Starfield to use FSR2 only, exclude DLSS2/3 and XeSS: concerns and implications *spawn*

Silent_Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no 'fact' about that at all. This is not about sponsorships as a whole - this is about sponsorships being worded to restrict a competitors technology inclusion if the developer wants to add it on their own accord. This was clear on Day 1 of this controversy.

Silent_Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, then...

Silent_Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is literally the contention here. You're saying it's not about "AMD being more permissive", then say it's easier to 'take an incentive' - if one company is offering an financial incentive to not include something, that is absolutely an issue of permissiveness! Like nobody is arguing that AMD is 'preventing' DLSS inclusion being literally physically restraining developers from adding the requisite dll's, they're 'preventing' by tying support/funding by AMD as a whole for the project if the developer adds DLSS support for some games.

There is no evidence so far that Nvidia is offering any incentive to restrict a developer from using FSR, the only 'evidence' we have on that is a theory that because Nvidia will promote DLSS-supported games as part of their general marketing, that could provoke a conflict of interest if a game is sponsored by AMD and the developer may be hesitant to include DLSS if Nvidia will then use it as a marketing tool. Nvidia says they provide exclusions from that advertising if requested, but of course we have no idea how often this occurs. What we can simply contrast is the response Nvidia gave compared to AMD's, and even AMD's current response isn't nearly this clear-cut:

NVIDIA does not and will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies in any way. We provide the support and tools for all game developers to easily integrate DLSS if they choose and even created NVIDIA Streamline to make it easier for game developers to add competitive technologies to their games.
Click to expand...

That is quite clear, in at least the way it's phrased, in that they're not actually incentivising the exclusion of FSR - tying your funding to the developer choosing to add FSR would absolutely be a form of 'discourage'. Those types of questions were specifically worded by sites like Gamers Nexus to make that as clear as possible, which AMD refused to comment on.

1693091472629.png

1693091496555.png
 
Last edited:
I know this thread is about Starfield, but where's all the contract questioning stand in regards to turn 10 and forza:m?
As far as I'm aware it doesn't include them all, so is that amd or nvidia blocking it. Guessing by people's views must be amd.
 
Jay said:
I know this thread is about Starfield, but where's all the contract questioning stand in regards to turn 10 and forza:m?
As far as I'm aware it doesn't include them all, so is that amd or nvidia blocking it. Guessing by people's views must be amd.
Click to expand...
Is there an AMD sponsorship deal with Forza Motorsports?
 
Malo said:
Is there an AMD sponsorship deal with Forza Motorsports?
Click to expand...
We don't know yet, how long out was it before the Starfield marketing push started?

Sounded like most people was saying Nvidia don't do that, at least in regards to image reconstruction. Which is why I said that.

But if you can include 1 or 2 then must be some form of contract not to include all 3.
 
Jay said:
But if you can include 1 or 2 then must be some form of contract not to include all 3.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I still think it comes down to developer priorities, speed to implement, and any existing collaborative relationships with IHVs when there is no marketing agreement in place. I don't really blame some devs, especially until the last year, only including DLSS2 integration.

Starfield was singled-out due to the very public arrangement with AMD, even resulting in dedicated video from Todd Howard about it, with a very obvious exclusion of any mention of DLSS and XeSS. Combined with the massive hype surrounding the title., which obviously AMD are trying to take advantage of.

For Forza it could simply be down to having integrated DLSS2+FSR2 earlier on combined with no real existing relationship with Intel for game development. Can't really blame a dev for the latter since Intel is not exactly known for either their GPUs nor their game dev collaborations.
 
Malo said:
I disagree. I still think it comes down to developer priorities, speed to implement, and any existing collaborative relationships with IHVs when there is no marketing agreement in place. I don't really blame some devs, especially until the last year, only including DLSS2 integration.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was being facetious.
Personally I do believe could be contracts, but equally believe just as likely to be developer decisions.

Motorsport currently supports FSR2 and DLSS, but excludes XeSS.
To me may as well include all but I don't believe it's missing due to anything other than developer priorities/decisions.
Just shows these sort of decisions happen without marketing deals.
Which shows just because it's easy to do, doesn't mean automatically will be done.
 
My biggest gripe is that marketing deal or not, seemingly Bethesda have not looked at upscaling technologies for Starfield at all until AMD threw some cash in Todd's face.
 
Jay said:
Sorry I was being facetious.
Personally I do believe could be contracts, but equally believe just as likely to be developer decisions.

Motorsport currently supports FSR2 and DLSS, but excludes XeSS.
To me may as well include all but I don't believe it's missing due to anything other than developer priorities/decisions.
Just shows these sort of decisions happen without marketing deals.
Which shows just because it's easy to do, doesn't mean automatically will be done.
Click to expand...
Forza Horizon 5 supports XeSS, I don't see why Motorsport should be any different.
 
Last edited:
The biggest loss for me on this is not necessarily the upscaling component of DLSS, but rather not having the option for DLAA. Does FSR2 have a native resolution option?
 
Cyan said:
Forza Horizon 5 supports XeSS, I don't see why Motorsport should be any different.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that, well hopefully they just forgot to mention XeSS.
Malo said:
The biggest loss for me on this is not necessarily the upscaling component of DLSS, but rather not having the option for DLAA. Does FSR2 have a native resolution option?
Click to expand...
New feature in FSR3. Called native AA or something like that.
 
Red Dead Remaster om PS4Pro is using FSR at native res. Seems a bit muddled as to whether R* implemented FSR2 that way or jumped the gun* on a FSR3 feature.

* PUN INTENDED
 
Flappy Pannus said:
Considering the CPU benchmarks I've seen as well, you're not getting 120+ fps on any CPU without frame generation either. So the lack of DLSS3 is also a loss here.
Click to expand...
Are any of those benchmarks on anything less than Ultra settings? Or are we seeing the usual Bethesda engine limitations still present?
 
I dont know if it's fair to classify it as an engine limtiation. BGS games typically involve a lot game logic with respect to world simulation. This makes them CPU heavy relative to the graphics fidelity.
 
arandomguy said:
I dont know if it's fair to classify it as an engine limtiation. BGS games typically involve a lot game logic with respect to world simulation. This makes them CPU heavy relative to the graphics fidelity.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but their engine has been highly single thread limited since forever.
 
Malo said:
Agreed, but their engine has been highly single thread limited since forever.
Click to expand...

There's initial reports that the game is well threaded, but we'll have to see.

Also just throwing this out there but I feel how they handle world persistence and how it integrates into game logic might present some complications in terms thread scaling.

Ultimately though my feeling is the data is going to circle back to the game likely ultimately being heavily bound in terms of how fast it can access data (in terms of latency) and will be on the higher side in terms of memory speed having an impact on performance. Which also means it's not something neccessarily addressable just by being well threaded.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top