Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
BATMANGATE - Nvidia bows to public pressure over AA
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
woo
*corks*
Talking to a mirror there Mr Rroff.
If it was truly IP, we all know nVidia would be clinging on to it with an iron like grip.
Due to the fact that they've bowed so easily says that it's most definitely not IP now.
We'd have seen PhysX as an open standard already if nVidia were like this with their IP.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 519
Now if only they decide to remove the vendor ID from the GeForce drivers so I will be able to use my GTX+ just for PhysX when I get my new ATI card.
Its a very unlike nvidia move...
That doesn't change the core IP concepts involved here or peoples' misunderstanding of them.
Batman AA as a game is the property of Eidos
The nVidia multisampling code is used under license from nVidia by Eidos with certain strings attached.
These strings do NOT stipulate that Eidos can't use other multisampling paths in the game only that they can't edit the nVidia provided one.
People need to understand and comprehend these concepts before making comments on something they clearly know nothing about.
That doesn't change the core IP concepts involved here or peoples' misunderstanding of them.
Batman AA as a game is the property of Eidos
The nVidia multisampling code is used under license from nVidia by Eidos with certain strings attached.
These strings do NOT stipulate that Eidos can't use other multisampling paths in the game only that they can't edit the nVidia provided one.
People need to understand and comprehend these concepts before making comments on something they clearly know nothing about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
Rroff why don't you continue admiring Huang's body, I have never seen anyone since helmutcheese who defends NV so much and applies more spin than Alastair Campbell
So according to that logic, and what nVidia is usually like, we shouldn't see this happening.
Make me think this isn't IP what so ever.
I can only speculate on why they made this decision... I would say they are probably using the opportunity to highlight the fact that ATI are happy to have untested, unsupported code ran on their GPUs.
As far as rights go - nVidia's are watertight - theres nothing anti-competition going on unless other deals were made behind the scenes... everything else has been done by the book with industry standard practises... even if they aren't the most fair to consumers.
EDIT: Interestingly it looks like we have been leaked snippets of info not necessarily in order in a controlled fashion over the last few weeks - I wonder whats really going on here.
As far as rights go - nVidia's are watertight - theres nothing anti-competition going on unless other deals were made behind the scenes... everything else has been done by the book with industry standard practises... even if they aren't the most fair to consumers.
EDIT: Interestingly it looks like we have been leaked snippets of info not necessarily in order in a controlled fashion over the last few weeks - I wonder whats really going on here.
Last edited:
So maybe the developers were put under pressure not to include AMD's aa solution after all
Thats entirely possible... but please seperate it from the nVidia code used under license this is an entirely different matter. A concept many people don't seem to be able to grasp.