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

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

It is only Eidos that can be blamed for that.

Nvidia did it, Eidos allowed it. Customers got screwed. The impact on ATI is minor and most likely insignificant, while its the customer who really pays for this.

Eidos had the final say, the fact remains that Eidos signed off on the deal, and brought the game to the market place. Whilst the direct impact of a move such as this may have little impact on ATI, it could cause uncertainty and unsettle it's customers. In the long run, Nvidia could benefit greatly.
Business isn't always about what we think is fair, it's warfare alot of the time.

Eidos had the final say, the fact remains that Eidos signed off on the deal, and brought the game to the market place. Whilst the direct impact of a move such as this may have little impact on ATI, it could cause uncertainty and unsettle it's customers. In the long run, Nvidia could benefit greatly.
Business isn't always about what we think is fair, it's warfare alot of the time.

I would be pretty annoyed even if I were an Nvidia customer. This isn't a free-for-all. We have regulations and rules to try and ensure that business is as fair as possible, even if it isn't in reality. And I notice throughout all of this that AMD is trying to take the moral high ground. I definitely do not want to buy products off someone who resorts to tactics like this to corner gamers, but as a pragmatist, if this continues and becomes more prevalent, I don't really see much of a choice than going to an NVidia card.

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

Eidos had the final say, the fact remains that Eidos signed off on the deal, and brought the game to the market place. Whilst the direct impact of a move such as this may have little impact on ATI, it could cause uncertainty and unsettle it's customers. In the long run, Nvidia could benefit greatly.
Business isn't always about what we think is fair, it's warfare alot of the time.

As I said in other words: Nvidia screwed the customers with their code. Eidos allowed Nvidia to screw the customers. Anti-consumer practise which is a dirty game they are playing.

I doubt ATI suffered much from this, if they suffered at all. Its the consumers that got hit.

This might all blow up in Nvidia and Eidos face if they get caught more. Anti-consumer and anti-competative practises are not looked lightely upon in EU as example. There are "fair play" laws just to prevent such dirty deals as Nvidia/eidos stroke.

Even worse, if its allowed to continue, we might see more of this in the future against Nvidia as well. Don't forget that Intel is entering the AIB GPU market next year.

Originally Posted by Tamlin_WSGF

As I said in other words: Nvidia screwed the customers with their code. Eidos allowed Nvidia to screw the customers.

NVIDIA screwed Eidos. Eidos screwed AMD customers.

The moral of the story? Don't let NVIDIA don't touch your code unless you're willing to accept the potential consequences.

Originally Posted by Tamlin_WSGF

As I said in other words: Nvidia screwed the customers with their code. Eidos allowed Nvidia to screw the customers. Anti-consumer practise which is a dirty game they are playing.

I doubt ATI suffered much from this, if they suffered at all. Its the consumers that got hit.

This might all blow up in Nvidia and Eidos face if they get caught more. Anti-consumer and anti-competative practises are not looked lightely upon in EU as example. There are "fair play" laws just to prevent such dirty deals as Nvidia/eidos stroke.

Even worse, if its allowed to continue, we might see more of this in the future against Nvidia as well. Don't forget that Intel is entering the AIB GPU market next year.

Until Eidos or Nvidia are brought before the courts or fined, it wrong for anyone to make such suggestive claims of being anti-competitve or 'anti-consumer?'
They are perfectly within their legal right to write such a code. It was ATI that was lazy and let this one slip.
Nvidia may just manage to create enough doubt in the minds of ATI's customers to benefit. Doubt and uncertainty are powerful tools. Ii would be foolish to think that ATI or any other successful company wouldn't do the exact same thing if there was a guaranteed and increased market share at the end.

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

Until Eidos or Nvidia are brought before the courts or fined, it wrong for anyone to make such suggestive claims of being anti-competitve or 'anti-consumer?'
They are perfectly within their legal right to write such a code. It was ATI that was lazy and let this one slip.
Nvidia may just manage to create enough doubt in the minds of ATI's customers to benefit. Doubt and uncertainty are powerful tools. Ii would be foolish to think that ATI or any other successful company wouldn't do the exact same thing if there was a guaranteed and increased market share at the end.

Its only in court you cannot make suggestive claims that these actions are anti-competitive and anti-consumers. If I pirate the game, I am still pirating it though I haven't gone to court or been fined for it. The same way, their actions are anti-consumer when they screw the consumers, even though they haven't gone to court for it. Don't put out a moral finger here and say that everything is allowed as long as you haven't gone to court for it.

Please don't use "they are perfectly within their legal right" in a global forum either. There is a lot of things you can legally do in many countries, which would be grotesq and despicable in other countries.

Nvidia screwed the customers of Eidos/Rocksteady with their permission. People who have paid for this game. I think we are agreeing on this one.

I don't know if you are trying to glorify Nvidia/Eidos for doing this or justify it in some way though. Do you welcome such treatment of gamers? I'm truely asking, because it seems so.

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

This issue has been hashed to death in many threads before this one my friend. Please explain this concept of "mutually exclusive" code to me as I haven't encountered before. Is Nvidia's code carnivorous and eats any competing code that ventures nearby?

See in the real world you can have:

if (DEVICE=NVIDIA) { //do nvidia stuff }
else if (DEVICE=ATI) { //do ati stuff }

Actually it's more like:

if (DEVICE=NVIDIA) { //do nvidia stuff }
else if (DEVICE=ATI) { //do NOTHING}

Nvidia did the same douchebaggy move with shutting down PhysX in its own hardware if it detects an ATI card in your system. This Batmangate is just more of the same BS.

ATI can't even provide AA code, because the Nvidia vendor check will shut down the ATI code the second it detects the hardware. So it was useless to provide any kind of code until the legal issues were ironed out and Rocksteady/Eidos agreed to REMOVE the vendor lockout code that Nvidia installed. They never did so thus why you have the current no AA for ATI cards scenario. Although you can 'hack' the vendor ID to make the game believe you're running Nvdia hardware and then it runs perfectly on ATI video cards. Which just reenforces the point that Nvidia didn't create any unique original code, they were just 'locking out ATI' because they had the leverage on Eidos to do so.

Nvidia may provide great support to devs, but at a price. If you don't agree to use our 'ATI AA lockout' we pull advertising and support from you. In this kind of economy Devs are basically forced to cave in to Nvidia on this. How does this benefit anybody except for Nvidia? It doesn't. Let's not try to sugarcoat this BS.

Originally Posted by vjcsmoke

Actually it's more like:

if (DEVICE=NVIDIA) { //do nvidia stuff }
else if (DEVICE=ATI) { //do NOTHING}

Its even worse:

if (DEVICE=NVIDIA) { //render AA }
else if (DEVICE=ATI) { //run code, spend resources goto vendor-id block}

So… They've not just tied a very ordinary implementation of AA to their h/w, but they've done it in a way which ends up slowing our hardware down (because we're forced to write useless depth values to alpha most of the time...)

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=1

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

Nvidia may just manage to create enough doubt in the minds of ATI's customers to benefit. Doubt and uncertainty are powerful tools. Ii would be foolish to think that ATI or any other successful company wouldn't do the exact same thing if there was a guaranteed and increased market share at the end.

Nvidia is scared that companies will go in their footsteps actually. They are actually pawing the way for intel to screw them, using the same methods:
From .PDF Nvidia vs. Intel legal dispute, Nvidia's response
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/69443/...unterclaim.pdf

Intel can immediately scare customers away from Nvidia's current graphics offerings by insinuating that these products will soon be unavailable for use on Intel's dominant platform.

Page 25

Nvidia is also informed and belives that Intel has other plans, both technical and strategic, that are designed to interfere with NVIDIA's license and to disadvantage NVIDIA in the market place, which may include improperly encrypting its buses, or degrading the performance of the buses.

Page 29

Basically, Nvidia might be screwed by Intel very soon. . Intel can even drop performance on any of their hardware when Nvidia's vendor-id is detected and screwing Nvidia through consumers. Worst part is that they have then only done what Nvidia is doing here. After all, why should Nvidia benfit from Intels work...

If I'm reading this right, Nvidia believes that Intel have plans of doing this already. Nvidia screws a developers customers in one game that runs competing hardware, Intel screws customers in all games that runs Nvidia hardware.

Consumers getting screwed again....

So many opinions and so little facts. Feelings may be hurt, opinions may be raised, morals may be breached yet few can seperate business from personal. I think alot of people confuse business ethics and morals with those of the personal nature.
So whether we feel that we are getting 'screwed' or not, or whether it is 'not fair', it's often irrelevant as far as the law is concerened.
I don't blame others for feeling mad or frustrated, however that does not mean that a crime has taken place. The law may be an ass, but that does not mean we can make up our own rules to suite. I am yet to see any strong evidence to suggest unlawful activity by either party. ATI would do the same if given the chance and could afford the risk.

The law isnt what is in question.
Its whether we find NVidias practices acceptable as consumers.
I dont and I own a GTX260 and 8800GT.

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

So many opinions and so little facts. Feelings may be hurt, opinions may be raised, morals may be breached yet few can seperate business from personal. I think alot of people confuse business ethics and morals with those of the personal nature.
So whether we feel that we are getting 'screwed' or not, or whether it is 'not fair', it's often irrelevant as far as the law is concerened.
I don't blame others for feeling mad or frustrated, however that does not mean that a crime has taken place. The law may be an ass, but that does not mean we can make up our own rules to suite. I am yet to see any strong evidence to suggest unlawful activity by either party. ATI would do the same if given the chance and could afford the risk.

I think you have been shown a lot of facts. Perhaps you have just chosen to ignore them.

During all your "dirty business is good business, one on one", facts still remain that its the private consumers that got screwed.

People don't voice up their opinions as a witness in a court of law. Law is irrelevant here, though a crime might have been taken place (anti-competative laws, anti-consumer laws).

You are talking about Nvidia vs. ATI vs. Eidos in a case which is Nvidia/Eidos vs. the customer. Perhaps you will be consistent and applaud Intel if they do as Nvidia fears (and believe is planned) and reduces performance on Nvidia hardware artificially, perhaps you will react as a consumer then and not think "coperate business" when its you who gets screwed in the end.

I hope for the last part and you will voice as a consumer then, instead of trying to smooth over consumer hostile actions. I'd love the irony though.

I appreciate all good business tactics regardless of the party involved. Good on Intel if they succeed. I just felt the need to point out those above facts, in the hope that other don't blindly follow. It has been implied on more than a few occassions within this forum that Nvidia and Eidos have broken the law and code of ethics, when there is no cold evidence to back this.
If your angry, or upset with them fine....just remeber that business and personal are different.

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

ATI would do the same if given the chance and could afford the risk.

And we should waggle our fingers at them when/if they do it to.

Bad form is bad form.

Originally Posted by PlatinumPC

I appreciate all good business tactics regardless of the party involved. Good on Intel if they succeed. I just felt the need to point out those above facts, in the hope that other don't blindly follow. It has been implied on more than a few occassions within this forum that Nvidia and Eidos have broken the law and code of ethics, when there is no cold evidence to back this.
If your angry, or upset with them fine....just remeber that business and personal are different.

They've broken the code of ethics as far as consumers are concerned and there are valid reasons to believe that the actions are anti-competitive.

When it comes to the law, a software pirate is not a software pirate until proven in court (innocent until proven guilty), the same way Nvidia/Eidos are not guilty of breaking any laws until proven so (according to the letter of the law). This is why its not so interesting to discuss what laws are broken, since you basically can do what you wish until you get caught and are not guilty of anything (in the eyes of the law) before the verdict of the court. You can download batman AA for free and enter the room as an innocent person, though you might leave as a guilty one (if evidence hold up, if they don't, you walk out innocent also). We are not in a court of law and we talk as consumers (private people, not companies).

I would give you the same advice back and say that you need to remember that business and personal are different. Nvidia/Eidos actions was directly hurting people, not coperates.

If Nvidias claims of Intel planning on limiting performance on Nvidia hardware happens, I'll be the first in line to protest against it. As a consumer/private person not as a company.

If Eidos remove the vendor lock, that's the best thing that they can do for the sake of profit and neutrality. I'm currently enjoying the game with FSAA using the change ID feature in ATT plus the patch that allows PhysX in my AGEIA PPU, and the game is inmersive as hell, but nVidia should change it's Apple attitud and be more cooperative with the gaming community and market, PhysX is understandable, but Anti Aliasing? Please...

Originally Posted by evolucion8

If Eidos remove the vendor lock, that's the best thing that they can do for the sake of profit and neutrality. I'm currently enjoying the game with FSAA using the change ID feature in ATT plus the patch that allows PhysX in my AGEIA PPU, and the game is inmersive as hell, but nVidia should change it's Apple attitud and be more cooperative with the gaming community and market, PhysX is understandable, but Anti Aliasing? Please...

The AA is NVIDIA copyright, Edios can't do a thing...or wait, infact they can.
They could code their own AA.

AMD could also contribute...by coding their own AA for the game (Like NVIDIA did).

AMD sorley needs something like NVIDIA's TWIMTBP program.
Blaming NVIDIA for "abandoning" gamers, when a big bulk of NVIDA is working directly with gamedevelopers around the globe dosn't carry any weight.

AMD needs to Get In The Game (pun intended) because close game developer realtions is not something you should just leave to the competition.

Originally Posted by Atech

The AA is NVIDIA copyright, Edios can't do a thing...or wait, infact they can.
They could code their own AA.

AMD could also contribute...by coding their own AA for the game (Like NVIDIA did).

AMD sorley needs something like NVIDIA's TWIMTBP program.
Blaming NVIDIA for "abandoning" gamers, when a big bulk of NVIDA is working directly with gamedevelopers around the globe dosn't carry any weight.

AMD needs to Get In The Game (pun intended) because close game developer realtions is not something you should just leave to the competition.

nVidia doesn't own anything in the game at all, they only own the vendorID lock implemented in there, there's financial and political reasons behind that issue, which is impairing the sales of the game among ATi users. ATi doesn't have to code anything, they need to support developers to help to code for it, if hardware vendors starts to code stuff in games, the developers will get lazy and even more segmentation will ocurr in the PC gaming market, like GLIDE vs DirectX again. Developers must reassure and make sure that their games will work on all hardware regardless, hence more wider audience and more profit.

AMD has a program called Get in the Game, but it doesn't even have a fraction of the games compared to the list of games under the nVidia program.

Originally Posted by Tamlin_WSGF

They've broken the code of ethics as far as consumers are concerned and there are valid reasons to believe that the actions are anti-competitive.

When it comes to the law, a software pirate is not a software pirate until proven in court (innocent until proven guilty), the same way Nvidia/Eidos are not guilty of breaking any laws until proven so (according to the letter of the law). This is why its not so interesting to discuss what laws are broken, since you basically can do what you wish until you get caught and are not guilty of anything (in the eyes of the law) before the verdict of the court. You can download batman AA for free and enter the room as an innocent person, though you might leave as a guilty one (if evidence hold up, if they don't, you walk out innocent also). We are not in a court of law and we talk as consumers (private people, not companies).

I would give you the same advice back and say that you need to remember that business and personal are different. Nvidia/Eidos actions was directly hurting people, not coperates.

If Nvidias claims of Intel planning on limiting performance on Nvidia hardware happens, I'll be the first in line to protest against it. As a consumer/private person not as a company.

Software Piracy is universally accepeted as illegal, regardless of whether it is prosecution that follows. Nvidia and Eidos are both clear of breaking any law as far as I can see. Unless Eidos was pursuant against Nvidia with regard to breaking contract or not fullfilling such, you would need to suggest it was collusion that took place instead.
There is a problem with this though, as you would need to show that Eidos was intentionally secretive or deceptive in it's behaviour.
There is no angle to go after Eidos or Nvidia from a legal point of view.
Once again, I understand that as consumers we may be concerned, angry or hurt, however you keep pointing to laws that have been broken as if it's a matter of fact.