All I get from that Tom Warren tweet is that he doesn't understand how business works. While I'm bummed that DLSS wile likely be absent from Starfield, this is still a big marketing deal for AMD. And it ignores nVidia's history of absolutely tanking performance on nVidia sponsored titles if they were run on AMD hardware, often involving overuse of tessellation. AMD owners deserve optimization and preference just like nVidia owners do, and not only is it premature to judge the upscaling and vendor preferenced technologies, many of these issues will likely be circumvented by mods on PC. And that's what we are talking about here, because it isn't like the console versions are using DLSS.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah, I don't know how I can possibly enjoy the game now. But I'll find a way.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You're clearly a monster! I also like AMD CPUs but I had a spare i7 for my living room PC so that steered the motherboard decision.I enjoy AMD CPUs, while enjoying Nvidia GPUs. Does that make mebisexualbitechnical?
I feel like it should be spelled "bytechnical"
Corporations ruining everything again.Already taken!
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
Maybe Microsoft pulls a Sony and at least DLSS 2 will still be in the game, even if it's an AMD partnered game. Given the game seems like very CPU heavy so far, frame generation would be appreciated.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Wonder what the price tag was for such a move? Obviously not free though a bit more costly than console game exclusivity contracts I imagine.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Oh it'll have FSR3, which is better than DLSS3! And thus locked down driver level so Nvidia owners can't use it. AMD, totally open source until the moment it doesn't benefit them anymore, whooo!
Yeah I can't imagine it would have been cheap for such an anticipated title like Starfield. I'm just finding it hard to imagine it would move the needle that much on GPU sales, though it is about Ryzen as well I guess.
Tinfoil hat moment: Maybe, AMD offered Microsoft better incentives towards current and/or future SOC/hardware pricing for Starfield GPU hardware/marketing exclusivity.
Why not go all in on a conspiracy theory. They traded it for stock in anticipation of Microsoft buying AMD. That will make Sony pay them for each PS5 sale, motivating them to switch to nVidia for PS6 and causing them to break backwards compatibility, forcing Sony to rely on cloud for legacy games.
OMG now I'm afraid that'll be the case and the game animation and or physics will broke down once the game goes above 30fps
arandomguy
Veteran
It would have to depend on the scope of the deal as these deals aren't all equal. Let's be honest FSR 2 support is pretty basic in general these days and "multithreading" for the CPU is rather vague and not exactly AMD specific anymore (if anything you'd argue it favors Intel's product portfolio more now). Is Starfield going to be bundled? That would likely be the biggest cost.
But unless you factor in game bundling into it there is no way these would remotely cost as much as console exclusive contracts. The gains aren't even remotely close to being the same either. The last rumored reporting was something around $5m by Nvidia to Ubisoft for Unity and Watch Dogs (2014) and AMD in that range for Battlefield 4 for branding/optimizations. By comparison Microsoft paid a reported $100m for Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015) for Xbox exclusivity (and you can see why they feel acquiring studios, and therefore investing equity, is more worthwhile now).
Similar threads
- Locked
