray disks cost so much? I fight for freedom, not senseless hearding. Ati is back, bigger and better than ever, thats why were forced with all this nvidia nonsense.:nono:
I remember using a tool called 3DAnalize back when I had a Geforce 4MX and wanted a game to think it was a Geforce 5200 :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SamHughe
You can set the Device ID to be used with each game, alongside many other things i recommend NOT touching (Mostly Pixel&Vertex shaders forcing and manipulating, back in the early DX9 era).
The way I see it:
Prologue: Unreal 3 has problems with AA
Chapter 1: NVidia works with the devs to solve it. This means investing developing time (=money) into the game
Chapter 2: NVidia addresses the problem
Chapter 3: Since if NVidia hadn't invested time there would be no in-game AA; they obviously don't want ATI/AMD to also take advantage of NVidia's investment
Epilogue: NVidia invests money to an issue and they don't want ATI to benefit from their investment. So they don't get in-game AA.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I see nothing wrong with this.
Why wouldn't you buy the game mate? You're missing out, it's a great game with or without physx and AAQuote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
I will correct you , Basically the consumer is affected by their hunger for more money , and cripples choice to us the consumers . Its like the branding is starting all over the place . Here you get to have full use of the game since you bought our product . Oh sorry you only get 1/2 of the game because you failed to buy our product . Its just cheap and unethical . I'm sure people with deep pockets don't give a damn , but for the everyday consumers its a big deal . Same if Ati takes the same steps . Physx I understand if they block it , but why the AA ? Im sure if they decided to share , the would make more profits out of it , instead of making it like they are doing now .Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Prologue: Unreal 3 does not include AA at all. Why would this be Nvidia's problem? Saying it's ok for them to support Eidos develop it is one thing, but saying it's ok AND make it exclusive for Nvidia is another. It's like saying it would be ok if a company that made toasters, were to support only one kind of bread, because they helped make the recipe - you cath my drift.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Chapter 1: Nvidia puts (perhaps too much) money into the development of the game, and in return get's Eidos to detect, and disable AA if there is not an Nvidia card in your computer.
Chapter 2: Nvidia buys an insane amount of copy's of the game, to bundle with their cards
Chapter 3: The money Nvidia has now indirecly invested in Eidos, may or may not have an influence of features in the game itself, but by no means should any kind of lobyism (let's face it, it reaks of it) allow a game devloper to disallow competitors any features ingame, just because Nvidia is throwing them a party.
If we as consumers accept this, then PC-gaming as we know it will become increasingly more expensive for the end user in the years to come.
We could only dread the outcome, should ATi decide to fight fire with fire in this situation. This has nothing to do with fanboyism, trolling or favouring one over the other. It's simply saying what you will, and what you will NOT accept as a consumer - by any part!
The extra creepy part of this, is that you almost can't avoid getting the game in a bundle with Nvidia's cards theese days, and so you but money in both Eidos and Nvidia's pockets. It's a dual whammy.
Consider yourself corrected ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Meh. If there's no AA this is not NVidia's problem but if they can work with the developer to include AA exclusive for NVidia, it can be NVidia's advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mads321
You're talking as if the game by itself had AA but NVidia paid money to disable it for ATI hardware, but you then also say the game didn't have AA at all.
Fact 1: This game would not have any in-game AA at all if it weren't for NVidia's investments (development => work hours => money)
Fact 2: NVidia isn't a charity organization working for the betterment of our feelings - it won't invest money in something if it doesn't make them compete better in the hardware arena.
NVidia's options:
1. Do not do anything, let the game stay AA-less. Outcome: No money spent. AA-wise competitively, there is no difference between Nvidia and ATI.
2. Invest money, put AA in the game, and allow this for everyone. Outcome: AA-wise competitively there is still no difference between NVidia and ATI. But NVidia has spent money.
3. Invest money, put AA in the game, and make it exclusive to the owners of YOUR cards. Outcome: AA-wise competitively NVidia now has advantage that justifies the money they spent.
Now, I don't think any one of you is stupid enough to say (prove me wrong if you will) that NVidia are cold-hearted evil people because they have not taken the 2nd route (lose money, gain no advantage). The only logical routes to take are 1 or 3.
If they had taken 1, ATI owners would still be AA-less, so no difference for them. And if that were the case, would you be complaining because "NVidia hasn't spent money to enable AA?". No, if they had gone with route 1, I do not see anyone complaining about that.
But they have taken route 3, which didn't rob ATI users of anything at all, but merely added a feature for NVidia users.
Problem officer? I see nothing wrong with that.
So i'm supposed to feel sorry for Nvidia's investment in AA?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
I say what the hell are they doing investing money in a game for in the first place. Thats lobyism and business deal.. The issue here is not which logical steps Nvidia can take to make investments, the question is, where do we draw the line as consumers, because we are the only ones who can actually pay for Nvidia's "investments".
I have absolutely nothing against Nvidia putting money in develepors pockets, but claiming ownership on a standardized feature, currently being used in almost every freaking game realeased theese days, is just flat out arrogant bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:, and it's not like Nvidia dont know this. If they really want to make something exclusive to Nvidia cards, then by all means, they should go for it! Put the money into something exclusive, instead of paying their way to making the competior handicapped for christ sake... You really honestly don't see anything wrong in this? Saying Nvidia users got an added feature is true, yes, but since when was AA an Nvidia exclusive feature? Saying ATi users are not being jerked is just stubborn blindness.
Nvidia should not be allowed to have that much control, or say, in a software company that indirecly is also a client for their competitor. It's unfair competition.
Oh, and by the way, if AA wasn't developed for this game, maybe ATi could still have been able to run it "brute force" by enabling it in the driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelly
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpses3
You are entitled to the whole game, you are playing the vanilla console game, just like every other console port you play on the PC. It's just another console game, ported to the PC a few weeks/months later. The only difference is this time, it's a title worth playing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
Well I just played the demo and found myself performing crazy manoeuvres without doing anything except clicking constantly. Not exactly exhilarating.
In the demo directory there is a file named BaseEngine.ini. I found these lines:
[Engine.ISVHacks]
bInitializeShadersOnDemand=False
DisableATITextureFilterOptimizationChecks=True
UseMinimalNVIDIADriverShaderOptimization=True
PumpWindowMessagesWhenRenderThreadStalled=False
What does this mean?
I have to totally disagree with your logic and with those that share your views on this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Apparently (highlighted in red) means you're guessing, and completely missed the point.
nvidia got AA working on UE3, YES
nvidia got nvidia-AA working on UE3, NO
AA is not an exclusive nvidia feature, it is a gaming standard capable of being run by all of todays graphics cards.
What you should have said is, apparently AMD didn't think that nvidia would conspire with eidos to deny ATI cards working in game AA functionality.
This is not stereo 3D my friend, an exclusive technology to nvidia (currently),
this is frickin AA my friend, hardly proprietary or exclusive to nvidia hardware.
With AMD not ATI running things now, and intel in the form of Larrabee also squaring up against them, I see nvidia going the way of the matrox, or swallowed by intel.
Let me ask you this
Imagine we have DX13.1
a and b features developed by AMD only for Raedon cards
c and d features developed by nvidia only for GF cards.
Even though, here's the kicker folks, even though all features work on all cards!
So we have a DX standard but you can only run half of the features.
What will you have today sir? AA or particle effects?
Is this what you're condoning and arguing for?
Remember the AA is not an nvidia exclusive feature, so who cares that nvidia helped fix it, it still works with ati, all that needs to be done is allow it.
What do you need ATI engineers and programers for again?
Game developer just needs to lift the vendor restriction is all.
rhis. deliberately crippling the game on competitors card is criminal imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiades
i love the comments on how nvidia 'helped' gaming industry. well, they are doing it so they can be in business and gave moneu to throw at devs and not because they loove the devs.
not that ati is an angel here as they've tried similar crap before. but now, at this point in time, nvidia is being dishonest. this is almost open and shut.
You are right (in how things have happened). But the point is:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Until the moment, that sequence is a really common one for both NVIDIA and ATI with different developers, but neither ATI or NVIDIA has go to your "Chapter 3". This is a first time (that we know).
Example (on the other side): AMD is investing money in DIRT 2 to give it DX11 support (for both ATI and NVIDIA), AMD is investing money in Havok to give it OpenCL support (for both ATI and NVIDIA), AMD is investing money in Bullet to give it OpenCL support (for both ATI and NVIDIA).
The introduction of the "Chapter 3" in the chain, is a step detrimental to the consumer. IHVs support to the sw developers is supposed to be a way for them to ensure that the sw is perfectly optimized and buggy free (for their hw at least), or to give facilities to include features that they want the sw have for whatever reason. Good for the IHVs, good for the developers, good for the consumer. It's not supposed to be a way of introducing exclusive features for the hw of the IHV, even less with those features would be normally compatible with any standard hardware: good for the IHVs, maybe good for the developers (because the money/support they get in exchange), but very bad for consumers.
That's the main point of the complaints. Even if this goes nowhere further than this title (the best case), it's annoying for consumers because they're punishing certain hw choices with that game. The worst case (this ending in a war of sw products each exclusive to a particular hw brand), even if highly unlikely, it's possible, and it shows very clearly (because of the exageration) where the harm for the consumer is.
the UT3 engine was built to maximize the ati x1800 architecture on the 360, NV only came in by sponsorship and bought their way to neutered dx10 support. the last 3 years NV has been holding everything back on the software side and masking it by getting the focus to GPGPUQuote:
Originally Posted by LOE
adding/improving ut3 aa support is great!
but why did you implement a mechanism that checks the manufacturer of the card and basically blocks everybody else from using it...?
i understand that nvidia doesnt want to do the hard work for ati, but hiding features, and even implementing a sophisticated hw check to prevent people from using aa on non nvidia hardware is over the top.
not helping each other is fine and understandeable, but when you guys, ati and nvidia, start to purposely cripple and break games for the competition, things have really gone too far...
just call it "Nvidia AA mode" or grey it out and people need to manually edit a config file to enable AA... thats good enough!
its annoying for ati customers and emberassing for ati... thats fine, nobody can complain about that, nvidia gets its fame and can show it delivers better support to its customers, at least in this game... and all is good...
but locking non nvidia users out is really lame... you dont make any friends that way, and i doubt you end up with happy customers that way either...
The issues with this engine regarding antialiasing comes from the deferred shading technique they implement to render the image. It's a technique that messes up the graphic pipeline in order to obtain certain performance advantages with other things (particularly complex lighting), and as a result you can't apply straight forward AA. If you choose to use this technique, you have to implement a custom AA filter, or no AA at all. It has nothing to do with NVIDIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
That.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
You have a point with DX10.1, particularly because most of the things that are part of DX10.1 were initially specifications for DX10, but were left out because of NVIDIA supposed difficulties to implement them. And UE3 is a DX9/DX10 engine, so in an indirect way this is a little the fault of them. But about including DX10.1 and the AA in the engine once it is released... well, may be that has something to do with NVIDIA... maybe, but we can't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The thing is that they have locked a feature only because they have helped to develope it for a first time, and it's a first time to a very bad thing. It doesn't matter why that feature is necessary. It does matter that the feature is locked. Not a good path to follow...
UT3 has havok by default and they were payed to use physX by agea (NV did not have it then), NV bought its way in early bankrolled some of the costs but MS was the main concern since its the base engine on the 360 for most games and MS studios was one of the main dev teams outside of epic that shapped it. and remember doom3 when it came out NV had the FX it was crap and couldent play it on med but u couldent use ultra except with an NV card, it was one of the 1st TWIMTBP and affter legal threats for uncompetitive behavior and taking bribes the game was opened. this isnt somehow new, NV buys whole studios full of computers and gives them as gifts and helps through capital investors to get devs money and equipment that they normally wouldent have but in exchange they try to be the only thing tested and try to not let ati in to get day 1 driver support, its a not so metaphorical deal with the devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
i really hope that the EU deals with this, this is as bad if not worse than intel giving bribes for optimization in compilers
IMHO, I believe, Nvidia knows that their next gen card might be lacking, so all they did was bring out Batman with disabled AA for ATI, reviewers/users would have to use CCC forced AA for ATI cards which will decrease their performance and Nvidia's cards would look better in comparison.......And every1 knows apart from fanboism, reviews are what make these mid-high end cards sell........
cba reading whole thread but I do agree with the whole sentiments that some people here have where I question WHY ON EARTH Hardware experts need to go hold the game developers hands when making games...
Hardware devs. make hardware to a certain spec/protocol so its "uniform" to develop for
Game devs. make games with said specs & protocols.
Why can game developers not just work it out for themselves tbh...
argument is pointless. This is a situation where any information available is speculative and spun by the interested parties to suit their position. Until a disinterested party really gets behind closed doors and exposes internal business practices of both companies (which won't happen) this is one of the more pointless discussions i've seen here.
Oh there are always great games coming. I have a responsibility to myself as a consumer to not advocate the practices of Nvidia. Until lately I turned a blind eye to a couple things that were spotted in reviews a couple times etc but this time it is not funny. People actually have the PPU card for christ sake that now will not work because they have an ATI card. That just freakin blows a mile high and wide and then Nvidia tops it off by having the devs to take AA off the game once it detects ATI. This seriously is going to be the first step in a direction in which you will not like as a consumer and will be the final axe to the PC game industry when the crap hits the fan even worse. Console gaming will pick up the slack of ticked off PC gamers who don't want to play this game anymore. It's the principle of what is going on that makes me keep my money in my pocket for a better product by a more respectable company. The answer is always in the actions, not the words. Anyone can talk their way out of a jam and make it sound legit. The actions Nvidia made as of late makes me want to throw their hardware in the garbage and not look back. Nope, this game will not be bought and hopefully as consumers you will not either and take responsibility as consumers to show that you will not allow to be treated as such and participate in such childish behavior. Companies will get away with whatever they can. It's business and it's cutthroat and cold. It's consumers like you and me that shape the economy. Learn to take responsibility for your actions too or you really will have no say in how companies treat you. Right now there are choices, but for how long? Constant complacency is what is causing this crap behavior to begin with. That's why I won't buy the game. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by corpses3
Can you imagine a world in which consumers took responsibility? Seriously think about it. Your phone company decides to make another hike in monthly payments to cover infrastructure (as they say) but yet give the CEO's a massive bonus. Now if consumers were smart and responsible they would move over to a different company forcing the other company to shape up. But this does not happen as so many people in this world is as complacent as a deer in headlights and it is really sad. You basically have given the companies the golden shovel to do as they wish and to behave as they wish. Many of you think competition is the real economy shaper. It is not. It simply offers choice. The reason why competition is so regarded today is because the consumer has become stupid and irresponsible. Look at the economy and look at what caused it to fall. That's right..."irresponsibility". Sometimes I am embarrassed to call myself ...human and wonder if I was put here as a cruel joke. There are a few here that get it but it is in short abundance and the rest of us will suffer under the ignorance of others. It is sad indeed.
That's very naive. Protocols just provide a means of communicating with the hardware. Optimization and best practices are a completely different ballgame that requires understanding of the hardware and not just DirectX API calls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entity_Razer
it quite simple:Quote:
Originally Posted by Entity_Razer
game studio x has budget y that allows x to buy engine a and hire z programmers to use engine a, now z programmers is a small number since they dont have to develop a new engine and also they often dont know the full internal workings of said engine, the time required for those devs to dig through the code of the engine and hack and tweak it to get it working is often better spent on other things like bug fixing or AI.
nvidia, havok, middleware company m have dedicated dev teams that go onsite and can help integrate the middleware package with the engine, now these teams often work with the ue3 engine or gamebryo or whatever else and know the engine quite well, nvidia especially has been there for a lot of the ue3 development thanks to the TWIMTBP program. Back to my point its easy for an external dev team with the know how to come in and add a small feature than have your devs spend months figuring out the engine and hacking away at it.
PS. Batman isn't the first UE3 game to offer added AA, COD4 has AA afaik and thats UE3 as well, i cant recall if COD4 is a TWIMTBP title or if inifinity ward added AA themselves...
And that's where the "support by the IHVs" part comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
The supporter IHV invests money in helping a developer to implement/optimize certain features.
So the developer is helped to do the work. Great for them!
The consumer gets a sw product that it's more optimized than if not IHV support had existed. Great for us!
The IHV achieves that the product is perfectly optimized to its hw. So, either competitors make the same investments or the final sw product will work better on the hw of who has invested on optimizing the sw. Great for the IHV!
That's what "supporting developers" should be.
Not a way to start implementing features that check if competitor hw is installed to not let them run it.
I truly believe that i could not of put it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
:up:
And now ladies and gents, for like the first time ever, GTX 285 is beating up HD 5870, and all Nvidia had to do was to pay Eidos for handicapping ATi on purpose...
I would so much like to see benchmarks done on a HD 5870 with a changed device ID, so that the games native AA is being used, not forced on in the driver.
Please post benchmarks if you get it running folks!
http://peecee.dk/uploads/092009/batman-2560-bar.jpg
http://peecee.dk/uploads/092009/batman-1920-bar.jpg
http://peecee.dk/uploads/092009/batman-1680-bar.jpg
CoD4 uses its own proprietary engine, not UE3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Oh my bad, why the hell did i think it was running on UE3... bleh...
Because you wanted to twist the facts to suit your own biased agenda...
j/k :D
I think UE3 is junk, considering it's an engine for 2008/2009 and doesn't support AA out of the box. Thats just lame. Crysis looks light years more advanced and offers FSAA. Same the engine used in STALKER (forgot it's name). So bragging about awesomeness of NVIDIA is just lolish. But i have to admit the power of fanboys.
These are the guys who buy NVIDIA even if it sucks balls. I remember those poor souls back in the GeForce FX era. They were all in denial that FX series aren't broken, while ATI was hammering them with Radeon 9500, 9600 and 9700 on all ends. So running at NVIDIA just because of 1 crappy title is funny. And even this one game was bribed to run better. Oh noes. HD5870 is a kick ass hardware. Can't say what NVIDIA is cooking for GT3xx series, but we'll judge when we get the physical hardware, but at the moment, as far as single chip cards are concerned, there is no better thing as HD5870.
Dude, wtf are you talking about? :rofl: Who said you should buy Nvidia just because Batman has AA? Being an anti-Nvidia fanboy is no better you know...
And guess what: If Crysis used deferred rendering it wouldn't support FSAA either. You'd be stuck with that edge-detect blurring crap unless some driver hack was involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Meh, I'm starting to hate AA anyway. I no longer find blurred edges much more appealing than staircase edges.
Problem is the major population that pays for video cards dont know any better and never will, that is those in the mid to lower range area, and joe blows who buy OEM'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
they buy a system, they see a cool game buy it, install it and done.
It's naive to think ATi does not approach game devs and try and help them making the game run well on their hardware.
I think it was ATis Richard Huddy that once said in an interview what happened when they tried approaching one TWIMTBP game dev to help them out in any way possible. What they got was a middle finger. Yep game dev told them to fsck off cause they already have help from nV.
But most game devs gladly accept any help.
Here is an interview on this topic. Start watching at 10:00.
http://tv.hexus.net/show/2008/09/Int...Richard_Huddy/
im really urprised that game devs get involved like this...
they really dont need to... they make dozens if not hundreds of millions with games, why do they need nvidias or atis help or marketing budget bonus of 1million so bad? :shrug:
sure, small games, yeah... but big game studios?
remember how nvidia pushed ubisoft to pull 10.1 support cause it made ati cards faster than nvidia cards with aa?
and now they even push a game dev to remove aa support for ati altogether... sigh...
why do game devs go for this sht and dont just tell nvidia and ati, I DONT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS BS, ALL OUR CUSTOMERS PAY THE SAME FOR THE GAME AND HENCE WILL BE TREATED EQUAL...
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
I completely agree with you.
I quoted so more people would see this.
ok, then what about all the bugs that ati and nvidia help devs to iron out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcover
how about a game detecting that a card is vendor A and vendor B helped to iron out bugs, so the card from vendor A will use an older render path and possibly use older buggy dlls or files that cause bugs and stuttering and crashes and freezes, artifacts... you name it...
its only fair cause vendor B helped to debug the game, so they can demand that it only runs in the debugged mode they helped to create on their own cards right? and when is something a bug and when is it a feature? do game devs not care about aa? they obviously want it, but its broken in ut3, its buggy... so nvidia helped to fix the bug... and now they want this bug to only be fixed on their hardware...
dont you see how ridiculous this is?
if they dont cut the cr4p intel will be the smiling third party that everybody turns to, including game devs, cause EVERYBODY is fed up with this childish bickering between ati and nvidia...
around once a year it escalates for some reason and every single time everybody gets completely fed up with BOTH sides and it backfires on both companies... yet they never learn and keep doing this...
and worse, they keep pulling third parties into this nonsense, the press, game devs, other hw makers... :mad:
Thank you :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
Like you're quoting him so more people would see this, I'm quoting myself so more people would see the logic answer to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcover
If we are bringing back once and again the same points, we can keep doing it until the world ends in the big war of exclusive titles between ATi and NVIDIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
That's not a "logic answer" (whatever that means).
I was not talking about the health of the industry and I certainly didn't say that what Nvidia is doing is an awesome thing. I am merely stating that the only things that would make sense for Nvidia to do; is to either do what they have done, or not do anything at all.
Why are you guys complaining? Because in game Batman AA is now Nvidia exclusive. So you are saying that Nvidia should have enabled AA for ATI also, even if it's only NVidia spending the money to do this. That's not a realistic expectation for sure - you're actually expecting Nvidia to spend money so that us gamers can play a game with AA. For the good of our hearts.
I can see absolutely no logic in people's flaming of Nvidia for what it has done. It might be a bad thing for the future of gaming (or maybe not, I haven't thought a lot about it) but companies are there to be competitive and make money, not for anything else.
Also, the Dirt2 DX11 thing is a poor comparison to the current situation, here's why:
Like I said, if Nvidia had enabled Batman AA for ATI also, it would have gained no competitive advantage over ATI for doing this.
But when ATI helps Dirt2 with DX11 features and enables it for Nvidia too, they still gain advantage from their investment because only ATI has DX11 now, and the emergence of DX11 titles does wonders for ATI's market standing.
Then there you have it. You have officially accepted getting anal raped by Nvidia... good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Now, let's get back on topic.
You guys are so naive, it's funny. Companies are there to make money. They invest money, they expect returns. The RETURNS part is from the consumers preference of your products.
Everyone is getting "anal raped" by all companies, if that's what you call it. A company is making something and selling it for a profit!!! It means you're paying more than it's actually worth!!!! GOD DAMN CAPITALISM!!
It's also pathetic people think Nvidia does this stuff whereas AMD works for the betterment of the industry overall and does not care about the money in our pockets or something.
That's simply and plainly false. Both ATi and NVIDIA have been supporting sw developers for years now and never (that I know) they have impeded the code they have given to run on other hardware. There are several reasons to do this (no, they have not been doing this for years for charity).Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Yep, that's exactly what they should have done, or else, they shouldn't have done anything. In the same way that AMD is doing DX11 code for GRID 2 that every DX11 card in the market will can run (NVIDIA included). The same way they are coding for Havok, Bullet and Pixelux DMM to have GPGPU support though OpenCL (yes, in every OpenCL compatible card, NVIDIA included). The same way that NVIDIA coded parts of the Crysis engine and the UE3, and everything run in every D3D compatible videocard (yes, ATi included).Quote:
Why are you guys complaining? Because in game Batman AA is now Nvidia exclusive. So you are saying that Nvidia should have enabled AA for ATI also, even if it's only NVidia spending the money to do this. That's not a realistic expectation for sure - you're actually expecting Nvidia to spend money so that us gamers can play a game with AA. For the good of our hearts.
Is it not realistic? Am I dreaming, or all those thing have happened / are happening?
Yeah, and consumers are there to complaint and put pressure when that companies competition is starting to damage the consumer situation instead of benefit them. And there are mechanisms to protect the consumer against the natural competitiveness of industry. Do you think that because its natural for companies to ride roughshod over the people when they make money doing so, we should smile and accept it? Remember who gives to this companies that money...Quote:
I can see absolutely no logic in people's flaming of Nvidia for what it has done. It might be a bad thing for the future of gaming (or maybe not, I haven't thought a lot about it) but companies are there to be competitive and make money, not for anything else.
Well, but they win more if they don't allow NVIDIA users to do it. So... why not? It's the same.Quote:
Also, the Dirt2 DX11 thing is a poor comparison to the current situation, here's why:
Like I said, if Nvidia had enabled Batman AA for ATI also, it would have gained no competitive advantage over ATI for doing this.
But when ATI helps Dirt2 with DX11 features and enables it for Nvidia too, they still gain advantage from their investment because only ATI has DX11 now, and the emergence of DX11 titles does wonders for ATI's market standing.
Of course Ati/AMD want the money in your pockets just like Nvidia. Ati produces fast hardware for the consumer to enjoy at a decent price while innovating and progressing to higher performance levels & new technologies. Nvidia sells you overpriced inferior garbage bundled with proprietary PIssx & cuda fuda vomit and a warranty card that guarantees they will strangle the gaming industry in your favor for as long as you own their product. Your $699 GTX280 might be 0.8% faster than a $179 HD 4890 in the games we all play, but with (Cuda, Physx, GPGPU, FAH, TWIMTBP) even a $129 8800gt is faster than a 5870X2 BECAUSE BATMAN NOW HAS FOG!!!!!!!
Nvidia is lame...
You can get returns without :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing up the consumers who give you the money. There are things that the companies may want to do because its profitable for them. And they can't do this things because they harm the consumer base. There are mechanisms. There's the law. There's the punishing factor (you're messing with me? I'll buy the products of the competitors). And so.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
No. All companies would "anal rape" to the people if nobody avoid it. But it is normally avoided. For example, ATI and NVIDIA made a pact about prices in the past. That damages the consumer because of obvious reasons. It was demonstrated and both companies punished.Quote:
Everyone is getting "anal raped" by all companies, if that's what you call it.
The fact is that here NVIDIA has made a step that is damaging the consumer, and here the consumer should do something. What some of you are suggesting, is to give them a thumb up because "it's normal that they want so". I understand that they want to do it. But we as consumers shouldn't. So we should try to avoid it.
You are getting products for more than the big companies pay for produce them, but less than what you would have to pay to build them yourself, hours of work included, or other kind of constraints. Else, you would pass on companies and DIY everything. They are not making bad to us in that sense.Quote:
A company is making something and selling it for a profit!!! It means you're paying more than it's actually worth!!!! GOD DAMN CAPITALISM!!
NVIDIA does what it does, and AMD the same. They both are companies, they both play to the limit of what they think are their possibilities, and when any of them gives a step further than they should, we should condemn it, not given them a thumb up. This time has been NVIDIA, NVIDIA is the one who is going to be blamed. When it's AMD, it will be AMD. At least from my part.Quote:
It's also pathetic people think Nvidia does this stuff whereas AMD works for the betterment of the industry overall and does not care about the money in our pockets or something.
It's simple: every company play to the limit of what they can. We shouldn't let them to move that limit against ourselves.
Note: When I say NVIDIA, I say Eidos. I don't know which of the two has been worse here. For starters, I would not buy this game if I had an ATI card, that's for sure.
Hmm mature, he is just trying to put his argument forward, as are you, why act like a child? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mads321
Ok, so i can agree with you that that might have been a little harsh, but quite frankly it is (imo) the truth non the less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodkin
If you accept Nvidia lobbying for gamedevelopers in such a way, that it gets in the way of fair business and competetion, then someone in that calcuation must pay the price, and that party is not Nvidia or Eidos, but rather uninformed consumers.
If you know this (ie. you are informed) and you still consciously choose to believe Nvidia is handling things just fine and dandy, well then you have accepted to get screwed over (or 'anal raped' as i put it ealier).
Might seem childish with the harsh language, but that was merely to get my point acress. No pun intended what so ever.
Basically, what nvidia has done is not great for all users, but if you look at it in the cold light of business it is fair legit. They fixed AA, they want the benefits. They did not remove AA from ATI cards, just did not validate it.
Like I said before, I dont need eidos or nvidia telling me what works on my hardware. If I bought the game then I should be entitled to every one of its features, and run it any way I want. Regardless if it works or not. This is false advertising and very deceptive. When a company purposely sabotages my fun and enjoyment whats the point in supporting it. This is wrong, very wrong. Last time I checked nvidia didnt make this game, so why does it only work with thier hardware. Just for this im gonna seed this game for a year and not even play it.
First it a closed source game, so when you bought it you agreed to use it as they say, second how is it false advertising, the box does not have amazing AA on it in big letters
Some people will never be satisfied until someone is burning on the cross...
:shakes:
And all this as representatives from ATI and Nvidia, probably, still continue to meet to discuss how to best split the video card market.
:shrug:
WTF?
Sure is a lot of freeloading hippies here...
Its just messed up that nvidia only has to pay just a tiny part of the games devolpment, to earn disabling of ATI hardware. Just think if nvidia made the whole game, I would only get to play wire frames on my radeon.
First, closed source only means that you don't expose publicly the source of the code. Nothing else. I don't know what you mean with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodkin
On the other hand, if what you mean is that is a commercial (i.e. to make money) project then they can do whatever they like, no, it's not true. There are laws that regulate what a company can o can't do. And I have my doubts about this at least in EU, but I'm not only talking about laws here.
A company can't do what they want, because they have to do what the people want. Otherwise, they see not money (or less of what they can't do).
If people agree on companies doing this, then it's all right, of course. If we think that's good, then they can do it without problems. :yepp:
That's exactly the reason why I think we should not show us as conform with this, but... that's OK, I suppose there's some reason that I cannot see why we, the consumers, are benefiting on a situation where the hw companies start to allowing sw only running at 100% with certain brands.
Oh, there's a reason, actually. I think some people don't need to chose products when they make a buy. They just want NVIDIA no matter what else. And this is a perfect excuse to buy NVIDIA if the card is worse, for example... that makes that people happy because they have a justification to buy NVIDIA :yepp:
I can't think of another logical reason to defend this from a consumer POV, sincerelly.
I think I don't understand that comment. Could you care to elaborate? I've curiosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams
You have not ansewed by question about false advertising, and second you said if i buy a game I can do what I want with it. This is not true, you own a licence and must stick to it.
This is the key point. If you "outsource" industry standard features to "partner" companies where do you draw the line?Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
The real criminal here is the game developer; nV is just a willing partner.
Absolute crazy talk. +1Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodkin
I must be expressing bad or something. I've not answered about false advertising because I've nothing to answer about false advertising. Why you suppose I've to say nothing about false advertising?
I wanted you to note (1) that you're misinterpreting the meaning of closed source, and (2) you are supposing that because they have a license that you have to agree, they can do what they want with the product. That's not this way. Being commercial doesn't grant them the right to do what they want.
And I think I haven't said anything about what you have to do with your product and it's license. When have I said that you don't have to stick to the license? :confused:
I'm starting to be kind of confused with some arguments by here...:shrug:
:rofl: Tell me about it. Think it's time for me to hit the padded room for another 10 years! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaldor
Wow, my bad, got you confused with another post. My apologys
Don't worry about it :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodkin
Well, the games devs dont need Nvidia to implement AA but they need Nvidias money to exclude ATI. Some ppl thinks AA is there cause Nvidia made an effort - LOL!
Its jus stupide and shows that they dont threat their customers equaly.
:up: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Spot on. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I dont like this guy, but he has a point.:buddies:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
So people who bought the game are freeloaders because they just found out that AA is no longer considered the norm but a selling point and they are against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams
It's disappointing to see so much of you support this. If this is to be allowed than it's going to be the worse thing that happened since DLC.
I never thought I'd say this but I'll support consoles before I see pc gamers being penalized for not buying the right hardware become the new standard.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Truckchase!
If the developers didn't implement AA (which is a basic given feature when releasing a high budget game to today's market) for the second biggest card manufacturer then theyre a**holes.
If they basically had working AA, and didn't validate it for ATI cards, what gives? Thats crap, and that's lazy.
Good first post. Respectful and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
Not saying I totally back up Nvidia here. But your saying these game developers should track down ATI while they sit on their asses and doing nothing to get things from thier company implemented?Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
If I was the developer and Nvidia showed up at my door ready and willing to tweak polish with their hardware. I wouldn't give a crap if ATI never showed up, lazy idiots. Especially if they had less of the market.
the basic jist i get of this is.
ATI: omg your totally trying to sabotage us.
NV: Get off your but and learn to market!
ATI: But, but, companies should come to us, we shouldnt have to do
anything.
NV: I'm sorry that you think it works that way.
Again who knows what Nvidia actually did to this game was purposely disabling AA for ATI or not. But the fact of the matter is, if ATI would have actually done something about it before hand, not only with this game but others as well, it would have never happened anyway. Not that it makes it ok for Nvidia to disable AA though
Again that ATI did nothing, etc...
You don't even know if they don't come and say :'Will you need help?' and get answered : 'No need Nvidia is already here!' :shrug:
Recall : AMD pretends Nvidia prevent them for working with TWIMTBP games.
Who's lying? Who's telling the truth? Only Rocksteady knows.
I see nvidia attempting to monopolize the pc game market with these tactics. Being a PC game it should have some sorta standards in place. What if Nvidia dumped money into windows 7 development and made their own API, they could call it NVX. It would only work on nvidia hardware since nvidia bribed, sorry, implemented this feature. We could then make two versions of windows too while were at it for intel and amd.This would be totally awesome, I then could play only the pc games with NVX. If I owned a ati card then id only have half of the already small list of games released for PC, maybe Ati could create their own API called ATX. This sounds so great I cant believe it hasnt been done sooner.
PC gaming has been on life support for AGES, just kill it off and give up and buy a wii for 200$, these kind of tactics only hurt the PC community and gamers, with you and me both deprived. PC gamers are what fuels the PC market, who really needs a computer with more than 2 cores.
It is false advertisement when you say a game runs with standard PC hardware but only half the game works. There should be a warning label on this game saying full game only Nvidia compatable, (Ati version not validated).