NVIDIA shows signs ... [2008 - 2017]

[Florin]

Meanwhile Nvidia is quite happy to not only force a VendorID lockout but to also turn it into an advertisement for their hardware. If you wish to unlock this feature, buy Nvidia.

The only evidence we have is that there is a vendor id enabling. Which is not the same as a lockout. And the fact that Nvidia is somehow forcing this is merely an assumption for which there is no evidence, let alone proof. I think that it is a pity that there are many otherwise reasonable people going even further and basing all sorts of conclusions on this unproven assumption.

Fact is that we do not know why the developers put in a check and how it works. We have only testimony that AA appears to work properly in superficial testing if you alter the vendor id on ATI hardware.

Aside from being blamed for something they may very well have no control over or hand in in the first place, I can't help but feel that Nvidia just does not get much credit for providing a first class ecosystem around their hardware. For me, enjoying videocard ownership is about more than x FLOPS for y money. When it comes to game compatibility and features, OS support, added value (yes, including Physx, and CUDA, and OpenCL that actually works), general hardware availability, choice of vendors and other factors, they're doing really well. So what if Jen Hsun Huang is a batshit crazy egomaniac with less vision than Stevie Wonder, I'm still happy with what they bring to the table.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Aside from being blamed for something they may very well have no control over or hand in in the first place, I can't help but feel that Nvidia just does not get much credit for providing a first class ecosystem around their hardware. For me, enjoying videocard ownership is about more than x FLOPS for y money. When it comes to game compatibility and features, OS support, added value (yes, including Physx, and CUDA, and OpenCL that actually works), general hardware availability, choice of vendors and other factors, they're doing really well. So what if Jen Hsun Huang is a batshit crazy egomaniac with less vision than Stevie Wonder, I'm still happy with what they bring to the table.

 

[Florin]

So, should Intel and AMD check vendor IDs on interrupts and if the vendor ID = Nvidia, do a while(1e12) loop or just drop the interrupt? I mean after all, Nvidia hasn't done anything to get interrupts working on PCs, why should they get a benefit.

You're argument is beyond baseless.

The fact that you seem to need to come up with an absurd analogy for him to respond to is pretty revealing. There's just nothing here but people jumping to conclusions based on the assumption that there is a sinister scheme by Nvidia behind a third party title's behaviour. The illegal scenario that you are presenting is clearly undesirable, but that doesn't say anything about the actual issue at hand.

 

[digitalwanderer]

The fact that you seem to need to come up with an absurd analogy for him to respond to is pretty revealing. There's just nothing here but people jumping to conclusions based on the assumption that there is a sinister scheme by Nvidia behind a third party title's behaviour. The illegal scenario that you are presenting is clearly undesirable, but that doesn't say anything about the actual issue at hand.

He's using the same logic you used, just carrying it further to point out how batshit insane it is.

 

[Sxotty]

So, should Intel and AMD check vendor IDs on interrupts and if the vendor ID = Nvidia, do a while(1e12) loop or just drop the interrupt? I mean after all, Nvidia hasn't done anything to get interrupts working on PCs, why should they get a benefit.

You're argument is beyond baseless.

And so is yours. It makes no sense at all. But hey lets get up in arms.

Digi creating an analogy that makes no sense and is only tangentially related to another postulated argument doesn't show it is insane. It shows someone is poor at supporting their argument, or to lazy to try and come up with better support.

 

[Florin]

He's using the same logic you used, just carrying it further to point out how batshit insane it is.

Bah, I merely say that I like the way Nvidia helps customers and developers get the most from their hardware.

That's not in the slightest way related to his statement that:
- If ATI is specifically targeted to be locked out from AA in this 3rd party software, and
- If Nvidia is actually paying/forcing developers to do such a thing, then
- It would be just the same as AMD/ATI blacklisting Nvidia hardware

Which are 2 assumptions along with a conclusion which would be wrong even if it turns out a and b are true.

This is a case of nothing to see here, move along. What's with the drama?

 

[willardjuice]

And so is yours. It makes no sense at all. But hey lets get up in arms.

Digi creating an analogy that makes no sense and is only tangentially related to another postulated argument doesn't show it is insane. It shows someone is poor at supporting their argument, or to lazy to try and come up with better support.

These arguments are inconsistent at best. A developer is free to artificially lock out MSAA for certain vendors, but somehow it becomes unethical if they artificially lock out API extensions for certain vendors? That doesn't make sense. You're right in that some people here have gone to the extreme, but where should the line be drawn? When is it ok to lock out a feature and when is it not ok? The notion that Nvidia should get special privileges because they helped a developer with code is ridiculous. This help happens quite often and shouldn't result in exclusive features if other vendors already support those features. Having exclusive features hurt consumers because it limits their choice. I want to buy a GPU based on its performance, not whether a company paid a developer enough to have that GPU supported. This is not something we should be promoting; we should be condemning it.

Btw this is why people play consoles now. They don't have to deal with this shit. They don't have to worry about dumb IHV politics. They don't have to worry about which game needs MSAA forced through the control panel. They don't need to edit configuration files. Or have to rename .exe's. They plug in the disc and it just works. Developers should not be forcing their customers to jump through anymore hoops than they already have to.

 

[Florin]

A developer is free to artificially lock out MSAA for certain vendors

Actually, free to enable it for certain vendors. Why not for others? Noone knows for sure, so why are people all up in arms?

but somehow it becomes unethical if they artificially lock out API extensions for certain vendors?

Unethical if it is lock out, and it relates to a competitor. Sure. Illegal even. But these situations aren't remotely comparable.

I want to buy a GPU based on its performance, not whether a company paid a developer enough to have that GPU supported. This is not something we should be promoting; we should be condemning it.

Well, you go buy it based on performance, and others can factor in other items like price and feature set and driver support and software support. Why should vendors compete only on performance?

Btw this is why people play consoles now. They don't have to deal with this shit. They don't have to worry about dumb IHV politics.

Heh is it? I figured people play consoles for all sorts of reasons, but chiefly because all the cool games are on there (first) these days. I doubt IHV politics is very high on the radar tbh.

 

[aaronspink]

And so is yours. It makes no sense at all. But hey lets get up in arms.

Digi creating an analogy that makes no sense and is only tangentially related to another postulated argument doesn't show it is insane. It shows someone is poor at supporting their argument, or to lazy to try and come up with better support.

Sxotty, what's the difference? The argument I'm seeing supporting nvidia is they supposedly put the work in so why should their competitor benefit. That's no difference from my case.

In both cases its doing the same thing, checking the vendor ID, and saying screw it, if it isn't the ID it likes.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Unethical if it is lock out, and it relates to a competitor. Sure. Illegal even. But these situations aren't remotely comparable.

Why not? :|

 

[Bob]

The GPU is accelerating the WHOLE scene that is a CORE part of the gameplay and experience.

I guess if you ignore all of GPU and video gaming history, you might be right.

The honest truth is that game physics hasn't really progressed one bit from HL2, and I'd dare say that HL2 has more physics involved than the vast majority of current games out there. This will like stay true until widespread accelerated physics becomes a reality.

Now you're just insulting game developers.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The honest truth is that game physics hasn't really progressed one bit from HL2, and I'd dare say that HL2 has more physics involved than the vast majority of current games out there. This will like stay true until widespread accelerated physics becomes a reality.

Have you never tried a bit of Red Faction: Guerrilla? You should .

 

[Thorburn]

Heh is it? I figured people play consoles for all sorts of reasons, but chiefly because all the cool games are on there (first) these days. I doubt IHV politics is very high on the radar tbh.

Saying IHV politics is the direct reason would be a stretch, but its a contributing factor. PC gaming has a reputation for needing you to piss about before things will work - that said people are going to be put off well before they realise they can't have Anti-aliasing on ATI hardware in a specific game.
More important here would be ensuring games work without needing the latest driver + game specific hotfix, but then that'll never happen

Does make you wonder what drivers the game developers use when testing the title - I'd want to make sure everything worked on 6 month old drivers to ensure if you were at least moderately up to date it would work out the box.

Have you never tried a bit of Red Faction: Guerrilla? You should .

One title does not a vast majority make.

 

[neliz]

People have to stop thinking nVidia put AA in B:AA while it was clearly there. It isn't magically "enabled" for nV hardware, but clearly disabled for everything non-nV.

I can't see how nVidia is helping the entire world by making sure an AA capable engine has no AA on anything other than nVidia hardware.

I, for the love of god hope that DiRT2 has a vendor check that only allows 640x480 on non-AMD hardware because, clearly, AMD helped CodeMasters a lot there.

 

[Panajev2001a]

One title does not a vast majority make.

"The honest truth is that game physics hasn't really progressed one bit from HL2"

Now we are going to debate the term "really"... huh?

.

 

[Thorburn]

"The honest truth is that game physics hasn't really progressed one bit from HL2"

Now we are going to debate the term "really"... huh?

.

As a generalisation I'd say he's not far wrong, okay you have some games where they go "Wow look physics", then make limited use of it.

Red Faction: Guerilla has some silly moments in it too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9cNAfRr4g

 

[trinibwoy]

So, should Intel and AMD check vendor IDs on interrupts and if the vendor ID = Nvidia, do a while(1e12) loop or just drop the interrupt? I mean after all, Nvidia hasn't done anything to get interrupts working on PCs, why should they get a benefit.

You're argument is beyond baseless.

And your analogy is beyond stupid Can we stop with the ridiculous comparisons of dumb hardware to intelligent software? CPUs don't know or care what else they're connected to and have no idea what a "GPU" is. On the other hand if a software developer wants to put an if statement around a block of code that's their business. As I said before I don't condone developers locking out IHV's just for $$$. But if they were paid to implement a feature they had no intention of including in the first place why would the "investor" not want exclusivity? That's how it works in every other industry. Console specific content springs to mind.

And you call this extra value? This is a feature that Epic, NOT nVidia implemented into UE3.(5).

If Epic implemented it why is it not freely available in all UE3.5 games? And regardless, it's extra value if it's something that wouldn't have been there were it not for Nvidia's input. Nobody can prove that it would have been - just more hand-waving as usual.

 

[Tchock]

@Trini
Trunks and builds I guess. Most UE3 projects that have arrived on the PC either started development much earlier than Epic opened up the UE3/.5 DX10 code base, or didn't add in the DX10 codepath (which was useless except for AA).


I remember some complaints about Epic not being too keen/fast on giving away bleeding edge (read: improved) code from their side- I think Silicon Knights and Ubisoft (R6 Vegas 1 era) were involved.

Arkham was a relatively new project in which the DX10=True parameter (which normally does shat) actually works, so it's a newer build.

 

[trinibwoy]

I don't know. I just find the notion of a developer getting paid to put a conditional around its otherwise universal AA implementation to be so far-fetched to be completely unbelievable. That perspective is simply reinforced by the previous absence of AA in UE3 games, and frankly that's the only reliable fact at this point.

neliz your resolution limiting comparison is taking something away. Getting AA in BAA is adding something new. See the difference? Paying a developer to take away value isn't quite the same as paying them to add it. If you can prove that BAA would have had AA for all hardware before Nvidia's involvement than I would quickly change my tune cause then this would be even worse than the DX10.1 removal from AC. However, no proof, no dice....

 

[neliz]

neliz your resolution limiting comparison is taking something away. Getting AA in BAA is adding something new. See the difference? Paying a developer to take away value isn't quite the same as paying them to add it. If you can prove that BAA would have had AA for all hardware before Nvidia's involvement than I would quickly change my tune cause then this would be even worse than the DX10.1 removal from AC. However, no proof, no dice....

Getting AA in B:AA is adding something new? Oh surely trini, you jest!
Work started on B:AA just before GoW was realeased on the PC (with AA) and they updated the engine several times during development

Our team has had a lot of experience with the Unreal engine. We started looking at the Unreal technology in December 2005, roughly 18 months before starting the game. We've been ironing our skills and polishing our workflow with the engine for nearly four years to deliver the best experience possible with Batman: Arkham Asylum.

During that time the engine went through several iterations and updates. One great thing about the Unreal engine is that the community of developers using the technology is quite proactive and the guys at Epic are always on top of their business, taking good care of the Unreal licensees and their problems through UDN, a forum dedicated to the developers using UE3.

When we started working on Batman: Arkham Asylum we knew the Unreal engine inside out, and we had already started customizing it to get the optimal workflow while also ironing out the elements that were going to stand out in the art style of the game. From day one of Batman: Arkham Asylum production, we were already achieving a very polished look of the game in both technical and artistic terms. The engine gave us a huge opportunity to refine and polish the visual direction during development.

From there we could focus on the visual direction of Batman: Arkham Asylum without worrying about the constraints of the engine, as we knew it quite well inside out from the beginning of production, which was a great position to be in.

Now, you can't hold up that a developer that knows the engine "Inside out" because they were working with it for four years and has great communication with both Epic and it's Licensees can't simply find out how to flip the AA switch without the everloving warm teat that is TWIMBTP.

http://www.develop-online.net/features/496/EPIC-DIARIES-Batman-Arkham-Asylum
http://blogs.ign.com/WBIE_Batman/2009/08/07/126330/