How to enable Nvidia Phsyx on Ati cards in Batman:AA

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
There's also Nvidia's track record of malicious practices.(Extreme driver cheating to have competitive benchmark results, disabling the ULI chipset from supporting SLI and Crossfire at the same time, blocking PhysX from working if an ATI card is present)

The malice afoot here, if there is any, would be that of the developer's, would it not? The developer is the one that made the game, not NV. If I correctly understand what is being said.

 

[dguy6789]

Eidos has a track record of it as well. In the past they have threatened game reviewers to not release bad reviews of their games until several days after launch because it might hurt game sales.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=eidos

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=eidos

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=eidos

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Holy crap, you mean there are exceptions to rules of thumb? :Q

And here all this time I thought they were immutable laws of physics or something. Glad you took the time to clear that up, I was rather confused till now.

So yes, as you say, since we can envision a non-zero number of scenarios in which malice is truly afoot this most certainly negates the invocation of the premise that a priori it stands to reason to first suspect stupidity before malice.

Hanlon was such a dumbass, err that's not right as that would imply he acted out of stupidity. I meant to say he most likely knowingly and intentionally made up his statement out of malice, fully expecting the validity of his statement would become the progenitor of much angst across forums and intarwebz from here to neptune.

What a bunch of Rhetoric and Irrelevances. Nice statistically biased speak above (bold).

The statement itself

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Is only technically near truth by the use of the word adequately. So far all the adequately available evidence seems to adequately point towards malice. Fancy prose is just that.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Holy crap, you mean there are exceptions to rules of thumb? :Q

And here all this time I thought they were immutable laws of physics or something. Glad you took the time to clear that up, I was rather confused till now.

So yes, as you say, since we can envision a non-zero number of scenarios in which malice is truly afoot this most certainly negates the invocation of the premise that a priori it stands to reason to first suspect stupidity before malice.

Hanlon was such a dumbass, err that's not right as that would imply he acted out of stupidity. I meant to say he most likely knowingly and intentionally made up his statement out of malice, fully expecting the validity of his statement would become the progenitor of much angst across forums and intarwebz from here to neptune.

What a bunch of Rhetoric and Irrelevances. Nice statistically biased speak above (bold).

In other words you can't argue against it so you can only mock it?

Originally posted by: Schmide
The statement itself

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Is only technically near truth by the use of the word adequately. So far all the adequately available evidence seems to adequately point towards malice. Fancy prose is just that.

That is self-evident, is it not, given that it is included in the quote already?

Prose, regardless of its fanciness, is not without merit just because you deem it to so.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

Read my post again, would you please? I clearly asked a question and was not stating anything as fact. Would you care to answer the question I ask, or are you more interested in going off on a tangent again regarding fancy prose and the irrelevance of words and technical writing and what not?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

How many games get improvements when going from consoles to the PC? I can think of two so far this year on the PC, both of them nV financed. That is my point. I would like to see more games get improvements when they come over, and ATi is more then welcome to jump on the same boat. If they want to start paying to get enhancements for their boards that will certainly make them a more attractive offering IMO, along with most typical non flag carrying consumers.

Yes, makes all sense to the companies.

I can see if ATI follow suit "Dirt2 will come as an DX11 exclusive game for ATI. Nope nVidia users this game won't run DX11 on your nVidia cards with DX11, because even though DX11 isn't a property of ATI, nVidia didn't pay to include it on dirt2".

Then comes a dozen games with exclusive enhancements for nVidia hardware, followed by a dozen games with exclusive enhancements for ATI hardware.

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

nVidia fans or people with relations to nVdia in here, talk but only see the short term advantage for nVidia.

People opposing this, well maybe some aren't, are mainly concerned to the fact they don't want to return to the times where you would buy some piece of hardware and you would have to pray it would work on your system and your software.

These days pretty much every piece of hardware work together and if meeting certain specifications that are generally vendor agnostic (with a few exceptions for monopolies that have the resources to make others follow unfortunately) will run any software.

People here defending these kind of actions, are looking at the short term advantages for the companies - in this case they think "well AMD has less money to invest, so nVidia can keep or gain marketshare with these strategies".

I don't give a crap if it is company A, B or C doing this - I want to pay the least possible for the best hardware possible.

For that to happens you need competition.

Some people may be very happy to pay whatever X company ask them and maybe even thank them for accepting their money and then kiss their feet, I don't.

When I see strategies, that can be even considered legal, but involves trying to destroy competition without being product strengths vs product strengths, I just think "if they succeed my wallet will be a lot less heavier next time I need to buy this class of products".

EDIT: An interesting question is how they will be able to keep these kind of blocks (and even physX) if that Hydra technology works.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

I guess if some people are that gung ho to have the advanced features that is one option.

Here is reality- Batman works on ATi hardware, quite well actually. It does everything the game would have done if nV hadn't paid the developer a dime. For nVidia users it has some more advanced features. If ATi were to take exactly that same approach it wouldn't hurt anyone outside of some rabid drooling fanboys. They would be offering their customers a bonus and cost users of other hardware nothing. That is somehow a bad thing? My apologies for not having the mentality of a spolied three year old, I really don't hate something just because I don't have it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I have a hard time comprehending how people can be so ignorant to basic business, really hope these people stay far away from the professional world when they get out of school, they are so utterly blind it is shocking.

Let's say GM was coming out with a new Corvette. Car and Driver decides that they are going to pay GM to get an exclusive early preview of the car to drive sales. GM wasn't planning on letting anything out yet, but they could use the cash so they agree to it.

Why would Car and Driver do such a thing?

1) Malice for Motor Trend?
2) Malice for Road&Track?
3) To help them generate more sales?

I can not comprehend how people anywhere are dumb enough to think malice would be the motivating factor. Furthermore, they would be damn fools to offer Motor Trend and R&T to come along too, it would be counterproductive to their goal.

I can tell you for certain if I asked Jen Hsun if he would be OK if I waved a wand and could assure him that he would make $10Billion in profit this year but it means AMD would make $20Billion he would jump on it in an instant.

Just because you do something to help your own company out, doesn't mean you are being childish. To assume so simply displays your own mindset, the logic behind it is so juvenille it really makes no sense to most properly adjusted thinking adult humans.

Thought of another example that was probably better.

Why did ATi develop and release the 5870?

Malice towards nVidia?
To generate sales?

I guess to some of the MBAs in this thread, it was entirely due to malice and nothing else. They couldn't possibly be trying to part consumers from their money, they are a divine force with no goal but to fight the evil forces of the evil green monsters.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
In other words you can't argue against it so you can only mock it?

You bet I mock it, it's a bunch of irrelevant crap meant to muddy any evidence that may be presented. A convenient way of hedging an argument into an either or issue, when in fact both choices can be either true or false to some degree independently.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Schmide
The statement itself

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Is only technically near truth by the use of the word adequately. So far all the adequately available evidence seems to adequately point towards malice. Fancy prose is just that.

That is self-evident, is it not, given that it is included in the quote already?

Prose, regardless of its fanciness, is not without merit just because you deem it to so.

It is ambiguously deemed indeed as a meritoriously prosed proverb.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Schmide
It is ambiguously deemed indeed as a meritoriously prosed proverb.

Guys...english isn't my first language.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Originally posted by: Schmide
It is ambiguously deemed indeed as a meritoriously prosed proverb.

Guys...english isn't my first language.

Some would say it isn't mine either by the way I phrase some things. Ironically.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

I guess if some people are that gung ho to have the advanced features that is one option.

Here is reality- Batman works on ATi hardware, quite well actually. It does everything the game would have done if nV hadn't paid the developer a dime. For nVidia users it has some more advanced features. If ATi were to take exactly that same approach it wouldn't hurt anyone outside of some rabid drooling fanboys. They would be offering their customers a bonus and cost users of other hardware nothing. That is somehow a bad thing? My apologies for not having the mentality of a spolied three year old, I really don't hate something just because I don't have it.

If a company wishes to pay a developer to enhance a game with extra features that help showcase their particular card's strengths, that's one thing. To have them artificially block those features on a competitor's card is another.

 

[atran5e]

I think it's pretty clear Eidos didn't want to enhance the game in any way, and just straight out port it from the consoles to the PC without physx, without AA, plain ol' vanilla port just like every other console port . The only thing I would blame NV is the delay of the PC release which I believe was caused by "enhancing" the game , with physX, AA, etc.. I think ATI users are just frustrated that an AAA title got beefed up exclusively for NV users. I also believe this trend will keep on going until new gen consoles come out.
I think people are dreaming when they think games will make use of DX11 features, OpenCL, Directcompute, tessellation, Bullet physics, or any other fancy effects/features in the NEAR FUTURE. Game developers will not bother with the PC market. Unless somebody comes in and chips some money in their pockets for their troubles


My point of view guys

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Let's say GM was coming out with a new Corvette. Car and Driver decides that they are going to pay GM to get an exclusive early preview of the car to drive sales. GM wasn't planning on letting anything out yet, but they could use the cash so they agree to it.

Can you back up such an happenstance with something other than your imagination? I don't think that analogy is very persuasive. I mean, imagine AnandTech paying for an exclusive preview of company XXX's upcoming products. Not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely. Your analogy asks for a suspension of disbelief on my part and I don't think that helps your main argument at all.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: adriantrances
The only thing I would blame NV is the delay of the PC release which I believe was caused by "enhancing" the game , with physX, AA, etc.. I think ATI users are just frustrated that an AAA title got beefed up exclusively for NV users. I also believe this trend will keep on going until new gen consoles come out.

So do you believe any standards should be followed? Or should we go back to the days when compatibility was only relevant to vendor and driver?

Originally posted by: adriantrances
I think people are dreaming when they think games will make use of DX11 features, OpenCL, Directcompute, tessellation, Bullet physics, or any other fancy effects/features in the NEAR FUTURE. Game developers will not bother with the PC market. Unless somebody comes in and chips some money in their pockets for their troubles

Which is really ironic when your second paragraph includes so many standards that could easily be bought for a price in future titles.

 

[Spike]

I get some of the arguments here but I'm still wondering about the whole "vendor tag" thing. If that is really all that prevents an AMD card from experiencing the full AA then this seems like a crappy deal on nVidia's part. If it was more like physx and actually a proprietary thing then great...

Sine some people here are making up great analogies I offer one myself. Why not an engine that won't support anything above 1600x1200 initially? If AMD pays to allow the engine to go higher why wouldn't nVidia be entitled to that? It's just a higher res, something all cards can do... sorta like AA.

Either way it does not really matter to me since I won't be buying the game anyway, I just think it's funny people here are defending a vendor tag in a game.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Let's say GM was coming out with a new Corvette. Car and Driver decides that they are going to pay GM to get an exclusive early preview of the car to drive sales. GM wasn't planning on letting anything out yet, but they could use the cash so they agree to it.

Can you back up such an happenstance with something other than your imagination? I don't think that analogy is very persuasive. I mean, imagine AnandTech paying for an exclusive preview of company XXX's upcoming products. Not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely. Your analogy asks for a suspension of disbelief on my part and I don't think that helps your main argument at all.

I think the point of his analogy is not to probe the cerebral frontiers of whether or not such an event is probable but rather for us to probe that gray region of whether or not such an arrangement is unethical/amoral/dirty versus illegal versus illogical, etc.

Regardless whether the analogy is poorly or expertly formed, the proposition itself is salient enough for us to contemplate without the need for further elaboration on the analogy. Isn't it?

Exclusives do happen, and paid-for ones happen all the time in the world of advertising as BenSkywalker just brought up. Don't like his car analogy, ok, how about we bring in a real-world example that just happened recently:

Khloe Kardashian to ring up top dollar for wedding deal

Sources say OK! magazine is about to shell out $300,000 for an exclusive on the Sunday nuptials, besting lesser offers from Us Weekly and People.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gos...0_in_wedding_deal.html

Now go back to BenSkywalker's post and assess the pro's and con's of OK! magazines rational (malice or not) in this example versus what happened to US Weekly and People magazine.

 

[atran5e]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: adriantrances
The only thing I would blame NV is the delay of the PC release which I believe was caused by "enhancing" the game , with physX, AA, etc.. I think ATI users are just frustrated that an AAA title got beefed up exclusively for NV users. I also believe this trend will keep on going until new gen consoles come out.

So do you believe any standards should be followed? Or should we go back to the days when compatibility was only relevant to vendor and driver?

Originally posted by: adriantrances
I think people are dreaming when they think games will make use of DX11 features, OpenCL, Directcompute, tessellation, Bullet physics, or any other fancy effects/features in the NEAR FUTURE. Game developers will not bother with the PC market. Unless somebody comes in and chips some money in their pockets for their troubles

Which is really ironic when your second paragraph includes so many standards that could easily be bought for a price in future titles.

It's not about what standards I believe are right or should be followed, but how things are standing right now (imo). As much as you'd like to go back to the old days right now, you can't.
No devs will bother making fancy effects and realistic graphics for you're little DX10/11 PC, unless somebody gives them money. You might give them your 50$ bucks, but the majority of PC users worldwide will still freely DL the game. PC games sales won't be driven by how good the game looks.
If I was you I'd be happy games are even ported to the PC.
I'm just pessimistic right now about the PC gaming industry, but I do hope DX11 takes off and we're gonna see improved graphics and physx effects on both NV and ATI.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: adriantrances
It's not about what standards I believe are right or should be followed, but how things are standing right now (imo). As much as you'd like to go back to the old days right now, you can't.
No devs will bother making fancy effects and realistic graphics for you're little DX10/11 PC, unless somebody gives them money. You might give them your 50$ bucks, but the majority of PC users worldwide will still freely DL the game. PC games sales won't be driven by how good the game looks.
If I was you I'd be happy games are even ported to the PC.
I'm just pessimistic right now about the PC gaming industry, but I do hope DX11 takes off and we're gonna see improved graphics and physx effects on both NV and ATI.

Honestly this Batman issue is not the norm. As much as Microsoft may be considered quasi-totalitarian, they drive the standards that all members of graphics industry enjoy today. Even those that don't apply to the windows platform.

I don't want to go back anywhere, the device compatibility today is incredible. The point I was making, nVidia/Rocksteady Studios/Eidos/All (edit) ignored the standards put forth by the DirectX device caps and made the vendor what determined what was seen on screen. What's the point of having standards if you exclude honest adopters of said standard?

I purchase every game and piece of software I use. One very relevant thing to the pirating of games, if a company does something to piss off the gaming community, its chance of being pirated goes up tremendously. (ex Spore the most pirated game due to DRM)

I respect your opinion, I was just pointing out some issues you may wish to consider when formulating it.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

I guess if some people are that gung ho to have the advanced features that is one option.

Here is reality- Batman works on ATi hardware, quite well actually. It does everything the game would have done if nV hadn't paid the developer a dime. For nVidia users it has some more advanced features. If ATi were to take exactly that same approach it wouldn't hurt anyone outside of some rabid drooling fanboys. They would be offering their customers a bonus and cost users of other hardware nothing. That is somehow a bad thing? My apologies for not having the mentality of a spolied three year old, I really don't hate something just because I don't have it.

If a company wishes to pay a developer to enhance a game with extra features that help showcase their particular card's strengths, that's one thing. To have them artificially block those features on a competitor's card is another.

And that is really what it boils down to. It seems from the circumstantial evidence, though no one in their right mind will admit to it, nVidia pulled some strings to get ATI locked out of some features on purpose.

If it was some added effects available only through the use of PhysX (Mirror's Edge cloth and extra glass shattering) then fine, but having features disabled if it recognizes that a user has an ATI is just a slap in the face to the user.

Again, I understand the business reasons for nVidia pulling the strings to get this done because you'll have a hard time convincing me that nVidia didn't get ATI locked out on purpose. From a business standpoint I actually applaud nVidia for getting this done. But as a consumer, this sucks to high heaven.

There are a ton of gamers using ATI cards because even with the 60+ percent sales rate in the last couple of years, ATI still has at least 1/3 of the discrete video card market. That is a very sizable number of potential customers which the developer just bent over and screwed.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: golem

So either all other developers using the UE3 engine are lazy/incompetent (possible), or there is actually some effort to enable in game AA, especially in DX9 (since even the engine developers didn't have this in their game). If Nvidia paid/helped the developers to implement this, why shouldn't they be allowed to restrict it to their cards?

If they used calls specific to the nVidia hardware, (very didn't), sure they can restrict it, I doubt any other cards understand nVidia instructions. (see my post above) If they specifically told (bought) the developer to ignore Microsoft DX compatibility flags, then they not only went against AMD(ATI) but also Microsoft, which touts itself on setting standards that game developers should follow.

What standards are being broken here?

Are DX10 games required to have AA?
Are Developers required to enable all the features their games are capable of?
Are Games required to play/look the same on all vendors cards or to the best ability of the cards?

I'm not positive.. but I think the answer to all above are no...

I bet if microsoft were a person, and you asked this person what was the one thing about Arkham Asylum that bothered s/he the most, the answer would be, " that it wasn't exclusively on the Xbox360." That it has in game AA on Nvidia hardware and not ATI hardware probably wouldn't even register.

and going against ATI as an argument for not doing this... you do know they are competitors right?

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: golem

So either all other developers using the UE3 engine are lazy/incompetent (possible), or there is actually some effort to enable in game AA, especially in DX9 (since even the engine developers didn't have this in their game). If Nvidia paid/helped the developers to implement this, why shouldn't they be allowed to restrict it to their cards?

If they used calls specific to the nVidia hardware, (very didn't), sure they can restrict it, I doubt any other cards understand nVidia instructions. (see my post above) If they specifically told (bought) the developer to ignore Microsoft DX compatibility flags, then they not only went against AMD(ATI) but also Microsoft, which touts itself on setting standards that game developers should follow.

What standards are being broken here?

Are DX10 games required to have AA?
Are Developers required to enable all the features their games are capable of?
Are Games required to play/look the same on all vendors cards or to the best ability of the cards?

I'm not positive.. but I think the answer to all above are no...

I bet if microsoft were a person, and you asked this person what was the one thing about Arkham Asylum that bothered s/he the most, the answer would be, " that it wasn't exclusively on the Xbox360." That it has in game AA on Nvidia hardware and not ATI hardware probably wouldn't even register.

and going against ATI as an argument for not doing this... you do know they are competitors right?

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't understand and can't separate things done by the corporations that are good for the corporations since it gives them a leg up on the competition and things that are good for the consumers.

From a business standpoint, I applaud what nVidia has done. Getting developers to make games look better on your video cards is going to help you if it's more than just the odd game.

As a consumer, I might be (and am) PO'ed with what nVidia and the developer has pulled here, it isn't in any way illegal. As a consumer, I'm not buying this game because it sets a bad precedence of locking out features on purpose. I don't care if it's locking out ATI or nVidia. If it was a different game and someone was digging through the code and found that certain features available to both cards but were locked out on purpose when it recognizes an nVidia card, I wouldn't buy that game either.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Schmide

I respect your opinion, I was just pointing out some issues you may wish to consider when formulating it.

I want you to consider something before you formulate your opinion too then.

I think it's very likely that if Nvidia didn't step in, Rocksteady would have just ported Arkham w/o in game AA or physx.

At least with Nvidia stepping in, they helped their own customers with a little extra effects and eye candy. ATI users are not better or worse off than if Nvidia didn't step in.

In fact, ATI users are BENEFITED by Nvidia actions since they can hack in in-game AA AND rudimentary physx if they have i7/i5 processor.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: akugami


I think the problem is that a lot of people don't understand and can't separate things done by the corporations that are good for the corporations since it gives them a leg up on the competition and things that are good for the consumers.

From a business standpoint, I applaud what nVidia has done. Getting developers to make games look better on your video cards is going to help you if it's more than just the odd game.

As a consumer, I might be (and am) PO'ed with what nVidia and the developer has pulled here, it isn't in any way illegal. As a consumer, I'm not buying this game because it sets a bad precedence of locking out features on purpose. I don't care if it's locking out ATI or nVidia. If it was a different game and someone was digging through the code and found that certain features available to both cards but were locked out on purpose when it recognizes an nVidia card, I wouldn't buy that game either.

That's the best reasoning I've read so far on this matter. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Schmide]

I'll quote myself so you understand what I'm saying. I guess you missed this?

Originally posted by: Schmide
From what I've understand about this issue, the Unreal Engine 3 under DX9 can do MSAA no problem. However, it can not do MSAA and HDR lighting at the same time because of the way HDR is implemented in the pixel shaders. Unless you fudge it you need a floating point render target to properly do HDR. Guess what, DX9 doesn't support MSAA under a floating point render target. The solution is that many engines fudge the HDR in a non FP target and up-sample the calculations for HDR. It's called a RGBE surface. (the E is an exponent value to allow greater range for the values)

The true irony in this is it was originally showed in a Radeon SDK 2005.

Edit: I just wanted to add that all these tricks are done with standard directX calls and should run on any hardware that supports them. (Which is every card after the 9600+ series for AMD and 6000+ series for nVidia)
Edit: I was wrong here. All 9.0 shader models support FP16 render target and none of the above tricks require a one.

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: golem

So either all other developers using the UE3 engine are lazy/incompetent (possible), or there is actually some effort to enable in game AA, especially in DX9 (since even the engine developers didn't have this in their game). If Nvidia paid/helped the developers to implement this, why shouldn't they be allowed to restrict it to their cards?

If they used calls specific to the nVidia hardware, (very didn't), sure they can restrict it, I doubt any other cards understand nVidia instructions. (see my post above) If they specifically told (bought) the developer to ignore Microsoft DX compatibility flags, then they not only went against AMD(ATI) but also Microsoft, which touts itself on setting standards that game developers should follow.

What standards are being broken here?

DirectX Caps Standards see above.

Originally posted by: golem

Are DX10 games required to have AA?

Noting is required, but you are advised to make rendering decisions based on the DX caps bits, NOT the vendor string!

Originally posted by: golem
Are Developers required to enable all the features their games are capable of?

Are Games required to play/look the same on all vendors cards or to the best ability of the cards?

I'm not positive.. but I think the answer to all above are no...

Well card vendors aren't required to subscribe to DirectX standards but the reason they do so is to avoid situations like this.

Setting the precedent that standards should be subscribed to yet ignored to make your card look better, is bad.

Originally posted by: golem

I bet if microsoft were a person, and you asked this person what was the one thing about Arkham Asylum that bothered s/he the most, the answer would be, " that it wasn't exclusively on the Xbox360." That it has in game AA on Nvidia hardware and not ATI hardware probably wouldn't even register.

Yeah Microsoft wants to kill where 95%+ of their money comes from, the PC market.

Originally posted by: golem
and going against ATI as an argument for not doing this... you do know they are competitors right?

As competitors they both produce DirectX compatible cards, they should respect the standard.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Schmide

I respect your opinion, I was just pointing out some issues you may wish to consider when formulating it.

I want you to consider something before you formulate your opinion too then.

I think it's very likely that if Nvidia didn't step in, Rocksteady would have just ported Arkham w/o in game AA or physx.

At least with Nvidia stepping in, they helped their own customers with a little extra effects and eye candy. ATI users are not better or worse off than if Nvidia didn't step in.

In fact, ATI users are BENEFITED by Nvidia actions since they can hack in in-game AA AND rudimentary physx if they have i7/i5 processor.

So the ends justify the means?

Should we put eye candy up for sale on all games and have an all out capabilities war?

What you think is just an excuse for bad behavior.