AMD Intentionally Added Artificial Limitations To Their HDMI Adapters 256
An anonymous reader writes "NVIDIA was caught removing features from their Linux driver and days later Linux developers have caught and confirmed AMD imposing artificial limitations on their graphics cards in the DVI-to-HDMI adapters that their driver will support. Over years AMD has quietly been adding an extra EEPROM chip to their DVI-to-HDMI adapters that are bundled with Radeon HD graphics cards. Only when these identified adapters are detected via checks in their Windows and Linux Catalyst driver is HDMI audio enabled. If using a third-party DVI-to-HDMI adapter, HDMI audio support is disabled by the Catalyst driver. Open-source Linux developers have found this to be a self-imposed limitation and that the open-source AMD Linux driver will work fine with any DVI-to-HDMI adapter."
I'm guessing this isn't the only thing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Tip of the Iceberg.
Re:I'm guessing this isn't the only thing. (Score:5, Funny)
So, just the tip then? Promise?
Re:I'm guessing this isn't the only thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Just for a minute.
Just to see how it feels.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, AMD, Why?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Off with their heads!
Since they weren't using them anyway, I don't think removing their heads would change anything... It you want to lop off something they will respond to, it should be their bottom line that gets axed. That means steering people away from AMD overall. I don't know about you, but every time someone I know wants a new system or tech toy, they ask my opinion before buying. I'm happy to take a few minutes to research something for them and often suggest better alternatives... AMD is now off the menu...
Re: (Score:3)
And to who? There are only two companies left for high-performance graphics, and neither is particularly good. Same as there are only two companies left for high-performance x86 processors.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you should spray water from a bottle to correct pets... they will then go chew up or pee on your shoes...
Oh, I have IT! Hows this for remediation: If a company loses a class action suit, the board and officers that were serving at the time of the issue have to take a paint ball on the naked ass from each class member. Hell, they don't even need paint in them as long as the mass and velocity is the same, it's all good. Oh, we would want RFID on each projectile so that cash awards could be handed out fo
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a surprise, you're just annoying customers and not making any money off of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was to be announced at the Developer Summit on Monday. As you know, the CEO loves surprises.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you assume that AMD did this voluntarily? Much more likely that this is caused by some idiotic DRM requirement for for HDCP 'protected audio path' or working around some idiotic patent. Likely reason - a DRM requirement to stop people from plugging in devices that strip HDCP.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you assume that AMD did this voluntarily? Much more likely that this is caused by some idiotic DRM requirement for for HDCP 'protected audio path'. Likely reason - a DRM requirement to stop people from plugging in devices that strip HDCP.
Exactly.
You can bet that the RIAA/MPAA cartel had something to do with this
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
FTFY. (MAFIAA - Music And Film Industry Associations of America)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume it's some sort of hack done by an AMD engineer for a deadline DRM demo for the MAFIAA.
The MAFIAA connected an audio recorder to the output, no sound appeared, they went away happy.
Then the PHB from AMD told the engineers, "I don't know how you did that, but I want it in manufacturing by 4pm..."
Result: An adapter with secret EEPROM hidden inside.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true why does it work with the magic "AMD" adapter and not others? Smells like "buy apple branded lightning cables or else"...
Because AMD is big enough to get sued and spanked. Generic adapters made by practically anonymous companies at commodity prices are impossible to track down and punish.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that AMD did this voluntarily?
Ignorance probably. I don't work in anything related. Your theory makes more sense than mine of "marketing gone horribly stupid."
Re: (Score:2)
But we want to see a particular attack against Linux from a company, not some silly licensing reasons that while my disagree with, make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why didn't they say something?
Because greedy scumbag (lawyer)s.
The longer and harder I look at (particularly American) society, the more I think that a bunch of paper tiger (lawyers) are the front line that corrupt society for their benefit, and the benefit of their plutocrat owners. Maybe this isn't new, but it needs to end. And the only thing I think has any power to end it are brilliant guys like Snowden coupled with the Internet which circumvents the plutarchy's media oligopolies.
Don't let lawyers
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Anything else is in the realm of speculation and conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you assume that AMD did this voluntarily? Much more likely that this is caused by some idiotic DRM requirement for for HDCP 'protected audio path' or working around some idiotic patent. Likely reason - a DRM requirement to stop people from plugging in devices that strip HDCP.
HDCP doesn't rely on cable behavior (aside from good-enough-for-signal-integrity performance) between sources and sinks to enforce DRM. So, for a mere physical pinout adapter, there should be nothing that a 'malicious' cable could do (unless that 'cable' were a full-fledged HDMI sink baked into a line lump, which would be physically possible but wouldn't really be a 'cable' anymore), nor would there be anything (save blocking the audio entirely) that a 'trusted' cable could do to control a malicious HDMI si
Re: Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same reason as the newer RealTek sound drivers have disabled/removed the Stereo Mix recording device: DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
God that one annoys me tremendously.
Re: Why? (Score:5, Informative)
It shouldn't, since it's ridiculously easy to work around.
Don't install the Realtek drivers.
Remember, Microsoft provides the Stereo Mix utility of the audio subsystem, and in order to pass WHQL certification, the drivers have to meet the minimum spec defined by Microsoft. So Realtek may have agreements with whoever-it-is (and it's not Microsoft) to remove the Stereo Mix from their drivers, but the WHQL certification process requires that it be enabled.
So don't install the drivers that have Stereo Mix disabled, and let Windows Update install the WHQL certified ones instead. I have Realtek audio in my system, and the Stereo Mix path works fine. It can take a bit of work to find how to activate it in Windows 7, but it's there, and it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Because DVI isn't supposed to carry audio.
I suspect there's a licensing agreement somewhere saying they must conform to the DVI spec, including its lack of audio support, but if they count the HDMI adapter as a part of the whole system, they're just using a DVI-like connector in the middle of an HDMI system.
Another cause could be avoiding liability. If they send out audio by default and it breaks some other device, they're at fault. If the other device asked for it (by the presence of the special chip), it should be able to handle it just fine.
As yet another possible reason, the audio-over-DVI system could have been designed as a feature, that AMD simply abandoned. Since they've done the work implementing it in their chips and adapters, it costs almost nothing more for them to keep using it, probably even costing less than it would to support separate product lines with and without the capability. However, they may not want to run the extra expense of publishing and supporting yet another standard, when HDMI is already showing wide adoption as the next standard for everything.
This! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what's happening. Reading the summary, my first thought was that it was incorrect and my second thought was that the writer was clueless. After all, DVI doesn't support audio so how can DVI out provide audio to a DVI - HDMI adapter? The answer is; only by breaking the standard.
So, if you break the DVI standard and send audio out what happens? There are no adverse effects, at all, ever, even when the connection is DVI - DVI? It seems to me that they are simply adding a safety feature to their non-standard implementation. 'If we don;t know for absolute certain that the end point is HDMI, don't send audio out the DVI interface.'
Re: (Score:2)
EEE - Embrace Extend Extinguish
Why not just publish their audio extensions to the DVI standard so everyone can use them? No, instead, let's Embrace a standard, Extend it for a feature, and Extinguish those that all of a sudden find themselves unable to cope with the extension.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's publish instead.
First, we'll hire a new engineer to figure out exactly what the effects of our years-old design are. Then we'll have to hire a tech writer to write the documentation, a lawyer to make sure we aren't opening ourselves up to licensing or patent disputes, a customer service rep to answer questions about whether this will work with regular DVI gear, and a librarian to keep track of all the bullshit standards that have better alternatives before they're even published. Of course, all
Re: (Score:2)
because moar expensive.
maybe they had some other extended use in mind for the connector, but totally forgot about that while in production.
or they wanted to copy apple. you know, benchmarking as a business term as explained in dilbert. doing what some other business is doing only totally fuckedly uppedly. I mean, where the fuck would I even find their adapter from for sale, how the fuck would I know that the audio works with their adapter and isn't just broken on the frigging card?
ati(amd) has probably had
Re:Simple : AMD=Awful Macro Devices (Score:5, Funny)
Stallman, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
Media makers say: We need to you make sure you have DRM or we wont sell to you.
Device Makers can say No, and not get the media makers provide, (giving opportunity to your competitors)
Device Makers can say Yes, and add those DRM restrictions, thus being able to give the media makers media. You sell more products and most of your customers are happy they can get access to the media.
Microsoft, and AMD are willing to give DRM so they they offer the competitive advantage of selling product that will work with mo
Re: (Score:3)
Sure some companies can say no. However if they do, they will get a few customers who really care, but most want the media and not worry about what they are giving up.
Or they will simply go to TPB instead and not give up anything at all. It's so by far the easiest way to get content that will play any time, anywhere, in any format you want on any device with any software capable for all time without any restrictions. It's not like there's two opposing sides here, there's the people who need DRM-approved gear because they need it to play their DRM'd content and there's the people who don't care because their content is "liberated". And a handful of principled idealists wh
Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they make that much on adaptors that they care?
Since when?
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I can think / guess is that some patent, licence and/or DRM limitation was identified by AMD that restricts (in legal terms) audio over DVI, but allows it over HDMI. Again, my best guess at this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess, because they give the adaptors away.
I can't even see it being DRM, just some sort of patent stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be simplifying their tech support somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine that to be the case. Are there that many non-functional DVI to HDMI adaptors?
Re: (Score:3)
Could it be simplifying their tech support somehow?
Not if they start getting a thousand calls a day about this, after this article...
Re: (Score:2)
let me get this straight: they add code to their driver to 'do things' if the eeprom is or is not there. they add cost to the passive (!) dongles and now create unseen classes of type-a and type-b dongles (my terms, not theirs). and you think this makes stuff EASIER for support, this way?
boggle!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm as much at a loss as you guys are. I'm trying to think like management might. It sounds weird, but I actually had to trick my soul into leaving my body for a second (my soul loves candy corn).
Re: (Score:3)
Why do phone manufacturers lock bootloaders? Companies add huge technical complexity for trivial reason all the time and rarely take the cost of unexpected failures and consumer outrage into account.
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Because carriers pay extra for that or will not carry a phone without it.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
So that they can choose when their hardware becomes obsolete.
One of the biggest unspoken threats of Linux is the added longevity hardware picks up. People can use much older hardware because Linux has a much more broad range of support for hardware than any one version of Windows. Why is that? You could argue that supporting device X under all versions of Windows is expensive or some crap like that. But at the end of the day, Linux does this because it's just there... in the kernel source somewhere. But when hardware makers want to push new high-end devices, they sometimes encourage upgrades by disabling features, decreasing performance and all manner of dirty tricks.
If people were wondering why AMD and NVidia have been holding back so hard on their Linux support, I think this is a much more plausible reason than "we outsourced development of the drivers and they patented and/or copyrighted stuff."
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the rise of tablets and consoles for gaming, I'm thinking those Linux/Steam installs are starting to look a little more profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really true though, is it? Windows will run fine on ancient graphics cards, just without full acceleration. The same is true of Linux - if you run a really old card it won't be fully accelerated in modern windowing systems, but will work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given how much legal bullshit is involved with HDMI (adapters are allowed, but adapter cables not; Anything-to-HDMI is allowed, but HDMI-to-something else isn't), I wouldn't be surprised if this was some legal requirement. Sounds stupid enough for it, at any rate.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been sending audio over DVI for at least 5 years. It is not a hack. It is part of the DVI-D / DVI-I standard.
It is the go-to choice for small business manufacturers not wanting to pay expensive HDMI license fees.
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you sure audio is part of the DVI standard? I'm not challenging you, but just curious where audio is located in the standard. Everything I've found indicates that the Digiital Visual Interface (DVI) is designed for visual interfaces. I'm aware of some devices that utilize audio over DVI, but aren't those extensions of the standard?
Re: (Score:2)
adapters are allowed, but adapter cables not
I can find various HDMI adapter cables from stores (to DVI or mini-HDMI, for example). Unless you meant something else.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is because the DVI standard doesn't actually have an audio transport channel, so they only switch it on when a DVI connection that they recognize as a DVI-to-HDMI adaptor is attached. They can only do that when one of their adapters is attached. Otherwise, they see a DVI device so they output a proper DVI signal. It's sticking to the DVI specifications very precisely (perhaps a bit too precisely).
Of course, I don't know enough about the specs to say for sure if that is why, or if there would be a better way (I strongly suspect there is, but am not sure).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the adapters typically sold separately? It's just more artificial scarcity / defective by design / DRM BS. Sounds like something the MPAA/RIAA goons would eat up with a spoon. Fuck this. Just make good hardware. Open the damn drivers so we can use the hardware to its full capabilities; We don't pay for drivers, we pay for hardware. If you want to put secret bullshit in the card, do it in the card. I guess this explains why the adapter I gave my friend wouldn't work. Guess what? They returned t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad we got competition! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad we got competition! (Score:4, Insightful)
But that wouldn't be cost-effective.
By spending resources on fucking over the customers, they earn more money for the shareholders, who are the people they really care about.
Re: (Score:2)
How does restricting the card to only use adaptors you give away for free make money?
It would be cheaper to not have this check and then tell people to buy their own adaptors.
How much revenue are they really protecting?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crazy that companies go through all this trouble to protect a revenue stream from something as inexpensive and generic as a DVI to HDMI adapter.
Really, if they want to make a little more money, why not charge an extra dollar for the card itself and be done with it?
DVI/HDMI don't even carry power, so you can't use the "it might fry the device" excuse that Apple uses with their lightning plugs.
Re:How much revenue are they really protecting?? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's crazy that companies go through all this trouble to protect a revenue stream from something as inexpensive and generic as a DVI to HDMI adapter.
Not only that, but I wouldn't even know where to start to find a their branded version except in the box of a graphics card (and typically all those things when I get them just get tossed into a drawer - of the umpteen bazillion of them in there I doubt I know which goes with which).
My guess though is that the actual sales they're trying to protect here are those to the card makers rather than end users. If the companies making cards using their chips have to buy the adapters from AMD instead whatever the cheapest source in Hong Kong is, then I'm guessing it adds up. The end-user is just collateral damage.
Re:How much revenue are they really protecting?? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the first explanation that makes any sense.
Force the OEMs to buy these DVI to HDMI chips from AMD vs another competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still of the firm opinion that the iPhone 4 shouldn't have received iOS 7. It's just too slow for it.
Hell, it was somewhat slow for iOS 6!
HDMI has limitation built in to the spec (Score:5, Interesting)
It was practically designed by the copyright industry so that they can control everything. I mean they have just about ruined the spec preventing it from being useful. Why does it need an encrypted signal? It kind of ticks me off. I recall troubleshooting and actually putting my amp system into the shop TWICE at the manufacturer's suggestion because they didn't recognize (or admit) that the problem I was experiencing was all about HDMI. (And to think all I wanted to do was play a video game through my amp and to the TV... what copyright interest is there in that?!)
Re:HDMI has limitation built in to the spec (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. I have a Sony TV and a Sony Blu-Ray player - both less than 2 years old. The crypto negotiation takes about a second, with blank screen and audible pops. On most Blu-Ray discs it happens at least twice before you get to playing the movie. With DVDs it sometimes takes place 4 times. I swear that an old CRT TV and a VCR were faster to cold-boot to a visible, playing movie, with inclusion of loading the tape, than the current generation of HD gear. It says something when a system that could, theoretically, be up and playing in 5 seconds from power-up is almost a factor of magnitude away from what the hardware allows it to do. It really takes the cake when such a system is about as "fast" as an electromechanical variant. Yeah, VCRs are nowhere near the quality of even DVDs, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
I continually troubleshoot my LG TV / Onkyo Receiver / Sony BD/DVD. I'm always amazed at how slow and klooodgy this high tech setup is... Once it is working, it works great though. I love the roundabout I have to take to get audio to play from USB via Receiver AND watch over the air TV simultaneously. Yea, I know, I need a universal remote.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes even less sense on DVI->HDMI. AFAIK, DVI is less encumbered than HDMI, so you'd kind of expect it on an HDMI->DVI adapter. But moving from a less to more encumbered connection? That makes no sense.
As much as I dislike the DRM aspects of HDMI, it is a lot less annoying from a cabling perspective to be able to get HD video and digital audio on a single, relatively sturdy cable.
Before my gear was HDMI capable it was a major annoyance to cable everything together -- component video cables (3
Re: (Score:3)
DVI support HDCP "protection" actually, when it's there.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's correct what you wrote -
It was designed by the copyright industry so that they can control everything. It has an encrypted signal.
It really is that simple. The people that would be offering the content designed the spec for the cable and port for the express purpose of restricting and preventing you from freely using it. Instead of bitching about something, research it and look it up. Your hypothesizing if something that was designed [google.com] by the media cartels and the tech companies for the express purpose
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. It seems Wikipedia is just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI [wikipedia.org]
It shows hardware makers did HDMI but the media industry inserted HDCP.
Re: (Score:3)
To clear up the role:
DVI came first. An unencrypted digital video link designed to replace VGA as a computer-to-monitor interface, not for consumer electronics. This is why it didn't use encryption or carry audio.
HDCP was then introduced as an encryption-and-authentication to DVI, adding the DRM.
Finally, HDMI was introduced. A new physical connector more CE-friendly (No super-delicate pins), but electrically the same as DVI. While electrically compatible, it also requires support for HDCP under the licensin
Re: (Score:3)
It got worse recently, making it easy to diagnose. It got to the point where the video went away within a second of starting the treadmill. It is an EMI issue. Either the treadmill is emitting t
Competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Competition (Score:5, Funny)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Re: (Score:2)
that, and "nvidia killed the radio star"
or, something like that....
both ATI and NV are evil. it really is a kang/kodos kind of choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Then again, AMD are making Mantle now. Maybe they're the new 3dfx.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time OpenGL implementations were mostly garbage, though most vendors rushed to have "Quake only" OpenGL that sort of worked. Then 3dfx opened up Glide but no one used it, they did that too late. In fairness I was a 3dfx fanboy and the Voodoo2 was just great, usable up to four years after its release (very competent board for Counterstrike 1.5)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Put your TV on the curb, download a copy of adblock plus, Ghostery, NoScript, HTTPS Everywhere, TrackMeNot and in six months this entire article will seem the very definition of the hedonistic treadmill.
There, fixed that for you.
This is why I don't use HDMI (Score:2)
I value the freedom to do what I want with what I own so I don't use it. I'm perfectly happy with my DVI displays and will be for years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by modern resolutions but I'm quite content with my dual-monitor, 1920 x 1080 setup and my graphics card seems to handle it just fine. Display Port also comes with DRM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Digital_Rights_Management_.28DRM.29 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
display port is not even wire-compatible with hdmi/dvi.
my thinkpad is DP only and when I tried an active cable to convert to hdmi, it mostly worked but if you move some windows around, the chip gets freaked out and the screen blanks. move the windows more and the screen winks back on again. you NEED a chip in the cable to bridge between DP and hdmi. it sucks ass. it really does.
the cable did not work well for me and so, to get external monitors working on my laptop, I had no choice but to buy the lenovo
Question (Score:3)
Terribly sorry for not RTFA, but when did AMD try to add this to the Linux driver? When was it noticed? When was it corrected? And can I shove this in the face of windows fanboys who say that anyone could submit anything they want to Linux and you don't really know what's in there?
LGPL Open Graphics IP (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't know that. (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that DVI could carry audio. Of course, most of my available DVI output display doesn't have audio. And if I have audio-out with DVI, I probably also have HDMI. So basically the only time that this is a problem would be if I had a DVI only display with audio and I needed audio.
Re:Didn't know that. (Score:5, Interesting)
It can't. The complaint is that a non-standard feature is only enabled for known non-standard adapters. The story is flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
solution is to NOT bundle a+v together. its a stupid idea, the way its done now, anyway.
carry your audio over spdif (opto or coax). its standard that way! you can run into YOUR dac of choice for audio and also into your spdif opto port on your typical avr receiver.
you won't get blueray 2496 audio - it will be 48k audio at 16bits (maybe 24; spdif has no problem with 24bit audio even at 48k sampling) but for movies WHO THE HELL CARES. redbook is and always has been good enough for movie use. and dd5.1 an
Re: (Score:2)
The adapter in question allows you to plug a HDMI cable into the DVI connector on the video card. My 4850 card from ASUS had two DVI connectors and no HDMI connector, so I would have to use the adapter to plug it into a TV for example. The card came with one. My later 6850 card has HDMI and DisplayPort and didn't come with one.
Since the 4850 card has two DVI ports, I wonder if the idea was something as simple and stupid as if there are two DVI to HDMI adapters plugged in, only activate HDMI audio on one, a
Other Problems (Score:3)
DVI doesn't carry audio anyway right? (Score:3, Informative)
I guess I'm missing something here. What is the big deal if HDMI audio is turned off when using DVI since DVI doesn't carry an audio signal anyway?
No more AMD for me (Score:2)
Well at least I know now my next GPU upgrade will be Nvidia.
Is that even legal? (Score:2)
An automobile maker cannot require that only their own brand of gasoline (or, say, tires) is to be used by their cars.
really bad idea (Score:2)
You think this is to screw with customers? (Score:3)
Do people really think this is to screw with their customers? AMD makes pretty much zero off their adapters. They clearly aren't doing this to protect revenue streams. It's obviously some workaround hack for something, or some end case that wasn't initially considered in the design, or conforming to the dvi spec somehow. I'm really not sure why people think this is malicious. Really? THIS is what's going to make you not buy AMD?
This isn't "screw customers", this is "screw HDMI" (Score:5, Interesting)
If AMD put HDMI ports on their video card, they'd have to pay licensing/royalty fees to HDMI Licensing, LLC. By only putting DVI connectors on their video cards, ATI doesn't have to pay the fee. But for the small percentage of customers who *want* HDMI, they sell the adapter and pay for the licensing costs with that instead. Since they sell far fewer adapters than cards obviously, the overall license fees paid become much less.
Presumably the EEPROM is in there because the HDMI Licensing lawyers aren't complete idiots, and required the card to make sure the adapter is licensed. Tossing a 10-cent 24LC01 or something in there with a magic byte on it probably didn't break the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
They are indeed members of the species "homo sapiens". And you're right, no other species on earth would do such a thing. Mostly because no other species on earth builds graphics cards.
Reminds me of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace [wikiquote.org]:
Daglass: I figure the following: Sanch is regressing to Homo neanderthalenus. Right now Sanch you're Homo erectus but who knows how long you’ve got?
Sanchez: I appreciate you being straight with me.
Reed: And you and I are Homo sapiens?
Daglass: Correct.
Reed: But if we’re all basically Homos, shouldn’t we get along?
Re: (Score:2)
IDDQD (to protect against all flames)
Throw this one in the same bin as all the DRM, freemium games, games that artificially favor nVidia cards over AMD ones, and generally everything the putrid games industry does to screw PC gamers.
Find another hobby!!
I make games. I'm not part of the putrid part of the games industry. I will never release a freemium game. I would rather ask for the dev costs from the end users (crowd sourced) then just give the game away to everyone for free, and do more work to make more money -- Same as working under a Publisher, but without the artificial scarcity or price jacking... I have to bootstrap into that system first though, so I'm building some rep with smaller games first.
My DRM is a Web of Trust security system that u
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old ATI-only feature from before they put an actual HDMI connector on vid cards.