Batman AA, the battle continues...



AMD received an email dated Sept 29th at 5:22pm from Mr. Lee Singleton General Manager at Eidos Game Studios who stated that 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.

The last paragraph sums it up but I'm missing something:

"The entire episode can be viewed one of two ways. On the one hand, NVIDIA's spent money and resources in enabling AA for an engine - Unreal Engine 3.5 - that doesn't natively support it, so why should AMD be given the code, gratis, to enable AA on its hardware? The counterpoint, as AMD may well argue, is that the company is (at a later stage than NVIDIA) prepared to put in the legwork but is apparently claiming it isn't being given an opportunity of doing so."

I didn't see anything, in the article at least, that would prevent anyone else from adding AA functionality with their own independent code optimizations.
CF AA = Custom Filtering Edge-detect filter (ATI)
AD AA = Adaptive Antialiasing at the Supersampling Quality level (ATI)
CS AA = Coverage Sampled Antialiasing (NVIDIA)
TR SSAA = Transparency Supersampling AA (NVIDIA)

Not all AA algorithms are created equal, with some giving better quality then others. NVIDIA's is supported, ATI's is not.


Oct 30, 2009
If all behaved like nvidia the PC platform would not exist. A chaos with a lot of wasted development, for different vendors ...,
What would happen if ATI locked, "or tailored", their dx11 development to ATI hardware?
This can not be in the interest of Microsoft. You think?

Considering DirectX comes from MS I'd like to see AMD carry out that threat, it could be interesting. :lol:
Actually that PC platform exists despite these problems.....that's the Mac's primary selling point. That's also what "licensing" is all about. Let's say Intel developed a new chipset, could they say to ATI or nVidia that we ain't gonna let you run SLI and / or XFire unless you pay a licensing fee ?
Ok so most of us know that each teams AA works differently, now i freely admit that I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to driver level stuff so and please be gentle with me, what good does getting the vendor IP filter taken off of Nvidia's optimised AA coding do ATI ? don't they need to supply Eidos with their own AA optimised code for ATI AA to work properly ?



Jan 3, 2007
If AMD would be anything like Nvidia, they would demand any games they are helping with DX11 or any additional features would lock-out Nvidia cards from them. Lucky for us (especially Geforce owners), AMD ISNT like Nvidia, thank God.


Nov 20, 2008

1 DX is owned by microsoft, microsoft showing a bais would be fun to see how that pans out
2 AMD is AMD they just lock Nvidia out of IGP department on AMD boards just like Intel has done to Nvidia for the time being. Nvidia has no friends it's why you don't see too many igp from nvidia on mobo's ION is basically their last go at it in that department until intel pushes them out of that and developed decent graphics for their atom to run with.

And why doesn't AMD just supply edios with their AA code to insert into the game?


"It’s also worth noting here that AMD have made efforts both pre-release and post-release to allow Eidos to enable the in-game antialiasing code - there was no refusal on AMD’s part to enable in game AA IP in a timely manner."

Nvidia are claiming that Batman is owned by Eidos, it's their call. Eidos are saying Nvidia's lawyers are preventing them from allowing ATI to use the AA in the game.

What do you believe? Hint : Who has most to gain and who gains nothing by disallowing AA on ATI's?



AMD do not and never have locked Nvidia out of anything. It was Nvidia who abandoned AMD in favour of the intel platform, and it served them right to be treated like dirt by intel so now they have no chipset business worth calling that.


Jan 3, 2007

AA is standard too and isnt OWNED by Nvidia, its implementation is IP, same can be said about AMDs help for devs. But as I said, we as customers win because AMD isnt douche like Nvidia, at least in this regards. Nvidia is losing market share, fast, although we need competition, at least JHH will come to his senses (maybe) and stop dividing PC gamers market, its having tough time as it is vs consoles.

No, AMD didnt locked out of IGP, only Intel did it. Nvidia simply were losing market share there and decided not to invest R&D. Oh, and AMD supplied AA code, Eidos refused to use it. Not like it needed extra code, current worked just fine if you remove vendors ID, but we returned to square one - Nvidia is mildly speaking unethical company.
I think all devs should start doing this.
Each company can have its own AA, and have to pay the devs for its usage in i6ts game, and also limit it to each game, so the dev dets money for the next game as well
Now, we could have ATI AA for ATI cards, and nVidia AA for nVidia cards.
Who needs a standard? Why not help those poor devs?
I for one will never own this game, period
Well, nVidia has said, its selling its SW, talks CUDA, talks CUDA cores, talks Fermi, talks gpgpu, talks about how DX10.1 and DX11 arent that important.
So, I guess they want money for anything they do, including something as simple as SLI.
Not that theyre money grabbing here. Coming in with 600$+ cards etc.
Keeping their overpriced, underperforming G200s priced high etc etc
Its not about the money, remember that, its for you, the consumer, all these things
This was already said by ATI weeks ago, as they attempted to work with the devs at that time.
I guess Huddy just raised it up a notch is all.
Its really a shame, and for a company that claims their cards are sooooo much better by using their proprietary IP and charging for it, and cutting off usage of other, again, etc etc, theyre losing their own base.
In one of the comments/emails, Lars says:
With your comment regarding locking DX11, do you try to indicate that AMD invented DX11 and could have been an AMD-only feature?? DirectX 11 is a new version of DirectX, that will be fully supported by Fermi, as we announced at GTC. It seems that AMD tries to create the perception that DX11 is a AMD only feature. It is not.

My problem with that is, if its ATIs IP making these things work in DX11, then, according to him, why not?
AA is NOT owned by nVidia either, nor is it proprietary.
Eidos, pull your head out, and next time, say, thanks but no thanks
Something's getting lost here:

1. Eidos chose a game engine that doesn't do AA.
2. NVidia and ATI had equal shot at taking the provided gaming technology as is.
3. nVidia chose to invest their time and money in develping code which added AA to the game.
4. Eidos chose to accept the enhancements under the provisio that nVidia provided technology would be provided freely to only nVidia product owners.
5. ATI has been offered the "same deal". ATI s free to develop their own code which would add AA for their cards.....

There's enough broohaha going on in the industry to point fingers at vendors (i.e nVidia PhysX) but this is not one of them. That's why every civilized nation has a patent protect intellectual property. I'll jump up and down complaining about nVidia's locking ATI out of PhysX when it detects a ATI card, in addition to an nVidia card, but to limit proprietary technology for use only when the developers product is present is perfectly justifiable. Why should nVidia or anyone else have to share the results of their R & D w/o just compensation ?

As to why do people charge $500-600 for their cards .... cause they can. That's why nVidia charged $499 for their 295....cause it was top dog and therefore it could...... that's why ATI will charge $599 for the 5870x2 .... cause it will soon assume top dog status and therefore they can.
Wrong. Where has ATI been offered as much, using the same API?
Wrong, nVidia "thought" they could charge that much for their G200s, and rebates prove them wrong.
And, as DX11 games are devved, and its usage is propelled forwards by ATI devrel helping those devs, why should nVidia be able to use any of that?
It wouldnt have been there unless they work on it.
Sorry Jack, this is like being the kid with the only baseball, and hes decided to take it home.
Some things need to be overlooked, just for compliancy in a PC gaming world
This whole issue is very cloudy to say the least.
I read an email that said Edios were told by legal not to change Nvidia code and thats fair enough.
I read an email where ATI responding to the Nvidia reply that they basically could if they wanted to which seemed to be saying good we can use your code after all.
I read an email from ATI saying they tried getting their own code in during and after development. Didnt see anyone refute that but didnt see it confirmed either.
What i didnt read was anything saying Nvidia or Edios refused to implement or tried to block ATI code in fact towards the end Edios even specifically asked for code, and to be honest i didnt really understand the answer but it wasnt "Ok here it is" or "we will send someone over"
There should be as JDJ said ATI and Nvidia AA libraries for Devs to use when the games are developed and that way its there for all to use. Sod paying for it, if you want your game to be as playable as possable for as many people as possable then you would use both wouldnt you ? likewise ATI and Nvidia should want the same. No ?

Anyway seems like a lot of BS is being spread about within these Emails and untill something breaks proving what went on either way i cant see how we can blame anyone either way.

I decided i wasnt buying the game ages ago anyway.



Jan 3, 2007

So it seems it was Nvidia code to block out ATI, and not Eidos? Since AA is standard both companies abide, its no wonder when you remove block, AA works just fine on Radeons too. Thats why funny counterpoint is AMD should block out Geforce owners from DX11 and any features they help developers with ;) I wonder how those who defend Nvidia would react then, I can bet it wouldnt be "they have a right to do it" or "fair enough" :sarcastic:
AA is standard too and isnt OWNED by Nvidia, its implementation is IP, same can be said about AMDs help for devs. But as I said, we as customers win because AMD isnt douche like Nvidia, at least in this regards. Nvidia is losing market share, fast, although we need competition, at least JHH will come to his senses (maybe) and stop dividing PC gamers market, its having tough time as it is vs consoles.

Not really. AA is a really basic math function, all things considered. Runs slow as molasses though, which is why both ATI and NVIDIA came up with alternative methods to achieve the same exact effect (SuperSampling, Multisampling, Edge Detect, etc). Tell me, why should ATI be allowed to hijack NVIDIA's own functionallity?

So the primary issue at hand is WHY ATI's implementation didn't make it in game. Could be Edios didn't want to have to test/support ATI hardware; maybe NVIDIA locked them out as part of the deal to work with NVIDIA. We'll probably never know.

As far as I'm concerned the following two emails put that question to rest mate.

From: Lee Singleton
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Huddy, Richard
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Hi Richard,

We have worked closely with our local legal team today and we have been advised that we should not reuse or change the code written by nVidia. If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.


But instead of replying with a "here you go, there is the code put it in as soon as." it's still a case of no we want to use Nv's code because we are unwilling or unable to provide our own.

From: Huddy, Richard
Sent: 29 September 2009 17:09
To: Lee Singleton
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum


I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...

Richard "7 of 5" Huddy

Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division

For me that shows that ATi are not about looking after their customers best interests, the other amusing thing coming out of this is the so called unimportance of PhysX, when you consider that ever since (and before) Nv bought the tech it was being downplayed by both sides and since it's ownership by Nv it's been pretty much derided by the ATi faithful but as soon as they are prevented from using it they decide that it's suddenly important enough to shout about and write hacks for so that they can use it!

The plus side to this of course is that the amount of noise that the ATi faithful are making is getting PhysX into the limelight far better than any marketing that Nv could do and is helping to get the interest of potential customers who might otherwise have not even noticed or cared about the whole thing.