Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

[Tim]

Can't believe people have been posting nVidia hate for 17 pages only to get owned on the 406th post.

Oh hold on, didn't I say that in the first pages? AMD dropped the ball? Oh yea I did.

- Case Closed -

[Luka_Aveiro]

Wow, I'd love to have all the weight that Eidos seems to have, to be able to come to an IHV and say "hey, I offer to you to program for free a couple features for my engine, or otherwise, they won't work on your hardware".

It's incredible. I can't say more. What a disrespectful attitude to their customers.

Disrespectful?

And how do you classify an IHV denying to work with a dev in order to test AA created with their direct competitor's resources, and then come to public whine about shady business tricks and blocking communication etc. etc. etc.??? Good will?

NOTE: I say that because it's fairly obvious that a solution specific to each architecture wasn't needed since one programmed over a standard API compatible with every standard hardware was found and implemented, so what they were asking was IHVs to do their work for them?

This would be true, IF the UE3 engine had native AA support.

You cannot certainly expect others to do the work and you take advantage from it only because you exist, unless you are talking about raising child...

[highoctane]

As has been said over & over, ATI needs to up their involvement in the industry to insure their hardware is fully support. Maybe they need to be proactive and take the initiative to insure their customers are getting their money's worth from their hardware investment. You the customers are paying ATI for their hardware, ATI should be dedicating enough resources to make sure your investment is SUPPORTED at the same level as the competition.

However the same crew will continue to blame Nvidia, even if ATI all the sudden made a statement along the same lines odds are the same folks would still argue for the sake of hate against Nvidia in general...

[Farinorco]

Disrespectful?

And how do you classify an IHV denying to work with a dev in order to test AA created with their direct competitor's resources, and then come to public whine about shady business tricks and blocking communication etc. etc. etc.??? Good will?

Nothing. I wouldn't classify as nothing. It's not a matter of denying or non denying, things simply don't work this way.

IHVs are not by any means responsible of any software working / not working / being tested / etcetera except if it's the hardware (including drivers) fault. That's why intermediate layers such as DirectX exist.

One thing is to colaborate how you want because you want, other different that you have to do any work which is responsability of the sw developer under the threaten of not being supported otherwise.

This would be true, IF the UE3 engine had native AA support.

You cannot certainly expect others to do the work and you take advantage from it only because you exist, unless you are talking about raising child...

UE3 didn't have native AA support: all what it means is that you have to develope your own (the same way you develope everything else that UE3 didn't have, as every other game specific feature).It doesn't mean that you have to put the palm face up and ask the IHVs to do it for you.

That's exactly what a game developer is supposed to do. UE3 is already made by Epic Games. Is everything not already programmed in UE3 what the developers of the game are supposed to do...

You cannot certainly expect others to do the work and you take advantage from it only because you exist, as you say, that's why I say that I find absolutely demential those words by Eidos.

Dude...Let it go lmao @ Farinorco

Why? This is even more demential than what I thought...

EDIT: What will be the next thing? "I want to implement an absolutely awesome global ilumination system --that the engine I have chosen doesn't currently support-- so I want you to implement for me or otherwise I won't support it on your hw"?. It's ridiculous.

[Solus Corvus]

This simply reinforces my impression of Eidos being lazy. They farm the development of a feature out to NV (getting free work done on their game). And then they don't put any effort testing NV's code on a wider range of hardware. Basically Eidos was using the expected high sales to extort free work out of ATI and Nvidia. When ATI didn't bite ( AMD is on a tight budget + it's a TWIMTBP title + NV is already working closely with the developer ), Eidos consciously leaves paying ATI users out in the cold. Weak.

[Eastcoasthandle]

Nothing. I wouldn't classify as nothing. It's not a matter of denying or non denying, things simply don't work this way.

IHVs are not by any means responsible of any software working / not working / being tested / etcetera except if it's the hardware (including drivers) fault. That's why intermediate layers such as DirectX exist.

One thing is to colaborate how you want because you want, other different that you have to do any work which is responsability of the sw developer under the threaten of not being supported otherwise.



UE3 didn't have native AA support: all what it means is that you have to develope your own (the same way you develope everything else that UE3 didn't have, as every other game specific feature).It doesn't mean that you have to put the palm face up and ask the IHVs to do it for you.

That's exactly what a game developer is supposed to do. UE3 is already made by Epic Games. Is everything not already programmed in UE3 what the developers of the game are supposed to do...

You cannot certainly expect others to do the work and you take advantage from it only because you exist, as you say, that's why I say that I find absolutely demential those words by Eidos.



Why? This is even more demential than what I thought...

EDIT: What will be the next thing? "I want to implement an absolutely awesome global ilumination system --that the engine I have chosen doesn't currently support-- so I want you to implement for me or otherwise I won't support it on your hw"?. It's ridiculous.

This is an articulate and accurate post here folks.

[Farinorco]

This simply reinforces my impression of Eidos being lazy. They farm the development of a feature out to NV (getting free work done on their game). And then they don't put any effort testing NV's code on a wider range of hardware. Basically Eidos was using the expected high sales to extort free work out of ATI and Nvidia. When ATI didn't bite ( AMD is on a tight budget + it's a TWIMTBP title + NV is already working closely with the developer ), Eidos consciously leaves paying ATI users out in the cold. Weak.

Exactly. That's exactly what I think about it now with this Eidos response. Word by word.

[Helloworld_98]

funny how they declined, then send hate mail asking why they didnt get AA support

why waste money when your competitor can use their money to do the same job and then you can piggyback on it?

[AbelJemka]

So manufacturer have to send team to developer in order to have feature for theirs products...
So Eidos ask for developer to implement AA, next time they may contact Intel and AMD and will ask them to multithread theirs games.
If one say yes and the other no

[Bodkin]

Fuggers post sums my felling up. 17 pages of nv hate, and yet AMD have been muniputing the truth all along. They had there chance and egnored it, then when it came to light span it so it looked like it was NV. Spin at its finest. Cambell would be proud

[Manicdan]

i like how just one piece of news turned this from nvidia vs ati into eidos vs hardware.

some solid points being made, looks more interesting than the first 400 posts

[~CS~]

This makes no sense "ATI dropped the ball " ? What ball ? Can you imagine , having to have both graphics card vendors just to play two different games? Because ATI sponsored/helped to develop one and Nvidia sponsored another ,and they only work on own hardware .This would be catastrophic for gamers , this would turn this into console wars and pure stalemate .Fail to NV , Fail to eidos .

[Farinorco]

Fuggers post sums my felling up. 17 pages of nv hate, and yet AMD have been muniputing the truth all along. They had there chance and egnored it, then when it came to light span it so it looked like it was NV. Spin at its finest. Cambell would be proud

If you think that rejecting an extortion from a software developer who wanted some of their work done for free using the expected high sales of their game as a threat is "having a chance and ignoring it", then, yeah.

Oh, and please stop the "NV hating" thing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is glad here at seeing that the only NVIDIA's fault here has been to support the extortion, and that the main culprit here is Eidos.

The facts remain as they were: there's a feature which is purposely locked to not run on hardware that should be compatible. If it hasn't happened because of NVIDIA's pressure but as a punishment to AMD due to not wanting to program part of the game for Eidos, that's better for everybody. You know, it's better if it's a local thing to Eidos than if it's going to be the new trend for TWIMTBP games.

At least while other ISV's don't start to do the same, seeing that it works, of course.

i like how just one piece of news turned this from nvidia vs ati into eidos vs hardware.

some solid points being made, looks more interesting than the first 400 posts

Yep, at least on my part, I didn't considered the possibility of the developer doing such a thing, and there was nothing before that made me think into that. So the only other possibility was NV putting pressure on the developer to gain a commercial advantage.

Now, with this new info, I think different.

[Luka_Aveiro]

Fail to NV , Fail to eidos.

It's so nice to know AMD/ATI didn't fail at all in this whole episode

[zalbard]

So that's why GT300 is late - all Nvidia engineers and devs were sent to Eidos to teach them how to code.

[Final8ty]

“In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware. Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.”
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=791

This batman game ideai is going to be a bug seller.
Get ATI & NV round to do some of the gfx work.
Get AMD & Intel todo some of the core code.
Get Creative & Realtek to do the sound fx.

All for free, coool.

[~CS~]

It's so nice to know AMD/ATI didn't fail at all in this whole episode

Is this sarcasm i hear ? Care to elaborate and make your posts more useful ? Why are only quoting part of my post , work for FOX ?

After reading trough the whole thread , i see no way in which AMD/ATI failed , i only see random posts with no opinions but only links to statements which mean nothing to me .

[foch3 -USA-]

So apparently all ATi had to do, was send a guy down to Eidos enter in their device id's and BAM everything would have worked. But then why send a guy when you could just pick up the phone.

[Sadasius]

Hmmm what is the point of DirectX then? It's getting ridiculous!

[Manicdan]

what we are seeing is companies trying to get every penny they can, to raise their stock's price, all while sacrificing our enjoyment of games. no company mentioned here is innocent, and at the same time none are guilty by any obvious standard. BUT ALL could have corrected this at an insignificant cost to their efforts.

lack of pc gamers dosnt kill pc gaming, its corporations worrying about dollars more than review scores.

[Chumbucket843]

Hmmm what is the point of DirectX then? It's getting ridiculous!

talk that up with Tim Sweeney. he hates directx.

[STEvil]

talk that up with Tim Sweeney. he hates directx.

Then he should take up OpenGL like Carmack.

Oh wait, he hasnt.

[Chumbucket843]

Then he should take up OpenGL like Carmack.

Oh wait, he hasnt.

he hates fixed function. he needs every bit of help he can get. he is making unreal engine 4 by himself. lol.

[DilTech]

he hates fixed function. he needs every bit of help he can get. he is making unreal engine 4 by himself. lol.

John Carmack is making idtech5(an engine those of us in the know have a MAJOR eye on) all by himself as well. He also made all the rest of the id engines solo. Then again, the man is an entire development team by himself.

[LiquidReactor]

“In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware. Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.”
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=791

Wait what, doesn't UE3 already have built in AA? Seems like the only thing Nvidia worked on was making sure AMD cards couldnt run AA and turning some of the special effects into PhysX effects.

Scattering pappers on the floor as you walk by? C'mon...even crytek inhouse physics engine is better then that and they didnt need PHYSX to run it.