Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

[DilTech]

and yet there's AA support in GoW under DX10 path...

I mentioned that earlier, a few times actually... It also has it's issues with said AA in the DX10 path.

[Manicdan]

Well, maybe Batman 2 running only on NVIDIA and DIRT 3 or AvP 2 running only on ATi is a exageration.

But how about Batman 2 running only AA (ehem) and AF on NVIDIA, and DIRT 3 and AvP 2 running only certain DX11 effects on ATi, or Diablo 3 (or other Havok titles) running only GPGPU accelerated Havok effects on ATi, or Crysis 3 running only the Very High shader effects on NVIDIA?

And maybe the former was an exageration. Maybe not. We have it now the exact same situation with videoconsoles...

your right that consoles have similar situations, and with the ideas expressed in this thread it sounds like people are scared the PCs will follow the same path.

with consoles we do see games that work for both, and games that are exclusive, and the funny part is, the kind of uprising we see when one company who use to be exclusive, starts to design multi platform games (SquareEnix comes to mind). for games that work on both, differences are usually negligible, but we do have cases where there is a difference (does anyone know of any titles that are on PS3/360 where one was massively favored over the other? i dont keep up with consoles enough)

i still believe people are too scared a company will let themselves suffer profit loses to favor a company, and if they mess up big enough, reviews will show it, and sales will be hurt big time. look what happened on here over ingame AA, when you still have a work around by enabling it in CCC. (what kind of perf loss was noticed between the two methods?)

[DilTech]

On multi platform console games the most recent game that specifically favored one platform was Batman: AA(ironic, isn't it) which lets you play as the Joker for specific challenges on the PS3 as DLC which won't be released on the x360.

[RPGWiZaRD]

UE3 engine performs really bad with AA (at least with nvidia, dunno about ati) so that's the reason I think AA was not added as ingame option for starters. 200 series handles it a lot better than G92 tho, UT3 got even somewhat unplayable with AA4x from being more than perfectly playable with AA off with a 8800GT, there's a lot less performance hit with a GTX 260 but it's still huge compared to other games.

[jaredpace]

yah i've seen the tv commercial for that "play as the joker exclusively only on PS3"

Wouldn't it be neat if you could play as the joker exclusively on a gtx260?

[Mk]

I agree with Nvidia if ATI want it why don't they spend the money on developing teams?

[Manicdan]

On multi platform console games the most recent game that specifically favored one platform was Batman: AA(ironic, isn't it) which lets you play as the Joker for specific challenges on the PS3 as DLC which won't be released on the x360.

LMAO i didnt even remember that until now. but think people call that a nerf to xbox or a bonus to ps3 (and what did ps3 do to get him?)

which reminds me, i think i might have to get this for ps3 when its on greatest hits.

[Cuthalu]

I agree with Nvidia if ATI want it why don't they spend the money on developing teams?

Why do you think they don't? Is NV's propaganda really this effective?

[zsamz_]

another way nvidia screwin ati buyers
the good thing is no need for crappy chipsets no more
i buy only ati now
i dont give a crap for physx either
nice game rocks on ati too

[eric66]

Joker playable only on nvidia hardware !!! : 'why only nvidia ? cause ati didn't support us when we created joker scenario'.... I really expect such things from now on

[zanzabar]

I agree with Nvidia if ATI want it why don't they spend the money on developing teams?

maybe chevy should start working with the federal highway system so u cant use a ford on the interstates, its worked for years but now im not sure that it will run right on the freeway. thats just absurd this is the same thing

[Farinorco]

I agree with Nvidia if ATI want it why don't they spend the money on developing teams?

ATI does spend money on developing teams, as NVIDIA. Not in every developing team, of course (as NVIDIA). The difference is that until the moment (that we now) neither company had used their support to "lock" the features that they are supporting to their own hw.

For example, let me insist. ATI (sorry, AMD) is spending money on Codemasters to implement DX11 features (as the Batman AA is a DX9/10 feature). I wouldn't like that they include a check to not allow NVIDIA cards to run those effects (when NVIDIA cards have DX11 support, of course).

AMD is spending money on Havok to develope their OpenCL GPGPU acceleration. I wouldn't like that they include a check to not allow NVIDIA cards to use OpenCL GPGPU acceleration with Havok.

AMD is spending money on Bullet Physics to develope their OpenCL GPGPU acceleration. See above.

ATI (AMD) is spending money on those things, and that doesn't mean they are going to prevent NVIDIA users to enable those effects. Supporting developers to ensure their games are run bug free or well optimized (at least for their own hw), or to make easier for them to include features that you are interested for whatever reason they have, is all good. That's what "supporting developers" is meant to be. Not the case discussed here.

[Serra]

I don't know that I can say for sure that nVidia did anything wrong without having been at their discussions, but there is someone to blame: the game developer. Sure ATI could have sent in someone to work with them, but if a game developer can't test a feature like AA on ATI hardware, they shouldn't be making games in the first place. ATi should be able to come in to help *optimize* it, but in terms of ensuring that features as basic as AA work.. that should be something they can do.

[Mads321]

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 think that Nvidia should keep to their own, and simply get the hell out of the software delvelopment - PERIOD! Because this is the first and crucial step against open standards, which could end up in a scenario where one must have a cirtain GFX to be able to enjoy a cirtain game.

If you ask me, it should be illegal to work closely so together as Eidos and Nvidia have done in this case, without explicitly "warning" buyer's of both game and GFX, that this partnership has been going on behind the curtans. If not, then it's only a matter of time till the before mentioned scenario with x gfx to play x game becomes a reality.

So yeah, give Nvidia the finger, don't buy the game or any of the numerus Batman-theme'd or bundled Nvidia cards out there, and move on.

[Sly Fox]

I don't know that I can say for sure that nVidia did anything wrong without having been at their discussions, but there is someone to blame: the game developer. Sure ATI could have sent in someone to work with them, but if a game developer can't test a feature like AA on ATI hardware, they shouldn't be making games in the first place. ATi should be able to come in to help *optimize* it, but in terms of ensuring that features as basic as AA work.. that should be something they can do.

Yup.

Nvidia does a lot of nasty crap, but this doesn't sound like a case of it.

Although the way they're trying to play the high and mighty card is kind of pathetic, but whatever, that's PR for you.

Developers shouldn't need gpu manufacturer's to hold their 's. Are the days of devs taking any form of responsibility for their crappy games dead already?

[zanzabar]

Yup.

Nvidia does a lot of nasty crap, but this doesn't sound like a case of it.

Although the way they're trying to play the high and mighty card is kind of pathetic, but whatever, that's PR for you.

Developers shouldn't need gpu manufacturer's to hold their 's. Are the days of devs taking any form of responsibility for their crappy games dead already?

how can u say that this whole game dosnt reek of the way its ment to be played, there is no AA for non NV, then in the demo physX worked on the low lvl with no paper on the cpu but when its retail then physX has an ass load of paper eveyware making the cpu not work. u say that both of those were in the devs best interest to do

[Sly Fox]

how can u say that this whole game dosnt reek of the way its ment to be played, there is no AA for non NV, then in the demo physX worked on the low lvl with no paper on the cpu but when its retail then physX has an ass load of paper eveyware making the cpu not work. u say that both of those were in the devs best interest to do

Well PhysX is just pure unadulterated crap imo. I'm just past the point of caring about it, Nvidia knows it's a scam, we all know it's a scam. Just that there's nothing that can be done about it.

I just don't see Nvidia telling the devs, "btw you'd better not enable AA for ATI or we'll stop giving you checks."

That would cause such a *censor*storm, and for what? So they could have "exclusive" rights to AA in Batman? All my friends who play PC games daily don't even understand what AA is, they're not going to care either way franky. And I suspect that's pretty representative of the general population.

Seems like the simplest explanation is Nvidia made sure AA worked on their hardware so the devs enabled it. ATI didn't (to no fault of their own, they shouldn't have to babysit the developers), so they devs decided to be lazy buggers and disable it by default.

Could be wrong, but I just don't see what Nvidia could gain by this.

[randomizer]

This is what happens when you use deferred rendering. Same thing with STALKER, AA is dodgy.

[Mads321]

people are taking one sentence of the situation and reading way to much into it

what company in their right mind would butcher a game for half the population or prevent them from playing it at all. with prices for games freaking everyone out, lets imagine the price doubled since they can only sell them on half the PCs. that would ONLY happen if the game was paid for entirely by Nvidia or ATI, but even those kinda of things (like their tech demos) are not always hardware exclusive.

the biggest games can cost the most money to make, and will need to be sold to every person available to cover expenses.

i think this discussion should be taken away from what the current situation is by ignoring these facts and finger pointing, and think about it from a publisher/developer/hardware/consumer/economics perspective of what would happen in similar cases.

Well, that's half the truth. What happens if you could cover you'r potential losses (let's face it, ppl with ATI GFX will still buy this game), with a great deal on getting ur game bundled with numerous GFX

















Do you honestly think the batman game is in there curtesy of the develpor, or might Nvidia have bought a load of games from Eidos, in favor for something else?

I don't know what you make of that, but the only thing i see is:

[cowie]

ha ha i got the game code free,today i installed the game played for 1hour and it thuoght jeez you can have it,then i uninstall game nobodys missing anything.
todays games are so god awful its enuogh to just get a console and dont buy into this crap,and for me to say that is very bad hating consoles.
nobody wants a game that runs 150fps+ plays well+ great online play but just looks "good" so they got to sell it to you good.

[randomizer]

No game is awful enough to push me to consoles when console games are the same but 2x the price.

[trinibwoy]

Is there a filter for posts from people who don't know jack about game development and therefore shouldn't comment on these topics? This thread would be about 6 posts long.

[Frontl1ne]

ha ha i got the game code free,today i installed the game played for 1hour and it thuoght jeez you can have it,then i uninstall game nobodys missing anything.
todays games are so god awful its enuogh to just get a console and dont buy into this crap,and for me to say that is very bad hating consoles.
nobody wants a game that runs 150fps+ plays well+ great online play but just looks "good" so they got to sell it to you good.

Agreed

The game is ... I don't see why you guys are kicking up such a fuss about it. The devs went around it the wrong way, nVidia saw an opportunity and made the most of what they could (which is what any company would do) and ATi ended up getting the short end of the stick. But tbh, this game is such a god awful load of crap, I don't see why nVidia would even bother with it.

What I'd like to see is ATi stamped all over Modern Warfare 2 though

[KoHaN69]

Unreal 3 can support AA natively if implemented. (I've seen it many times, Last example: Mirror's Edge)

[Chumbucket843]

Is there a filter for posts from people who don't know jack about game development and therefore shouldn't comment on these topics? This thread would be about 6 posts long.

i am assuming that these would be your posts.