
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: posts have the following requirements:
2: Do not copy the entire article into your post.
3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed.
5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative).
6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
7: We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

[EOR]
[BOC]
&gt;I don't think we should stand for exclusivity agreements, that if a game uses gameworks that it can't use AMD tech - because that's damaging to us as consumers. *That is anti-competitive by its proper definition.* 
Correct - and that's the way we are heading due to GameWorks.
&gt;The fact that NVIDIA won't allow AMD access to their code is not anti-competitive in any sense, it's 100% fair play. 
How would nVidia be hurt if AMD could see the source code and optimize for it? Would their cards suddenly be working worse? Allowing AMD to also optimize would benefit consumers and nVidia are actively denying that. 

&gt;And likewise, devs should be held accountable if they become so reliant on this stuff that core parts of their game can't function without it. 
Don't hate the player, hate the game - which has been created by nVidia. AMD have been forced to try and develop an open "FreeWorks" alternative to nVidia but resources are limited and that will take time. 

[EOC]

0: Safe