• Nvidia Fires Back: The Truth About GameWorks, AMD Optimization, and 'Watch Dogs'
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Last weekend [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/why-watch-dogs-is-bad-news-for-amd-users-and-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/"]AMD issued some bold statements[/URL] to Forbes about [URL="https://developer.nvidia.com/content/introducing-nvidia-gameworks"]Nvidia’s GameWorks developer program[/URL], and how it may have impacted performance of Ubisoft’s Watch Dogs on AMD hardware. These claims stretched beyond just Watch Dogs and extended into the greater PC gaming ecosystem, with AMD’s Robert Hallock passionately explaining that GameWorks represents “a clear and present threat to gamers by deliberately crippling performance on AMD products.” Now Nvidia is firing back, intent on setting the record straight. The [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/why-watch-dogs-is-bad-news-for-amd-users-and-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/"]article in question[/URL] made serious waves across the internet and PC gaming community, and giving Nvidia an opportunity to address these claims was the only logical course of action. In the process, I wanted to learn more about GameWorks and determine its influence on partner game developers like Ubisoft. I also wanted to explore any specific legal restrictions that would hinder a company like AMD from optimizing a GameWorks-enabled game on their hardware.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/28/nvidia-fires-back-the-truth-about-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/[/url] Previous News Thread about the AMD Article: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1396696[/url]
Relevant quote: [QUOTE]As for the Nvidia-specific source code: "The way that it works is we provide separate levels of licensing," Cebenoyan explains. "We offer game developers source licensing, and it varies whether or not game developers are interested in that. Now, like any other middleware on earth, if you grant someone a source license, you grant it to them. We don't preclude them from changing anything and making it run better on AMD." To put this particular argument to bed, I told Cebenoyan I wanted crystal clear clarification, asking "If AMD approached Ubisoft and said 'We have ideas to make Watch Dogs run better on our hardware,' then Ubisoft is free to do that?" "Yes," he answered. "They're absolutely free to." And there's nothing built in to GameWorks that disables AMD performance? "No, never." Perhaps more fascinating was Nvidia's response when I flipped the situation around. What about AMD-partnered titles like Battlefield 4 and Tomb Raider? How much lead time did Nvidia receive -- and how much would they need -- to optimize Nvidia GPUs for those games? While I didn't receive a direct answer, what I got was Nvidia returning fire. "It varies. There have been times it's been more challenging because of what we suspect stems from deals with the competition," Cebenoyan says. "It doesn't happen often. But when it does there's a fair amount of scrambling on our part. I can tell you that the deals that we do, and the GameWorks agreements, don't have anything to do with restricting anyone's access to builds."[/QUOTE] He-said-she-said time again.
I'm going with that they both probably restrict one another.
See, I never thought it was something where one company consciously disables the performance of the other's hardware, I always thought it was just the fact that when something is optimized for Nvidia, or Nvidia works with a dev and does things their way, it simply doesn't work as well with AMD, and vice versa. I really don't think they ARE purposely making it worse for the competition, but I see it a bit like optimizing a game for 2 different consoles. That's what I figure the issue here is.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;44936544]I'm going with that they both probably restrict one another.[/QUOTE] Nvidia likes to be more restrictive, though. I don't see how this is "hitting back" rather than stating the obvious. It's doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is terrible and absolute bullshit for the gaming industry
unless anyone has any actual facts about how much they are or aren't inhibiting innovation rather than he said she said stuff we're better off just not speculating. [editline]28th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tasm;44936670]Nvidia likes to be more restrictive, though. I don't see how this is "hitting back" rather than stating the obvious. It's doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is terrible and absolute bullshit for the gaming industry[/QUOTE] like this this is pure speculation as far as I can tell.
This is why GPUs should follow some kind of universal settings, like most hardware does.
Boycott Nvidia. It's up to us as customers to show Nvidia that we do not approve their anti-competitive ways.
Watch Dogs and AC4 didn't/don't run well on Nvidia cards either and they were both set up for Nvidia.
[QUOTE=The golden;44936959]In this day and age of shitty ports - nothing really runs well on anything.[/QUOTE] I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?
[QUOTE=seano12;44936969]I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?[/QUOTE] Not enough testing, or just lack of optimization because it runs good on the developing systems.
[QUOTE=seano12;44936969]I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?[/QUOTE] "Who cares, mongoloids will buy our shit anyway"
[QUOTE=Viper202;44936993]"Who cares, mongoloids will buy our shit anyway"[/QUOTE] "Just upgrade your PC."
[QUOTE=seano12;44936969]I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?[/QUOTE] Best way to explain this is imagine price purchase parity, but with systems instead of foreign currencies. Ubi can't release a graphical experience that's that far ahead of the console versions. The PC version won't bring as much revenue as any of the console versions, so the cost isn't worth it. You'd have to add extra artists/programmers to your headcount and drastically increase your outsourcing budget. (I would have quoted my earlier post, but I can't on my phone)
idk about the article but all gameworks really is just a set of code examples and sdks for using fxaa and other lighting methods on nvidia GPUs. AMD does the same thing and provides SDKs and code examples. like how we have AMD's optimized HDAO vs Nvidia's HBAO. its really down to the developer to choose how they implement technologies and optimizations, if anything it was probably because Nvidia was more forthcoming in assisting the developer that this problem arose. just how AMD is assisting DICE in implementing optimizations (Mantle) into BF4.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;44936753]Watch Dogs and AC4 didn't/don't run well on Nvidia cards either and they were both set up for Nvidia.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what chip manufacturer the game was designed for. If Ubisoft worked on it, it's never going to look nice and run well on PC. That's the real problem here. Give me as many 16x16 pixel boxes as you want, you know I'm right. Almost every game they've ported to PC looks like vomit and runs like shit even if you have the latest and greatest hardware from either the red team or the green team. They can't even implement regular multithreaded rendering correctly and they expect people playing Watch_Dogs to have a computer with a hyperthreading-capable i7 processor. Ubisoft claims that they "make games with the PC in mind first", but you'd have to be living under a rock for the past seven years if you honestly believe them.
What do you excpect about UBISOFT games. Lets see what they fucked up. Far Cry 2, Rain bow six vegas 2, Watch Dogs, AC 4,Ghost Recon, Spliner Cell, Kane and Lynch 2, and probably many more.
[QUOTE=seano12;44936969]I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?[/QUOTE] Because their main demographic/priority is consoles. Why are people still surprised at this?
[QUOTE=Skanic;44937134]Lets see what they fucked up Far Cry 2[/QUOTE] What's wrong with Far Cry 2?
[QUOTE=seano12;44936969]I agree with this. It seems that 70% or more of games that are released on PC are terribly optimized. Why is it like this?[/QUOTE] It's because of consoles, holding back development.
Didn't Crysis 2 have water (which used Nvidia's tech to render) hidden under the maps and such, so that people with other brands would have bad preformance? EDIT: Yep. [url]http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing[/url]
AMD wouldn't do any different if they were the dominant brand.
[QUOTE=The golden;44936959]In this day and age of shitty ports - nothing really runs well on anything.[/QUOTE] Truth. The quality of PC development in general has cratered recently. Publishers like Ubisoft have come right out and said they think we're all a bunch of cheap pirates that aren't worth the expense of real development time, so they just sub out the port jobs and do the bare minimum. Which naturally drives more piracy because nobody wants to pay $60 for a shitty port that doesn't run well and can't be sold back to Gamestop.
The console players don't see it this way sadly, that games are downgraded for them. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SC968w6.jpg[/IMG] But as I said in the other thread, its still simply business, yes it would make more sense for these companies to work together, but its still a business at the end of the day. On the terms of the games, once again, business, consoles have more sales etc.
Assassin's Creed 4 is pretty much the only worthwhile game in the series since 2.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;44937042]Doesn't matter what chip manufacturer the game was designed for. If Ubisoft worked on it, it's never going to look nice and run well on PC. That's the real problem here. Give me as many 16x16 pixel boxes as you want, you know I'm right. Almost every game they've ported to PC looks like vomit and runs like shit even if you have the latest and greatest hardware from either the red team or the green team. They can't even implement regular multithreaded rendering correctly and they expect people playing Watch_Dogs to have a computer with a hyperthreading-capable i7 processor. Ubisoft claims that they "make games with the PC in mind first", but you'd have to be living under a rock for the past seven years if you honestly believe them.[/QUOTE] I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't had any issues running Ubisoft games. They all run great for me.
[QUOTE=Matthew7434;44937763]Didn't Crysis 2 have water (which used Nvidia's tech to render) hidden under the maps and such, so that people with other brands would have bad preformance? EDIT: Yep. [url]http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing[/url][/QUOTE] How do you get "we're trying to make their performance worse" out of that? I'm getting more of a "we were too lazy/rushed to do a good job so you'll have to deal with shitty performance" vibe from it.
Watch_Dogs is a joke anyway. I've had fun with it, but it's an absolute mockery of a game. Lots of invisible walls, no ability to jump because you obviously can't be trusted to find your own vantage points. "Open world" simply means a large city with no interiors sans like three buildings that aren't shops. It's like Mercenaries 2 but with hacking and less satisfying destruction.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44936735]This is why GPUs should follow some kind of universal settings, like most hardware does.[/QUOTE] processors don't work like that though, everyone has a slightly different way of approaching the problem and everyone's software is different as well, while it looks the same on the computer screen, you might as well be saying an apple should have the same insides as a bananna [editline]29th May 2014[/editline] with the state of the industry, and how rushed games are these days, id say its more the case of the developer not giving nvidia AND AMD enough time to BOTH work on optimizing, so its either one or the other, then whatever the other guy can do in 5 minutes
[QUOTE=draugur;44938192]Watch_Dogs is a joke anyway. I've had fun with it, but it's an absolute mockery of a game. Lots of invisible walls, no ability to jump because you obviously can't be trusted to find your own vantage points. "Open world" simply means a large city with no interiors sans like three buildings that aren't shops. It's like Mercenaries 2 but with hacking and less satisfying destruction.[/QUOTE] I haven't experienced nearly any of the problems you're mentioning, I have yet to run into any invisible walls, I have never had the need to jump, and there are probably as many Buildings with interiors as any other Free-Roam I've played.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.