Interesting article in Hexus regarding Batman AA, nVidia and ATI cards

I personally don't see the idea of some legal action as a possibility. Why you think that is the water mark that should be used is beyond me. Maybe I am missing something you were discussing earlier and if so I apologize. The fact remains the only law being talked about at this point is the imminent threat from Nvidia if Rocksteady is to be believed. I see little bearing though on the matter that this is a point of worthy discussion unless your willing to concede the fact asking for code from ATI is moot based on Rocksteady's own description of the situation. i.e. their own interpretation of what they can do to said code.

Why some of us are so outraged is a twofold argument. One is the nonsense perpetrated by Rocksteady against a large segment of gamers, and secondly the steadfast refusal of certain people to see this as an issue that affects all gamers vs. my gpu is better than yours. This isn't some grand plan that has shifted dominance in the market. This is an artificial manipulation of the market, or at least an attempt at such. With out the cry's of foul now, the slippery slope is begun. At what point is this acceptable to you? Maybe when your chosen hardware is gimped by a developer at the behest of a competitor? Legally Intel would be well within their rights to not do a damn thing with Nvidia GPU's other than gimp them. Doesn't mean they should, or I will be so inclined to cheer them on as some here are. Does another GLIDE paradigm seem like a good idea to you? I remember those days vividly, and never wish to see them again. Every time something like this slides it only emboldens the next to go even further. If Intel does the same to Nvidia will you be so apathetic then? What if ATI did the same during DX11 game development just to be petty? I somehow doubt anyone will. I used neither Intel or Nvidia in my latest build, but I think you and I should have the choice to do so in the future. Let the companies rise and fall on their own merits, if ATI goes bankrupt next week for making crap cards so be it. That won't be great for anyone, but the market has spoken. Someone will fill the void. To arbitrarily attempt to force people towards your product through something like this is something that should not stand. The easiest way to stop it is with your wallet and your voice. Let developers know you won't accept this sort of thing and they will listen if they wish to stay in business. Or shrug it off and keep your head down hoping the next to be crippled isn't your chosen platform. In the mean time if you can't see why so many have their "pantied in a twist" then what are you here for? To be contrarian for the sake of it?

Originally Posted by Atech

Stop quoting rumour-sites and post this "standard code"?
And name these "jugdes"?

A lot of FUD is being presented as facts on face value...no good.

Answer my questions. Please.

I find it funny that inter office emails are FUD. Their names are on them I am sure your aware of that.

Originally Posted by Ghettobox

I personally don't see the idea of some legal action as a possibility. Why you think that is the water mark that should be used is beyond me. Maybe I am missing something you were discussing earlier and if so I apologize. The fact remains the only law being talked about at this point is the imminent threat from Nvidia if Rocksteady is to be believed. I see little bearing though on the matter that this is a point of worthy discussion unless your willing to concede the fact asking for code from ATI is moot based on Rocksteady's own description of the situation. i.e. their own interpretation of what they can do to said code.

Why some of us are so outraged is a twofold argument. One is the nonsense perpetrated by Rocksteady against a large segment of gamers, and secondly the steadfast refusal of certain people to see this as an issue that affects all gamers vs. my gpu is better than yours. This isn't some grand plan that has shifted dominance in the market. This is an artificial manipulation of the market, or at least an attempt at such. With out the cry's of foul now, the slippery slope is begun. At what point is this acceptable to you? Maybe when your chosen hardware is gimped by a developer at the behest of a competitor? Legally Intel would be well within their rights to not do a damn thing with Nvidia GPU's other than gimp them. Doesn't mean they should, or I will be so inclined to cheer them on as some here are. Does another GLIDE paradigm seem like a good idea to you? I remember those days vividly, and never wish to see them again. Every time something like this slides it only emboldens the next to go even further. If Intel does the same to Nvidia will you be so apathetic then? What if ATI did the same during DX11 game development just to be petty? I somehow doubt anyone will. I used neither Intel or Nvidia in my latest build, but I think you and I should have the choice to do so in the future. Let the companies rise and fall on their own merits, if ATI goes bankrupt next week for making crap cards so be it. That won't be great for anyone, but the market has spoken. Someone will fill the void. To arbitrarily attempt to force people towards your product through something like this is something that should not stand. The easiest way to stop it is with your wallet and your voice. Let developers know you won't accept this sort of thing and they will listen if they wish to stay in business. Or shrug it off and keep your head down hoping the next to be crippled isn't your chosen platform. In the mean time if you can't see why so many have their "pantied in a twist" then what are you here for? To be contrarian for the sake of it?

Wow, what to say. I went back and read all the posts by you and Tamlin and my goodness but you guys can go on and on. (not being demeaning, I can go on and on too, just noting persistence )

The whole notion that this is Nvidia/Rocksteady vs the consumer and not at all Nvidia vs ATI is bogus. For instance, not a single customer that bought Batman who has an Nvidia card is affected. So it is only those who have ATI cards that are affected. Thus if you want to be technical it is Nvidia/Rocksteady vs "ATI" based consumers. The fuss started when consumers started noticing that the game played worse with their ATI cards. Then ATI came out and fussed with Rocksteady over the issue. Then the facts of the whole scenario started coming out, including the fact that ATI was a bit too busy with DX11 developers to bother pursuing the AA for one game. After it came out they made a big fuss over it and finger pointing and turned it into Nvidia vs ATI. Everything you just talked about in that paragraph above screams Nvidia vs ATI vs whatever other hardware company comes out. The whole slippery slope thing is exactly what that implies. Sure the consumers suffer from the fallout, but its not developers against consumers. If a country fights another country for control over a central region, it is still country A vs country B. It is not country A vs the central region. However, the central region still is the most affected by the situation.

Plus there is the constant battering of sending people back to the same links. Those links tell a good portion of the story but not the whole story. For instance, why exactly hasn't Rocksteady put the fix in? Is there really a legal reason, or is there some other software related reason? Maybe the backlash from consumers really isn't great enough for Rocksteady to spend the resources to do it, as simple as the fix may seem. The reason this all made the news is because of the foaming of the mouth going back and forth b/w ATI and Nvidia. The real impact to consumers is minor considering it is "1" game and it only affects users with that game that also have ATI cards. To further that, its only the users that actually care about the extreme performance and want to adjust AA. That is not to say other users aren't affected, but they probably aren't making much of a stink over it.

So really when did the backlash start happening? As soon as shots were fired between ATI and Nvidia and all the ATI fanboys started getting involved. So again, that turns this into an Nvidia vs ATI battle. Which is seems a number of people understand, but a few people want to diminish because of some warped altruistic view of the universe which doesn't actually exist in any of these companies.

The real question, is why the hell did those morons at Epic games release an Engine in this decade that doesn't do AA out of the box? Their games look like crap until you can find some kind of performance killing hack to enable AA.

Originally Posted by Obi_Kwiet

The real question, is why the hell did those morons at Epic games release an Engine in this decade that doesn't do AA out of the box? Their games look like crap until you can find some kind of performance killing hack to enable AA.

Deferred lighting + DX9...

Originally Posted by NoOther

For instance, why exactly hasn't Rocksteady put the fix in? Is there really a legal reason, or is there some other software related reason?

According to the article:

From: Lee Singleton
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Huddy, Richard
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum
Hi Richard,
We have worked closely with our local legal team today and we have been advised that we should not reuse or change the code written by nVidia. If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.
Best,
Lee

If Eidos is one controlling the lockout, then why would they need to consult anybody regarding making this change? And if Nvidia is in control of the lockout, all it would take would be a simple release of that ownership to Eidos to do with as they wished. It has already been proven that simply changing the Device ID results in MSAA working on ATi cards. Obviously Nvidia wanted the lockout put there and they want it to remain.

Originally Posted by NoOther

The reason this all made the news is because of the foaming of the mouth going back and forth b/w ATI and Nvidia. The real impact to consumers is minor considering it is "1" game and it only affects users with that game that also have ATI cards. To further that, its only the users that actually care about the extreme performance and want to adjust AA. That is not to say other users aren't affected, but they probably aren't making much of a stink over it.

That's completely wrong. The reason it made news is because of the outrage expressed by end users like you and me. The impact to consumers is potentially huge. If every video card company starts implementing lockouts, we'll all need a box full of video cards sitting next to our desks so we can swap out the Nvidia video card we were using to see all the graphics in Game A and swap in our ATi card so we can see all the graphics in Game B.

Personally, I also hold Rocksteady Studios partially to blame as well. If they'd had the balls to tell Nvidia what to do with the Vendor ID lockout, it could have nipped this entire fiasco in the bud. But the bulk of the blame lies with Nvidia for putting forth the lockout stipulation there in the first place.

Originally Posted by NoOther

So really when did the backlash start happening? As soon as shots were fired between ATI and Nvidia and all the ATI fanboys started getting involved. So again, that turns this into an Nvidia vs ATI battle. Which is seems a number of people understand, but a few people want to diminish because of some warped altruistic view of the universe which doesn't actually exist in any of these companies.

This is not a simple Nvidia vs ATi situation. It is Nvidia vs ATi + consumers.

Originally Posted by Creig

According to the article:



If Eidos is one controlling the lockout, then why would they need to consult anybody regarding making this change? And if Nvidia is in control of the lockout, all it would take would be a simple release of that ownership to Eidos to do with as they wished. It has already been proven that simply changing the Device ID results in MSAA working on ATi cards. Obviously Nvidia wanted the lockout put there and they want it to remain.

Please no more "Read the article" or "from the article" or posting links to the article. I have read all those articles and more. I am intimately familiar with what is in the article. However it does not say exactly what the reason is, just eludes to Rocksteady's legal team 'advising', not 'why' they advise it. While Nvidia had made comments to the effect that they can change it if they want. So what is the real story? That is what I am getting at, no one knows the full story. So again, don't point me back to the article I have already read. Saying "obviously" doesn't make it so. Nothing is obvious in this little affair. There are weaves within weaves within weaves going on.

Originally Posted by Creig

That's completely wrong. The reason it made news is because of the outrage expressed by end users like you and me. The impact to consumers is potentially huge. If every video card company starts implementing lockouts, we'll all need a box full of video cards sitting next to our desks so we can swap out the Nvidia video card we were using to see all the graphics in Game A and swap in our ATi card so we can see all the graphics in Game B.

Really? Then how come it didn't start showing up in many news sites or forums until the pissing match between Nvidia and ATI personnel started? And how come the majority of the information in those sites is about the pissing match between ATI, Nvidia, and Rocksteady?

Originally Posted by Creig

Personally, I also hold Rocksteady Studios partially to blame as well. If they'd had the balls to tell Nvidia what to do with the Vendor ID lockout, it could have nipped this entire fiasco in the bud. But the bulk of the blame lies with Nvidia for putting forth the lockout stipulation there in the first place.

I hold Rocksteady responsible for not writing their own code. Really in this whole affair the buck stops with them. It is their game, not Nvidia's or ATI's. Nvidia did some shady not necessarily illegal actions with the Vendor ID lock which I think could have had other reasons initially. There are a number of times when coders put something in just to get something to work properly initially and then forget to take it out. That could be part of the case here, although I don't put it past Nvidia to truly have ulterior motives in these things. We haven't really seen this same issue in too many other games and remember Nvidia has invested and helped out quite a large number of developers in the past.

Originally Posted by Creig

This is not a simple Nvidia vs ATi situation. It is Nvidia vs ATi + consumers.

Consumers are the fallout, not the object. No situation is "simple". Really this is an ATI vs Rocksteady situation that involves Nvidia only because Rocksteady had them do the code and then had to deal with the consequences. Rocksteady doesn't want to accept responsibility so they use spout something about "legality" and not wanting to touch someone else's code. Really I think it just comes down to laziness. They didn't want to write the code in the first place. They don't really want to change the code. The overall impact probably isn't enough to concern them. Again the margin of affected people that actually care and write to Rocksteady is probably pretty small. Obviously you see a few people on here get bent out of shape on it, because there is a lot of Pro ATI sentiment. Also most of the people who regulary come to this site and post here are the kind of people that would be noticing performance issues and the lack of AA support. But that is hardly at all indicative of the majority of the pc gaming market.

Originally Posted by NoOther

Please no more "Read the article" or "from the article" or posting links to the article. I have read all those articles and more. I am intimately familiar with what is in the article. However it does not say exactly what the reason is, just eludes to Rocksteady's legal team 'advising', not 'why' they advise it. While Nvidia had made comments to the effect that they can change it if they want. So what is the real story? That is what I am getting at, no one knows the full story. So again, don't point me back to the article I have already read. Saying "obviously" doesn't make it so. Nothing is obvious in this little affair. There are weaves within weaves within weaves going on.

You're correct in saying that they don't give the reason. But what other logical reasons could there be? Either Rocksteady/Eidos owns the rights to the code or Nvidia owns it. That it.

If it's Rocksteady/Eidos, then why would they purposely make their game look worse for a good percentage of their potential audience without some outside pressure from Nvidia? And if Nvidia is the one with ownership of the code, then they could easily turn the rights over to Rocksteady/Eidos if they wished to. But obviously they haven't.

What other possibilities are there?

Originally Posted by NoOther

Really? Then how come it didn't start showing up in many news sites or forums until the pissing match between Nvidia and ATI personnel started? And how come the majority of the information in those sites is about the pissing match between ATI, Nvidia, and Rocksteady?

The first I read about it was on a forum where somebody found that by changing the Vendor ID, they could get in-game MSAA functional on an ATi card. The back and forth email evidence was revealed later, after all the forums were already heatedly discussing the subject.

Originally Posted by NoOther

I hold Rocksteady responsible for not writing their own code. Really in this whole affair the buck stops with them. It is their game, not Nvidia's or ATI's. Nvidia did some shady not necessarily illegal actions with the Vendor ID lock which I think could have had other reasons initially. There are a number of times when coders put something in just to get something to work properly initially and then forget to take it out. That could be part of the case here, although I don't put it past Nvidia to truly have ulterior motives in these things. We haven't really seen this same issue in too many other games and remember Nvidia has invested and helped out quite a large number of developers in the past.

I also hold Rocksteady partially responsible. But it takes two to tango. This situation would never have developed either if Nvidia hadn't engaged in the shady actions you speak of.

Originally Posted by NoOther

Consumers are the fallout, not the object. No situation is "simple". Really this is an ATI vs Rocksteady situation that involves Nvidia only because Rocksteady had them do the code and then had to deal with the consequences. Rocksteady doesn't want to accept responsibility so they use spout something about "legality" and not wanting to touch someone else's code.

You just got done saying that, "So what is the real story? That is what I am getting at, no one knows the full story." and now you're placing the blame fully on Rocksteady? Nobody here knows who exactly is in control of the MSAA coding in Batman. So it could just as easily be Nvidia who is keeping MSAA from working on ATi cards. In fact, that's the likely answer. As I said above, what would the developer have to gain by making the game purposely look/perform worse on ATi cards?

Originally Posted by NoOther

As you mentioned earlier, Really I think it just comes down to laziness. They didn't want to write the code in the first place. They don't really want to change the code. The overall impact probably isn't enough to concern them. Again the margin of affected people that actually care and write to Rocksteady is probably pretty small. Obviously you see a few people on here get bent out of shape on it, because there is a lot of Pro ATI sentiment.

I have seen comments from quite a few staunch Nvidia supporters who have come out and said that this was a very bad move by Nvidia and that they do not approve of it. It can only bode ill for us, the consumers, if this practice becomes the norm. It is certainly already affecting ATi owners who wished to get their full money's worth when they paid the same price for the game as Nvidia owners, yet they don't get access to the same level of content.

So who really lost out there? It wasn't the developer. They got paid the exact same per game no matter what brand card was in the consumer's computer. It was the end user who happened to be using an ATi card that got screwed.

Originally Posted by NoOther

Also most of the people who regulary come to this site and post here are the kind of people that would be noticing performance issues and the lack of AA support. But that is hardly at all indicative of the majority of the pc gaming market.

It's hard to say. I've seen many PC gaming sites discussing this subject.

Originally Posted by Creig

You're correct in saying that they don't give the reason. But what other logical reasons could there be? Either Rocksteady/Eidos owns the rights to the code or Nvidia owns it. That it.

If it's Rocksteady/Eidos, then why would they purposely make their game look worse for a good percentage of their potential audience without some outside pressure from Nvidia? And if Nvidia is the one with ownership of the code, then they could easily turn the rights over to Rocksteady/Eidos if they wished to. But obviously they haven't.

What other possibilities are there?

First of all, I am just saying there could be many scenarios at work here. There are many nuances in legal contracts, especially when multiple companies are involved. Secondly, what good percentage are you referring to? Where do you get your numbers from? I have seen no numbers that in anyway reflect a large number of users complaining to Rocksteady about the problem.

Originally Posted by Creig

The first I read about it was on a forum where somebody found that by changing the Vendor ID, they could get in-game MSAA functional on an ATi card. The back and forth email evidence was revealed later, after all the forums were already heatedly discussing the subject.

The first I head about it was the back and forth on the twitter blogs of Nvidia and ATI reps which had articles about them, which spawned the investigation, which spawned more news, which spawned a later outrage by ATI owners when they learned about the problem...

Originally Posted by Creig

I also hold Rocksteady partially responsible. But it takes two to tango. This situation would never have developed either if Nvidia hadn't engaged in the shady actions you speak of.

In this case it takes three to tango. I didn't speak of any shady actions, I only commented on what others have said and speculation. No one knows what actually happened or the reasons behind the way things were coded, so you can't prove that Nvidia actually intentionally tried to hurt anyone at all. It could be that the Nvidia programmers used the Vendor ID for testing purposes and then forgot to take it out, which happens occassionally. Then, that gets exacerbated by Rocksteady not properly testing the game with an ATI card. Which then leads to problems later being revealed when the game is in production. And by that time already ATI comes with the holier than thou attitude which may very well caused Nvidia to decide to be the bad guy and not allow the change. But that also is merely speculation, just like everything else.

Originally Posted by Creig

You just got done saying that, "So what is the real story? That is what I am getting at, no one knows the full story." and now you're placing the blame fully on Rocksteady? Nobody here knows who exactly is in control of the MSAA coding in Batman. So it could just as easily be Nvidia who is keeping MSAA from working on ATi cards. In fact, that's the likely answer. As I said above, what would the developer have to gain by making the game purposely look/perform worse on ATi cards?

Yes, it is the developer's game. They are fully responsible for their game. They could have written the code themselves, or looked over Nvidia's code, or fully tested the game with ATI cards ahead of time and avoided the whole fiasco. Why would it not be Rocksteady's fault?

Nvidia is a dumbass and this is why they are going in the toilet..maybe if they spent all of the time they do trying to block ATi doing something else like getting fermi ready, they would not be so far behind....