Has Bethesda agreed with AMD not to include DLSS in Starfield?

[DSirius]

I got lost in the 17 different points you seem to be trying to make, but I'll answer your first one: of course it is artificial market segmentation. Nvidia wants to sell hardware and exclusive software features help them do that. As they are making the software it's their right to do so, just as it is your right to not buy their products if you dislike the practice.
(Note: AMD doesn't create locked in software because it would lock out too many potential customers due to market share, not because it's more virtuous then Nvidia)

Using the words "of course it is artificial market segmentation" does not means that buyers are ignorants or stupid as Nvidia would like to treat them, or agree with your point of view.
If "Nvidia wants to sell hardware and EXCUSIVE software features help them do that" as you acknowledge, than why Nvidia is whining and why all of this fake drama?
See how fast you can better understand what is really about when you ask yourself the right questions?
That word you used, EXCLUSIVE for Nvidia, canceled all Nvidia whinning about AMD-Starfield exclusivity.
To be crystal clear: Goliat-Nvidia is whining that David-AMD is doing like him and Goliat-Nvidia is somehow "discriminated". This is the best joke of the day.
If you "got lost in the 17 different points" better address to Nvidia to fix this mess which Nvidia created. And if you found 17, it seems that Nvidia has a lot to fix. Even so, 1 step would fix most of this messs and this step for Nvidia is to stop being ANTICONSUMER. Will they do it?
That will depends and on customers, like myself, you too, and how we vote with our wallets.

And to be crystal magic ball clear: if a game is full of bugs on day launch instead of being an enjoyable gameplay, does not matter anymore for players if it is Nvidia or AMD, MS or SONY exclusive, optimized, sponsored etc. It is a bad game, and for Nvidia or AMD, bad publicity.
Speaking from experience, I preordered Cyberpunk 2077, could not play it on day launch. I could enjoy playing it, after 4 months, and only with Nexus mods, huge help and support. In the meanwhile CDProjectRed was busy implementing DLSS2 and other Nvidia "exclusive optimizations" for CP2077, instead of patching the game bugs faster.

When CDProjectRed tried shennanigans with Sony, after their buggy mess CP2077 launch on consoles, Sony stopped the sell of CP20077 on it's platform and refunded players, due to low quality of the game (read unplayable state). Only after more than 1 year (or almost 2?) CP2077 returned to Sony gaming market, when CP2077 got many patches which made it playable as should have been from the launch day.
Quality is most important than exclusivity.
Playing a good, quality game is the most important thing, and MS needs good quality games from day launch. Until now, Sony is ahead in releasing more polished and quality games than competition and MS has a great opportunity with Starfield nowadays.
Until than, exclusivity is like a plague which all major gaming corporations spread to themselves, become annoying for gamers, and is funny to watch when Nvidia is whining about it. And I did my best to be sympathetic to this Nvidia "exclusivity drama", but everytime I wanted to be compassionate for Nvidia in this situation, I found myself laughing out loud. Karma effect is stronger for Nvidia nowadays.

 

[fadingfool]

As a GTX 1080Ti owner I am more than happy for FSR to appear in as many games as possible - and not bothered about DLSS at all. If that makes me an AMD shill then I'll happily wear the badge......

 

[gamerk2]

FSR work with all cards, DLSS is vendor restricted

DLSS also provides a far better image with less artifacts, at generally better performance.

As usual, AMD's open solution is simply a worse version of something NVIDIA creates first.

 

[Stingy McDuck]

They got 3 simple options for this:
1) Give us both scalers.
2) Make FSR 2.x as good as DLSS 2.x.
3) Make the game so optimized that we don't require scalers (ok, perhaps not so simple this one).

 

[McMurdeR]

As an Nvidia user I like to see it. However, being a proprietary technology, I respect the decision of any publisher not to implement it. It's better for the community in the long run of Nvidia doesn't hold sway over anything in particular.

In any case I'm more concerned about whether the actual game will be good enough to worry about all this?

 

[punctualturn]

Weird accusation since FSR works on pretty much all cards and DLSS depends on which card you have.
Nevermind the fact Nvidia sponsored games gimps AMD card performance.

Well, given the strange times we are living, I am not surprised one bit that the bribed media and rabid fanbois are acting like this because all they do is simply post and look for anything negative against AMD but always praise every single anti-consumer cr@p that nvidia does to the market.

Example, I personally feel that DLSS is actually harming the PC gaming market, since it only works on nvidia hardware and worse, now they are segmenting who gets which version.

I now consider that PC gaming is no longer an open platform and instead locked into nvidia tech.

 

[punctualturn]

DLSS also provides a far better image with less artifacts, at generally better performance.

As usual, AMD's open solution is simply a worse version of something NVIDIA creates first.

 

[DSirius]

Wow, what a great analysis, thank you for it.
Nvidia allegedly DLSS2 "++ superiority" myth busted vs AMD FSR2, or better said obliterated.
And I can fully appreciate TheTerk objective approach about Netflix's VMAF method, pointing out BOTH the advantages and also the weak points of this testing tool.
In comparison, as I pointed out, Tim's article lacks this balanced and objective approach, by focusing only on DLSS claimed superiority and advantages, but not finding or saying a word about the weakness or limitations of the same DLSS2 technology. And that's why I argumented that it is a low quality article, in my opinion.
I hope that Tim will test DLSS2 vs AMD FSR2 with Netflix's VMAF tool too, at least to address the weak points of his YT video and article. Or at least to use it when testing Starfield - joking of course, on the Nvidia-Goliat "exclusive discrimination" by AMD-David.
I'll make more time during summer holiday to test myself as much as I can.
For example, in CP2077, I tested DLSS2 vs AMD FSR2, and could not spot an obvious difference WHILE playing.
I even bought a new Dell Alienware AW3423DWF OLED monitor for this, and updated it with the last firmware from June 2023.
On the other hand, I could easily see how Halk Hogan 4k textures mod for CP2077 dramatically improved the game quality to the point that none of DLSS2 or FSR2 could have an impact on quality vs the other, only on raising the FPS, which is good for both.
So, if game devs would do a better job from the start, DLSS2 and AMD FSR2 will still be helpfull, but not anymore gamers will have to deal with this non-sense DLSS2 allegedly superiority vs AMD FSR2 and repeated artificial market segmentation from Nvidia side.
Still, when game devs, for various reasons cannot offer a good quality, than I agree that DLSS2 may be slightly better than AMD FSR2 ONLY in FullHD. But who needs DLSS2 for FullHD?
Oh, most of them are GTX 1xxx owners, which Nvidia screwed them by not making DLSS2 available. Luckily, AMD FSR2 saved them. And all of this because Nvidia chose to artificially enforce market segmentation for it's own customers?

 

[neeyik]

Nvidia screwed them by not making DLSS2 available.

DLSS2 needs tensor units and an optical flow accelerator, neither of which any GeForce 10 series has. Is it possible that Nvidia could have developed its own variant of FSR? Sure but it didn’t spend billions of dollars on machine learning and neural networks not to use it.

 

[punctualturn]

In comparison, as I pointed out, Tim's article lacks this balanced and objective approach, by focusing only on DLSS claimed superiority and advantages, but not finding or saying a word about the weakness or limitations of the same DLSS2 technology.

Personally, I have written off anything said by Tim. I simply feel that he is not fair neither impartial when its about Nvidia and especially when its about DLSS.

I hope that Tim will test DLSS2 vs AMD FSR2 with Netflix's VMAF tool too, at least to address the weak points of his video-article.

A man can dream, so I will share the same hope as you, but not expecting much.

'll make more time during summer holiday to test myself as much as I can. For example I tested in CP2077 DLSS2 vs AMD FSR2 and could not spot an obvious difference WHILE playing.

Thats incredible, considering that at this point, its clear that this developer made this game primarily for nvidia.

Oh, most of them are GTX 1xxx owners, which Nvidia screwed them by not making DLSS2 available.

And you know what those owners are going to do? Give Dear Leader Jensen more money on a new GPU instead of giving him the middle finger.

Luckily, AMD FSR2 saved them.

Yet see how many of them are protesting because big, bad AMD became the exclusive partner in this game.

And all of this because Nvidia chose to artificially enforce market segmentation for it's own customers?

And instead of giving nvidia the middle finger, they instead will give them more money.

 

[punctualturn]

DLSS2 needs tensor units and an optical flow accelerator, neither of which any GeForce 10 series has. Is it possible that Nvidia could have developed its own variant of FSR? Sure but it didn’t spend billions of dollars on machine learning and neural networks not to use it.

C'mon Neeyik, as proven by AMD, nvidia could had done that.

They simply chose to do not do it, so the loyal fanbois would buy new nvidia GPUs.

Worse, they doubled down on it with DLSS3.

 

[DSirius]

DLSS2 needs tensor units and an optical flow accelerator, neither of which any GeForce 10 series has. Is it possible that Nvidia could have developed its own variant of FSR? Sure but it didn’t spend billions of dollars on machine learning and neural networks not to use it.

You are right, I agree with this. Just that AMD proved that is possible to offer something similar to DLSS1-2 as a result, for most of the videocards, Nvidia GTX included, while Nvidia did not.
And this speaks loudly about Nvidia ANTICONSUMER approach. Otherwise is hard for me and a lot of other people to believe that we have to consider AMD more technically superior and advanced than Nvidia, if AMD managed to do this "miracle" for Nvidia GTX owners, while Nvidia simply was not able too, for its own products.
And indeed, a smarter approach would have been for Nvidia to make an upscaling technology similar to AMD FSR available for GTX 1xxx owners and even for AMD and called it DLSS1. Everybody would have been pleased and Nvidia did not have to deal with community backlash of 1st DLSS overpromised quality, but underdelivered quality in reality, while raising prices. After that, they could have launched DLSS2 only for RTX 2-3xxx cards and continue with their anticonsumer practice if they insist, like DLSS3 available only for RTX 4xxx cards.
Is it possible that DLSS3 could have been made even more easier available for RTX 3xxx owners? Because it seems that Nvidia is like a habitual offender to its own gaming customers with their dark pattern market segmentation.

 

[waclark]

To be honest, if AMD is putting up money for a title, then I don't have a problem with AMD specifying what can and can't be done with it. Assuming this is actually going on, it's not as if they're preventing Nvidia owners from playing the game - they're just trying to make the experience better on an AMD card than on an Nvidia card. It will be interesting to see what happens with FSR 3 and whether that continues to work on Nvidia cards.

So, when Nvidia, a company that has a market cap 3.7X larger than AMD, pays companies to produce games that perform much worse on AMD, you would be OK with that? Sorry, but no. This is anti-competitive behavior. What are they so worried about? Can't their GPUs compete on a level playing field?

 

[waclark]

You are right, I agree with this. Just that AMD proved that is possible to offer something similar to DLSS1-2 as a result, for most of the videocards, Nvidia GTX included, while Nvidia did not.
And this speaks loudly about Nvidia ANTICONSUMER approach. Otherwise is hard for me and a lot of other people to believe that we have to consider AMD more technically superior and advanced than Nvidia, if AMD managed to do this "miracle" for Nvidia GTX owners, while Nvidia simply was not able too, for its own products.
And indeed, a smarter approach would have been for Nvidia to make an upscaling technology similar to AMD FSR available for GTX 1xxx owners and called it DLSS1. Everybody would have been pleased and Nvidia did not have to deal with community backlash of 1st DLSS overpromised quality, but underdelivered quality in reality, while raising prices. After that, they could have launched DLSS2 for RTX 2-3xxx cards and continue with their anticonsumer practice if they insist.
Is it possible that DLSS3 could have been made even more easier available for RTX 3xxx owners? It seems that Nvidia is like a habitual offender to its own gaming customers.

LOL Nvidia Anti-consumer approach, all while AMD is paying people not to implement competitive technology.

The general problem with open-source applications is that sometimes they never become optimized. With DLSS, Nvidia has a vested interest in developing it and making it better. It's a competitive advantage, in their eyes. And AMD seems to think so too, if they are indeed paying people not to implement it. The bottom line is that neither DLSS nor FSR are primary drivers in a GPU purchase decision.

 

[DonquixoteIII]

Kinda weird, I guess... But doesn't Mikkersoft OWN bethesda? Thus Starfield? I would guess that Microsoft really gets the last word on what does, and does not, get into Starfield. Rumour has it that M$ bought Bethesda to make sure that it was an XBox game. Another rumour has it that M$ is going to try to spend Sony into bankruptcy. Another rumour has it that I own an amazing bridge, and would be willing to sell it.. If there is a moral to all of these rumours, it is to offer me some dosh for the bridge.

 

[brokatt]

Data can always be used to make a point. If we look at games released/patched with support from 2022 and forward we can see that:

75 games got support for DLSS but not FSR.
68 games got support for FSR but not DLSS.

OK we can assume some of these games are old and not relevant. And some of these games got FSR 1 or DLSS 1, which nobody in their right mind should use. If we only look at games released from 2022 and forward, with minimum FSR 2 or DLSS 2 we get:

34 games released with FSR 2 but not DLSS
52 games released with DLSS 2 but not FSR.

Source: pcgamingwiki

 

[Tvvatus]

Weird accusation since FSR works on pretty much all cards and DLSS depends on which card you have.
Nevermind the fact Nvidia sponsored games gimps AMD card performance.

Weird to pretend it's still Nvidia at fault despite the evidence, if they aren't being paid nobody bothers with FSR since it doesn't even do what it's supposed to. AMD needs to be paying

 

[DSirius]

Data can always be used to make a point. If we look at games released/patched with support from 2022 and forward we can see that:

75 games got support for DLSS but not FSR.
68 games got support for FSR but not DLSS.

OK we can assume some of these games are old and not relevant. And some of these games got FSR 1 or DLSS 1, which nobody in their right mind should use. If we only look at games released from 2022 and forward, with minimum FSR 2 or DLSS 2 we get:

34 games released with FSR 2 but not DLSS
52 games released with DLSS 2 but not FSR.

Source: pcgamingwiki

Congratulation man, best thing was to go to source and check.
Thus, all accusations of Nvidia-Goliat "exclusive discrimination" by AMD-David proves false. More, Nvidia-Goliat is the real culprit and the repeated offender, like a genuine ANTICONSUMER company as Nvidia can be.

 

[Nobina]

If Nvidia wants DLSS on there they will get it. If AMD are truly paying Bethesda I'm sure Nvidia can pay more.

And people should focus their rage towards Bethesda, nobody else.

And why not just ask them? If they lie they will eventually be found out and it would have a bigger impact on them to be caught doing this + lying about it.

 

[brokatt]

Congratulation man, best thing was to go to source and check.
Thus, all accusations of Nvidia-Goliat "exclusive discrimination" by AMD-David proves false. More, Nvidia-Goliat is the real culprit and the repeated offender, like a genuine ANTICONSUMER company as Nvidia can be.

It's Wccftech after all. Their articles are often based on very lose rumors and/or assumptions. Designed to stir up emotions (or "create engagement") to drive traffic.

 

[PEnnn]

Starfield will sell very well, no matter how many Nvidia shills, Nvidia - leaning websites or whoever whines and throw hissy fits.

Next.

 

[Nestea]

CDProjectRed focused almost exclusively to support or optimize CP2077 for Nvidia hardware and brought all sorts of Nvidia gimmicks forced updates instead of patching the game and resolving the bugs first. MS and Sony console players, which have AMD hardware, were afftected the most.

what do you mean? it was a cross-gen problem. Next gen behaved as well as it could.

while im not the biggest Nvidia fan, the approach xbox/Microsoft/bethesda is taking isn't the wisest.
I have to assume there is some inner political thing going on over the topic of nvidia but if I'm secure about my **** I dont have to be petty.
Now, not only are they dealing with sony ponies, redfall launch but they will also have to deal with big bux gamers if the game doesn't deliver: they couldn't even implement DLSS

both technologies are free as far as I know. AMD's gatekeeping is a bit less but seems to be still there according to the amd-bethesda announcement trailer: latest tech for your 7000 cpus and 7000s gpus.

if DLSS will go wayside supposedly, like supposedly GSYNC et al, might as well implement it and be done with any complaints.

 

[Nestea]

For posteriority

 

[godrilla]

No intention of getting anyone triggered but the modding community is already promising support for dlss. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/modder-promises-dlss-3-early-starfield

 

[Watzupken]

DLSS also provides a far better image with less artifacts, at generally better performance.

As usual, AMD's open solution is simply a worse version of something NVIDIA creates first.

In my opinion, most gamers can't tell the difference by themselves. No gamers will sit there and have 2 screens side by side to compare. And in the midst of the game, I won't bother to pixel peep or try and spot visual artifacts. It can be obvious, but does it spoil the game? Not really for me. So a lot of these issues are really just magnified based on reviews that WILL pixel peep or deliberately keeping an eye out for visual quality issues. I've used both DLSS and FSR in Horizon Zero Dawn as an example, and really when you are enjoying a game, you really can't be bothered about most of these supposedly visual quality issues. Ghosting is annoying, but otherwise most of them are not deal breakers. At least FSR works on all cards, which saves developers time to implement. People can blame AMD, but did the game developers said that AMD put a gun to their head to force only FSR? Or did they choose to optimize their development time?