https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...as-starfields-exclusive-partner-on-pc.310582/
well, it seems that the game won't have RTX, DLSS nor XeSS.... :/ 'cos of an exclusivity deal with AMD.
Starfield to use FSR2 only, exclude DLSS2/3 and XeSS: concerns and implications *spawn*
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
well, it seems that the game won't have RTX, DLSS nor XeSS.... :/ 'cos of an exclusivity deal with AMD.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Yep. Maybe the attention this title will receive will force AMD's hand in this and allow DLSS, who knows. They had the opportunity to shut the rumors down that they were making FSR2 exclusivity a requirement for their development deal, but their obvious waffling in their response to wccftech did the exact opposite. I can't really see their logic behind this, it's obviously not translating into market share and this is only going to draw negative responses.
don't think so. Quite a few games with a exclusivity deal, like Dead Island 2, and others, never ended up supporting DLSS. These exclusive deals are crap, because no one cares about them. And the game won't be using DLSS, which imho is the best technology on PC in the last 15 years.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
I realize that, but I'm saying there also wasn't quite the same degree of attention being paid to AMD on this before now, there were always suspicions that FSR2 only was mandated as part of their partnerships, but AMD has all but confirmed that with their awful response when finally being asked point-blank. Now any publisher/developer that announces their game is being AMD sponsored is going to have to face these kinds of questions:
Starfield being one of the most anticipated titles in years as well places further attention on this. That narrative is that AMD is being "anti-consumer", it's just going to gain more steam the more often this keeps happening. I agree these exclusivity deals are pointless, I'm saying AMD may eventually be forced to wake up and realize the negative PR is just not worth it.
arandomguy
Veteran
Just throwing this out there but I wonder if Microsoft had any factor in this. If Starfield is supposed to be the showcase title for the Xbox they not want to the PC version, especially at launch, to completely upstage it.
DLSS3 is the bigger potential loss than DLSS2 if we go by track record. Frame generation might be needed to target >60fps. But then again the physics and underlying logic might explode at >60 fps (or 30!?) for all we know.
DLSS3 is the bigger potential loss than DLSS2 if we go by track record. Frame generation might be needed to target >60fps. But then again the physics and underlying logic might explode at >60 fps (or 30!?) for all we know.
DavidGraham
Veteran
AMD kind of confirmed this a year ago, when NVIDIA developed the Streamline tool, which helps developers add all upscaling tech in a very simple way. NVIDIA offered both AMD and Intel to officially join the tool.
Intel joined on board, but AMD didn't, confirming their intent not to play ball, or support an "open" approach to upscaling With this move, the position of AMD is rather obvious, they prefer FSR gets supported "alone", while other tech gets shunned. This also helps them limit the spread of DLSS3, a major NVIDIA advantage they have yet to respond to.
Nvidia Streamline Aims to Simplify Developer Support for All Upscaling Algorithms
Streamline is an open-source framework and Intel is already on board.
I know this is going to create a shitstorm but it needs to be said again: the most "open" approach to upscaling is making the algorithm open source. It's borderline ridiculous that people feel it's okay to bully game development companies into using arbitrary closed source tech that forms a major portion of the rendering pipeline and yet feel no similar need to pressure the IHVs into actually standardizing the techniques. And no, a black box where a library can take (whatever input) and produce (whatever output) is not a standard.
If the claim is that DLSS/XeSS is so foundationally important to the experience that it must be present in a PC game then it should be an open technique, just like FSR is. Stop falling for any of the bullshit excuses from the IHVs on this. It's ridiculous that they have somehow managed to flip the narrative when they are the ones creating this exclusivity nightmare in the first place.
To be clear, I understand the user experience argument on this point, but make no mistake that you are being manipulated and weaponized by the actual bad actors in this situation. Exclusivity deals aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a developer saying that they are not going to include arbitrary pieces of closed source software in their renderer and it's frankly ridiculous to suggest otherwise. This is 100% GameWorks all over again.
/rant.
No, its not. At what point are we gonna get over the closed tech bullshit ? Its been 5 years of existence for DLSS, hundreds of games, constant evolution of it, 80% of the market uses nvidia, every gpu they manufacture supports it. Is 10 years gonna be enough to get rid of the hairworks/physx horsehit some cling to ? 15 years ? 20 years ? No, people should not be happy that they get the "open" fsr (which is only open because almost nobody buys amd cards so anything else was not an option) and it complete shit in comparison to the point that you'd rather use native and lower performance or wait for upgrades than use it
I'll give this one reply but I can see this spiraling in a really stupid direction. Suffice it to say, I don't even understand the point you are trying to make here. It *is* closed source and it *is* the exact same situation as other closed source stuff like gameworks... that's just a fact. Why would it being around for some amount of time change anything about the fundamental argument about how closed source stuff stifles innovation and is pretty much bad for everyone in the long run?
I get that you might not care because you only care about your experience with a given game. That's totally fine, but it is irrelevant to the point being made.
Because thats the main argument you ocasionally see online. That DLSS is gonna somehow dissapear at some point or we're gonna be left with older games unsuable at one point in the future or some nonsense like this. How is DLSS stifling inovation ? Its evolving for the last half a decade. Point out some hard facts that are negative about DLSS, instead of doom fanfiction. Hard facts that have already happened since 2018 until now.
I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Making an innovation closed source is what gives the creator of that innovation the bulk of their competitive advantage from it. And competitive advantage is what gives them the motivation to innovate in the first place.
NVidia spent time and resources developing DLSS so it's understandable in my view why they would then want to reap financial reward from it (in terms of competitive advantage) rather than making it open source for other IHV's to use. If for example there was some regulation that forced them to make such innovations open source as soon as they were released then they may not have bothered with it in the first place as ROI would be much lower. I get that their hardware might be better at running DLSS so they can still take some competitive advantage from it, but their competitors would likely close that gap quickly and it's no-where near the advantage they get from keeping it exclusive to their hardware.
Obviously from that same business perspective it's also perfectly fair for AMD to try to prevent DLSS from making it's way into games in order to blunt Nvidia's competitive advantage. So arguably both approaches are pro-profit / anti-consumer. But personally, I would say that deliberately blocking a superior technical feature (and this could apply to more advanced RT implementations as well as DLSS) from a large majority of the market is more anti-consumer than keeping a innovation that you developed exclusive to your product. At least in the latter case, everyone who wants to access the innovation has the option. With the former, it's tough luck for all consumers.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Modders add DLSS 3 to loads of things these days (TLOU PC has had DLSS 3 FG modded in) so hopefully the attention Starfield will no doubt get will give it loads of attention from said modders.
RE4 Remake has had DLSS hacked in to and it looks million times better than the FSR 2 implementation.
RE4 Remake has had DLSS hacked in to and it looks million times better than the FSR 2 implementation.
Last edited:
Isn’t user experience the whole point of writing software? There are long term benefits to avoiding vendor lock-in and other regrettable architecture choices but this industry also has a long history of putting theory ahead of practice with middling results. Results matter right?
Nothing wrong with that but is the average game developer really anti-DLSS/XeSS and how do those same folks feel about all the other middleware used in games?
@trinibwoy
Or could it be the average multiplatform developer already has a FSR solution in place for the console port(s), and it would require minimal effort to keep it in the PC version?
While I agree that open source is best, what would be the point of making an already highly optimized piece of software that is targeted at specific hardware open source? DLSS only runs so well because its a symbosis of hardware (tensor cores) and software which in my eyes is a heck of alot innovation, DLSS kickstarted this whole upscaling race in the first place. If DLSS would be open sourced, I don't think anything would change. It would not run well on incompatible hardware because shader cores are too slow at matrix multiplication in real time, just look at how XeSS runs without HW-acceleration. Same story here.
It's also not about bullying developers into integrating DLSS, it's about raising awareness that AMD is preventing a better technology from being used in their sponsored games. This is not baseless conjecture at this point, there is a very, very clear pattern with how these AMD sponsored games lack DLSS and that is hurting the PC gaming industry as a whole. Instead of making sponsored games better, a partnership with AMD makes them significantly worse. And I'm sure you are aware that integrating DLSS into Unreal Engine games is as easy as clicking a button. Guess what - these Unreal Engine games sponsored by AMD lack DLSS as well. Even though its really easy to integrate. To add further fuel to the fire, the statement AMD made on Wccftech was very revealing.
So yes, I'm very glad AMD finally gets called out on this.
I am all for open source, but from Todd Howard's words, this isn't a case where the developer uses an open source tool to simplify development. He said that they are working hard -PR stuff- closely with AMD engineers so the game looks incredible with FSR2.
btw, XeSS is open source.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Guess that includes UE 5 not being open source and stifling innovation to the detriment of developers and gamers in the long run. On topic is TSR open source?
No it isn't. if you actually took the time to look at the repository, most of the functionality behind XeSS gets obfuscated by precompiled library files and that goes for the DP4a implementation as well ...
Despite everyone alleging foul play by AMD did anyone consider the thought that the backroom deals made by them with other parties simply agreed with their opinion ? The truth might be simpler than most would like not to believe ...
While I agree with many of your points Andrew, but has the 'open source' approach improved FSR in general? When I think of open source, I think of a community of developers and/or weekend code warriors improving on something (code) that would benefit others if the original source was worth while supporting and improving. As of now, FSR and it's various iterations aren't showing those improvements that a open source community tends to show, and honestly, I don't know of too many modders who are breaking their necks on improving it (developers as well). Maybe, if AMD took some actual initiative on providing some dedicated logic in their GPU towards reconstruction, while offering open source code for it, then maybe the open source community would push harder on supporting more AMD features. And yes, I know the whole purpose behind AMD offering FSR as open source solution was to avoid bespoke and fenced off tech, and to gain support of it across all GPU boards. However, that doesn't negate their responsibility on being competitive in a space that requires innovation - which often requires customized/bespoke/patented hardware.
Last edited: