Another Batmangate article, this one from BSN,

[Valset]

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/11/4/batmangate-amd-vs-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx

fairly even handed. Nvidia clearly in the wrong for locking out AA but ATI not clean either due to poor developer relations. at least in their opinion. (though changing the vendor ID does produce good AA, kind of a no brainer on that part)

 

[SixtyWattMan]

One several hour long game, not too important. This and physx will all be forgotten soon enough.

 

[kumquatsrus]

One several hour long game, not too important. This and physx will all be forgotten soon enough.

if you say so, lol.

 

[Valset]

One several hour long game, not too important. This and physx will all be forgotten soon enough.

it was and is a fairly big title. and Nvidia is not without some complaint here, they did provide all the developer support. Of course the way they did that was shitty but I can sort of see their point here. I would be more sympathetic to them if they had just been honest about it.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

I would be more sympathetic to them if they had just been honest about it.

I doubt that Eidos and Nvidia would advertise the game with "Disclamer: Eidos and Nvidia have blocked AA on ATI hardware".

 

[jsadie1]

I doubt that Eidos and Nvidia would advertise the game with "Disclamer: Eidos and Nvidia have blocked AA on ATI hardware".

How about : Disclaimer - NVIDIA has custom code in the game to ensure AA works via in-game control pane and works well but we do not allow ATI to run this code for free - they need to write their own code as our game engine does not allow for native in-game AA support.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

How about : Disclaimer - NVIDIA has custom code in the game to ensure AA works via in-game control pane and works well but we do not allow ATI to run this code for free - they need to write their own code as our game engine does not allow for native in-game AA support.

I think it would be more covering:

Disclaimer: Nvidia offered us Microsoft directx AA code in return of blocking it on ATI cards. We accepted that deal and decided to screw you as a customer.

 

[Earley]

After reading the article three things are clear to me:

1. The supposedly trademarked special 'Nvidia-only' implementation of the MSAA was 100% industry standard work the way any experienced programmer would have done it for either platform.

2. Nvidia delivered the code as late as possible and then lied about locking out ATI.

3. ATI worked with Eidos at all stages of that project and had a dedicated engineer working with them to see how it would work on DX9, DX10 and DX11. The MSAA implementation was a trivial piece of programming and they did not imagine that it would be any problem until they saw the built going to Golden Master that had their hardware locked out.

The rest is a bit of he-said she-said but clearly Nvidia wanted to pull a fast one and it was Eidos who got caught in the middle. I mean, criticize ATI all you like for being aloof, but at least they're transparent about it.

 

[Painman]

This is mostly a popcorn-munch for me. I don't even own Batman: AA and probably never will.

Eagerly awaiting activation of my DiRT 2 coupon, though.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

After reading the article three things are clear to me:

1. The supposedly trademarked special 'Nvidia-only' implementation of the MSAA was 100% industry standard work the way any experienced programmer would have done it for either platform.

2. Nvidia delivered the code as late as possible and then lied about locking out ATI.

3. ATI worked with Eidos at all stages of that project and had a dedicated engineer working with them to see how it would work on DX9, DX10 and DX11. The MSAA implementation was a trivial piece of programming and they did not imagine that it would be any problem until they saw the built going to Golden Master that had their hardware locked out.

The rest is a bit of he-said she-said but clearly Nvidia wanted to pull a fast one and it was Eidos who got caught in the middle. I mean, criticize ATI all you like for being aloof, but at least they're transparent about it.

+1 and I would like to add the most important thing: customers got screwed in the process. If this becomes acceptable practise, how well the games run, depends on how much the hardware developers screwed with it. ATI "helps" one game developers, Nvidia "helps" another and Intel "helps" one. Gamers loose on all sides.

I look down on those that tries to smooth over this and defend the actions. They are contributing to screw gamers.

 

[fdiaz78]

Isn't this blatantly antitrust behavior on Nvidia's part? I was under the impression that purposely locking out the competition was illegal.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Isn't this blatantly antitrust behavior on Nvidia's part? I was under the impression that purposely locking out the competition was illegal.

There are probably a thousand of loopholes in the law for this. Not in the moral laws though. Its probably not the first time either:

According to Richard, who was the former European head of Developer Relations at nVidia [it is little known that Richard Huddy was nVidia's Employee #94 and he stayed for years until he departed from the company 'on moral grounds']
"When I was at nVidia, I was instructed to do these kinds of things. It is very much a style they tend to be involved in.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=1

And who gets screwed in the end? Nvidia might sell some cards with this over ATI, but its consumers that loose. We win if there is fair competition where the fastest hardware gives more FPS in games and lower hardware prices due to competition, not if there are artificial blocks in games that makes the games run slower on certain hardware.

 

[dr.stevil]

Isn't this blatantly antitrust behavior on Nvidia's part? I was under the impression that purposely locking out the competition was illegal.

not really... but I guess it depends on how you view the situation. nVidia shouldn't of locked ATi out, but at the same time, (from the sounds of it) they did all the leg work to get it implemented into THEIR hardware so I can't say that I really blame them for wanting it to stay on their hardware. They did what they should of done and supported their own hardware & customers, not ATi's or anyone elses (nor should they).

There is plenty of blame to go around... most of which I'd place on ATi (for not supporting it) and Eidos (for not implementing the code themselfs)

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

not really... but I guess it depends on how you view the situation. nVidia shouldn't of locked ATi out, but at the same time, (from the sounds of it) they did all the leg work to get it implemented into THEIR hardware so I can't say that I really blame them for wanting it to stay on their hardware. They did what they should of done and supported their own hardware & customers, not ATi's or anyone elses (nor should they).

There is plenty of blame to go around... most of which I'd place on ATi (for not supporting it) and Eidos (for not implementing the code themselfs)

Its not Nvidia/Eidos locking ATI out, as much as Nvidia/Eidos locking paying customers out with ATI hardware. ATI isn't the one paying and playing the game, consumers are and its consumers they are targeting.

 

[dr.stevil]

true, but its not nvidias responsibility to support ati customers (nor should ATi be supporting nVidia customers). Neither company should be spending it's own money to help their competition sell hardware... that's just crazy. It's AMD/ATi's job to make sure their hardware does what they want it to including working with software developers to make their jobs easier.

Eidos clearly could of made this whole thing a non-issue

I'm not saying that nvidia is guilt free either, but ATi and eidos had a HUGE hand in dropping the ball so to speak. Hell, I'd go out on a limb and say that at least nvidia cared enough to get involved and support AA on their cards (lets be honest, it's not like they didn't have a vested interest in making the game look as good as possible on their hardware)

 

[BlueStorm]

Gee another one of these threads. Let's see:

1. NVIDIA pays for engineers as a part of TWIMTBP
2. NVIDIA spent time implementing a custom AA solution as UE3 does not have it by default
3. The game would've had no AA had NVIDIA not come into the situation
4. NVIDIA QA'd the AA solution for their own hardware, and given that the game is UE3 (DX9) and adding AA to UE3 is a bit of a hack, it's not guaranteed to work problem free just because it's "DX standard compliant"
5. AMD is known to not support AA with certain formats that the game is known to use, so NVIDIA enables AA only on their hardware (NOT disables on AMD) to avoid AMD accusing NVIDIA of causing intentional corruption on AMD.
6. NVIDIA worked with the developer before the game's ship.
7. Huddy from AMD takes notice and emails the developer 2 weeks after the game shipped and got rave reviews.
8. Huddy asks for access to something NVIDIA spent money putting in place and QA'ing (asks Eidos to simply enable it for them)
9. Email shows that Huddy came in late and when asked by the developer for an AA solution of their own that they had fully created and tested, he simply re-iterates request to just enable the code on their hardware, trying to leech off of NVIDIAs labor.
10. Huddy cries foul and posts unapproved (by Eidos) private e-mail correspondance with Eidos to try to make his point.

Either NVIDIA could've a) done nothing and we'd have no AA b) allowed the solution to work on all hardware, making the game devs job a pain and requiring repatching if there were issues on AMD hardware or c) do what they did and just limit it to their products, where they knew the limitations and had tested it thoroughly. With B or C, either way NVIDIA just can't win because AMD would still complain (if they allowed it on AMD and there was corruption, or if they allowed only on their own hardware and there was no AA on AMD). So I guess the only solution is to just not bother with adding AA to PC games? Shame on you whiners.

Now come on AMD, get your shit together.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

true, but its not nvidias responsibility to support ati customers (nor should ATi be supporting nVidia customers). It's AMD/ATi's job to make sure their hardware does what they want it to including working with software developers to make their jobs easier.

Eidos clearly could of made this whole thing a non-issue

Of course it isn't Nvidia's resposibility to support ATI customers (or visa versa). Its Nvidia's resposibility to support the standards they advertise they support and so with ATI.

This case is about shady deals with developers. Nvidia "helps" the developer with a directx standard code in return of Eidos accepting a vendor-id block to prevent it to work for some of Eidos customers that doesn't have Nvidia cards.

I hold Nvidia morally responsible for blocking DX standard AA support in the game for many consumers and I hold Eidos morally responsible for accepting such filth against their own customers.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Gee another one of these threads. Let's see:

Gee, one of those posts. Lets see:

1. Nvidia offers Eidos to make DX aa in their game.
2. In return Nvidia wants Eidos to block AA in their game for all their non-nvidia customers.
3. Nvidia/Eidos gets caught and blame goes everywhere.
4. Consumers who bought the game figures out that they got vendor-block screwed and their game would have in-game AA unless the shady deal were made about vendor-block to push Nvidia hardware.
5. Consumers are angry about it in forums.
6. Posters come in and tell consumers how rightfully Nvidia could screw the game customers with their vendor-block and that its all ATI's fault.

The end.

 

[dr.stevil]

Of course it isn't Nvidia's resposibility to support ATI customers (or visa versa). Its Nvidia's resposibility to support the standards they advertise they support and so with ATI.

This case is about shady deals with developers. Nvidia "helps" the developer with a directx standard code in return of Eidos accepting a vendor-id block to prevent it to work for some of Eidos customers that doesn't have Nvidia cards.

I hold Nvidia morally responsible for blocking DX standard AA support in the game for many consumers and I hold Eidos morally responsible for accepting such filth against their own customers.

so how is that any different than MS or Sony giving a developer cash in exchange for exclusivity or temporary exclusivity to their consoles? I honestly don't see nvidia at fault in this as much as I see ATi (and Edios) screwing up and passing the buck. ATi COULD of done the exact same thing but didn't... nVidia did and ATi's customers get pissy at nvidia for whatever reason. nVidia used their own money to get it done... end of story.

I don't blame ATi customers for being a little upset, but you're getting angry at the wrong people. Ati has a long history of poor customer support... they've cleaned up their act in the past few years it seems, but this shows that they still need some work... IMO. I'm no nvidia fanboy either (before anyone says it)

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

so how is that any different than MS or Sony giving a developer cash in exchange for exclusivity or temporary exclusivity to their consoles? I honestly don't see nvidia at fault in this as much as I see ATi (and Edios) screwing up and passing the buck. ATi COULD of done the exact same thing but didn't... nVidia did and ATi's customers get pissy at nvidia for whatever reason. nVidia used their own money to get it done... end of story.

I don't blame ATi customers for being a little upset, but you're getting angry at the wrong people. Ati has a long history of poor customer support... they've cleaned up their act in the past few years it seems, but this shows that they still need some work... IMO. I'm no nvidia fanboy either (before anyone says it)

How its different? Lets see:

MS and Sony pays to have a game exclusivly or temporary exlusive on their consoles. Consumers buy the game under those terms. They even advertise how exclusive the game is on the console.

Nvidia "helps" the game developer with adding directx AA to the game (apparently it got lost in the port from Xbox 360) in return for blocking it for consumers without Nvidia card. Game is sold as compatible with ATI/Nvidia without any "crippled by Nvidia" sticker or similar. No advertisment of exclusive AA for Nvidia cards, no reports of vendor-id checks etc. This was just a shady back-room deal between Eidos and Nvidia screwing Eidos customers who bought the game in good faith.

 

[Mr. K6]

so how is that any different than MS or Sony giving a developer cash in exchange for exclusivity or temporary exclusivity to their consoles? I honestly don't see nvidia at fault in this as much as I see ATi (and Edios) screwing up and passing the buck. ATi COULD of done the exact same thing but didn't... nVidia did and ATi's customers get pissy at nvidia for whatever reason. nVidia used their own money to get it done... end of story.

I don't blame ATi customers for being a little upset, but you're getting angry at the wrong people. Ati has a long history of poor customer support... they've cleaned up their act in the past few years it seems, but this shows that they still need some work... IMO. I'm no nvidia fanboy either (before anyone says it)

Are you trolling or really that thick? You see nothing wrong with a company writing code, that a lazy developer should have, using industry standards, but then locking out it's competitor from doing the same WITH the same standard? Are you for real? Have you even considered the repercussions if a precedent is set by this?

 

[dr.stevil]

I didn't say that nvidia was off the hook... but ATi clearly could of done something about it and didn't. At the date of that article posted, AMD hadn't submitted any sort of code to Eidos to enable AA on their cards...

While nvidia did lockout ATi, I don't believe it was necessarily by design, but instead used the system they already had in place to determine what cards could and couldn't run physx (by using the vendor ID of the card) and used that same system to enable AA.

again, nvidia isn't innocent, but look at the people who really deserve the blame... ATi and Eidos. Ati can STILL enable AA, but they choose not to, they'd rather have their fanboys bitch at nvidia to get them to use their code (that they paid to implement) instead of ATi coming up with their own solution.

 

[BlueStorm]

Gee, one of those posts. Lets see:

1. Nvidia offers Eidos to make DX aa in their game.
2. In return Nvidia wants Eidos to block AA in their game for all their non-nvidia customers.
3. Nvidia/Eidos gets caught and blame goes everywhere.
4. Consumers who bought the game figures out that they got vendor-block screwed and their game would have in-game AA unless the shady deal were made about vendor-block to push Nvidia hardware.
5. Consumers are angry about it in forums.
6. Posters come in and tell consumers how rightfully Nvidia could screw the game customers with their vendor-block and that its all ATI's fault.

The end.

Sorry, that's not how it works. If NVIDIA approaches Eidos saying "hey we've got AA working for your game but we've only tested it on our GPUs" of course the devs don't want them to just implement a hacky AA method on untested hardware. If you knew the first thing about development or development cycles I wouldn't need to explain this to you.. but oh well. Factor in the rush element.. being pressed for time on games for windows certification, the farthest thing on a devs mind is AA.

 

[BlueStorm]

Are you trolling or really that thick? You see nothing wrong with a company writing code, that a lazy developer should have, using industry standards, but then locking out it's competitor from doing the same WITH the same standard? Are you for real? Have you even considered the repercussions if a precedent is set by this?

Do your homework. No one locked them out from supplying their own code. But NVIDIA spent money making it, so they're not going to allow it to be used by their competitor. Makes sense to me. Do you give your work away to someone else?

 

[BlueStorm]

How its different? Lets see:

MS and Sony pays to have a game exclusivly or temporary exlusive on their consoles. Consumers buy the game under those terms. They even advertise how exclusive the game is on the console.

Nvidia "helps" the game developer with adding directx AA to the game (apparently it got lost in the port from Xbox 360) in return for blocking it for consumers without Nvidia card. Game is sold as compatible with ATI/Nvidia without any "crippled by Nvidia" sticker or similar. No advertisment of exclusive AA for Nvidia cards, no reports of vendor-id checks etc. This was just a shady back-room deal between Eidos and Nvidia screwing Eidos customers who bought the game in good faith.

Sorry guy but you have no idea what you're talking about. AA wasn't in the game before NVIDIA touched it. It's a fact. It sounds like you'd rather there be no AA though, just because you own an AMD card and don't want to feel like you bet on the wrong horse (the one that doesn't engage with developers before their games come out and spend $ supporting and making games better).

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

I didn't say that nvidia was off the hook... but ATi clearly could of done something about it and didn't. At the date of that article posted, AMD hadn't submitted any sort of code to Eidos to enable AA on their cards...

ATi worked with them about it both pre-release and afterwards if to believe this:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=1

I haven't read a single word from Eidos or Nvidia announcing towards ATI or towards the consumer that they have implemented a vendor-lock in the game. Actually, the game went to reviews as if no such thing was implemented.

What ATI could have done to develop the game for Eidos is besides the point.

Nvidia made a shady deal to implement a directx standard AA for Eidos in return of blocking it for non-nvidia customers. Eidos accepted to screw their own customers.

Who are they primarily hurting? ATI with their vendor block or the paying customers of the game who actually can use the directx AA without any issues? They made the game with AA on Xbox 360 and they probably would have managed to do so on the PC (as all the other UT3 game developers who managed the feat). Instead, they left it up to Nvidia to screw their customers.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Sorry guy but you have no idea what you're talking about. AA wasn't in the game before NVIDIA touched it. It's a fact. It sounds like you'd rather there be no AA though, just because you own an AMD card lol.

LOL! I have the financial to go and by an Nvidia card this second if I wish. I go for the card I want at the moment I buy it, not the producers.
AA was in the Xbox version before the port.
Making AA over directx in UT engine isn't a big feat that nobody did before. Nothing special about it either:

the odd situation that we have here is that code was proprietary to nVidia is identical to the standard advice both companies used ever since DirectX 10.1 came out and sorted out Anti-Aliasing calls. As we all know, DirectX 10.1 removes excessive passes and kills the overhead that happened in development of the original DirectX 10.0. Even if you have DirectX 10.0 hardware, in most cases that DX10.0 overhead is run over by DX10.1 if developers had adjusted their approach to MSAA.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=1

I'd prefer that Nvidia didn't "help" game developers if it means screwing it up for others at the same time. Then game developers would have to make the games optimal themselves in order to compete on the market.

Its not ATI they are primarily screwing with the vendor-block. Its consumers. Eidos paying customers which don't give a shit about ATI vs. Nvidia... Eidos should have said no to the shady deal from Nvidia.

Edit, missed this one:

Sorry, that's not how it works. If NVIDIA approaches Eidos saying "hey we've got AA working for your game but we've only tested it on our GPUs" of course the devs don't want them to just implement a hacky AA method on untested hardware. If you knew the first thing about development or development cycles I wouldn't need to explain this to you.. but oh well. Factor in the rush element.. being pressed for time on games for windows certification, the farthest thing on a devs mind is AA.

Thats how it works. Nvidia trades developement of AA in the game in return of permission to screw some of Eidos customers. Directx Compliant AA I might add that works with directx compliant cards (if vendor block is taken away). Face it, Nvidia chose to screw customers here as a marketing tool.

 

[Vermillion]

LOL! I have the financial to go and by an Nvidia card this second if I wish. I go for the card I want at the moment I buy it, not the producers.
AA was in the Xbox version before the port.
Making AA over directx in UT engine isn't a big feat that nobody did before. Nothing special about it either:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=1

I'd prefer that Nvidia didn't "help" game developers if it means screwing it up for others at the same time. Then game developers would have to make the games optimal themselves in order to compete on the market.

Its not ATI they are primarily screwing with the vendor-block. Its consumers. Eidos paying customers which don't give a shit about ATI vs. Nvidia... Eidos should have said no to the shady deal from Nvidia.

QFT

Batman was supposed to be one huge plus for Nvidia when it comes to PhysX and instead it's become a huge black eye for them.

 

[dr.stevil]

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one then I suppose to each their own

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one then I suppose to each their own

That we can. Doesn't help the current situation though.

Nvidia is still screwing Eidos customers.
Eidos is still allowing this.
We have a situation here, where hardware developers (behind the scenes without any public information about it) can cripple the games on competitor hardware and consumers that would actually defend them doing so.

This hurts consumers that buy the game in good faith that the game is optimized after best ability for the advertised hardware.
It hurts reviewers who review the game in good faith believing there is fair play here.
It hurts consumers who read the reviews and think that its the hardware which makes the difference, not the artificial crippeling that do the job.

Its rotten practise for the gaming community.

Edit: Brent is honest in his reviews regardless of its being ATI or Nvida cards. Still, due to back-door deals with Nvidia and Eidos, this doesn't tell the full picture and should be edited to reflect that:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/10/25/asus_eah5870_video_card_review/3

 

[Jakalwarrior]

Article needs some grammar and spelling help.

Anywho, I have to side with ATI on this one. Nvidia may have a great image with developers but they are getting a sour image with the public with crap like this and the assasins creed thing. Not to mention physx.

 

[Valset]

Article needs some grammar and spelling help.

Anywho, I have to side with ATI on this one. Nvidia may have a great image with developers but they are getting a sour image with the public with crap like this and the assasins creed thing. Not to mention physx.

I think he mentioned redoing it right before to include new content.

I though they managed to do a fair and even handed article all things considered

I do have to agree here, I can understand that nvidia did a LOT of the work here and may feel entitled but their business practices have done a lot to alienate their customers. from blocking Physx unnecessarily, to using TWITMTBP as way to cripple performance of the competition (and without need, they were stomping AMD when Assassins Creed came out), and not least a dishonest renaming scheme

however none of these negates the issue that AMD is lagging far behind in developer relations. The H editors, the BSN editors, as well as other have all been critical of this

 

[phide]

Eidos is still allowing this.

I think this is the most important element of the story. What NVIDIA's doing is wrong, certainly, but Eidos allowed it to slip through. Does the buck not stop with them?

 

[Little_4nic8er]

So should I be happy I was not planning to buy BAA? (And supporting this BS.)

Or sad I am stuck between two childish school kids duking it out behind the gym? (My impression of this BS.)

Just make a damn good product, price it well, and let the consumer decide. No need for BS tactics, from any side in these matters. In the last 6.5 years I have owned 4 GPUs, 2 from each vendor. I simply buy the better card at the time I need one. BS like this sure makes me reconsider who I spend my money with next time.

 

[MiG31_Foxhound]

Just one of the myriad reasons I'm not fond of UE3. I'll stick with Xray, CryEngine, and wait with baited breath for IDtech5.

 

[TheResidentEvil]

Im with nvidia on this one. If ATi wanted AA, they shouldve developed it. Eidos said "we arent making this so if you want it in our game, make it."

Nvidia did, ati didnt. nvidia didnt BLOCK ati cards from using AA. They just wont run their code on other hardware. Blame Eidos for being cheap, blame ATi for not giving batman a fair shake.

I would say blame Nvidia but hell, they just want to make money. If you have an ATi card and are upset that your AA is crap, you have no one to take it up with besides ATi.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Nvidia did, ati didnt. nvidia didnt BLOCK ati cards from using AA. They just wont run their code on other hardware. Blame Eidos for being cheap, blame ATi for not giving batman a fair shake.

Actually they did BLOCK ati cards from using AA. Thats what a vendor-id block does. Now, Eidos cannot change the AA implementation without breaking the vendor-id block from Nvidia. The AA implementation is directx, so any directx compliant card can run it. However, Nvidia chose to screw Eidos customers, so they cannot use a feature which is pretty standard in any game due to their "help". Perhaps they will remove "Nvidia's dx code" and put something simply DX complient without vendor-id block in it instead.

Way to go Nvidia for supporting gaming community by screwing with the games. Without you, Eidos would have been forced to run DX code without vendor-id block. After all, they didn't use AA on Xbox 360 for nothing. The game needs it and for Eidos to compete, they would have to put AA in like all the other developers do.

 

[ddarko]

A very good writeup. There is one thing it can't definitely answer through no fault of its own - whether or not Nvidia did any custom coding to implement AA or whether the AA was implemented with a standardized technique, as AMD thinks. I thought the email exchange between Lee Singleton (Eidos) and Richard Huddy (AMD) was interesting:

Singleton: "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."

Huddy: "I believe that Nvidia's code path is using only the DirectX API (exept where it specifically shuts out AMD hardware) so I'm unclear why this would be an issue."

Singleton: "I have taken legal advice from our general council who have advised us not to pursue a route which involves changing code that nVidia wrote."

Apparently, the reason AMD simply hasn't provided its own AA implementation at this point is that it thinks that its own code would be the same as Nvidia's code so providing its code is redundant. AMD asked Eidos to point blank whether or not the AA coding is custom or standardized and interesting, Eidos dodges the question. It responds that Nvidia wrote the coding but that really doesn't answer what AMD was asking: is the code Nvidia wrote nothing more than standardized coding that AMD also recommends?

AMD clearly believes so and so apparently does the article's author:

Secondly, Eidos asked AMD to provide "robust sample code". To this date, AMD failed to do so, arguing that nVidia's method is the same as AMD's sample code. Given the fact that you can turn in-game AA by changing the vendor lD to nVidia, there is nothing given by Eidos nor nVidia that would prove otherwise.

I think that's right. The fact that simply changing the vendor ID turns on AA for AMD cards is pretty convincing evidence that the code Nvidia wrote was a textbook solution and not a customized job that required tons of money and man hours. But even if the code is textbook, Nvidia and Eidos appear to be saying Nvidia still paid for it to be implement and AMD didn't. And they have a point. I doubt there's anything AMD can do now to turn on AA without Nvidia and Eidos tearing up their agreements.

I do take major points away from Nvidia/Eidos for their ever-shifting stories. Nvidia and Eidos seem to have a difficult relationship with the truth. They pulled that kind of BS move with Assassin's Creed when they claimed that the DirectX 10.1 patch was buggy on AMD hardware (turns out it was causing bugs on Nvidia hardware). We're so saturated with spin and PR but I think we should still expect the truth. I wish Nvidia and Eidos had just come out and said from the beginning "it's standard coding but we paid for it" instead of this all-too-familiar obfuscation. Even though I would still argue that their self-interested moves are harmful to the end users, I would have more respect for them if they had been upfront about their motives from the beginning.

From a player's perspective, I think this type of balkanization is a terrible idea. Maybe Microsoft should alter their DirectX license to require "coding neutrality" and prohibit vendor-specific coding. If you implement coding using DirectX for one set of hardware, you must allow all other hardware to run it too. Getting rid of balkanization was one of the goals of DirectX, wasn't it?

 

[dergreg]

The few things I've gotten from this:

1) nVidia provided code that allows the AA to be executed on any hardware
2) It executes the first half on ALL cards, regardless of vendor, causing a performance hit on ATi hardware (Supposedly proven when ATi cards were switched to nVidia vendor IDs and performance actually INCREASED with AA enabled.)
3) It's standard DX code, and, if ATi *did* provide functional code of the same type, it may be hindered in some way by nVidia's code running the first half, then having it forced to run AGAIN by ATi's code.
4) If ATi, once again, *did* provide functional code, it has the potential of being vendor blocked by nVidia's code regardless, due to the fact that the nVidia code is standard DX fare to begin with.

But that's just from what I've read and my limited understanding of the whole thing. Obviously nobody has all the facts, and if somebody's making shadowy deals in backrooms, then nobody will ever get the truth until somebody involved gets screwed over by the shady companies in question.

It runs great on my system, had no problems... I run ATi at this point exclusively. I tried Physx, but the card I had was too loud for my living room computer I play games on. It just wasn't worth the noise for all two of the games I play that use Physx. But it definitely made Batman look *awesome*.