-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD is Starfield’s Exclusive PC Partner
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- News
StereoVsn
Member
Except Nvidia just recently flat denied enforcing DLSS exclusivity in their contracts. AMD and MS are completely silent despite pretty bad negative publicity, especially for AMD.I don't see how Plague's Tale is any different than Starfield. Nvidia partnered with Adobe and Focus just like AMD is partnering with Bethesda.
NVIDIA DLSS & Ray Tracing Coming to A Plague Tale: Requiem - Check Out Focus Entertainment’s Upcoming YouTube Livestream For An Epic Gameplay Reveal
NVIDIA is partnering with Focus Entertainment and Asobo to provide the Ultimate A Plague Tale: Requiem Experience on PC with NVIDIA DLSS and ray tracing.www.nvidia.com
And we don't have any evidence that DLSS will not be in Starfield at this point. It is all speculation.
That's the difference. If this was nothing somebody from AMD would have piped up as MS might be under NDA contract or something.
Topher
Gold Member
Oh I agree completely as far as how this is being handled from a PR perspective. It looks incredibly bad. But on the Nvidia side, it doesn't look great when they have a partnership with Asobo and A Plague Tale: R ships without FSR. I guess we have to take Nvidia at their word, but beyond that there really isn't any hard "evidence" either way.
I'm not on a side here. I'm just trying to hold them both to the same standard.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
i suspect AMD will have exclusive deals with all future bethesda games , even ABK if the merger happens
Buggy Loop
Member
When we have a such a statement from Nvidia, I would imagine that techtubers went on the hunt of dev comments to see why FSR was omitted? Because if one dev says they were contractually obligated, the shitstorm for Nvidia after and the CLICKS
Topher
Gold Member
When we have a such a statement from Nvidia, I would imagine that techtubers went on the hunt of dev comments to see why FSR was omitted? Because if one dev says they were contractually obligated, the shitstorm for Nvidia after and the CLICKS
That's essentially how these contracts work, it would seem.
Buggy Loop
Member
That's essentially how these contracts work, it would seem.
Even a no comments would generate a shitstorm
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It's shit if AMD do it, but we don't know if they do.
It's shit if Nvidia do it, but we don't know if they do.
Zathalus
Member
I don't see how Plague's Tale is any different than Starfield. Nvidia partnered with Adobe and Focus just like AMD is partnering with Bethesda.
NVIDIA DLSS & Ray Tracing Coming to A Plague Tale: Requiem - Check Out Focus Entertainment’s Upcoming YouTube Livestream For An Epic Gameplay Reveal
NVIDIA is partnering with Focus Entertainment and Asobo to provide the Ultimate A Plague Tale: Requiem Experience on PC with NVIDIA DLSS and ray tracing.www.nvidia.com
And we don't have any evidence that DLSS will not be in Starfield at this point. It is all speculation.
The difference is that AMD is requiring that the game does not include DLSS, Nvidia did not require no FSR for a Plague Tale. Sure the end result is the same but the cause is very different.
He is simply wrong though, there is no need to get out of paying for DLSS because there is no paying for it in the first place. Implying that there is any cost involved in DLSS is flat out wrong.
The not sure excuse does not fly either, the man is supposed to be a professional is he not? It take under five minutes to confirm that information with a simple Google search. The ML training has also not been correct since Control released. His overall implication was clear, he was trying to paint the picture that DLSS is more complex to implement when it requires the exact same effort as FSR.
As for pointing out his faults, that is not the same thing as the issues that get raised here about DF at all. If DF is factually incorrect then pointing it out is completely justified, problem is that is not what happens on this forum at all. Just recently somebody claimed that when the PS4 vs One comparisons started happening DF tried to downplay the difference in resolution, I posted four articles from them demonstrating the exact opposite. Revisionism at its finest.
Fredrik
Member
I’m thinking it’s Microsoft and they’re just out of touch, like they probably thought it would be good PR with AMD doing that partner announcement video.
From my perspective it’s anti-PR.
A DLSS announcement would be good PR. Nvidia doing a RTX 4090 maxed out video, with and without DLSS3 and a frame counter. That’s what they should do. We literally still don’t have a clue what to expect on PC. As far as I know they still haven’t shown even a screenshot from the PC version… unless they’ve been scummy and shown the PC version the whole time with Xbox Series X settings, which I doubt.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
We don't know for a fact that AMD is requiring anything to be excluded at all. Factually, no one has said whether DLSS will be in Starfield or not. If DLSS isn't in the game then yeah, I agree with you that it seems obviously due to a deal between AMD and Bethesda, but even at that point it is common sense derived from AMD's and Bethesda's silence on the issue.
I'll let NXGamer speak up on the other points you've raised if he wants. For the record, I don't like all shit DF gets either.
Microsoft can't seem to get out of their own way. But yeah, the lack of information on the PC version two months out is frustrating as hell for me. The mod community is great for PC, but game devs shouldn't rely on free dev work when it comes to their games. I certainly hope that is not the case here.
Last edited:
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Graphics are everything to pc gaming, one on one with consoles they win and that’s an issue consoles need to figure out how to upgrade so called components like pc gaming.
nemiroff
Gold Member
Wait, wat..?
IGN needs to give the guy some time off to catch up on what's going on in the scene, lol
StereoVsn
Member
The issue at the end is that we have a very clear denial on the subject from Nvidia. And while The House that Jensen Built can certainly lie and have done that in the past, I just dont see the point in this case.
On the other hand we have silence from AMD and MS. Considering the past history with AMD exclusives I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There is an easy solution to this negative PR if it's not true, is making a statement. Since AMD is not willing to do that, one can only be left with assuming the worst.
There is no need to defend AMD on this shit. It's a mess of their own (and MS/Zenimax/Bethesda's) accord.
Edit: I am especially bitter about this since this is one game I was really looking forward to. Despite their faults, I have gotten a LOT of mileage out of Bethesda games, especially with mods. Pretty much everything Daggerfall and up is installed on my system with various mods, even got couple different versions of modded Skyrim and New Vegas.
Instead I got a bad feeling of another Cyberpunk 2077 situation, which was coincidentally another game I was really looking forward to and look at the shit show that turned out. Yes, even after all the fixes it's still meh compared to 2018 vision/hype.
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Member
I thought a lot of Starfield videos were from PC version "with XSX settings"? I could be remembering it wrong though.
And yes, it is super annoying that we haven't seen anything from higher graphical setting versions. I really think people shouldn't pre-order this one, there is a good chance it will be coming in hot.
Topher
Gold Member
Considering Bethesda's and AMD's silence on the issue, I think that's completely fair. And while I think it is shitty how they are handling this, I'm personally going to wait for official word. But no, don't blame you at all for not giving the the benefit of the doubt.
And no, I am not defending AMD here. Just giving my own outlook on it.
Last edited:
Fredrik
Member
Cyberpunk DLC was shown that way in the Xbox show but as far as I know they’ve only shown the Xbox Series X version of Starfield. Tbh I’ve barely even heard them mention the PC version, just a quick mention in an interview that the modding tools will be on PC and the framerate being higher than 30 and then there is the AMD partner video.
StereoVsn
Member
And that's totally fair. I would love nothing more to be wrong here and this just being a PR shitshow. I want the game to be good, really was looking forward to it.
I expect to be playing Starfield for years, much as I have done with every single other Bethesda game since Daggerfall.
It's just that there have been so much disappointment in PC space from pretty much everyone last few years, I can't help but be pessimistic.
StereoVsn
Member
Kenpachii
Member
Worst part is i knew i got fucked with the 3,5gb of v-ram, and i upgraded from the 1,5gb 580 to a 290 4gb, because of v-ram problems in unity. Nvidia and v-ram nothing ever changes.
yamaci17
Member
is this legit? I never follow their content due to how uninformed they are but that's a whole another level
Zathalus
Member
Yeah, it's right at the start of the video.
Do you have any proof of what you typed?
The second point honestly makes me curious as to why NXGamer does not bother with basic research, he makes the following three claims:
1. Developers need to pay to use DLSS
2. Nvidia needs access to your game code.
3. Nvidia needs to train the ML engine on your specific game.
None of that is true, Nvidia requires only that you advertise that your game is using DLSS (even this can be negotiated away). They don't require access to your game, and DLSS hasn't required training since the original DLSS 1.0 version.
I'm actually shocked anybody makes such a claim. Digital Foundry gets absolutely wrecked on this forum, yet NXgamer can make absurd claims like that and is held up as some sort of standard?
The second point honestly makes me curious as to why NXGamer does not bother with basic research, he makes the following three claims:
1. Developers need to pay to use DLSS
2. Nvidia needs access to your game code.
3. Nvidia needs to train the ML engine on your specific game.
None of that is true, Nvidia requires only that you advertise that your game is using DLSS (even this can be negotiated away). They don't require access to your game, and DLSS hasn't required training since the original DLSS 1.0 version.
I'm actually shocked anybody makes such a claim. Digital Foundry gets absolutely wrecked on this forum, yet NXgamer can make absurd claims like that and is held up as some sort of standard?
Last edited:
Braag
Member
Lol
They just don't want to reduce sales by saying it wont.
01011001
Banned
NX Gamer lost the plot on this one. it's so easy to completely dismantle all of this, it's kinda crazy.
there are literally indy devs implementing DLSS IN LITERAL HOURS into their small scale projects.
Last edited:
If there aren't any barriers to implement DLSS2 outside of developer choice then the adoption rate or easy of implementation should be as easy as FSR2.
That doesn't really make sense if the only limiting factor is developers choice when Nvidia has most of gaming GPU market. I can't understand if the bulk of Nvidia GPU's don't have tensor cores but they are on their third generation of products supporting that feature set so everything,at least in theory should be easy for them.
01011001
Banned
I mean, yeah, everyone knows AMD is blocking it. anyone trying to argue otherwise is denying reality
nemiroff
Gold Member
Definitely. But I bet the pushback has startled both AMD and MS/Bethesda, at least to a certain extent. So it'll be interesting to see if at the end of the day Starfield will have DLSS support after all.
Ok. But I never mentioned whether AMD are blocking,nor am I concerned about other upscaling features on the PC version of Starfield not being there.
I only asked for proof in my initial comment.
Maybe I didn't type in the right words but I'm didn't find anything related to the bullet points on Google.
01011001
Banned
the "no comment" strategy leaves the possiblity open yeah.
Gamers Nexus called it "Schrödingers Marketing"
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
They probably are, but Nvidia probably are as well. I have redeemed two keys for AMD bundle games amd both have DLSS as an option - so it's not so cut and dried as you are making out.
01011001
Banned
Nvidia doesn't dance around the question, and there are zero indicators that Nvidia is blocking anything.
and there being different types of deals for different publishers is to be expected. it's very cut and dry. AMD does clearly engage in deals to block DLSS and XeSS. Nvidia has shown zero signs of doing the same. it doesn't get more cut and dry as that.
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Member
Yep, people keep doing all this mental gymnastics to make AMD look better for some stupid reason. Corpos don't need your defense force people.
Also interestingly enough it's mostly Sony games that have both FSR and DLSS when AMD marketed. I wonder if it's just Sony having more pull with AMD to ignore the usual contract stipulations.
Also brings up the question about WTF MS is doing.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Then how come Sackboy got a DLSS3 upgrade but still has no FSR or XeSS? Especially when Sony have an in house tool that allows all three to be easily integrated?
I'm not defending AMD but I also don't believe Nvidia especially considering this statement, which reads like a utopian program, was about a program that was shut -down under potential investigation for being anti-competitive.
"The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program."
01011001
Banned
maybe they don't see any value in adding them? the game has a res scaling slider, and honestly you're better off using that instead of FSR2.
but to be more serious, the game runs on an older version of UE4, which does not have native integration of FSR2 yet.
it uses UE 4.25.1, FSR2 is only officially supported for 4.26.2 and later.
meanwhile, every UE4 version that supports FSR2 also supports DLSS2, no exception, no excuses.
wtf does that even mean?
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Does 4.25.1 support DLSS3? Does 4.25.1 block FSR mods. Integrating DLSS is so simple that the only reason it wouldn't be included is a block, but then FSR is so hard to integrate that Sony can't manage it even with an in house tool available.maybe they don't see any value in adding them? the game has a res scaling slider, and honestly you're better off using that instead of FSR2.
but to be more serious, the game runs on an older version of UE4, which does not have native integration of FSR2 yet.
it uses UE 4.25.1, FSR2 is only officially supported for 4.26.2 and later.
meanwhile, every UE4 version that supports FSR2 also supports DLSS2, no exception, no excuses.
wtf does that even mean?
Nixxes came out and stated that they have a tool that allows all 3 upscaling technologies to be integrated with ease.
Topher
Gold Member
They should compete by making superior products. Not making gaming worse.
01011001
Banned
DLSS is implemented in basically every engine, that's why people instantly saw this pattern as being AMD blocking it.
a big chunk of games on that list are UE4 games, all of which have DLSS natively integrated
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
But UE4 and 5 also have plugins for XeSS and FSR2.
There is no excuse for those games not to also have XeSS and FSR2.
01011001
Banned
did you not read what I posted like 2 posts above?
only UE4.6.2 and higher support fsr2
Last edited:
MH3M3D
Member
They do make superior products. Not every single nvidia GPU is better than every single AMD GPU.
01011001
Banned
the directly competing cards are worse.
winjer
Gold Member
There is no UE4.6.2
You probably mean 4.26 and it has been released in 2020. Most games today are being released with 4.27 or updated to 4.27
So there is no excuse.
Topher
Gold Member
Paying to exclude competing technology from games is not making a superior product.
01011001
Banned
Sackboy, the only example brought forward of a UE4 game, uses an older version. again read my post above.
just because a game releases today, doesn't mean it uses the newest UE version.
winjer
Gold Member
UE4.26 is not the newest version of Unreal Engine. Not even close. it's almost 3 years old.
And updating it's not that hard, unless it's from UE4 to UE5.
Right now I'm playing Insurgency Sandstorm. This game was released with UE4.18 or something similar.
They have updated it several times. Now it's on UE 4.27.2 and before this, it was on 4.25
And this is a small indie studio with a small budget.
He's talking about the nixxes dev who said they have a simple wrapper for dlss/fsr/xess. Not sure the rest of sony use it as his comment insinuates but you would think if one of the other sony 1st party devs asked for it they would get it.
01011001
Banned
WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT THE NEWEST VERSION IS MR PEDANTIC... wtf is your problem?
SACKBOY IS STILL ON A VERSION OF UE4 THAT DOESN'T HAVE OFFICIAL SUPPORT FOR THE GRAPHICS GLITCH KNOWN AS FRS2.
HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
no other game has been brought forward that was in any way related to Nvidia