That makes more sense than no-aa-in-dx9.
AMD: "[Developers use PhysX only] because they’re paid to do it"
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Yes, that's why i explicitly mentioned that it wasn't possible in Batman: Arkham Asylum - not in dx9 in general.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/13422/batman_arkham_asylum_scandal_nvidia_amd_have_it_out/index.html
The responsiblity is on the Developer and Nvidia . The developer took money for a twimtp title and then disabled a working feature on ati cards.
Its why nvidia and the developer will no longer get my money. I don't want nvidia bullshit to stop me in the future from playing a game when nvidia no longer exists.
I don't really see how any of you can defend this but i guess it will be fun when the shoe is onthe other foot. Perhaps ati should start locking out multi display on nvidia hardware or dx 11 on nvidia hardware. I wonder how many of you will get upset about that.
The responsiblity is on the Developer and Nvidia . The developer took money for a twimtp title and then disabled a working feature on ati cards.
Its why nvidia and the developer will no longer get my money. I don't want nvidia bullshit to stop me in the future from playing a game when nvidia no longer exists.
I don't really see how any of you can defend this but i guess it will be fun when the shoe is onthe other foot. Perhaps ati should start locking out multi display on nvidia hardware or dx 11 on nvidia hardware. I wonder how many of you will get upset about that.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The only problem with that is Nvidia locked it up in Legalese. When ATI was asked to provide their own version for use in the game, they did so. Only to then find out that it would not be legally possible to be used because it was exactly the same as what Nvidia had provided, and Nvidia had a binding legal contract with regards to that. And when other software developers were asked about it, it was claimed it was the standard/easiest way that most developers would have used to implement AA in a Dx9 title. But hey, use lawyers to prevent either the developer or the opposition from implementing it. And then to add injury to insult make sure it's included in the DRM, so that users wouldn't be able to hack it in without violating the terms of use for that game.
Hardly something to wrap up in legal BS, eh? It was and remains an especially deplorable act of a company desperate to stem the loss of marketshare. And then making sure that the base experience would have zero fog with which to compare to the PhysX animated fog. What better way to make PhysX look better than what it was. I mean it would have already looked better in comparison to either static or limited movement fog. But hey, we can make it look absolutely super. With PhysX you get Fog. With no PhysX your system can't even do Fog, poor wimpy computers without a PhysX accelerator. And on top of that we can even make it react to your player.
Regards,
SB
Why did not AMD provide the PC Gamer with Ingame-AA and static or dynamic fog?
It's so surreal that you are complaining about one company which is doing something for their customers and yet have no problems that "your's" is doing nothing.
No he's complaining that one company provided a solution that worked on all graphics cards , then went out of their way to actively prohibit it working on other cards, and actively prevented the developer from making it work on other cards, and actively prevented the other graphics card company from providing their own solution
What's the difference between this and a "platform exclusive game" funded by a console vendor?
No one buys Halo at full price, tries to play it on their PS3 and discovers graphical features have been arbitrarily disabled to punish customers with the wrong hardware? And there's a pretty big difference between Sony or MS fully or significantly funding development of an exclusive game and nVidia's dev relations team emailing a developer their bog-standard UE3 MSAA code.
Lets not forget that you can return halo with in 7 days even open. I couldn't return batman cause nvidia disabled features on my video card ?
It's funny that so many supposedly smart people still can't grasp the difference between "disabled for them" and "enabled only for me". Or maybe they can but disabled just sounds so much more dastardly! Here's a hint - something can only be disabled after first being enabled.
It can be considered "disabled" when only thing preventing it from being enabled is a vendor id check
And again, the GOTY version of Batman has out-of-the-box AA support for Radeons too, they just never bothered to patch the "normal version"
How else would you put it.
Can radeon cards using the same method do AA in Batman ? The Answer is Yes
Is it disabled for radeon cards due to nvidia buying said feature ? The Answer is Yes
I don't see how else you can buy it. Further more there is nothing on the box that says FSAA is only enabled if you own a nvidia product. If I knew i would never buy a product purposely broken on my hardware.
Fine, maybe the line
if (GPUID == NVIDIA) then {
Was in the code from the beginning, therefore it was never enabled for Radeons. Does that really make a difference?
Of course it makes a difference. If nVidia did nothing and the result was that nobody got AA, ATi users would be no better off and there would be a lot less complaining. It is the enabling of AA on Geforces that started the whinefest, not disabling it on Radeons.
Actually it was the fact that we aren't idiots and people came out with a 2 second hack that lets fsaa work on Radeon cards that started the whinefest. It became obvious to everyone except you that its a feature beign with held due to nvidia's marking choices which are harmful to consumers.
Many exclusive titles are not "fully funded" nor "significantly funded." They do that for ad opportunities. It's like that Intel Inside campaign, which is basically that Intel will pay part of the cost for your ad with an "Intel Inside" logo in it.
Also, without the MSAA code, no one would have MSAA on UE3. Of course, maybe ATI would do that, but how do you know that ATI wouldn't make it exclusive to them?
It's not that I like exclusive deals. I don't like them. But arguing on who is evil here is pretty dumb IMHO. Business do things to make money (ultimately). Some people may argue that if NVIDIA provided this code for everyone it would increase their reputation but how would they do that? Put a marker on the game saying "MSAA provided by NVIDIA?"
It's a simple question. Without nVidia's meddling would ATi users have gotten AA support in Batman? If the answer is no, and that's what it seems to be, then ATi users have no reason to be upset. But that assumes people are rational which of course isn't the case.
For one, when they provided (or at least helped to provide?) the AA solution for STALKER (I think it was the first "expansion" or "sequel"), they didn't limit it for their cards only. They also worked on the DX10.1 support, optimized it, and on top of all that, even worked to get many of their improvements for DX10 path, even though at the time AMD had 2 generations of 10.1 hardware and nVidia had only DX10
The answer would be yes , we see it with games like starcraft 2.
The fact of the matter is that at this point in time Nvidia is more harmfull than good for the pc gaming industry because now i will no longer buy twimtp titles until they are properly run through thier paces and if something is sketchy because of nvidia i simply wont buy it and i know more and more people who are starting to feel this way.
Instead of making the gaming experiance better for everyone they are making it worse for many people