Witcher 3 is a buggy, unoptimized piece of shit. Just once, I wish game studios would hire competent developers.
It is? Have you actually played it or just copy-pasting what idiots have typed on the internet?
Game is playing perfectly here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Witcher 3 is a buggy, unoptimized piece of shit. Just once, I wish game studios would hire competent developers.
What you are describing is the end of PC Gaming, and the start of closed systems gaming.
"Because 'F' you, that's why!", seems to be the consensus.I just think it's very interesting that AMD is promoting an open eco-system and is actually trying to spur the industry in a positive direction (with open-source libraries, Vulkan/Mantle, etc.) and Nvidia is just trying to create a walled garden, and they're using their marketshare and financial advantage to do so. And yet people are defending it? Sure, AMD doesn't have money to compete, but why defend Nvidia at all? It's damaging in the long-run, whether or not AMD is even still around in the long run.
Performance differences aside and other biases aside, I would immediately side with the company that is trying to promote an open eco-system over a walled garden.
What you are describing is the end of PC Gaming, and the start of closed systems gaming.
Explain to me like I'm five why these "driver problems" are only occurring in NVIDIA sponsored shillworks games.
Yeah I'm five. Five inches deep in your m... JK! *insert thug life music*Lol 3 AMD Gaming Evolved sponsored games used for your argument. Can't have it both ways pal.
You do sound like you are five with all the kicking and screaming.
What you are describing is the end of PC Gaming, and the start of closed systems gaming.
When AMD tried that with Mantle, AMD fans were shouting it's praises from the rooftops.
When AMD tried that with Mantle, AMD fans were shouting it's praises from the rooftops.
Maybe you guys need a taste of your own medicine. I hope all games use Gameworks in the future. Because it makes games better.
I just think it's very interesting that AMD is promoting an open eco-system and is actually trying to spur the industry in a positive direction (with open-source libraries, Vulkan/Mantle, etc.) and Nvidia is just trying to create a walled garden, and they're using their marketshare and financial advantage to do so. And yet people are defending it? Sure, AMD doesn't have money to compete, but why defend Nvidia at all? It's damaging in the long-run, whether or not AMD is even still around in the long run.
Performance differences aside and other biases aside, I would immediately side with the company that is trying to promote an open eco-system over a walled garden.
PC gaming has been doing fine despite the dominance of Microsoft's DirectX.
I'm ok if people wants to criticize proprietary tools, but where were you guys when the industry was predominately using DX? And in fact it still does today, not all but many dev continues to make games exclusively for Windows OS only.
Read: I don't care that I'm wrong, I have a really strong opinion on the subject! bawwwwwwwwwwwwbluesnews said:This post in particular discusses the impact of a new version of PhysX on Project CARS performance, though there are arguments that how all this works is being misinterpreted
Because it wasn't completely black-boxed like Gameworks is?
NV is not holding a gun to the developers heads or threatening to cut off any developers who don't use Gameworks. That would be anti-competitive. The minute NV tells a dev who refuses to use Gameworks that it will not release a driver for their game you can go ahead and complain. NV is not forcing this "black box" on anyone. Devs are using it at an increasing rate for whatever reason. Most likely it adds visuals they want.
AMD's open source position makes a lot of sense being a smaller competition. It allows them developer access which nvidia has been doing their absolute best to limit (their intimate relationship with Epic for Unreal engine comes to mind).
DX is another example of a closed standard. Microsoft used their massive dominance to control what was happening for gaming under windows.
Isn't that Mantle/Vulkan/DX12? Why aren't the members of the NV club acknowledging that?Really? Where is AMD's response to Gameworks? Besides crying foul? Where is Freeworks/Openworks?
Isn't that Mantle/Vulkan/DX12? Why aren't the members of the NV club acknowledging that?
Really? Where is AMD's response to Gameworks? Besides crying foul? Where is Freeworks/Openworks?
AMD only cares about open source because they lack the money and R&D resources to create multiple technologies on their own and have those techs adopted across a wide margin.
If the shoe was on the other foot expect AMD to behave identical to NV.
Competition breeds innovation. AMD has two choices when it comes to Gameworks, compete or die. Crying and having fan boys complain will get AMD no where. AMD needs to create their own rival libraries rather than dreaming of an open source fantasy.
And people claimed DX would kill PC gaming...yet here we are...still playing games on PC.
Witcher 3 blows on any 7 series and under card. Nvidia didn't optimize their drivers for older cards. A 960 will be equivalent in performance to 780Ti in Witcher 3. This is Nvidia's way of getting people to upgrade.
Because it wasn't completely black-boxed like Gameworks is?
It was, in all practical terms, and has been since essentially retired . I'm not exactly the biggest nvidia fan as you might notice from my title, but that statement is pretty disingenuous.
Doubtful. Maxwell is much stronger in the compute department for this type of workload than Kepler, and it's likely a result of that.
So my original post stands, you confirm you would prefer a closed game system to PC gaming.
And you confirmed that you do not want competition to bring forth advances in gaming.
Demanding source code access to all our cool technology is an attempt to deflect their performance issues. Giving away your IP, your source code, is uncommon for anyone in the industry, including middleware providers and game developers. Most of the time we optimize games based on binary builds, not source code.
>"Nvidia doesn't gimp game experiences on purpose if you don't use their hardware with a "Nvidia helped" production game"
Remember when Nvidia would disable their videocard if it detected an AMD card in your system, so you couldn't use PhysX?
Remember when if you owned a AMD card you had to rename your Unreal Engine game to something else in order to be able to use Anti-Aliasing, which would work if you owned an Nvidia card, but they forced it off if it detected an AMD card? And some games ran better if you changed the name?
Remember how PhysX 3.X which can infinitely run threads on CPU for BETTER performance than GPU processing has been around almost FOREVER and no games use it, because any game using Nvidia TWIMTBP'd "Help" or sponsership were required to use PhysX 2.X which ran shitty old X87 code and can only run well on GPU's? Or how games that now get PhysX 3.X support they limit how many threads will run in order to gimp CPU performance?
But NAHHHHHH Nvidia isn't the slimebucket people make them out to be!
On the contrary, it's deplorable that the closed sourced Microsoft controlled DirectX has stalled PC gaming development for so long.
So you agree DirectX needed competition to spur advancement.
Amazing how quickly after Mantle was announced that MS suddenly had DX12 in the pipeline isnt it?
Competition breeds innovation.
All this over virtual hair.
All this over virtual hair.