Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

[trinibwoy]

Dude, wtf are you talking about? Who said you should buy Nvidia just because Batman has AA? Being an anti-Nvidia fanboy is no better you know...

[randomizer]

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.

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.

Meh, I'm starting to hate AA anyway. I no longer find blurred edges much more appealing than staircase edges.

[Mr.Guvernment]

It's like I said many times. Vote with your wallet. You as the consumer basically trains how business's act. If they get out of hand and product don't get sold then they shape up. If you bit$h but buy it anyway then you are really not doing anything but helping support their bad behaviour. I for one will not buy this game as it is an obvious stepping stone in hurting us as the consumer and will help cause a rift in games. The line was drawn in the sand for me.

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's

they buy a system, they see a cool game buy it, install it and done.

[SimBy]

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/

[saaya]

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?

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...

[Nightcover]

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.

+1

I completely agree with you.

I quoted so more people would see this.

[saaya]

+1

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?

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...

[jaredpace]

Here is an interview on this topic. Start watching at 10:00.

http://tv.hexus.net/show/2008/09/Int...Richard_Huddy/

Thank you

[Farinorco]

+1

I completely agree with you.

I quoted so more people would see this.

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:

So, what we knew:

>UE3 has not any AA method implemented, and Batman:AA is coded over UE3.

>NVIDIA has helped the developers of B:AA to implement a custom AA filter.

>That custom AA filter developed in colaboration with Eidos is nothing exclusive to NVIDIA, since it's been proven to work with other D3D cards.

>Since NVIDIA has helped to implement (or completely implemented) that AA filter, they feel with the right to not allow people with hw of other IHVs to run their code, and "encourage" other vendors to implement their own code if they want that feature running on their hw, even when that code is perfectly compatible with any standard hw.

That bring us again to the main point of the discussion until now: is that right? Where those practices lead us, the consumers?

It would be the same thing if DIRT2 DX11 features (or part of them) don't work on NVIDIA DX11 hw when they release any, since AMD has supported the developement of that features.

It would be the same thing if OpenCL acceleration of Havok only works on AMD and Intel hw for the same reason.

The same for OpenCL acceleration in Bullet Physics.

Great for all consumers. There was a time where software coded over standard interfaces could be run on any hardware compliant with those standards. That was the whole point of those standards. There was a time... thanks, NVIDIA.

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.

[annihilat0r]

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.

[Mads321]

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.

Now, let's get back on topic.

[annihilat0r]

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.

[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.

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).

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.

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).

Is it not realistic? Am I dreaming, or all those thing have happened / are happening?

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.

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...

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.

Well, but they win more if they don't allow NVIDIA users to do it. So... why not? It's the same.

[jaredpace]

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...

[Farinorco]

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.

You can get returns without 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.

Everyone is getting "anal raped" by all companies, if that's what you call it.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bodkin]

Then there you have it. You have officially accepted getting anal raped by Nvidia... good for you.

Now, let's get back on topic.

Hmm mature, he is just trying to put his argument forward, as are you, why act like a child?

[Mads321]

Hmm mature, he is just trying to put his argument forward, as are you, why act like a child?

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.

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.

[Bodkin]

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.

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

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.

[Bodkin]

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

[Katanai]

Some people will never be satisfied until someone is burning on the cross...



And all this as representatives from ATI and Nvidia, probably, still continue to meet to discuss how to best split the video card market.



WTF?

[Bojamijams]

Sure is a lot of freeloading hippies here...

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

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.

[Farinorco]

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

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.

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.

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

I can't think of another logical reason to defend this from a consumer POV, sincerelly.

Sure is a lot of freeloading hippies here...

I think I don't understand that comment. Could you care to elaborate? I've curiosity.

[Bodkin]

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.