Players of the latest smash hit, Batman: Arkham Asylum have received a visual treat with its stunning graphics and immersive gameplay, but recently gamers picked up on the fact that those with NVIDIA GPU’s may be a little more privileged than those on the ATI side of the tracks; having the ability to natively enable and adjust AA (Anti-Aliasing).
ATI’s fans cried foul, and this was backed by ATI’s Ian McNaughton in his company blog post, with claims that due to NVIDIA’s backing of the game “the in-game AA option was removed when ATI cards are detected” thus causing unfair results when benchmarked and limiting the owners of ATI graphics cards to poorer visuals.
This was confirmed by AMD testing through alterting the game to not detect ATI id’s: “By tricking the application, we were able to get in-game AA option where our performance was significantly enhanced. This option is not available for the retail game as there is a secure rom.”
AA is not completely unavailable to ATI users however, it can be enabled and controlled through the Catalyst Control centre. “The advantage of in-game AA is that the engine can run AA selectively on scenes whereas Forced AA in CCC is required to use brute force to apply AA on every scene and object, requiring much more work.” says Ian McNaughton.
The game was developed under NVIDIA’s “The Way It’s Meant to Be Played” title and the developers chose to take advantage of NVIDIA’s PhysX and 3D Vision technology, so there is some optimization, however NVIDIA vehemently denies using its clout to purposefully shut out ATI users from the full experience. Instead they call to attention ATI’s lack of foresight in optimizing and being prepared for one of the year’s biggest titles, stating that AMD is the one who left their own customers stranded.
With such harsh accuations by ATI being put forward, Hardware Canucks contacted NVIDIA to see if we could uncover the truth to the one sided dispute. NVIDIA replied with a statement that really serves to shed some light on the matter, and calls out to AMD to get on the ball with emerging technologies and game development.
“A representative of AMD recently claimed that NVIDIA interfered with anti-aliasing (AA) support for Batman: Arkham Asylum on AMD cards. They also claimed that NVIDIA’s The Way It’s Meant to be Played Program prevents AMD from working with developers for those games.
Both of these claims are NOT true. Batman is based on the Unreal Engine 3, which does not natively support anti-aliasing. We worked closely with Eidos to add AA and QA the feature on GeForce. Nothing prevented AMD from doing the same thing.
Games in The Way It’s Meant to be Played are not exclusive to NVIDIA. AMD can also contact developers and work with them.
We are proud of the work we do in The Way It’s Meant to be Played. We work hard to deliver kickass, game-changing features in PC games like PhysX, AA, and 3D Vision for games like Batman.If AMD wants to deliver innovation for PC games then we encourage them to roll up their sleeves and do the same.”
September 29, 2009 12:08 PM
As much as I hate Nvidia for being so closed-minded with their products and not taking an open-minded approach like ATI is, I feel that Nvidia definitely proved a point here. However, whether we're missing any info in this is beyond me.
For one thing, I do believe that AMD just doesn't work with partners on the game aspect. It's as if they assume that everything will work right out of the box flawlessly. But it doesn't. Instead, AMD has to release monthly Catalyst drivers to improve game performance, but instead it breaks some of the core components of Catalyst itself.
On the other hand, I think there may be some dealing under the table between Nvidia and the developers, just to have that sponsor. It's kind of like that whole Intel EU lawsuit. "We'll sponsor you as long as you don't let ATI optimize their hardware for your products."
Those two opinions are 50/50 for me, so I don't know which is true. Well, breaking Catalyst is true, but yeah lol.
September 29, 2009 12:14 PM
As NVIDIA pointed out, it isn't up to the game developers to hound manufacturer's if they want their products supported by the game.
Obviously NVIDIA was working closely with the developers to produce the game and thus included all of the technologies possible, but by no means restricted ATI from doing it.
- there are a ton of NVIDIA titles with ATI AA - why would they stop this one right?
As you pointed out Bojangles - ATI is CONSTANTLY pushing out drivers with updates for specific games. Now on the one hand this shows a comittement to giving their customers the best possible experience - but on the flip side, it also shows that they CLEARLY are not in touch with the developers in the first place, and can't be bothered to be prepared for the release of major titles, having to scramble after release to mend the holes.
September 29, 2009 12:27 PM
I'm sure ol' money bags has not trouble monopolizing developers' affections, and quite succesfully squeezes out little brother from the three-way. I'm sure ATI doesn't just sit back and say "oh, it's not worth the bother."
September 29, 2009 12:29 PM
I may be a bit off here.... but i think Nvidia is full of
here. Here's why i think so:
IMO.
The whole defense for Nvidia on this issue their claim that AMD did not directly approach the game manufacturer to add AA support for their graphics cards. But for one, what if the game was relatively unknown to AMD? Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that someone at AMD knew that a Batman game was being made using the UT3 engine. But even if they did, if YOU were working for the graphics side of AMD, you could've just said that "Well, our cards with fine for the UT3 engine already, why should we have to do something special about it?" and then dismissed it out of hand. That's perfectly justifiable in my opinion - they've already seen the engine before and know it works.
What they don't know (or didn't know, in this case) is that Nvidia is working directly with the game producer to optimize the effects specifically for Nvidia hardware. In the process, the game developper puts in a switch to detect Nvidia hardware to enable to special AA effects. And therein lies the problem. AMD sees the game get released, then raises hell because AA is always off, because that same switch doesn't find an Nvidia graphics card. If this is truly the case, then I think AMD is entirely justified in their claims... Nvidia went to the game developer and modified an existing game engine that's Known to work on AMD graphics w/ AA. And that's just horse
Making modifications to game engine to make your competitors graphics card perform worse is blatantly wrong, especially when previous versions of the Engine worked fine. IF this were a 100% new game, with a new game engine, then perhaps the story could be different. Then it would have been AMDs responsibility to approach the game developer, ensure proper support for their graphics cards, and test it to make sure the game and its engine have no issue on their hardware.
My whole point is, AMD shouldn't have to work with every single game developer for every single game when that developer is using an engine they've already verified compatibility for.
I'll use an analogy to help here:
Gas company A makes gasoline for cars. There are many types of cars that run on their gasoline, as well as competitors that also make gasoline for the same cars. A new "fancy" model car is about to come out, and another gas company (Gas company B) decides to help out with the design. "No problem" thinks Gas company A, "they're using the same engine we've seen for a few years now, no need for concern". What A doesnt know is that B has actually remade the engine to be able use some new "optimized" fuel, fuel that only B makes, in addition to regular fuel. Whoa! Hang on now! The car comes out on the market, and everyone that buys their gas from A wonders why this fancy new car has 50 horsepower less than those that are using B's gas. Uh oh, sounds fishy and underhanded to me!
What do you think?
September 29, 2009 12:48 PM
... sound like Nvidia is pulling some Intel-esque tricks to me.
September 29, 2009 12:52 PM
I don't know enough about graphics cards technologies, but I can't imagine that a developer could just go and enable AA to work on all video cards? I am fairly certain that they would have to get the "source code" or what ever it is from the VC manufacturer's themselves in order to be able to include it.
When your SOLE company purpose is to to create graphics cards and technologies purely for the sake of gaming, I would think it is the companies responsibility to KNOW everything about the industry and prepare themselves properly for it.
And yes, your right - Game developers should be promoting their games ,and they do, to companies like Nividia and ATI, and I am sure Eidos did just that (how else would they have gotten NVIDIA on board) - but obviously ATI failed to respond or failed to produce what the developers needed in the appropriate time frame.
But I would still maintain, that developers shouldn't be hounding them and delaying the production of their game to get optimizations for one company into it, at least if they had the backing of one of the major players.
Had neither nvidia or ati been on board, it would be a different story.
That's the way I see, but some excellent points from another perspective CM and others
September 29, 2009 12:57 PM
According to the article, UT3 doesn't natively support AA. Therefore the engine never worked on AMD graphics w/ AA as you pointed out "...that's Known to work on AMD graphics w/ AA"
I don't play UT3 and don't care about it and don't know about its AA support. If it is indeed true that it doesn't work with AA then nvidia merely went out of the way to add a little bonus to nvidia users. As much as I hate nvidia, that part is cool.
Its up to the reviewers and benchers to know this and strictly compare the game on a "without AA basis" between the two. If the user really wants AA on ATI, then you gotta brute force it as I'm sure you've had to do on UT3.. again.. this is IF nvidia's claim is true and anyone that has played UT3 can confirm.
Edit: Fixt beat me.
September 29, 2009 12:58 PM
EDIT:
Its one thing to say "we're making a UT3-based game, want to help?" and quite another to say "we're making a UT3-based game that nvidia is adding AA for, do you want to add AA as well?". lol
September 29, 2009 12:59 PM
...
.. this is IF nvidia's claim is true and anyone that has played UT3 can confirm.
Yuppers - that is confirmed. Having benchmarked UT3 a couple hundred times, and a quick google search of UT3 AA capabilities - definitely confirmed. The Only way to enable AA through UT3 was the "brute force" method along with a hack
September 29, 2009 01:07 PM
So it's Nvidia's fault for doing all the work and not giving AMD/ATI a free ride? You can't punish them for that! Nvidia spent the extra time and effort (which was required) to make their cards use AA in the game. ATI didn't and Nvidia probably didn't want to let them because
A. It might not work properly, it was made for Nvidia cards which use different methods of AA
B. It's Nvidia's money and time! It's a feature that makes their cards better for the game! Why give away that advantage?
September 29, 2009 01:41 PM
I think the real issue here is this: Did the dev talk to AMD about the game or not? And if so, did they say that Nvidia was going to AA support?
No = Developers fault
Yes/No = Nvidia fixing the game to work better out of the box than AMD, OR Developer neglected to mention it
Yes/Yes = AMD's fault for not adding in AA themselves.
We'd need the whole story to truly understand... and we don't have it.
September 29, 2009 01:48 PM
I don't know how much smoke Nvidia is or isn't blowing on the AA in Batman... but I DO know they directly tied PhysX to Games For Windows Live and THAT is total bullshit.
... low and behold I see a little dialog box telling me Nvidia PhysX are being updated. WTF? Why is Nvidia Physx being updated through GFWL? So now Nvidia is hopping on board the DRM wagon? 
When I first installed the game I couldn't get GFWL to download and install an important "update". However I could still run the game, but all options for PhysX were not even visible in the options menu, they didn't exist at all. 2 hours after messing with different fixes to get GFWL to update itself
Oh and...
Yes I already had PhysX installed before Batman was installed. Worked fine on Mirror's Edge.
Yes I tried updating my Nvidia drivers et all prior to getting GFWL to work.
September 29, 2009 01:59 PM
NVIDIA has said many times that PhysX is open to whom ever wants to utilize it, however as far as NVIDIA is concerned they will only be developing NVIDIA to work with PhysX and will not be developing another companies products for them.
September 29, 2009 02:04 PM
Yes I understand that FiXT, but what I am saying is I already had PhysX installed and working. Why was it tied to GFWL just for this title? To answer my own question... DRM.
September 29, 2009 02:05 PM
Ah sorry - Clearly I hadn't read your statement properly
Now I get it
September 29, 2009 03:30 PM
No = Developers fault
Yes/No = Nvidia fixing the game to work better out of the box than AMD, OR Developer neglected to mention it
Yes/Yes = AMD's fault for not adding in AA themselves.
We'd need the whole story to truly understand... and we don't have it.
To look at it another way: If two people agree to do a job for $100, but the second person asks if he can put in some overtime, and winds up getting paid $120, are things fair? Was the employer obligated to offer the first guy overtime as well? For that matter (considering the comparative state of ATI-Developer relations), was the first guy even capable of doing the overtime?
September 29, 2009 03:44 PM
If you go to the official game site, Nvidia is obviously a major partner in the development of this game. Having played it on both Nvidia and Ati cards, it's obviously extremely biased towards Nvidia, both with the AA thing, and axing PhysX support unless you have an Nvidia card for your graphics. A lot of smoke/fog/glow effects are not present on Ati that are present on Nvidia. This game is a killer PC title and Nvidia has saw to it, through whatever support they gave, that it favours their cards. Now this may come back to bite them in the ass at some point, but obviously AMD has to get out and get to more developers working on killer titles if they want to hold on to their market share. Maybe when Dirt 2 hits the stores, the shoe will be on the other foot, then again Ubisoft pulled DX 10.1 support for Assassins Creed, no doubt at the request of you-know-who, considering it was a TWIMTBP title that ran better on Ati hardware.
September 29, 2009 04:03 PM
September 29, 2009 04:16 PM
Now, would the same people complain if ATI did the same for DiRT 2? I think people see Nvidia as the big, bad corporate monsters too much sometimes
September 29, 2009 04:24 PM
I think the biggest part of this is a concern about the dev's decision not to rattle ATI's chain(s) rather than Nvidia's decision to go the extra mile.
The whole idea of using a PC vice Console for gaming is that users have the option to configure their gear however they want, and aren't beholden to the hardware manufacturers for single-platform-only releases as they are with Consoles. Issues like this are the thin line between full platform compatability and having to chose one over the other.
September 29, 2009 04:35 PM
Fudzilla - ATI throws a million+ in Dirt 2
September 29, 2009 04:41 PM
The whole idea of using a PC vice Console for gaming is that users have the option to configure their gear however they want, and aren't beholden to the hardware manufacturers for single-platform-only releases as they are with Consoles. Issues like this are the thin line between full platform compatability and having to chose one over the other.
If it comes to that, I'll just buy console X, Y and Z and keep the thousands of dollars I spend on PC hardware each year. I'm not going to have a component manufacturer dictate to me what I can and can't play.
September 29, 2009 04:57 PM
September 29, 2009 05:09 PM
September 29, 2009 05:10 PM
No, that was a response to graphic vendor specific games as theorized by sswilson.
September 29, 2009 11:59 PM
Ah, I guess I misunderstood sswilson's quote then. I actually thought you were making the claim that this was unacceptable because it made the game unplayable and you'd solve it by going to consoles that don't generally have AA.
Sorry, my mistake.
September 30, 2009 01:53 AM
That is a definite drag!
Game features should be available to all customers regardless of which manufacturers hardware they have. Definitely a sad day at the drag strip as well.
What a drag!
September 30, 2009 05:45 AM
Even if AMD did put that kind of money into Dirt 2.... I'll betcha AA still works if you're running and Nvidia card. Anyone with the game want to back me up/disprove that idea?
September 30, 2009 06:35 AM
But is it unreal engine 3? If NOONE at ATI manages to figure out that there's a new U3 engine coming out then they must have a TINY team. Most people who play any sort of game know what games are coming out. It's not hard at all to fix. All they have to do it check an upcoming games calendar and then give the company a call. I bet Nvidia approached them by themselves, if ATI didn't take the prerogative to approach Eidos then it's their fault. It may lose sales for Eidos because people won't buy it as much with ATI cards but it's ATI's problem, not Nvidia, not Eidos (they did get hurt by this but it's not their fault).
September 30, 2009 07:22 AM
To be honest I kinda think that game devs should not expect the GFX card devs to seek them out. ATI and Nvidia have enough on their plate doing the hardware and drivers for that hardware(even though they both suck at part of each thing), should we really expect them to also to help make each game that ever comes out?
Expecting ATI and Nvidia to come handle parts of every game just seems like a bit much to me..
It seems kind of like me buying computer components online .. say, ncix .. then expecting linus to come out here and personally assemble it for me. Just absurd.
Eh. Perhaps it is wrong for me to expect the game devs to actually develop the game by themselves? Poor babies have to work so hard making their bullshit console ports and then having to support AA all by themselves. boo-*******-hoo.
September 30, 2009 09:26 AM
Expecting ATI and Nvidia to come handle parts of every game just seems like a bit much to me..
It seems kind of like me buying computer components online .. say, ncix .. then expecting linus to come out here and personally assemble it for me. Just absurd.
Eh. Perhaps it is wrong for me to expect the game devs to actually develop the game by themselves? Poor babies have to work so hard making their bullshit console ports and then having to support AA all by themselves. boo-*******-hoo.
This sums up the entire thread. I dont give a crap what 'Gfx Company A' or 'Gfx Company B' did or did not do.
What I do care is that 'Game Company A' failed. What more is there to say? Is it really ATI's fault, or nV's that the game company did this? They are ultimately responsible for THEIR OWN product. If they are getting a handout from nV to make it better on them, that is the companies choice to accept/deny the handout or assistance.
DOWN WITH BATMAN:AA!