I have to agree with everyone else as well. When I was given the slide, I believed it showed titles with EF support. I posted the list as such, and never received any correction on my post content. If the intent of the slide was to show the developers that ATI was working with, then I think the list would have been better served by logos of the developers - not the titles.
Everything in the 2009 side does have support (though DA:O does have its issues). I also believe that the OP (who hasn't posted here since) probably has a pirated version, and may not have final code. If BioWare doesn't come out with an EF patch somewhere around Day 0 or Day 1, then I would be inclined to pull the list.
Forum members purchased the game based on the fact I had posted that it had the support, and now that may not be the case. Puts me in a bad position of not being a trusted resource. Now, if the OP posted non-final code for his/her claim (and the claim was originally quite the flame-fest), then that puts everyone in a bad spot. Maybe I shouldn't have approved the post since the game isn't released.
There is still the possibility that BioWare did commit to including the proper support (they did
overhaul much of the engine for the game), and either it wasn't included in this build or they backed away from that promise to make their street date. I've had plenty of times in my day job where people commit to doing something, and I only find out at the 11th hour that they either didn't do it, or it's of piss-poor quality.
Until the final game is released, we're not sure if "blame" is needed, or where it would be placed. Though, I do think I need a clearer understanding on the intent of the slide.