-
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.
AMD & nVidia at it again over Batman
- Thread starter BubbySoup
- Start date
No, reason being is that, that game is exclusive to sony consoles, XBOX also has a few titles that are exclusive to them as well, and so does PC.
hmm ok i do get that it is slightly differnt. but consoles are almost same nowadays. they both have multi CPU, nvidia/ati cards etc i doubt is hard to port over like they do with pc ports.
so really it is the same. It's just people i used to having to buy 2 consoles if they like to play all the games but pc users are not....
Also I imagine a lot of game makers are happy for the funds they get from Nvidia to help fund making games?
The only 2 options a I can see is for ATI to help fund games (cant see happening)
or Nvidia to stop funding games (which we all lose)
The other thing I am hating it the words Nvidia Fan boy....
I have had Nvidia and Ati cards I go with what offers me best at time, Currently I'm with Nvidia as dont see much point upgrading at moment till direct X 11 is the norm. and my card cant run then i will way up what is best for me.
But TBH based on this forum Ati Fanboys are more in numbers?
so really it is the same. It's just people i used to having to buy 2 consoles if they like to play all the games but pc users are not....
Also I imagine a lot of game makers are happy for the funds they get from Nvidia to help fund making games?
The only 2 options a I can see is for ATI to help fund games (cant see happening)
or Nvidia to stop funding games (which we all lose)
The other thing I am hating it the words Nvidia Fan boy....
I have had Nvidia and Ati cards I go with what offers me best at time, Currently I'm with Nvidia as dont see much point upgrading at moment till direct X 11 is the norm. and my card cant run then i will way up what is best for me.
But TBH based on this forum Ati Fanboys are more in numbers?
Because a certain few people here spin as much as they can to defend NV as much as possible, including someone who makes amazing claims with no substance or evidence
Wouldn't let it worry you... I'm sure if they are making such amazing claims based on no substance they will be proved wrong most of the time.
No, it is completely differant.
The main reason being that a computer game is playable on ALL computers regardless of parts (performance allowing of course), and what Nvidia have done is remove that by making gamers require there "part" to get the full experieince from a game.
Never before has this been the case, there are dozens of TWIMTBP titles and also a few games with physics, up until now, the only differance between having an ATI and Nvidia card has been physics which for the most part people dont care about and the differance in general performane between ATI and Nvidia is minimal. Nothing else was effected in games without physics parts, so in say "Game A" with no physics capability on a 4890 and a 275 was exactly the same, with physics, yes Nvidia owners got it but generaly it was rather lacking and nothing that couldnt be lived without. If Batman just had physics, we wouldn't give a toss.
What they have done now however is the opposite, what they have done is make the industry standard ability of graphics cards, AA, ONLY POSSIBLE on their cards.
It is no longer a case of just physics which is an Nvida only thing, something ATI owners know and don't honestly care about as it was their choice, what they have done is take a basic standard game play feature and remove it from people who don't own their cards.
If say a game came out on 360 and PS3, but Sony payed the developers money so that only PS3 owners got access to multiplayer, would you not be annoyed as a 360 owner?
That is what is why people are annoyed with them.
Now for me? I don't really care, I can turn AA on in CCC and so on so it looks OK and I have no care in the world for the lack of physics because a lot of the time I find the effects needless gimicks (again opinion) however, AA is not a "nice add on" it is as I said an industry standard.
Imagine if ATI made it so DX11 in the new DIRT game would only run on their cards, I imagine Nvidia would get pretty annoyed at that (of course that is when Nv get around to making a card that can use DX11 of course).
Last edited:
Hence why you appear to be trolling.
As for pot/kettle/black?
I have pots that aren't black and my kettle is chrome, I've never understood this bizarre "saying".
It's like "you can't have your cake and eat it". They should be illegal words to even think about uttering.
The only purpose anyone would want cake would be to eat it.
You have obviously been duped by nVidia's marketing BS then, if nVidia stopped funding games, we all wouldn't lose even though they would like to you to think otherwise.
They themselves would lose though, that's why they fund games in the first place. They're trying to get the upper hand in performance.
Neither companies fund games, they just send their developers around, generally to write some code that favours their platform. AMD have been doing this with pretty much all DX10.1 games (HAWX, Battleforge, etc. note how the GT220 and GT210 are not locked out from running DX10.1 codepaths in these titles) and some future DX11 titles (DiRT 2, and STALKER: call of Pripyat, for example)
Edit: Edited because my wording was awful.
Before we take this thread any further... please everyone take the time to step back and read and comprehend the following:
====================================================
AMD's senior manager of developer relations, Richard Huddy:
AMD's senior manager of advanced marketing, Ian McNaughton:
====================================================
The guy at AMD/ATI who is directly responsible for developer relations - at a later date - says "we have no problem with eidos enabling completely unsupported and untested code to run on our cards" - not "we provided a solution"... a MARKETING guy - when was the last time you worked for somewhere where the marketing guys had a good grasp of the technical side of the business? (rhetorical - I know its a sweeping statement) says "we had a solution" but doesn't elaborate on that solution...
Now moving on... we have proprietary code that enables a feature that is otherwise not supported to run on a certain set of hardware and does not enable itself when untested hardware is present... whats so wrong about that?
Now we have the fact that Batman AA does not have an ingame path for doing anti-aliasing on generic or vendor specific hardware other than the path provided by nVidia under specific license - for clarity this specific license does NOT prevent Eidos from implementing AA via any other method - it only prevents Eidos from changing the checking conditions that cause this code to be used and also stipulates that Eidos can't use this code (which is the work of someone else) as a base for their own code...
Why does it not have an AA path for other vendors? its a burning question - even the lack of a generic path is somewhat glaring - but does that really point the finger directly at nVidia?
So Eidos quite correctly says to ATI sorry we can't just enable this code to work on your cards as it would breach our license...
At this point there is too much missing information to fill in the blanks... does nVidia have a behind the scenes agreement with Eidos to prevent them implementing AA for other cards? did ATI really have a solution? (the evidence suggests no) - did ATI even offer to help implement such a solution? again the evidence of their own developer relations guy suggests they were not interested in helping implement such code but would be happy for it to be enabled on unsupported and untested code that was the effort of another party.
Draw your own conclusions... but if your going to bash nVidia atleast base it on something that doesn't make you look silly.
EDIT: And uh apologies for my appalling used of the English language heh... can blame the conservatives messing with the curriculum for that :S
====================================================
AMD's senior manager of developer relations, Richard Huddy:
AMD's senior manager of advanced marketing, Ian McNaughton:
====================================================
The guy at AMD/ATI who is directly responsible for developer relations - at a later date - says "we have no problem with eidos enabling completely unsupported and untested code to run on our cards" - not "we provided a solution"... a MARKETING guy - when was the last time you worked for somewhere where the marketing guys had a good grasp of the technical side of the business? (rhetorical - I know its a sweeping statement) says "we had a solution" but doesn't elaborate on that solution...
Now moving on... we have proprietary code that enables a feature that is otherwise not supported to run on a certain set of hardware and does not enable itself when untested hardware is present... whats so wrong about that?
Now we have the fact that Batman AA does not have an ingame path for doing anti-aliasing on generic or vendor specific hardware other than the path provided by nVidia under specific license - for clarity this specific license does NOT prevent Eidos from implementing AA via any other method - it only prevents Eidos from changing the checking conditions that cause this code to be used and also stipulates that Eidos can't use this code (which is the work of someone else) as a base for their own code...
Why does it not have an AA path for other vendors? its a burning question - even the lack of a generic path is somewhat glaring - but does that really point the finger directly at nVidia?
So Eidos quite correctly says to ATI sorry we can't just enable this code to work on your cards as it would breach our license...
At this point there is too much missing information to fill in the blanks... does nVidia have a behind the scenes agreement with Eidos to prevent them implementing AA for other cards? did ATI really have a solution? (the evidence suggests no) - did ATI even offer to help implement such a solution? again the evidence of their own developer relations guy suggests they were not interested in helping implement such code but would be happy for it to be enabled on unsupported and untested code that was the effort of another party.
Draw your own conclusions... but if your going to bash nVidia atleast base it on something that doesn't make you look silly.
EDIT: And uh apologies for my appalling used of the English language heh... can blame the conservatives messing with the curriculum for that :S
Last edited:
Roff, you seem to be putting the worst spin into the ati responses. Id read it more that they offered to help on a solution but were rebuffed for some reason. maybe the solution was poor, maybe nvidia as alleged, maybe lack of dev interest or whatever.
pretty much - if they are doing whats claime they will get prosecuted but think lot of its overblown - nVidia pr really do have a massive credibility gap now.
Spin?
For ATI to develop a viable, opptomised custom multisampling implementation for Batman AA they would require access to the source code or atleast a good proportion of it and/or a development build of the game and good acccess to the developer team... anyone whos ever done any kinda work like this will know companies don't just share their source code around...
Why on earth would Eidos share portions of their source and/or developer access to their engine - which are usually kept very tight to the chest - and dedicate the time from a number of their developer personnel to work with ATI/AMD if they are just going to turn around and say well actually we only did that for a laugh we aren't actually going to use it?
So just who is caught in a lie? and just who is guilty of spin? Mr Huddy and his rather interesting turn of phrase tops my list right now (for the spin).
I rather think that Ian McNaughton lacking the understanding of the finer points of the technical side fully believes what he is stating...
For ATI to develop a viable, opptomised custom multisampling implementation for Batman AA they would require access to the source code or atleast a good proportion of it and/or a development build of the game and good acccess to the developer team... anyone whos ever done any kinda work like this will know companies don't just share their source code around...
Why on earth would Eidos share portions of their source and/or developer access to their engine - which are usually kept very tight to the chest - and dedicate the time from a number of their developer personnel to work with ATI/AMD if they are just going to turn around and say well actually we only did that for a laugh we aren't actually going to use it?
So just who is caught in a lie? and just who is guilty of spin? Mr Huddy and his rather interesting turn of phrase tops my list right now (for the spin).
I rather think that Ian McNaughton lacking the understanding of the finer points of the technical side fully believes what he is stating...
Last edited:
@Rroff
The evidence suggests that Ati did provide a solution because they said they did. When one person especially a marketting person speaks for what a company did then that means, that very likely that company did that.
If your going to just ignore actual physical evidence and say there is no physical evidence then your in the land of the looking glass.
The evidence suggests that Ati did provide a solution because they said they did. When one person especially a marketting person speaks for what a company did then that means, that very likely that company did that.
If your going to just ignore actual physical evidence and say there is no physical evidence then your in the land of the looking glass.
I'm not sure what anyone is arguing about anymore but the evidence is there provided by Rroff. The persons whom speak for AMD have said that they did provide support. So all you can ascertain from that is for unkown reasons Eidos are not implementing anti aliasing for ATI cards(as in its not because lack of help or lack of effort on AMDs part).
I'm not sure how someone can ascertain the conclusion, that ATI had no solution when the actual known evidence, persons whom know a little more about things than we do have spoken and said to the contrary. If your going to ignore that then what is evidence?
Last edited:
If this is true then it shows they had agreement and nivida is/was defending that ip ownership,which locked out AMD
This to me ir true shows they tried to do something to get a edge that backfired on them and they backtracked because of pressure from someone or because of the bad press or both.
If true amd did try and sort out the code but because of nvidia pressure because of their so called IP,they got nowhere.
To be honest those people high up in a company (meaning all company's)have to answer to someone when they open their mouth,unlike someone on a forums who can say almost anything they want.
Last edited: