Nvidia publicly bashing Stardock developer over an ALPHA level game

BlueStorm said:
Simply not true. TressFX code was not present in any advance copies of the game that NVIDIA received. The developer was contractually obligated not to share it with NVIDIA. Only the final advance copy had it present, right when the game shipped, and it caused crashing issues on NVIDIA hardware
Click to expand...

Then what happened..... Wait for it. AMD gave the full source code to Nvidia, and they and the dev sorted out the issues they had.
 
Semantics said:
That's not really a counter argument. Ofc nvidia use their access to the source code to do their optimization. That's a ton easier why would they do things the harder way? It's not like tressfx source was ever restricted from them to begin with. I said it makes their job harder not impossible. They didn't need the source but it helps. The point is you can optimize the drivers but it will just take more work than usual. AMD as a company isn't about the spend that money when it already spends less in R&D than Nvidia as a company.
Click to expand...

You do realize that reverse engineering software you don't have licencing rights to is illegal right? (You mentioned AMD should reverse engineer it in your earlier post)

Not to mention that still doesn't let AMD update the code in the game, and they are not allowed to work with the developers to update it either because that is forbidden in the contract the developers sign to get access to source code.
 
Yakk said:
Yes, of course. It's a tried and true delay PR tactic to "wait out the storm". Sometimes throw in a completely off-topic bit of news to help shift interest to something else if the storm isn't going out quick enough, or is at an inopportune time.

In this case though using a relatively smaller dev studio as an escape goat and publicly try to discredit them is bloody scary. Imagine you are the owner of a SMB and a multi-national billion dollar company you need for your business to survive decides it has a bone to pick with you and goes public about it instead of just calling a meeting? Especially when you know you right?!

Holy crap! Imagine what the message other studios are getting from this? Yes they can be intimidated.
Click to expand...

Well apparently Stardock doesn't need nVidia's trips, money, or precompiled code. Good on them for standing up for themselves.
 
limitedaccess said:
Notice the commentary was not specifically directed at TressFX. If TressFX is the sole cause of performance issues than it can be isolated by disabling that feature. Lack of TressFX specific optimizations cannot cause performance issues with it disabled.

Performance issues with Gamework's features disabled (which for the vast majority of implementations can be done so as it is not integral to the game) cannot be directed attributed to the inability to optimize for Gamework's, as it would not even be used in that case.
Click to expand...

Can you turn off PhysX on project cars? Could you adjust tessellation on Crysis 3? Can you go back and change all of the game reviews and benches that showed poor AMD performance before they looked deeper and found it was Hairworks and turned it off? Often by the time the issue is discovered it's too late.
 
BlueStorm said:
Simply not true. TressFX code was not present in any advance copies of the game that NVIDIA received. The developer was contractually obligated not to share it with NVIDIA. Only the final advance copy had it present, right when the game shipped, and it caused crashing issues on NVIDIA hardware
Click to expand...

zW9jlKH.jpg
 
cageymaru said:
This game is the successor to Supreme Commander. I can't wait for it to hit Steam on the 20th of August. :) PCPer was very generous to Nvidia during the testing by not turning on MSAA. I can understand that Nvidia doesn't want their equipment shown in a negative light, but we all know that new drivers with optimizations will come.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go and say that. Yes it is similar to supreme commander, but it's not advertised as being a sequel.

Currently it goes: Total Annihilation>>Supreme Commander>> Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance>>Supreme Commander 2>> Planetary Annihilation >> Planetary Annihilation Titans.


as for this thread and this benchmark meh. I expected to see a performance gain on DX12 with AMD hardware, the draw call tests have been available for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
Pages of blah, blah, blah. If Nvidia found a performance bottleneck, they will have patched it in drivers before the game's release however many months from now. I'm not sure why anyone, Nvidia included, are getting themselves in a tizzy over this.

BlueStorm said:
Simply not true. TressFX code was not present in any advance copies of the game that NVIDIA received. The developer was contractually obligated not to share it with NVIDIA. Only the final advance copy had it present, right when the game shipped, and it caused crashing issues on NVIDIA hardware
Click to expand...
TR used TressFX 1.0, which was not open source as TressFX 2.0 was later on. TR performance issues on Nvidia hardware were fixed without any help from AMD. The game developer and Nvidia worked to get performance near parity with default AMD hardware performance.
 
maxius said:
its a black box that the dev/amd/intel cant see into unless the dev pays nv money and not to mention before any of this cash exchanges hands the dev is prohibited from helping amd/intel optimism performance by contract...
Click to expand...

I already have you on another thread regarding the "black box" argument, but just needed to say it in this thread too, so the FUD dosn't spread), but you are wrong.
 
Factum said:
I already have you on another thread regarding the "black box" argument, but just needed to say it in this thread too, so the FUD dosn't spread), but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

If the game developers want to optimize for non-nvidia hardware, they have to pay Nidia licensing fees and are still prohibited from working with the GPU vendors.

Lets let that sink in: Game developers have to pay Nvidia to optimize their games for non-Nvidia GPUs and aren't allowed to work with AMD/Intel (or others) to do so.

And you want to tell me that isn't a black box for Intel/AMD as well as harmful to game developers?
 
DracoNB said:
If the game developers want to optimize for non-nvidia hardware, they have to pay Nidia licensing fees and are still prohibited from working with the GPU vendors.

Lets let that sink in: Game developers have to pay Nvidia to optimize their games for non-Nvidia GPUs and aren't allowed to work with AMD/Intel (or others) to do so.

And you want to tell me that isn't a black box for Intel/AMD as well as harmful to game developers?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure thats not true...

Game devs are fine to work with other vendors like Intel, AMD when working on a GameWorks title. They can share the game's source code and even give AMD the GameWorks DLL files to play with. They just cant share GameWorks feature source code, which the devs wont have access to unless they are a licensed partner.
 
cageymaru said:
This game is the successor to Supreme Commander. I can't wait for it to hit Steam on the 20th of August. :) PCPer was very generous to Nvidia during the testing by not turning on MSAA. I can understand that Nvidia doesn't want their equipment shown in a negative light, but we all know that new drivers with optimizations will come.

And it is nice to see where AMD's R&D time went. Personally I don't see how Nvidia can be upset that a 390X matches the GTX 980. I thought they were the same as far as performance goes from the beginning. [H]ardocp tested the R9 390X and GTX 980 today and came to the same parity conclusion.
Click to expand...

People might want to study which sites tested w/o MSAA so they know who really pulls the strings on their reviews.
 
PRIME1 said:
Nothing was disproved, that's a direct quote from the developer.

I'm adding you to the ignore list like everyone else has.
Click to expand...

the pot calling the kettle black, eh? the longest running [H]ardforums troll ignoring some one because they posted something disproving you, how many users do you have left not on your ignore list at this point?
 
DracoNB said:
If the game developers want to optimize for non-nvidia hardware, they have to pay Nidia licensing fees and are still prohibited from working with the GPU vendors.

Lets let that sink in: Game developers have to pay Nvidia to optimize their games for non-Nvidia GPUs and aren't allowed to work with AMD/Intel (or others) to do so.

And you want to tell me that isn't a black box for Intel/AMD as well as harmful to game developers?
Click to expand...


Could you document your claim?

Remember...YOU made the claim...YOU provide the documentation.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
the pot calling the kettle black, eh? the longest running [H]ardforums troll ignoring some one because they posted something disproving you, how many users do you have left not on your ignore list at this point?
Click to expand...

I would guess two people. Steve and Kyle.
 
if people would stop quoting him, he would be much easier to ignore.
 
Relayer said:
Can you turn off PhysX on project cars? Could you adjust tessellation on Crysis 3? Can you go back and change all of the game reviews and benches that showed poor AMD performance before they looked deeper and found it was Hairworks and turned it off? Often by the time the issue is discovered it's too late.
Click to expand...

Notice I mentioned the majority of implementations. I don't really follow Project Cars (or care at all much about racing games) so I will refrain from specific commentary regarding that situation. However I will point that CPU PhysX has been used in the past prior to Gamework's branding, rather transperantly and without controversy. It was used in both Metro 2033 and Metro: Lastlight as an example. Seems like work from both sides (game developer and AMD's drivers) were able to drastically improve AMD's relative performance to Nvidia (GCN against Kepler) inspite of PhysX.

Tesselation in Crysis 3 is not related to Gameworks. Crysis 3 was an AMD tied game and not even related to Nvidia.

The GTX 980ti was the first wide release post Witcher 3 (Nvidia's latest Gamework showcase with Hairworks). Here are two sample reviews from major tech sites that used the Witcher 3 (both of which have received accusations of Nvidia bias, granted the bias accusation is somewhat easily thrown out when opinions differ) -

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...x_980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/3#.VdXIzZdSI8I
http://techreport.com/review/28356/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-graphics-card-reviewed/5

Pcper, the site most in vogue that people rail against for being pro Nvidia, did not even use the Witcher 3 for their 980ti review (they actually had 4 games with AMD ties vs 1 with Nvidia ties...).

PCgamehardware.de is typically one of the early sources to run game specific tests. Despite the language difference they are still commonly used a "first" in community discussions because of this - http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

Yes I'm sure there probaly is some source out that are problematic but if indvidiuals do not properly critique and apply critical thinking to their sources that is the fault of the individual.

Also I'd like to point out that one of the initial reasons for the controversey regarding Gameworks and Hairworks is when CDPR specifically reffered to Hairwork's regarding optimization for AMD hardware. This was never some sort of big secret or conspiracy.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm pretty sure thats not true...

Game devs are fine to work with other vendors like Intel, AMD when working on a GameWorks title. They can share the game's source code and even give AMD the GameWorks DLL files to play with. They just cant share GameWorks feature source code, which the devs wont have access to unless they are a licensed partner.
Click to expand...

We are talking about gameworks specific features here, not the whole game. Developers pay Nvidia to be able to try to optimize the code to add in optimizations for AMD/Intel and are not allowed to directly work with them for those optimizations. How is that not anti-competitive?

Not to mention, that those code changes are then game specific so every developer has to pay Nvidia for every game they want to optimize for AMD/Intel hardware. Thats a lot of free money to Nvidia just to make the game work well on competitor hardware.

This is so harmful to the gaming community.
 
Since when did a claim made my Richard Huddy became fact?? The truth is, neither of us in here really knows unless we read the actual agreement between developers and Nvidia.
 
Chimpee said:
Since when did a claim made my Richard Huddy became fact?? The truth is, neither of us in here really knows unless we read the actual agreement between developers and Nvidia.
Click to expand...

How about Witcher 3 developers stating they can't optimize hairworks for AMD so they encourage gamers to disable it?

As a result of the backlash, Nvidia changed its policy to allow game developers access to the source code as of mid April of last year. However according to AMD, this did not alter the situation, as game developers engaged in the Nvidia GameWorks program were still not allowed to work with AMD to optimize the code for their hardware. Something which Nvidia initially denied but later Nvidia’s Tom Petersen and Rev Lebaradian admitted. Witcher 3 developers, CD Projekt Red, reaffirmed this again two days ago.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-responds-witcher-3-gameworks-controversy/#ixzz3jNVQBe3n
Click to expand...
 
But your premise is developer has to pay Nvidia if they want to optimize for AMD/Intel hardware, no where in the article states that. But I will stand corrected what Richard Huddy say about regarding agreements made between developer and Nvidia. You are working on the supposition that developer must pay Nvidia if they want to work on AMD/Intel hardware without any direct proof and mostly working on indirect proof. That being said, while it is a dick move on Nvidia part to include such a clause, I suggest you take it with the developers to sign such agreements to begin with, though I do wonder if there a clause with AMD as well. Too bad, neither of us can read their agreements.
 
Chimpee said:
But your premise is developer has to pay Nvidia if they want to optimize for AMD/Intel hardware, no where in the article states that.
Click to expand...

Thats because its already been proven many times. If the developer wants access to gameworks source, they have to pay Nvidia and the licensing agreement prohibits them from sharing the source code with amd/intel to optimize it.

I've posted the links a dozen times so I don't feel like doing it again, please feel free to view any of the other posts I made to get to them.
 
Will do, but just to let you know, the link regarding Gameworks API on Wikipedia is down, so just a heads up.
 
DracoNB said:
I already have, multiple times in this thread. Try reading

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041801900&postcount=142

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041802298&postcount=164

And a few more times in the dozen pages here.
Click to expand...

No, that is just the PR FUD you spread and hope will prevent you from answering the question I ask of you.
But it will not work.

What games ship source code, not binaries for optimizations?

It's a simple question, but one you refuse to answer...time after time after time...
 
DracoNB said:
Thats because its already been proven many times. If the developer wants access to gameworks source, they have to pay Nvidia and the licensing agreement prohibits them from sharing the source code with amd/intel to optimize it.

I've posted the links a dozen times so I don't feel like doing it again, please feel free to view any of the other posts I made to get to them.
Click to expand...

Do you claim that it's impossible to optimize a game in GPU-drivers from binaries without the sourcecode YES/NO?

Think carefully before you answer.
 
Factum said:
No, that is just the PR FUD you spread and hope will prevent you from answering the question I ask of you.
But it will not work.
Click to expand...

The only FUD is from you. Read the freaking quotes from my last post, it has Nvidia admitting they don't allow developers to work with AMD with gamework's source code.

So I'll repost it here (yet again):

As a result of the backlash, Nvidia changed its policy to allow game developers access to the source code as of mid April of last year. However according to AMD, this did not alter the situation, as game developers engaged in the Nvidia GameWorks program were still not allowed to work with AMD to optimize the code for their hardware. Something which Nvidia initially denied but later Nvidia’s Tom Petersen and Rev Lebaradian admitted. Witcher 3 developers, CD Projekt Red, reaffirmed this again two days ago.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-responds-witcher-3-gameworks-controversy/#ixzz3jNVQBe3n
Click to expand...

What games ship source code, not binaries for optimizations?

It's a simple question, but one you refuse to answer...time after time after time...
Click to expand...

READ THE FREAKING OP it is literally a game developer who continually ships source code to Nvidia, AMD, Intel and Microsoft so they can all optimize their hardware/software.

Please show proof that developers don't share their source code with GPU vendors. Why would they not want help optimizing their code and letting the GPU vendors update their drivers to work as best as they could. Why would they only ship binarys to them?

Here is Nvidia talking about Tomb Raider Source code:

"We are aware of performance and stability issues with GeForce GPUs running Tomb Raider with maximum settings. Unfortunately, NVIDIA didn’t receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided. We are working closely with Crystal Dynamics to address and resolve all game issues as quickly as possible," read a Nvidia statement.

"Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well. As a result, we recommend you do not test Tomb Raider until all of the above issues have been resolved."

"In the meantime, we would like to apologize to GeForce users that are not able to have a great experience playing Tomb Raider, as they have come to expect with all of their favorite PC games.”

- See more at: http://www.gamewatcher.com/news/201...-raider-stability-issues#sthash.yBaPEoQO.dpuf
Click to expand...

So Nvidia admits that developers and source code are required to make fixes and can not be resolved solely from drivers, yet now they deny AMD that same ability through Gameworks integrations and you think thats ok?

Stop lying, and start reading. You might learn a thing or two.
 
Factum said:
Do you claim that it's impossible to optimize a game in GPU-drivers from binaries without the sourcecode YES/NO?

Think carefully before you answer.
Click to expand...

Well Nvidia claims you can't so I'll go with "NO"

"Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well. As a result, we recommend you do not test Tomb Raider until all of the above issues have been resolved."
Click to expand...
 
DracoNB said:
You do realize that reverse engineering software you don't have licencing rights to is illegal right? (You mentioned AMD should reverse engineer it in your earlier post)
Click to expand...
It's not... Reverse engineering software to resell a copy of software is illegal. Reverse engineering in order to understand the software so your own software can interact with it is not illegal. Blizzard isn't winning lawsuits against map hack makers and bot developers over reverse engineering, they are winning it though unfair competition laws.
 
Semantics said:
It's not... Reverse engineering software to resell a copy of software is illegal. Reverse engineering in order to understand the software so your own software can interact with it is not illegal. Blizzard isn't winning lawsuits against map hack makers and bot developers over reverse engineering, they are winning it though unfair competition laws.
Click to expand...

But then Nvidia creates another DLL file which counters the optimizations it is a cat and mouse game. The way it works is that GameWorks decides what AMD specific calls to use.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
But then Nvidia creates another DLL file which counters the optimizations it is a cat and mouse game. The way it works is that GameWorks decides what AMD specific calls to use.
Click to expand...

AMD should just make their own GameWorks and stop whining.
 
jwcalla said:
AMD should just make their own GameWorks and stop whining.
Click to expand...

That solves absolutely nothing, just makes the issue worse.

Stop trying to make PC gaming like Consoles with exclusives and features only meant for certain hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top