Starfield to use FSR2 only, exclude DLSS2/3 and XeSS: concerns and implications *spawn*
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24871769/Starfield_IntoTheStarfield_Wallpaper_2560x1440_01.jpg)
AMD claims there’s nothing stopping Starfield from adding Nvidia DLSS
“If they want to do DLSS, they have AMD’s full support.”
www.theverge.com
Them asking a dev to prioritise their tech makes perfect sense.
Why would you pay for lets say marketing and it had dlss and not fsr? After that it's generally up to dev is my take on it.
Also Bethesda not willing to comment is probably pretty smart. Whatever they say will cause 'discussion', so carry on talking about the game in the context you want to premote it until willing to talk about it.
DavidGraham
Veteran
AMD probably just amended the deal with Bethesda after the huge backlash, once they did, they were in the clear to talk about how Bethesda is free to do DLSS if they want to.
The recent inclusion of DLSS into the Avatar Pandora game, despite it being an AMD sponsored title is also another point in favor of that probability.
The recent inclusion of DLSS into the Avatar Pandora game, despite it being an AMD sponsored title is also another point in favor of that probability.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Yeah it's obvious, as Steve from GN theorized what they would likely do. It doesn't take a month to formulate this response if this was always the case, they would have put a lid on this controversy in a matter of hours.
Yep. Online bullying works.
AMD claims there’s nothing stopping Starfield from adding Nvidia DLSS
“If they want to do DLSS, they have AMD’s full support.”
Them asking a dev to prioritise their tech makes perfect sense.
Why would you pay for lets say marketing and it had dlss and not fsr? After that it's generally up to dev is my take on it.
Yes, and no one had a problem with that. Of course we expect AMD to provide the resources to prioritize their tech and the publisher to market it, that's not the issue and this response would have been more than adequate more than a month ago. Like if you truly believe this was always the policy and they just let this shitstorm brew for over a month when asked, point-blank, time and time again, then I can only guess you truly believe you had a coin stuck behind your ear for years until your uncle pulled it out.
Last edited:
Maybe, or its as described.
They didn't need to modify any deal even with the online outrage.
In the end, would've still got modded in day 1 and that's that for most people who care enough about it.
We don't know what the deals are or aren't, and it wouldn't be the first time (or last) a dev does something I think makes little sense.
They didn't need to modify any deal even with the online outrage.
In the end, would've still got modded in day 1 and that's that for most people who care enough about it.
We don't know what the deals are or aren't, and it wouldn't be the first time (or last) a dev does something I think makes little sense.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Yeah it's obvious, as Steve from GN theorized what they would likely do. It doesn't take a month to formulate this response if this was always the case, they would have been a lid on this controversy in a matter of hours.
Yep. Online bullying works.
Yes, and no one had a problem with that. Of course we expect AMD to provide the resources to prioritize their tech and the publisher to market it, that's not the issue and this response would have been more than adequate more than a month ago. Like if you truly believe this was always the policy and they just let this shitstorm brew for over a month when asked, point-blank, time and time again, then I can only guess you truly believe you had a coin stuck behind your ear for years until your uncle pulled it out.
Yeah we can say or believe that. But their behavior is probably motivated by our short term memory. I bet if we explored the time line of PC gaming we can dig up thousands of episodes of market outrage. Most that were forgotten weeks to months later. I think we are one of few collections of gamers that have a pretty long memory because we discuss the technology and gaming history so much.
Honestly, if AMD releases 8000 series card that burns anything that Nvidia offers and has a super resolution and frame generation tech that shits on DLSS, I believe hardly anybody is going to use this issue as motivation not to buy those cards.
A lot of the time a company will choose not to respond, as the more they respond the more they are expected to even when it's not in there intrest to.
Or worse still putting partners in an awkward position. And in these cases it benefits amd what they are doing.
But sometimes it gets to a point have to respond.
The amount of times we say, if that was the case why didn't they just say that from the start. Even when it can be demonstratively true it was the case. Do even though doesn't seem to make sense to keep quite they still did.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if there are contracts that incentives them to make it exclusive.
I'm just not surprised that Bethesda couldn't be bothered to include anything else right now (if ever). Or any other dev.
Last edited:
AMD claims there’s nothing stopping Starfield from adding Nvidia DLSS
“If they want to do DLSS, they have AMD’s full support.”
Them asking a dev to prioritise their tech makes perfect sense.
Why would you pay for lets say marketing and it had dlss and not fsr? After that it's generally up to dev is my take on it.
Also Bethesda not willing to comment is probably pretty smart. Whatever they say will cause 'discussion', so carry on talking about the game in the context you want to premote it until willing to talk about it.
Of course it makes sense and I bet for the teams making the game not having to support multiple upscaling technologies will be a bit of a load off them. Pushing back priority on those allows them to work on other things or bug fixes while getting cross promotion benefits and likely some type of payment
I am hoping they support FSR 3.0
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
The only comments we've seen from developers actually talking about the 'additional load' of supporting all 3 is that there's 'no excuse' not to do so. The theory that this is somehow an onerous task, especailly for a major team like the one working on Starfield, is only being used by people trying to make an ad hoc justification.
Hoping that gamers have short-term memory is a theory in support of AMD actually restricting DLSS and just hoping it blows over until people accept it. These weren't a few twitter posts, this was covered in detail by virtually every major online PC gaming outlet. If it was never a 'big deal' they would simply response with that they said now a month ago and not let this cloud the hype for a major release. There is no rational scenario where it makes more sense to not respond to multiple questions on this when the actual reality at the time was what they're presenting today, no PR team is this incompetent.
No one ever expected them to mention/promote DLSS in any of their marketing material for the game, that's a strawman that AMD is using to try and excuse the delay.
...what
Last edited:
The only real reason I see to not implement DLSS and XeSS if they were indeed free to do so is that FSR was integrated very recently. Which means Bethesda didn't look at upscaling technologies at all until AMD approached them. To me this is an even worse excuse and has to be highly unlikely.
At the very least we assume they run their own internal TAA before being approached about FSR. I assume consoles are the target platform here before PC, so the PC based features were likely (if they were) to come after launch.
Yeah I keep forgetting that Bethesda is now a console-first developer...
The true measure of effective change will be the discontinuation of the practice. If it continues then they’re just trying to navigate the issue along the smoothest path possible and using PR to work around the bumpy portion.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So, it turns out it's basically everything I said it was. Nothing prevents anyone from implementing DLSS in an AMD sponsored title. But that isn't at odds with AMD offering extra money or other incentives if they either prioritize or exclude other tech.
Basically the same thing that NV does. Except at least with FSR, it works on everyone's hardware so there's far less incentive to feel the need to turn down extra money in order to implement something else so that everyone has a solution that'll run on their particular setup.
Regards,
SB
Basically the same thing that NV does. Except at least with FSR, it works on everyone's hardware so there's far less incentive to feel the need to turn down extra money in order to implement something else so that everyone has a solution that'll run on their particular setup.
Regards,
SB
So why didn't AMD confirm this month's ago when it all kicked off and save themselves this whole PR disaster?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Two possibilities. Lawyers and/or not throwing their partners under the bus and saying it's the developers choosing not to offer DLSS.
Regards,
SB
No one intimated that access to FSR tech alone would prevent anyone from adding DLSS. The assumption is that money changed hands to exclude competing technologies, which looks like exactly what happened.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well some did by saying that NV doesn't do it while AMD does when the fact is that AMD and NV are doing the exact same thing. But on the developer's end it's a lot easier to justify just offering FSR than it is to justify just offering DLSS. Hence more titles with FSR and no DLSS than there are titles with DLSS and no FSR.
It's not about NV being more permissive or better about it than AMD or AMD being worse about it than NV, it's almost entirely about whether or not a developer would feel the need to implement multiple solutions in order to have the option available to as many customers of the game as possible.
Taking an incentive to only offer FSR is easier for the developer than taking an incentive to only offer DLSS. Not to mention developers that might be adamantly opposed to offering any tech that is proprietary and limited to only hardware from one IHV.
Regards,
SB