We already discussed this earlier in the thread. This argument still isn't compelling to me. Consider Gameworks under the same "free pass" you're giving Mantle - i.e. ISVs can happily write two paths and only use that path on NVIDIA - and there's no real difference beyond the fact that they have the *option* to use Gameworks on other hardware too. That option is what apparently vilifies NVIDIA despite it being the game developers who are choosing to exercise it.
I'm actually vilifying the developers who choose to use Gameworks, hence, avoiding purchase of anything made with it.
If someone made a Mantle-only game would that be AMD's fault or the game developer's fault?
If it was Mantle only then I'd be boycotting those as well. As in this case it would be worse than Gameworks as it currently stands (currently only able to run on one IHVs hardware and only on some of their hardware).
Pardon my language, but this is complete bull-shit. Game devs control their own code and can write or use whatever they want on whatever platform they want.
In the case of Gameworks, do they really? And even if they do, are they going to also offer a non-Gameworks DirectX path to ensure their game can potentially operate somewhat optimally on all graphics vendor's hardware?
At least in the case of Mantle, it doesn't even touch the "standard" rendering path available to all graphics hardware by any graphics IHV making DirectX drivers.
In the case of Gameworks, it takes the standard DirectX that all graphics cards (on Windows) will use by default and obfuscates it and optimizes it such that any code written to it works optimally on their hardware. That part is harmless enough. The part that isn't is that since it is still DirectX base, all other graphics cards from any graphics hardware provider will have to go through it unless the developer makes a separate DirextX path in addition to the Gameworks DirectX path. And what developer would do that as long as the Gameworks path performed "well enough" on non-Nvidia hardware, even if it potentially ran dog slow compared to how it would be with a non-Gameworks DirectX rendering path? Additionally, what's to stop Nvidia deliberately doing things to cripple performance on competitor's hardware? The developer's can't discuss it with other IHVs after all. So it's not like the competitors would be able to find out and point it out or even attempt to fix something Gameworks does which has some unnecessary performance impact on their hardware.
So yes, I despise Gameworks. Not for what it is trying to do. But for that fact that it takes a standard, obfuscates it, deliberately hides it from it's competitors, makes developers unable to solicit input from other graphics IHVs on how to make it run better on their hardware (if they use Gameworks) or even approach the other IHVs if there is some problem to discuss a way to fix it leading to potentially non-optimal fixes being done through Gameworks that cripples performance further.
So, I guess I should amend that. If a game developer makes a game using Gameworks but no alternate default DirectX path for other graphics vendor's hardware to use, then I will not purchase the game and will be unlikely to purchase anything from that developer in the future.
The same would go for any developer making a Mantle game with no alternate default DirectX path for other graphic's vendors hardware. This one should be obvious as I would not be able to even run the game (using an Nvidia graphics card now).
Regards,
SB
