• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Poll: AMD Screws Gamers: Sponsorships Likely Block DLSS

Are AMD out of order if they are found to be blocking DLSS on Starfield

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Ayahuasca said:
It's this kind of black and white thinking that leads to threads going off on weird tangents. You do realise those aren't comparable situations?

Stanners is referring to AMD potentially blocking the use of a competitor technology within a game. This implies manipulation or alteration of software to intentionally disadvantage a competitor. If true, it could raise significant antitrust issues and questions about market manipulation. It's essentially about how a company might be leveraging its position to potentially harm competitors and consumers by limiting the potential utility of their products. Yes, I'm aware nVidia may do or have done the same.

Your response, on the other hand, pertains to the retail business practices of OCUK and their decision on what products to stock and advertise. As a retailer, OCUK has the discretion to choose the products they believe best serve their customer base or align with their business model and that includes choosing not to sell or advertise certain brands or products. It doesn't directly disadvantage any competitor in terms of product functionality, unlike the first scenario. Retailers often have exclusive deals with suppliers or make strategic decisions about the brands they carry without it being an issue of fair competition.

So yeah, while both situations could potentially influence consumer choice, they do so in fundamentally different ways and engage different aspects of market competition and regulation.
Click to expand...
It is comparable because it's money related

AMD put money into the project, they get to call some shots including Microsoft who owns Bethesda and Xbox.

Ocuk put money into their projects, that get to call the shots.

Both put money in what they do, what should make them advertise other competitors.

You know that by ocuk having 8 pack does disadvantage other competitors
 
Last edited:
Raelgun said:
It is comparable because it's money related

AMD put money into the project, they get to call some shots including Microsoft who owns Bethesda and Xbox.

Ocuk put money into their projects, that get to call the shots.

Both put money in what they do, what should make them advertise other competitors.
Click to expand...

That's such a simple argument, money is connected to pretty much everything, it doesn't mean the situations are comparable or that your point was in any way a good counter to Stanner's question.

My response above clearly outlined the differences.
 
Ayahuasca said:
That's such a simple argument, money is connected to pretty much everything, it doesn't mean the situations are comparable or that your point was in any way a good counter to Stanner's question.

My response above clearly outlined the differences.
Click to expand...
You said also it aligns with their business, that's true for AMD? True for Nvidia as well.

If AMD put money in, just like any other business, why should they use competitors stuff.

I'm not aware of any business in any industry that's does this, so what makes AMD the exception here?

Unity engine can't use UE stuff for example
 
Last edited:
Raelgun said:
You said also it aligns with their business, that's true for AMD? True for Nvidia as well.

If AMD put money in, just like any other business, why should they use competitors stuff.

I'm not aware of any business in any industry that's does this, so what makes AMD the exception here?

Unity engine can't use UE stuff for example
Click to expand...

The difference in the original point you made is clearly defined in my post.

You're now trying to use different, more comparable scenarios, which I haven't questioned.
 
Last edited:
Ayahuasca said:
It's this kind of black and white thinking that leads to threads going off on weird tangents. You do realise those aren't comparable situations?

Stanners is referring to AMD potentially blocking the use of a competitor technology within a game. This implies manipulation or alteration of software to intentionally disadvantage a competitor. If true, it could raise significant antitrust issues and questions about market manipulation. It's essentially about how a company might be leveraging its position to potentially harm competitors and consumers by limiting the potential utility of their products. Yes, I'm aware nVidia may do or have done the same.
Click to expand...
Sorry what are you talking about. Are you now saying that DLSS is implemented in these games but AMD is modifying the source code for the games to prevent DLSS from functioning? Because that is exactly what this part of your post reads like. Whether or not that was intentional is a different manner.

If AMD are not allowing the software to be implemented in the engine in the first place then there is no manipulation of software to speak of. Intel compiler intentionally using slower code on AMD hardware is an example of malicious manipulation of software to detriment of the customer.


Ayahuasca said:
Your response, on the other hand, pertains to the retail business practices of OCUK and their decision on what products to stock and advertise. As a retailer, OCUK has the discretion to choose the products they believe best serve their customer base or align with their business model and that includes choosing not to sell or advertise certain brands or products. It doesn't directly disadvantage any competitor in terms of product functionality, unlike the first scenario. Retailers often have exclusive deals with suppliers or make strategic decisions about the brands they carry without it being an issue of fair competition.
Click to expand...
You realise that everything you have written here could be twisted to apply to video game sponsorships by GPU manufacturers?

As an example if AMD are paying for the marketing and some of the development of the game why should Nvidia as a company be able to benefit by having credits in the game or be allowed to advertise with that game?

In the same way that this forum is run for the benefit of OCUK nobody would expect the competition to benefit from the money OCUK invests in these forums.


If anything you should be laying the blame at the feet of the developer’s who chose to get in bed exclusively with one manufacturer and implement their technologies to the detriment of customers who use other brands.
 
KompuKare said:
If by "mega" you mean very wide, that wouldn't actually be that bad. The run 1-3 threads like crazy and leave the other cores unused is the worst thing. Those users who used to run Intel HEDT because the extra RAM bandwidth and extra cores mostly had a good experience. FO4 / Skyrim on the other hand really want one or two cores which boost like crazy while the rest sit idle.

Despite all the furor about graphics, if game sponsorship still means helping the developers with engineers I would rather AMD sent some CPU software engineers rather than GPU software engineers as I suspect that good CPU scaling will far more important here. And long-term too, as all those fancy mods for FO4 and Skyrim and there is little modders can do about threading (although it was modders who embarrassed Bethesda go from x87 to SSE in Skyrim way back when).

If AMD are doing this kind of thing then such behaviour is ultimately bad for all consumers.

However if it comes to attributing blame, Nvidia almost have the full text-book of bad things like this. And their bad reputation is something Nvidia have built up over decades. It is even possible that some of the marketing people involved on the AMD side might almost be the same one as they move between companies.
Click to expand...

I honestly think the delays are down to CPU problems. The recommended spec is still a six core CPU. The Creation Engine in Fallout 4 used upto six cores too, but as you said overused two to three cores. I hope adding RT does not make the issues worse.
 
Last edited:
Ayahuasca said:
The difference in the original point you made is clearly defined in my post.

You're now trying to use different, more comparable scenarios, which I haven't questioned.
Click to expand...

Retailers still try to have an advantage, and to do so, they need to put money in to something.

Something AMD is here doing, it's fair as they are allowed to do that.

Tell me what business or industry where they put money in advertises a competitors tech or product?

Retailers do this, ocuk bans naming other retailers on these forums
 
Ah, we've got a poll now too?

Well, I voted yes they are out of order as this would be a bad move all around.

I'm quite aware that NV have always played dirty. Very dirty.

However, I don't think that means others should play like that and I want less of this kind of thing not more.
 
The fact that people consider having only an open, universally available solution to be more anti-consumer than a closed one which is still unavailable to more than half the market (GTX & Radeon & iGPUs), and where the GPU manufacturer uses that fact to then arbitrarily block off old cards from new iterations, even though it has the hardware required to enable it (DLSS 3), so it can more easily sell you worse cards for more money, is proof of how filled with idiots this whole sector is. Frankly people really do deserve the worst treatment they get from these companies, because whenever it is possible to make a smart, logical choice the customers decide to do the opposite. Next up - 5060, 8 GB, DLSS 4 (restricted to new cards again, with twice the hallucinated frames inserted), $400. Can't wait! :cry:
 
Last edited:
Poneros said:
The fact that people consider having only an open, universally available solution to be more anti-consumer than a closed one which is still unavailable to more than half the market (GTX & Radeon & iGPUs), and where the GPU manufacturer uses that fact to then arbitrarily block off old cards from new iterations, even though it has the hardware required to enable it (DLSS 3), so it can more easily sell you worse cards for more money, is proof of how filled with idiots this whole sector is. Frankly people really do deserve the worst treatment they get from these companies, because whenever it is possible to make a smart, logical choice the customers decide to do the opposite. Next up - 5060, 8 GB, DLSS 4 (restricted to new cards again, with twice the hallucinated frames inserted), $400. Can't wait! :cry:
Click to expand...
These are crazy times we live in.
 
Poneros said:
The fact that people consider having only an open, universally available solution to be more anti-consumer than a closed one which is still unavailable to more than half the market (GTX & Radeon & iGPUs), and where the GPU manufacturer uses that fact to then arbitrarily block off old cards from new iterations, even though it has the hardware required to enable it (DLSS 3), so it can more easily sell you worse cards for more money, is proof of how filled with idiots this whole sector is. Frankly people really do deserve the worst treatment they get from these companies, because whenever it is possible to make a smart, logical choice the customers decide to do the opposite. Next up - 5060, 8 GB, DLSS 4 (restricted to new cards again, with twice the hallucinated frames inserted), $400. Can't wait! :cry:
Click to expand...
Don't forget 64bit bus interface
 
Cyber-Mav said:
either way they should have lied about blocking it and just give the same statement nvidia did. now its a PR disaster for them.
Click to expand...

That would be throwing Bethesda under the bus, If AMD say we aren't blocking it these people will turn their fury on Bethesda and demand answers as to why THEY are blocking Nvidia.

The goal here is to put pressure on AMD to either throw Bethesda under the bus or themselves so they can make another string of angry videos about either one of those scenario's.
 
Poneros said:
The fact that people consider having only an open, universally available solution to be more anti-consumer than a closed one which is still unavailable to more than half the market (GTX & Radeon & iGPUs), and where the GPU manufacturer uses that fact to then arbitrarily block off old cards from new iterations, even though it has the hardware required to enable it (DLSS 3), so it can more easily sell you worse cards for more money, is proof of how filled with idiots this whole sector is. Frankly people really do deserve the worst treatment they get from these companies, because whenever it is possible to make a smart, logical choice the customers decide to do the opposite. Next up - 5060, 8 GB, DLSS 4 (restricted to new cards again, with twice the hallucinated frames inserted), $400. Can't wait! :cry:
Click to expand...

Because pmcr has gone from mocking Apple and its wall gardened approach and absurd marketing to basically embracing to a greater way than Apple could get away with. The same pmcr lot mocked consoles for upscaling but now think it's the only thing that matters, whilst paying for worse and worse cards. But pcmr will quite happily pay £100s for games with microtransactions, battle passes, etc. It's almost some sort of Stockholm Syndrome now and the rot has gone too far.

The reality is the press have aided and abetted it. After bumpgate barely got a mention in the press it was only headed one way.
 
If AMD are bad for blocking DLSS, then Nvidia are bad for blocking gen 3 on previous gen cards

Ideally it would be a perfect world if we didn't have manufacturer specific tech and there was a universal standard that all manufacturers can benefit from, but obviously it wouldn't be fair to Nvidia or AMD because it would create equal competition
 
So I voted no on the poll because at the end of the day they are a business and can do what they want if they have paid. Had FSR been AMD proprietary tech the vote would have been yes but this no no body is missing out really. I'm all for non proprietary tech and hope AMD can bring FSR on par with DLSS so all devs can then simply use one and not waste time with both
 
humbug said:
That would be throwing Bethesda under the bus, If AMD say we aren't blocking it these people will turn their fury on Bethesda and demand answers as to why THEY are blocking Nvidia.

The goal here is to put pressure on AMD to either throw Bethesda under the bus or themselves so they can make another string of angry videos about either one of those scenario's.
Click to expand...


Probably also to try and create a rift between AMD and their partners.

Be wise to this crap AMD, even if not you're best treating it like that to cover yourselves, saying nothing at all is the best policy here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom