They have done it multiple times with multiple pieces of software. Locking ageia cards out, locking their own cards out from running physx with an AMD card present, locking out AA in Batman, the list goes on and on.
You are completely missing the point, no doubt on purpose. To be clear there are 2 points here:
1) Does Nvidia lock AMD out from providing their own gamesworks alternative. No, in all games developers are free to work alongside AMD. Nvida doesn't allow PhysX to work in an AMD powered system, true, but Nvidia doesn't lock AMD out form providing their own PhysX solution. A game developer is free to use PhysX for Nvidia users and Bullet for AMD users for example.
2) Yes, Nvidia don't allow PhysX to run on a Nvidia GPU when the main system GPU is AMD. I have repeatedly said that this is very weak from Nvidia and I certainly don't defend that decision. I think it hurts them more than helps. But this has nothing to do with point 1.
Nothing you said was a con to open source, and nothing you said was a pro for closed source changes if the code is open source.
The dev can still used the provided unchanged code. YOu entirely miss the point over and over.
yes it was, you entirely miss the point again and again, your post reaks of typical AMD BS. yes, a dev can still use the unchanged unimproved un-optimized old code that doesn't have any of the improvements. That is not an advantage, that is a disadvantage.
Nonsense, complete and utter nonsense. Yes, the dev can optimise for gameworks for Nvidia cards because Nvidia can tell them how to optimise.
The entire point of gamesworks is the developer doesn't have to spend time optimizing. As usual you are completely missing the entire point.
YOu can't easily or fully optimise without EITHER access to the sourcecode to work out how to optimise yourself OR someone with access telling you exactly how to optimise for it.
You can't FULLY optimize, but you ca do a lot of optimization without source code or input. nearly all the optimizations Nvidia and AMD do in drivers to support games is done without any source code at all. They sure might be able to do better with source code, but it isn't needed to make a lot of optimizations.I know, because i do this professionally with other closed source libraries. Its like you might not have access to the MSQL source code or windows API, but you sure has heck can optimize your code around the black box.
More to the point, Nvidia can optimise on their end because it's their code in the first place. You call people disingenuous then claim devs can't optimise for Nvidia in gameworks.
Agreed that NVidia can optimize the code, that is the entire point of Gamesworks so Nvidia can continuously optimize the code and support new hardware rather than relying on the developer to release a new game patch. Well done on completely missing the point again.
The most important thing about open source code is that everyone can see what the code is.
Bravo.
IF you were a coder(which you don't appear to be from what I know) you'd know there are many algorithms to achieve the same result.
I am the lead developer with 20 years experience developing state of the art machine learning and numerical optimization methods for big data, earning the 6 figure salary that goes along with that kind of experience. I work extensively with both closed and open source libraries.
With open source code you can verify that everyone is running the same code(relatively speaking), with closed source you have no idea what is being run.
And people using closed source libraries don't care at all, they want a solution that works. Do people care when they develop for windows that windows is closed source, do people care that they develop for DX when DX is closed source? I really wonder how much programming experience you actually have? Do you develop exclusively against Linux because you have to know the source code of every library you are using, or are you happy to program against closed-source windows kernels? I can tel you I don't touch windows with a barge pole but I certainly don't fill my time browsing Linux kernel code, its irrelevant.
It's exceptionally easy to have a path for Nvidia and a path for AMD that is slower and places more processing and thus slower performance. With TressFX Nvidia can look through the code and check for code that would harm them, there may be code in there that simply due to a different architecture is very bad for one side and good for the other. Again with TressFX there is nothing stopping Nvidia finding any such code and implementing a fix in driver as well as talking with the dev and implementing a fix in the game code as the devs aren't prevented from changing the TressFX code in such a way.
And AMD can do the same with Nvidia closed source gamewsworks because AMD writes the DX drivers and know exactly what DX API calls are being made - that is the fundamentals of how AMD and Nvidia optimize drivers for closed source games without ever contacting the developer. And that is exactly why AMD kicked up a fuss about Hairworks because they knew the tessellation factor.
You talk about Witcher 3 and AMD implementing a tessellation limit or the game needing to implement it. Did it ever occur to you that Nvidia do this automatically in their driver without telling anyone? Most importantly there are only two options, they have code that will use tessellation that will hurt performance without a single pixel of IQ improvement... in which case they are incompetent and gameworks isn't that good. The only other possibility is they enable a default ultra high mode and have the same tessellation driver limit AMD have as an option in their driver, but make it a hidden option. In other words they enable high tessellation to hurt AMD performance on purpose, don't tell devs to optimise it then limit it in drivers giving an unfair advantage.
I ahve no idea what this wall of text is trying to state but here are a couple of facts:
1) Until the FuryX AMD's tessellation performance was terrible.
2) Nvidia certainly would have optimized performance and visual quality against Nvidia GPUs with little interest in doing the same for AMD.
3) Does this put AMD at a disadvantageous, possibly, but that doesn't mean nvidia are purposely malicious. The solution is for AMD to provide equal support to the developer in providing their own solution that helps AMD users the most, that way everybody wins.
Again the advantage of open source is you can confirm for a fact these problems aren't happening. With closed source Gameworks you can't.
the developers know that before they ever sign on to gamesworks licensing. Again, you miss the whole point of gamesworks is the developer doesn't have to worry about optimization.
You also seem to be going on about Open Source TressFX as if it has always been that way - TressFX until recently was closed source just like gamesworks.
In case you go back to talking about various licenses for allowing source code access, again the facts are very clear. They did not have an option for this originally, they only started to offer one AFTER public attention and multiple dodgy gameworks games. They refused to state the cost, if it was a fair and reasonable cost why refuse to disclose it, if it's obscenely high then it's an excuse to say you offer such a license while knowing no one would ever purchase it... in effect meaning they don't offer such a license.
You are making assumptions that the source code license has an additional cost, it almost certainly doesn't. The source code has additional requirements of privacy and non-disclosure that must be adhered t and it puts more burden on the developer to be secure with their code. Nvidia doesn't want AMD copying IP from NVidia's source code, or the game developers for that matter. If a game developer gets the source code they have to ensure AMD does not accidentally get access to the code when working with AMD. Moreover, if the developer sees the source code and gets lots of good ideas in the next project they could copy a lot of those ideas or code samples to replicate a gamesworks effect without license anything form Nvidia. this is why the source code license has a load more legal requirements and it is just much easier for a developer to treat it as a black box and do away with these complications.
Yet again it also misses the point of GW. NVidia doesn't want the developer to spend time making changes that they keep internally, Nvidia want to make the changes for the developer and keep intellectual property over those improvements which Nvidia can incorporate and give to other developers, increasing the value-add of their product offering.
I can't name a developer that has brought the source code license.
See above.
Lastly, how many Gameworks games have had huge problems with optimisation in general. Unrealistic smoke in, most of the games they implement gameworks smoke, completely overdone and unrealistic + crap performance, what a great feature.
And all of these games sucked regardless of gamesworks, the performance issues in games like batman had nothing to do with the smoke effect and the like, again, that is just more blatant AMD fanboyism. Nvidia are also not at all responsible for how the effects are used, if a developer applies far to much smoke or uses fur/hair in a weird way that is a design design form the developer, GW is massively controllable.
And even if gamesworks did suck, that is irrelevant to the discussion that NVidia does not lock AMD out of providing their own solutions to developers. We clearly see this in games like GTAV where both AMD and Nvidia technologies exist in harmony
You do realise that Nvidia can and do optimize GW for their own gpu's even if the dev can't. Can AMD do the same? Since it's closed of course they can't...Hence the complaints from the AMD side. 
Nvidia have generously allowed AMD users to enjoy NVidia's propreitry technology, and all they get for it is a load of stcik form AMD fanboys. As I said, Nvidia have a veyr simply solution if they don't want any accusations about unfair advantages is to simply not allow gamesworks to run on AMD hardware. I don't think that is a god solution, but it is what will happen if AMD keep making PR stunts and working up a fanboy frenzy over it.
