Well, at least now we won't have to see this escalate Imagine AMD putting "ownership" on DirectX11 in upcoming titles because only AMD supplied DirectX 11-compatible GPUs to game developers.
No, it is not that AMD believe they have a right to an IP, but rather the fact that I the paying customer believe I have a right to have AA work on my card, even where Nvidia pays to have that option removed.
Pretty sad that you are still defending this practice.
So how do you pay for an option to be removed that wasn't there to begin with?
Do you understand that Batman:AA did not have in game AA initially? Nvidia spent resources (money and man hours) to ADD it to the game.
Defending what practice? Making a game better than it was by adding their own IP? Or wishing to have what they did to themselves by blocking a Vendor ID?
Don't get me wrong Irish, I see that you wanted to have AA in Batman:AA. And you should have. I just don't get why you think you're completely entitled to something when the graphics card manufacturer you purchased your card from didn't incorporate it into the game, even when approached and offered to do so.
AA should never depend on a specific graphics card company fronting the bill. Jesus, Keys, don't you think we have enough to contend with? Was this always the case? I mean, did AA in previous titles depend on ATI of Nvidia implementing it in the game? Are ATI always approached in relation to a specific title and asked whether or not they want to pay to have AA run on their products?
"due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter."
So it WAS created by Nvidia. The code for AA in that game. They wrote it. Implemented it with Eidos. And through a Vendor ID wanted it to be Nvidia specific. And through much outrage by AMD and co. pressured to remove the Vendor specific ID so that their IP is forcefully surrendered. Because AMD and co. believed they had every right to that IP. Keep going guys, maybe you can get them to give up PhysX as well. After all, AMD surely deserves it, they worked so hard on it and must have spent a fortune.
You mean like how no games had DX10.1/DX11 until ATi developed such hardware?Do you understand that Batman:AA did not have in game AA initially? Nvidia spent resources (money and man hours) to ADD it to the game.
QFT, but alas this wouldn't be the first time forum posters have double standards.You're talking as an Nvidia Focus Group member, not the average consumer like the rest of us. Other than Wreckage (naturally), I don't see too many people here supporting vendor_ID specific graphics options, do you?
I hope your outrage will extend to the DX11 graphics that ATi is helping developers to implement and will work just as hard at convincing Nvidia management that they have no right displaying them on their own cards when Fermi launches.
You mean like how no games had DX10.1/DX11 until ATi developed such hardware?
You mean like the 20+ DX11 titles right now that ATi is working with developers?
Tell me, do you also advocate any DX10.1/DX11 title developed with ATis assistance be barred from running on nVidia cards if nVidia had no part in its development cycle?
After all, we wouldnt want nVidia gaining benefits for free, as is being argued in the case of ATi and Batmans AA.
Right?
Well said, there is no justification for this.
What's next ? $50 for the game, $60 for the version of the game with AA!!
.....
You mean like how no games had DX10.1/DX11 until ATi developed such hardware?
ATI did not develop nor do they own DirectX.
It is 100% owned and proprietary to Microsoft.
Straw man.
Nvidia did not develop nor do they own Batman:Arkham Asylum.
It is 100% owned and proprietary to Eidos.
Straw man back at 'ya.
So then Eidos has every right to block ATI cards. Good point.
The block has been instigated and enforced by Nvidia.Eidos legal department is preventing Eidos from allowing ATI cards to run in-game antialiasing in Batman Arkham Asylum due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter.
So then Eidos has every right to block ATI cards. Good point.
Except that it isn't Eidos.
Then why did you bring them up?
It's silly to equate something that NVIDIA created (AA on Batman), with something Microsoft created (DirectX).
Maybe if ATI actually created something...someday we can discuss it.
Then why did you bring them up?
It's silly to equate something that NVIDIA created (AA on Batman), with something Microsoft created (DirectX).
Maybe if ATI actually created something...someday we can discuss it.
You mean, like the help they're developers to create games with DX10.1/DX11 content?
So, Wreckage, do you feel that Nvidia cards should not be able to display any DX10.1/DX11 content that involve ATi assistance?
Why do you keep going on about this? Everybody knows ATi/AMD doesn't own DirectX. Everybody also knows that Nvidia doesn't own Eidos either.You like going in circles don't you. Let me put it in bold for you.
ATI/AMD do not own DirectX
Nope, nada, nil.
Do you even know what DirectX is? I'm starting to think many of you don't.
You like going in circles don't you. Let me put it in bold for you.
ATI/AMD do not own DirectX
Nope, nada, nil.
Why do you keep going on about this? Everybody knows ATi/AMD doesn't own DirectX. Everybody also knows that Nvidia doesn't own Eidos either.
Nvidia spent time and money to have AA added to Batman:AA and is now blocking access to that AA on any non-Nvidia video card. (maybe we should now start referring to it as Batman:noAA)
ATi is spending time and money to have DX10.1/DX11 features added to current and upcoming games, not to mention the time and money they spent helping Microsoft develop DX10.1/DX11 in the first place.
So, Wreckage, do you feel that Nvidia cards should not be able to display any DX10.1/DX11 content that involve ATi assistance?
Then how is Eidos blocking AA on ATI cards (Eidos owns the game), the same as ATI blocking Directx (something they don't own).Why do you keep going on about this? Everybody knows ATi/AMD doesn't own DirectX. Everybody also knows that Nvidia doesn't own Eidos either.
ATI could have done the same and chose not to. Your complaint should be with them.Nvidia spent time and money to have AA added to Batman:AA and is now blocking access to that AA on any non-Nvidia video card. (maybe we should now start referring to it as Batman:noAA)
Again they don't own DirectX so they have zero say in how it's used. Also NVIDIA worked with MS to develop it. In fact at the London Launch event Microsoft specifically mentioned NVIDIA as a partner in DX11, they did not mention ATI though.ATi is spending time and money to have DX10.1/DX11 features added to current and upcoming games, not to mention the time and money they spent helping Microsoft develop DX10.1/DX11 in the first place.
Again ATI does not own DirectX so it is a pointless argument.So, Wreckage, do you feel that Nvidia cards should not be able to display any DX10.1/DX11 content that involve ATi assistance?
Then how is Eidos blocking AA on ATI cards (Eidos owns the game), the same as ATI blocking Directx (something they don't own).