Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

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.

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?

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

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corpses3

Why wouldn't you buy the game mate? You're missing out, it's a great game with or without physx and AA

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo

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:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

So this is what we know:
- UE3 engine -> problems with regular AA (everyone knows that);
- nVidia worked with devs so their costumers could use AA with B:AA;
- their AA method is compatible with ATI cards (tricking the game into thinking you are using an nVidia card but using an ATI makes AA work - don't know if it flawless, however...);
- apparently, AMD was expecting to have AA enabled to their hardware, but since AA was brought up by nVidia+devs, it was only available with nVidia hardware;
If you ask me, I think AMD should publicly apologize nVidia+devs and start immediatly working with devs in order to make AA available with their hardware, in their own interest: if this situation gave them the will to complain, then it should give them aswell the will to fix the problem.
I mean, in the first place, AMD should have contacted devs in order to know why AA was disabled in the game instead of coming to public making this assumptions...
If it were in some other companies, some heads would roll...

---

I have to totally disagree with your logic and with those that share your views on this matter.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alcibiades

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

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.

---

You are right (in how things have happened). But the point is:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

The issues this engine has are due to nvidias intervention in the development process in the first place. The engine was built having nvidia technology in mind. AMD GPUs have more flexibility when it comes to AA due to their DX10.1 support, but they still won't get AA in those games, because nvidia made sure to get something in return of their investments, be that crippling gaming experience for customers.

Better than nothing huh? Punish those infidels for buying AMD hardware :D

---

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 GPGPU

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

The issues this engine has are due to nvidias intervention in the development process in the first place. The engine was built having nvidia technology in mind. AMD GPUs have more flexibility when it comes to AA due to their DX10.1 support, but they still won't get AA in those games, because nvidia made sure to get something in return of their investments, be that crippling gaming experience for customers.

Better than nothing huh? Punish those infidels for buying AMD hardware :D

---

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 saaya

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...

---

That.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Yep, and DX10.1 offers a much better workaround for those so called "issues" - but I don't see UT3 engine developers implementing it, I see them doing something very different. Look at my previous post.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Yeah right, and specially for the X1800 they also decided to include nvidia physics as well :D RIGHT :D

The UT3 engine, as I've already said was developed keeping nvidia architecture in mind. Probably every UT3 engine game, including UT3 itself is also a TWIMTBP game. Dunno where you get your crazy ideas, but that is most certainly not the case. And just in case you've missed the first UT3 engine demonstrations a few years back, search for them and hear what the developers themselves are saying.

What nvidia are making in reality is paying developers to create disadvantages for AMD hardware than can be pimped as advantage for nvidia. I mean c'mon, since when GPU makers have to pay and work with game developers just to get AA running? That's hilarious, and absurd. The problems with AA are not an issue, but by design. Nvidia sponsored and optimized design.

---

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.


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corpses3

Why wouldn't you buy the game mate? You're missing out, it's a great game with or without physx and AA

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entity_Razer

Hardware devs. make hardware to a certain spec/protocol so its "uniform" to develop for

---

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

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...

---

it quite simple:

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...