Just turn it off then pretty simple.
I don't think its so hard to click a check box for game works features is it? Might be hard for you.....
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Fallout 4 to feature Nvidia Gameworks.
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
Just turn it off then pretty simple.
I don't think its so hard to click a check box for game works features is it? Might be hard for you.....
That's what you see as an AMD customer, because that's how it directly affects you. What about from the perspective of a developer? Can they not prefer a particular manufacturer due to the ease of integration, or the visual impact of those 200 tessellation points?
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,892
A fair amount of that has just been FUD with no actual evidence.
When AMD has so little marketshare, developers are less bothered to optimize for them, and thats just normal business, a developer that makes lets say a few % more sales, are they willing to spend the extra money to optimize the AMD path? It might be worth it for certain games that sales will cover that cost. AMD customers can still play the game just not with gameworks features on. So if the person that is buying the game is buying the game for the game not because they are a fan of a certain hardware.
I've worked as a modeler and artist for a few developers, and this is a pretty common sense approach I would think is self evident. It's not necessarily who has the best optimization and proprietary implementation, it's the consumer base that drives these kinds of things. It's not about "fair" or "crippling" performance on a particular product. It's about making money, and pushing product. If you don't own enough of the market, it isn't worth the time. One of the luxuries of having the market share is you eventually gain the ability to drive the market. A manufacturer with a superior product doesn't usually lose their market share. It's the manufacturer of the hardware that has the responsibility of expanding their market share, and influencing developers. Blame AMD for an ever increasing lack of proprietary support by developers. It's frustrating that people purchase a GPU that owns roughly 28% of the market, and expect it to be fully supported by every developer.
Last edited:
Araxie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,463
NOBODY cares...
stop whining, stop the drama.. how hard can be just turn OFF those features? or its just a matter of being jealous for not being able to enjoy the game with those added features?...
Yep that is what it comes down to,
an example if this a PS4 or Xbox game that was ported over to PC, all the work that was done for these consoles will come into play for AMD hardware to some degree, but if they want to add in gameworks libraries, that extra work is benificial to the PC community because of nV's marketshare, a great selling game will sell around 250,000 copies per platform. That is around 6 million in revenue where the developer makes around 30% of that which is 2 million. How much of those sales be for AMD hardware users? If we go by marketshare figures 20%. Average game developer salaries in different fields we can say around 75K a year. That 500k doesn't last very long.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
If I didn't know better I would say that's exactly what Nvidia has paid you to say. Literally 90% of your posts are devoted towards bashing AMD. Don't you think that kind of raises some flags?
For most developers the consoles are the priority, and the PC is secondary. Usually the visual improvements you see are disabled features on the console sacrificed to meet the frame rate target. If a few features have a decent visual impact, or it's highly requested, the project lead may assign some coders to work on it. The goal usually is to support the majority of the community by optimizing for that hardware, and don't waste time on the minority outside of crashes or game ending bugs. You want their business, but you don't want to burn money to get it.
The truth is if AMD wants market share, they have to beat NVidia at their own game, on the same playing field. Proprietary libraries and API performance isn't going to get you anywhere since you're not driving the market.
Last edited:
I run the game with OCed 970 with HW on low preset and 2xAA (i saw no difference between low preset, high prest and increased HW AA) at 1080p (high post processing, other settings are ultra, foliage on high) and have around 70 fps (with dips to 60s in some areas). So you can easily run HW and enjoy high fps now. But I can't talk about initial release as i didn't play it then.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
Exactly! That means that I skip badly optimized titles for others that run well and are a blast to play. I don't have to own every game. If more AMD users skipped those titles then something would get done about it. I think that missing 28% of your profit is reason enough to optimize your game properly. Maybe not.
/shrug.
Which really won't work, because that 18% (not really 28%), and possible even less, because we are talking about a subset of subset of a subset (Full Set , all game players (100%), subset 1 is all pc players (something much less that 100%), subset 2 is AMD users (18% of subset 1), subset 3 is AMD users that won't buy Gameworks games (something much less than subset 2), has already been factored into the reason why not to do said optimizations.
Araxie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,463
so you don't play most recent games?. and only AMD sponsored games? because you don't want to turn OFF gameworks features? GREAT..
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
No, all games run just fine with the exception of GameWorks titles. Those run fine after the game is properly patched by the developer a month or so later. You know... Optimized.
Richthofen
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 134
Well actually i don't think that skipping those titles will help AMD at all. Lets be realistic here. If more and more games suck on AMD Hardware or perform less than with the compeition or have less eye candy, the ultimate result will be in an even more decreasing AMD market share.
In the end the solution is pretty simple. AMD Needs to get ist act together. Whining or anything like that is not going to help. As already said. Competition does not mean that everyone wins. It means that the best ideas, products, brand, Marketing and support wins. Currently for sure this is Nvidia. It does not necessarily mean that next time it is Nvidia again. But it is AMDs Task to drive the Change with convincing products. It is not the Task of Software developers to keep AMD in the Business.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
Exactly! But it is not my duty to support developers that put out unoptimized games. They need to learn to program. Why is it that every GameWorks title that has issues eventually gets patched to run equally as well on AMD hardware after launch? Every title that ran like crap eventually works. And AMD does NOT put out new drivers all the time. But the games suddenly works after a patch overnight.
That's been said for the last decade. Meanwhile AMD's market share shrinks further and further.
It's because AMD users are not a priority, as evidenced by your own experiences. It's not about "learning to program." It's about having the time to optimize for a small minority of their customers. Things are only going to get worse for you unless AMD increases it's market share. You're going to see more and more NVidia optimized games, and AMD patches are going to come slower and slower, and eventually not at all. If AMD is unable to grow their market share, they're going to either file bankruptcy, or you're going to realize your money is being wasted on their products.
Last edited:
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
I'm a consumer; not a developer or hardware manufacturer.
My experiences -
Witcher 3 ran fine on release day for AMD users, just turn HW off. everything max but HW off - was 60fps.
Batman was a fiasco, i downloaded it off TPB and installed a user made patch, runs fine, just have to turn enhanced rain off. - How can you blame this on Nvidia, when the developers made the most broken game to date.
AC Unity did not run fine for me although, i just didnt play it and got rid of it.
GTA V - runs much better now than release day
FC4 - Frame skips , but pretty sure this was common to both AMD and NVIDIA - how is it gameworks fault?
Watchdogs - didnt really run well for me, don't know for NVIDIA users. Again, shitty ubisoft port, whose fault? - driving stutters. but i played the full game, enjoyed it.
MKX - ran fine for me, yes a stutter every 10 min or so, not that much of a big deal
r9 290 user
Witcher 3 ran fine on release day for AMD users, just turn HW off. everything max but HW off - was 60fps.
Batman was a fiasco, i downloaded it off TPB and installed a user made patch, runs fine, just have to turn enhanced rain off. - How can you blame this on Nvidia, when the developers made the most broken game to date.
AC Unity did not run fine for me although, i just didnt play it and got rid of it.
GTA V - runs much better now than release day
FC4 - Frame skips , but pretty sure this was common to both AMD and NVIDIA - how is it gameworks fault?
Watchdogs - didnt really run well for me, don't know for NVIDIA users. Again, shitty ubisoft port, whose fault? - driving stutters. but i played the full game, enjoyed it.
MKX - ran fine for me, yes a stutter every 10 min or so, not that much of a big deal
r9 290 user
Last edited:
Guys, is it really optimization? Or is it just slap on features? Have we been assuming all this time? They can spend money to license Havok or they can get this for free, probably a little money out of it too, free tshirts, nVidia booth babes...
Now FWIW I was reading over nVidia's response "Firing back at AMD" over Gameworks, and from what I read they beat around the bush about preventing AMD from getting the source on Gameworks games. They instead say that AMD is basically lying.
From http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/
AMD Says:
NVIDIAS Reply:
But then you read a little further:
Granted, NVIDIA is correct that you don't need source code to do a driver side tweak. And I agree, if the license grants the developer the SOURCE TO GAMEWORKS they obviously don't want that shared with AMD. But don't pretend it wouldn't have any affect on AMD. What if the tables were reversed? Lets say AMD gets a hold of the source code of Rise of the Tomb Raider to add its latest L'OrealFX. During this they approach the developer and say, "Hey, if you approach this from an async compute method, you will have a huge boost in performance." Bam, huge boost for AMD, and crippled for NVIDIA. Now NVIDIA can't see the source code because of some stupid slap-on hair tech. The hair tech might be a checkmark in the options, but that async compute definitely is not.
These kind of programs could be bad from either company, just saying. Notice the kind of games they are popular with? AAA console ports where the PC isn't a huge part of their market. We whine and bitch if the port doesn't take advantage of our Quad Titan X's with increased fidelity. They see us as a niche market. To remodel and re-texture everything with literally at least TWICE the fidelity of the console version would be a HUGE cost to them. So they go to NVIDIA who is pumping out these cheap, slap-on features, and they probably even get compensated for it. So gamers are looking at a game that isn't really better then the console, with added laser beams, hair that shoots out all over the place, fog, massive massive amounts of AA, tessellation that looks no different, fire that drops your fps by half, and my favorite: capes that flap in the wind, because there was no way to program that with the cpu.
The reason I am a little dissapointed by this, is that Bethesda was one of the few companies resisting this program. Fallout 3 and NV ran equally shitty across all platforms. Skyrim benefited from far draw distances, increased resolution, and unlocked frame rates. Add on the ability of modding, and I am more than happy with the PC version. I wish more games followed this philosophy.
Now FWIW I was reading over nVidia's response "Firing back at AMD" over Gameworks, and from what I read they beat around the bush about preventing AMD from getting the source on Gameworks games. They instead say that AMD is basically lying.
From http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/
AMD Says:
NVIDIAS Reply:
But then you read a little further:
Granted, NVIDIA is correct that you don't need source code to do a driver side tweak. And I agree, if the license grants the developer the SOURCE TO GAMEWORKS they obviously don't want that shared with AMD. But don't pretend it wouldn't have any affect on AMD. What if the tables were reversed? Lets say AMD gets a hold of the source code of Rise of the Tomb Raider to add its latest L'OrealFX. During this they approach the developer and say, "Hey, if you approach this from an async compute method, you will have a huge boost in performance." Bam, huge boost for AMD, and crippled for NVIDIA. Now NVIDIA can't see the source code because of some stupid slap-on hair tech. The hair tech might be a checkmark in the options, but that async compute definitely is not.
These kind of programs could be bad from either company, just saying. Notice the kind of games they are popular with? AAA console ports where the PC isn't a huge part of their market. We whine and bitch if the port doesn't take advantage of our Quad Titan X's with increased fidelity. They see us as a niche market. To remodel and re-texture everything with literally at least TWICE the fidelity of the console version would be a HUGE cost to them. So they go to NVIDIA who is pumping out these cheap, slap-on features, and they probably even get compensated for it. So gamers are looking at a game that isn't really better then the console, with added laser beams, hair that shoots out all over the place, fog, massive massive amounts of AA, tessellation that looks no different, fire that drops your fps by half, and my favorite: capes that flap in the wind, because there was no way to program that with the cpu.
The reason I am a little dissapointed by this, is that Bethesda was one of the few companies resisting this program. Fallout 3 and NV ran equally shitty across all platforms. Skyrim benefited from far draw distances, increased resolution, and unlocked frame rates. Add on the ability of modding, and I am more than happy with the PC version. I wish more games followed this philosophy.
The purpose of that statement was to explain the futility of that mindset.
Maybe because these titles "running like crap" at launch had nothing to do with the BlameWorks features.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Yeah like it was not to hard for you to ignore that it is not needed in game development ...
There is an impact but it would be the same if AMD just floods one of their architectural feats that Nvidia has trouble dealing with and doing that in every gaming evolved title would make me think twice about AMD since it does not serve game development. Funneling it through a binary which is encrypted and only chooses which Nvidia commands to be executed for Nvidia drivers...
Yet you do you replied. But a n00b like you would not understand what I was saying anyway...
Atom you do know that for the original TressFX Nvidia said that they couldn't optimize properly without the source code getting some changes?, http://www.hardocp.com/news/2013/03...mance_issues_in_new_tomb_raider/#.Vi_rcMkrJhE
Of course that AMD doesn't usually get that benefit since they can't look at code to see if something can be changed/improved/fixed but well, c'est la viè, they can't do nothing with only the drivers yet somehow AMD is suppossed to be able to.
Of course that AMD doesn't usually get that benefit since they can't look at code to see if something can be changed/improved/fixed but well, c'est la viè, they can't do nothing with only the drivers yet somehow AMD is suppossed to be able to.
Can you break it down to see how much some of these effects cost to make by the developers themselves?
I'm pretty sure you can't but go ahead and try, I'll enumerate on my experiences with a breakdown after you do yours.
This is the way it should be broken down, from a production/PM point of view.
Time/Cost/ Time vs. Cost benefit ratio, possible profits in the future for experience, and finally a synopsis of the resultant. Please use a well know project/game that uses said effects as an example with number of copies sold so its easy for people to see the numbers. This is where shallow thinking fails, if you can't see that, its pointless for you to even post.
depending on where the changes that need to be done different needs are needed. For anything within a shader, driver optimizations and shader replacement/ or instruction shuffling can be done. If its something that is deeper and part of the a rendering solution, that can't be done by drivers.
Last edited:
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I do not believe that improving visual quality and providing better looking and forward thinking 3D effects hinders anyone. This is what gamer's should want, games to evolve and keep looking better and utilizing modern 3D graphical effects. But, maybe, minecraft is all people are satisfied with these days on the PC, quite sad, I remember a time when it was all about pushing GPU features.
Of course NVIDIA is going to do everything it can to be better than the competition, one should expect that from a competitor. I would hope AMD fights back.
That's up to the game developer to program the tessellation factors.
Again, let's put the blame where the blame goes, voice your concerns, but point them toward the right group of people.
I like though how many people think they know what's better for the game in question than the people who made the game in the first place about the choices they make for their own game. Everyone becomes an expert on game design and 3D graphics choices all the sudden.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Me too, I hope they never stop pushing the limits.
It's also important to understand all of the complaining done by the AMD community hurts them in the long run. People (myself included) hear the constant complaints and problems by AMD users requesting special patches, fixes, waiting for patches before playing games etc. When it's time to upgrade, and purchase another GPU, that sticks in consumer's minds. The last thing I was going to do was buy an AMD GPU given all the problems the users are having. I don't want to have to put up with that shit, who would?
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
I could care less if AMD, Nvidia, Intel, etc survive the night. 3DFX went out and to celebrate I bought nearly every Nvidia card release cycle until the 5850 was released by ATi. Then I flip flopped manufacturers until the last couple I purchased were AMD. I think you're too hung up on nameplates.
The only thing I care about is, "How does game X run on hardware Y." Whenever it's ready for consumption by my setup then I will purchase it. If it never becomes optimized for my setup then I will purchase something else that is. It's almost like you're suggesting that I toss money blindly at some developer that took shortcuts and optimized his game to run like crap on my system. The flood of sales from disgruntled consumers will compel the corporation to optimize for my hardware.
Cold day in hell.
TaintedSquirrel
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 12,689
Or buy Nvidia hardware and play whatever you want without having to worry about optimization. Finding the right game shouldn't be like navigating a minefield. Of course there are some games that run horribly on everything (Arkham Knight).
AMD eventually fixes driver problems but it can take a while... I remember waiting like 2+ months for Dying Light optimizations, but meanwhile I still logged over 100 hours of gameplay. Had I been on an Nvidia card at the time it would have been a much more enjoyable game.
If a GPU purchase is the decision between my suffering as a player vs AMD suffering as a company, then I will choose Nvidia GPUs from now on... But of course it's not always so simple.
yourgrandma
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
I've had a worse experience using nvidia card with gameworks games then with a amd card. Turning on any of the "exclusive features" just results in massive frame drops and even system freezes cause by nvidia's shit drivers. Gameworks in reality it's just serves as marketing gimmick that's not even worth arguing about.
They didn't take shortcuts, your way down on the priority list. There will be no flood, lol. AMD users do not possess sufficient market share to affect any substantial change, and it's shrinking every day. You claim I'm hung up on nameplates, yet you feel compelled to force developers to cater to your small minority of hardware for no reason other than the fact you decided to purchase a poorly supported piece of hardware. You proclaim your hardware runs games better than other hardware - but forget to mention it doesn't actually run better until the developers specifically optimize for it, when they eventually get around to it. Your whole argument centers around a irrational idea that AMD isn't the overwhelming minority of PC gamers.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
Good point and I agree with you. Still not going to change my mind on what is done purposely to make one company look better than another. This is my litmus test. As soon as games that aren't running GameWorks run like crap on my system at launch, then I'll start blaming AMD. There is no coincidence that ONLY GameWorks games run like crap on AMD hardware.
They don't look more amazing that other games. They seem to have the most complaints from Nvidia and AMD users when it comes to performance as nobody can figure out why a couple of lens flares and sparks will tank performance. Holy shit Batman! Dust particles in that zone got me killed! AMD releases hair and everyone is like "Ooh Ahh!" Nvidia releases hair and everyone is contemplating whether to buy a $650 video cards to be able to play the game with new buzzword turned on.
Sorry. I wasn't born yesterday. I smell something rotten in the air.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
But not all Gameworks games run poorly on AMD, so if Nvidia is trying to gimp AMD performance, they are doing a shitty job of it.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
If you're running a corporation and your accountant decides that 28% of your profit is worth pissing into the wind, then let me grab some popcorn and takes bets on when you're going out of business. The way that you change things is to open your mouth and vote with your wallet.
I'm damn good at it.
TaintedSquirrel
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 12,689
Playing through Borderlands 2 again, last time I played was a year or two ago with an AMD card. The PhysX effects are amazing.. I had a similar reaction to PhysX in Warframe recently, as well.
If it's a choice between having a feature that cripples performance or not having the feature at all, I will gladly enable those settings when I re-play the game a few years down the line.
GameWorks is middleware. Presumably it's CHEAP and EASY for developers to implement. Perhaps if AMD had an entire suite of proprietary graphics effects (aside from just TressFX which is in one AAA game) then we might have something to compare it to.
You want graphics features that do the same thing as GameWorks but without sacrificing performance? It might be possible, but who's going to make it and implement it in every individual game? It's expensive and time consuming. That's why GameWorks exists in the first place.
Developers aren't using GW to replace other equally competitive graphics options, they're using it as an add-on to fill holes they can't develop themselves. I think that's the misinterpretation a lot of people make. So you have a choice between GameWorks vs nothing at all.
Of course that's ignoring any AMD sabotage via tessellation and other similar things.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,080
That's how PC gaming has always been. Some are willing to take the time and optimize before launch. And some that don't give a shit and optimize afterwards. How long have you been playing PC games?