AMD & nVidia at it again over Batman

[HeX]

ok just to put things in perspective here (as i understand it from that article). the game engine does not have native AA support so Nvidia wrote this for edios, ATI are complaning that they shouldnt be being stoped from using that code.

AFAIK Batman:AA uses the Unreal 3 engine, of which there have been many many games produced that use it all with AA on both ATi and nVidia hardware.

Both ATi and nVidia have had access to the UE3 engine for ages.

Surely by now its a 2 min job to slap AA into UE3 based game.

 

[psychas]

With NFS Shift its 6 to one and half a dozen to the other... the developer asked ATI to implement some features that would make the game run better on their hardware - and they didn't want to know... so fixing things for ATI cards was reduced as a priority... :S

why would ati do that its up to shift developers to make a game that runs good on nvidia and ati cards.

the AA issue on batman is bit going over the top by nvidia tbh. what would happen if if ati payed money to make to codemasters to make grid 2 only dx11 exclusive to ati cards.

nvidia fan boys would go mental then

 

[D.P.]

I don't really see the problem.

It is likely Nvidia put development efforts into making an extra fast, extra prett AA by way of a custom AA code path that runs very well on Nvidia hardware. Either Nvidia want this optimal custom code working only on Nvidia hardware, or The developer thinks that if they take Nvidia code and edit it to work for ATI card then they will break legal IP rules.


This is completely different to Nvidia preventing AA on ATI hardware, which would be illegal. ATI could develop their own code path unless this broke some other exclusivity agreement with Nvidia (which would be legal).

It is important to note, that it i perfectly legal for a company to develop a game which only works on specific hardware. You see this with consoles all the time of course, the same can apply to PCs. It just isn't in developers interest to make a game which only works on AMD + ATI (or AMD + Nvidia or Intel + ATI, etc, etc.).
Nvidia could start their own games foundry and make games that only work on Nvidia hardware.

 

[BubbySoup]

The problem is it's bad for the PC games industry. Anything that causes fragmentation is bad for the industry.

PC code should be agnostic to the hardware it's running on, and unless very specific code is written, it will be - that's the whole idea of the PC. To force specific hardware configurations means writing checks for that hardware, and we all know that these checks can be hacked out as they have been in Batman.

Honestly, I can't see how this is in any way beneficial to the industry as a whole. If nVidia wanted to really contribute, they could have just had a big splash every time the game loaded up saying "AA by nVidia" or something, that way they get the kudos for their code and every PC user can benefit.

 

[wolvers]

The problem is it's bad for the PC games industry. Anything that causes fragmentation is bad for the industry.

PC code should be agnostic to the hardware it's running on, and unless very specific code is written, it will be - that's the whole idea of the PC. To force specific hardware configurations means writing checks for that hardware, and we all know that these checks can be hacked out as they have been in Batman.

Honestly, I can't see how this is in any way beneficial to the industry as a whole. If nVidia wanted to really contribute, they could have just had a big splash every time the game loaded up saying "AA by nVidia" or something, that way they get the kudos for their code and every PC user can benefit.

I'm totally with you on this. I can see that Nvidia would want to get one over on their rival but they're going about it the wrong way. PC gaming doesn't seem to be a platform that tolerates this kind of thing.

I also find it odd that they've chosen Batman as a title to do this with as it's not exactly the kind of game that PC gamers tend to go for. It's not really a great game either IMO. I don't think it's sold that well either has it?

 

[Jabbs]

Don't understand the fuss the game isn't that great to play.

 

[HeX]

Don't understand the fuss the game isn't that great to play.

The quality of the game is irrelevant (personally I thought it was a great game), it is the principal of the matter and the stuff going on behind the scenes that is of concern.

 

[Mr Paul]

With NFS Shift its 6 to one and half a dozen to the other... the developer asked ATI to implement some features that would make the game run better on their hardware - and they didn't want to know... so fixing things for ATI cards was reduced as a priority... :S

As far as I'm aware ATI drivers cannot fix the issue, it a problem with the game engine that the developers have to fix.

 

[mmj_uk]

Eidos does say:

If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.

AMD probably haven't sent any sample code because they just want to modify what NVidia have already written.

So basically it boils down to NVidia running 4 laps holding the baton and then AMD scream and shout for it 10yrds from the finish line so they can share the glory.

 

[D.P.]

The problem is it's bad for the PC games industry. Anything that causes fragmentation is bad for the industry.

PC code should be agnostic to the hardware it's running on, and unless very specific code is written, it will be - that's the whole idea of the PC. To force specific hardware configurations means writing checks for that hardware, and we all know that these checks can be hacked out as they have been in Batman.

Honestly, I can't see how this is in any way beneficial to the industry as a whole. If nVidia wanted to really contribute, they could have just had a big splash every time the game loaded up saying "AA by nVidia" or something, that way they get the kudos for their code and every PC user can benefit.

But you are making the assumptionthan Nvidia forced the developer to explicitly block ATI cards from running with AA.

We don't know if it was Nvidia directly or the developer being lazy, facing ATI specific technical issues, or simpyl protecting themselves form legal issues related tot he code Nvidia provided. Furthermore, neither the developer or Nvidia have explicityl stopped AA working with Batman, only that their is an optimal code path for Nvidia cards which for obvious reason is prevented form being run by ATI cards (not least it might be buggy, slow, artifacts, uses Nvidia only extensions, etc).


The only mystery is why a different code path for ATI cards wasn't made. Maybe simply the devlopers were lazy, after Nvidia developed some code they expected ATI to do the same, which they didn't.


As for code that only works on specific platforms, well thats been the case since the start of PCs and is the only way that technology can improve. For example, ATI has had specific extensions for tessellation for years (since their R200 card), only in DX 11 will these extensions become part of the standard DX. The same is true for any technical advance, Nvidia has PhysX so of course games will support it and won't be able to support ATI in those regards, etc. Intel CPUs have extensions for multimedia etc which AMD don't have.

A PC is a not a games console, their is no standrad hardware. Hence software has to be made adaptable to different platforms. Not everyone has the same CPu and GPU, ergo, different people will need a different code path to get the same performance.



Now, maybe Nvidia have done something dirty but there is simply not the evidence to claim this. Unless you are CEO of the Batman developer then you don't know why AA wasn't supported in Batman by default.

 

[BubbySoup]

As for code that only works on specific platforms, well thats been the case since the start of PCs and is the only way that technology can improve. For example, ATI has had specific extensions for tessellation for years (since their R200 card), only in DX 11 will these extensions become part of the standard DX. The same is true for any technical advance, Nvidia has PhysX so of course games will support it and won't be able to support ATI in those regards, etc. Intel CPUs have extensions for multimedia etc which AMD don't have.

That's not quite the same thing though is it. What you are talking about there is supporting a specific hardware feature when it is lacking in another manufacturer's product. I don't have a problem with that at all.

AA is a feature of both cards, yet the engine used in Batman did not support it. nVidia then coded in AA support for their hardware. Knowing full well ATI cards would also be able to take advantage of it (albeit unofficially supported), they intentionally blocked ATI cards from doing so. Furthermore, it appears they severely limited ATI's ability to have any input as with many TWIMTBP titles.

Now, regarding their AA code - that is well within their rights to block ATI if they are pouring money into the project and that is not the point I am arguing. My point is one cannot claim they want to support the PC games industry whilst at the same time deliberately fragmenting its user base like this and possibly restriciting their direct competitor's input.

Again, please tell me how this is beneficial to the industry as a whole?

 

[Dutch Guy]

Again, please tell me how this is beneficial to the industry as a whole?

Nvidia's business plan is to sell as many GPU's as possible and if they have a game where they have better IQ than the competition it might mean they sell more GPU's.

They don't care about the industry, just themselves just as Microsoft wants to kill off the PS3 and Sony wants to kill off the 360

 

[errata]

PC gaming is dying vs consoles in the mass market, splitting it further into ati games vs nvida games will not help at all in the long run.

Batman is Eidos's project, if nvidia have deliberately sabotaged a big expensive product with a small bit of nvidia IP code that Eidos feel unable to change and ATI cannot access to modify or bypass in the game then Eidos and ATI should be very upset indeed and bear the mess in mind for their next project. But that a lot of if's.

 

[D.P.]

That's not quite the same thing though is it. What you are talking about there is supporting a specific hardware feature when it is lacking in another manufacturer's product. I don't have a problem with that at all.

AA is a feature of both cards, yet the engine used in Batman did not support it. nVidia then coded in AA support for their hardware. Knowing full well ATI cards would also be able to take advantage of it (albeit unofficially supported), they intentionally blocked ATI cards from doing so. Furthermore, it appears they severely limited ATI's ability to have any input as with many TWIMTBP titles.

Now, regarding their AA code - that is well within their rights to block ATI if they are pouring money into the project and that is not the point I am arguing. My point is one cannot claim they want to support the PC games industry whilst at the same time deliberately fragmenting its user base like this and possibly restriciting their direct competitor's input.

Again, please tell me how this is beneficial to the industry as a whole?

Ok, seems like we are on the same track.

It can be beneficial because it is competition. Nvidia can provide optimal/improved/more efficient/fancier code to a game developer to make improvements to players of the game. ATI can do the exact same thing, at least, they should be allowed to. Thereby, the developers benefit form less development time so can concentrate on content, gamers get improved game performance.

Lots of game engines have a separate rendering path for ATI and NVidia cards, and for different generations of cards.

what needs to be prevented is anti-competitive behaviours. I don't see any evidence to show that Nvidia has done this. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. The only "news" we have is ATI propaganda and PR stunts.

 

[D.P.]

Nvidia's business plan is to sell as many GPU's as possible and if they have a game where they have better IQ than the competition it might mean they sell more GPU's.

They don't care about the industry, just themselves just as Microsoft wants to kill off the PS3 and Sony wants to kill off the 360

And the same is true for ATI, they want to sell as many GPUs as possible, however the means. ATI think they can sell more GPUs by spitting out anti-Nvidia propaganda, rather than trying to work with the developer (and a legal team if need be).

ATI wants to Kill Nvidia, and vice versa. Economics!

 

[straxusii]

I can fully understand Nvidia wanting to restrict Batman AA to their cards, the main people I have a beef with is Eidos for allowing this to happen

 

[drunkenmaster]

There is absolutely no proof that Nvidia came up with some special code that makes AA work where it didn't before. INfact that argument is entirely ridiculous, given the age of the unreal 3 engine, the ability for both companies to use AA in many games based on it for a long time and the fact that Batman does nothing new.

Its 99.99999% likely that Eidos used the EXACT SAME CODE as multiple previous games to do in game AA. It worked perfectly on ATi hardware before it was sabotaged, its the same as any other game using AA ingame on that engine. Yes natively years ago when the engine debued you there wasn't ingame AA, that doesn't mean that once it was added it isn't a basically native feature of the engine.

If Nvidia take that code, modify it slightly and pay Eidos to use that code, thats just simply not fair business practice.

Would it be ok if they took out another part of the now Unreal 3 engine, modified it marginally and paid a developer to not make it work on ATi hardware, no that would be equally ridiculous.

Or do people really think once a game had AA added, that the guys who made the engine didn't incorporate said code into their engine, then continue to licence and UPDATE the engine as time goes on. If you licenced the engine now for a brand new game from them you would not get identical code to that released in the first game using it from a couple years ago without AA support. You'd get the latest updated engine WITH AA support and with all other tweaks and updates made up till now and updates made in the future would most likely be included at no extra cost.

Its just ridiculous business practice that a graphics company with ulterior motives can OWN part of the code in a game not made by them. If its fine for them to own the AA code and disable it on other cards, is it just as ok to own the wall texture code, or the character textures, or the lighting effects and disable those features on alternate graphics cards?

 

[CK61938]

I blame Bruce Wayne in all of this. He could have just simply got the CEO's of both companies together and told them very nicely: 'didn't you get the memo?'

 

[Aegis]

It can be beneficial because it is competition. Nvidia can provide optimal/improved/more efficient/fancier code to a game developer to make improvements to players of the game. ATI can do the exact same thing, at least, they should be allowed to.

The problem with this is then we end up with a situation whereby a game will run or appear differently depending on the hardware you're using - this is unacceptable in the PC marketplace.

Graphics hardware has always competed on price and performance and historically, if you buy the latest and greatest (be it nVidia or ATI) you were guaranteed a great time running the latest games - this new trend (including nVidia's ridiculous handling of PhysX) is going to cause a rift whereby at some point - irrespective of whether you have a Fermi or a 5870, your killer PC will run like **** (Batman on ATI with PhysX enabled/the latest ATI sponsored DX11 title on nVidia hardware etc.)

I thought we were past all this with the whole Half Life 2 debacle (ATI cards supported a mode that nVidia didn't and the game ran like crap on nVidia hardware of the time) - I've always gone with the best available hardware at the time I was planning to upgrade and drivers from both camps are comparable now so the choice for PC users should really be either 'what's the best performance?' or 'what's the best value for money?'

Added to this, PhysX is a dead end - whilst nVidia have the largest chunk of the PC GPU market, ATI users number far too many to ignore so until the ATI/PhysX roadblock is sorted out, all PhysX will be used for is eye-candy which is a terrible waste.

 

[Andric]

locking out standard hardware as its a competitor is bad. nVidia could easily have specific paths for their stuff and highly optimised and a generuic path for all hardware. not doing so and then not allowing editing of the branching to add other code paths which seems to be the issue here is anticompetitive, as tother venders cannot have a seperate path to optimised code without beign able to make a branch in code at the point nvidia departs from standard implemntation.