Amd takes away another Nvidia sponsored title

[greatash]

I've come to dread any game with gameworks or Nvidia optimizations in it, so used to them being poorly optimized or having features that take away 40% framerate and be barely playable on the highest end cards (Like hairworks Witcher 3 on a GTX 980, or the Gibs in Killing floor 2 which still tanks framerates on high end RTX cards). They usually never make use of the best APIs like Vulkan or DX12 since Nvidia cards didnt support those APIs properly until Turing. May change this year.

AMD sponsored titles always run silky smooth and look great in my experience, just look at the 3 games they bundled this year (RE2, DMC5 and Div 2). All get 100 or more frames at 1440p on a 56 and look fantastic. Few more off the top of my head are the Dirt games, Hitman, Doom, Prey, Wolfenstein 2, Forza horizon 4.

 

[Gregster]

Correct me if am wrong! Has Nvidia public came out and said this? I dont seem to find anything, I remember this article and was one of the first to give Nvidia the thumbs up in the thread for this!

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/12/03/physx-high-fidelity-open-source/

 

[shankly1985]

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/12/03/physx-high-fidelity-open-source/

Nice
I would like to see this used more if it works just as well on AMD hardware.
Even if it means Vega and above for example it's still a start.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I've come to dread any game with gameworks or Nvidia optimizations in it, so used to them being poorly optimized or having features that take away 40% framerate and be barely playable on the highest end cards (Like hairworks Witcher 3 on a GTX 980, or the Gibs in Killing floor 2 which still tanks framerates on high end RTX cards). They usually never make use of the best APIs like Vulkan or DX12 since Nvidia cards didnt support those APIs properly until Turing. May change this year.

AMD sponsored titles always run silky smooth and look great in my experience, just look at the 3 games they bundled this year (RE2, DMC5 and Div 2). All get 100 or more frames at 1440p on a 56 and look fantastic. Few more off the top of my head are the Dirt games, Hitman, Doom, Prey, Wolfenstein 2, Forza horizon 4.

I'll always repeat this everywhere I can. The reason I stopped buying Nvidia and will not do so again until they stop it, is that they will happily give their own users a worse experience if it makes AMD users experiences even worse. If they can do something that costs their own users 10% but AMD users 23%, they'll do it.

You rock up and spend £1000 on the latest barely upgrade from Nvidia and then they go from Hitman 1 (of the new games) with DX12 included in which Nvidia themselves gained almost 25% performance but the lead from them to AMD went from something like 20% to almost even, to Hitman 2 being an Nvidia title with no DX12, then when they finally patch it in, there is barely any performance gain anyway.

This started well a long way back but it was things like Crysis 2, lets reduce our own performance by getting them to massively overtesselate a FLAT SURFACE, or tessellate the sea and run it under the map so it was effecting performance regardless of it you were looking at the ocean or not. Anyone giving money to a company that actively harms your own performance, full stop, is crazy.

Every AMD title I can think of has been well optimised, runs great and runs great for Nvidia and AMD users. There are plenty of games where AMD cards get a bigger boost, but that's more an architecture thing, there are many others Nvidia still win. even back with the second Stalker game you had an Nvidia title that ran like crap(again). AMD took over supporting the game long after release, helped them patch in, I think DX10 at the time (or maybe 11, it was a long time ago now) and helped them optimise and improve it for everyone. Nvidia weren't at all interested in supporting them after release nor making the game better for everyone.

Gameworks is a bane of the industry, it holds back innovation as they pay someone to use their gimped unoptimised crap over devs just doing the work themselves, optimising better for everyone and moving forwards every generation.

If Nvidia worked solely to boost performance and quality for Nvidia users and did nothing to help AMD users, but nor reduce anyone's performance I'd have absolutely no problem with how they operate, but almost every Nvidia supported title has massive issues while most AMD supported titles focus on providing a better actual experience playing for every single gamer who plays that game.

 

[vapor matt]

I'll always repeat this everywhere I can. The reason I stopped buying Nvidia and will not do so again until they stop it, is that they will happily give their own users a worse experience if it makes AMD users experiences even worse. If they can do something that costs their own users 10% but AMD users 23%, they'll do it.

You rock up and spend £1000 on the latest barely upgrade from Nvidia and then they go from Hitman 1 (of the new games) with DX12 included in which Nvidia themselves gained almost 25% performance but the lead from them to AMD went from something like 20% to almost even, to Hitman 2 being an Nvidia title with no DX12, then when they finally patch it in, there is barely any performance gain anyway.

This started well a long way back but it was things like Crysis 2, lets reduce our own performance by getting them to massively overtesselate a FLAT SURFACE, or tessellate the sea and run it under the map so it was effecting performance regardless of it you were looking at the ocean or not. Anyone giving money to a company that actively harms your own performance, full stop, is crazy.

Every AMD title I can think of has been well optimised, runs great and runs great for Nvidia and AMD users. There are plenty of games where AMD cards get a bigger boost, but that's more an architecture thing, there are many others Nvidia still win. even back with the second Stalker game you had an Nvidia title that ran like crap(again). AMD took over supporting the game long after release, helped them patch in, I think DX10 at the time (or maybe 11, it was a long time ago now) and helped them optimise and improve it for everyone. Nvidia weren't at all interested in supporting them after release nor making the game better for everyone.

Gameworks is a bane of the industry, it holds back innovation as they pay someone to use their gimped unoptimised crap over devs just doing the work themselves, optimising better for everyone and moving forwards every generation.

If Nvidia worked solely to boost performance and quality for Nvidia users and did nothing to help AMD users, but nor reduce anyone's performance I'd have absolutely no problem with how they operate, but almost every Nvidia supported title has massive issues while most AMD supported titles focus on providing a better actual experience playing for every single gamer who plays that game.

Like division 2 runs so sweet on the VII on ultra settings. never had a glitch with it. An AMD sponsored title yes but they at least didn't bork it for NV user's. Nvidia even borked the release RTX drivers for 1080ti owners so the RTX improvement looked massive. then gave the 1080ti owners the performance back after all the reviews of course showing a better performance increase than was true.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Like division 2 runs so sweet on the VII on ultra settings. never had a glitch with it. An AMD sponsored title yes but they at least didn't bork it for NV user's. Nvidia even borked the release RTX drivers for 1080ti owners so the RTX improvement looked massive. then gave the 1080ti owners the performance back after all the reviews of course showing a better performance increase than was true.

I mean with Witcher 3 you had, with the game ready drivers, massive amounts of Nvidia users having crashes, like 6-7 different 'beta' game ready drivers (hint a beta isn't game ready) till they fixed the issue, the game ran poorly and the graphical changes since it was showcased were pretty bad. Hairworks killed performance for Nvidia users too and all the while Witcher 3 ran stable and flawlessly on the 6 month old I believe iirc, first Adrenaline drivers, then ran pretty much the same + about 3% performance when they released a driver the day or so after the game launched.

After 6 months of threads on Nvidia's forums and smaller threads elsewhere asking where Pascal performance was finally the news picked up on it and within like 2 days Nvidia publicly acknowledged this wasn't normal performance but a 'fault' and suddenly PAscal performance was fixed after another day. So again Nvidia users spend what £500-800 on higher end Pascal cards and Nvidia purposefully gimp them and when finally called on it widely enough for it to be a problem they fix it overnight having apparently magically missed this lack of performance for 6 months.

How can you not think that you're going to spend a grand on a 2080ti and not get your performance gimped on purpose for months around when the next gen cards launch.

AS said, Nvidia are a total non option for me until they stop treating their own users like crap. If they treat AMD users alone like crap, while bad for the industry at large and while I still hate all their proprietary crap in games at least they aren't purposefully and intentionally screwing over the people who paid them money for their cards. While they will happily screw over their own customers I won't touch them with a barge pole.

 

[TNA]

Getting my popcorn out, nvidia apologists should be incoming shortly, dis gonna be gud

 

[Nasher]

I mean with Witcher 3 you had, with the game ready drivers, massive amounts of Nvidia users having crashes, like 6-7 different 'beta' game ready drivers (hint a beta isn't game ready) till they fixed the issue, the game ran poorly and the graphical changes since it was showcased were pretty bad. Hairworks killed performance for Nvidia users too and all the while Witcher 3 ran stable and flawlessly on the 6 month old I believe iirc, first Adrenaline drivers, then ran pretty much the same + about 3% performance when they released a driver the day or so after the game launched.

After 6 months of threads on Nvidia's forums and smaller threads elsewhere asking where Pascal performance was finally the news picked up on it and within like 2 days Nvidia publicly acknowledged this wasn't normal performance but a 'fault' and suddenly PAscal performance was fixed after another day. So again Nvidia users spend what £500-800 on higher end Pascal cards and Nvidia purposefully gimp them and when finally called on it widely enough for it to be a problem they fix it overnight having apparently magically missed this lack of performance for 6 months.

How can you not think that you're going to spend a grand on a 2080ti and not get your performance gimped on purpose for months around when the next gen cards launch.

AS said, Nvidia are a total non option for me until they stop treating their own users like crap. If they treat AMD users alone like crap, while bad for the industry at large and while I still hate all their proprietary crap in games at least they aren't purposefully and intentionally screwing over the people who paid them money for their cards. While they will happily screw over their own customers I won't touch them with a barge pole.

Yea W3 ran like crap on my 970 with the gameworks stuff on. There was a big thing about Nvidia purposefully gimping performance on older cards at the time (for about the 3rd time) and they magically found a "fix" for it after all the uproar. The useless last 512mb on the 970 was another one which quickly came to light once 64bit games arrived. Funny how these things get quickly forgotten. They treat customers like mugs.

Around a year later I switched an AMD rx480 and it ran W3 significantly better, heh.

 

[Gregster]

Nice
I would like to see this used more if it works just as well on AMD hardware.
Even if it means Vega and above for example it's still a start.

It is down to AMD I imagine to optimise it for their hardware. No reason it should run badly either, as AMD are generally good with compute, so in essence, so long as AMD are on the ball, performance should be very good.

 

[vapor matt]

One thing is for sure, with AMD hardware in the new consoles and dev's working with AMD to optimise new games for the new consoles I can only imagine any ports to PC will carry over any AMD optimisations to AMD PC hardware.
Nvidia might be king of the benchmarks but AMD are in a great position to dominate the game scene, no matter which console preference you have, if they can carry that over to PC then it can only lead to steadfast PC gamers looking to AMD hardware in future for trouble free gaming.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Yea W3 ran like crap on my 970 with the gameworks stuff on. There was a big thing about Nvidia purposefully gimping performance on older cards at the time (for about the 3rd time) and they magically found a "fix" for it after all the uproar. The useless last 512mb on the 970 was another one which quickly came to light once 64bit games arrived. Funny how these things get quickly forgotten. They treat customers like mugs.

Around a year later I switched an AMD rx480 and it ran W3 significantly better, heh.

You are right about the last 512mb of ram, but you do seem to be ignoring imo that even WITH it's issues the gtx970 was still pretty amazing for its price (the 980 even today is still a great card for anything below 4k gaming).
Also you say games ran poorly with Gameworks features on..... Well ok I accept this may be true however you CAN always turn things like physx off when it is supported..... I still can't grok however how it is better to have optional extra features which may run poorly over not having those features at all even as an option, which I am worried may be going to happen with BL3.

Poorly optimised games has been a plague on PC gaming as far back as I can remember am not sure Nvidia are to blame.
Kudos to AMD if they prioritise performance over other stuff but one could argue that they kind of have to given the position they are in, esp as they are presumably wanting good performance on the weaksauce consoles that they power.

 

[nashathedog]

Am really happy to see this, AMD titles are always very well optimised for the PC.

Gearbox follows along with Ubisoft once a massive company for producing Nvidia sponsored titles.

Great news for us all

We’re excited to announce that we’re developing @Borderlands 3 in partnership with @GearboxOfficial to offer incredible gaming experiences on @AMDRyzen and @Radeon.

https://twitter.com/AMDGaming/status/1113504810576248832?s=19

It's a shame they made it an EPIC exclusive.

 

[shankly1985]

It's a shame they made it an EPIC exclusive.

I dont see the issue? We have had steam exclusive for years, another player in the mix and giving back to the devs more. Valve takes 30%

 

[nashathedog]

I dont see the issue? We have had steam exclusive for years, another player in the mix and giving back to the devs more. Valve takes 30%

I don't really care if Dev's get a bigger cut, we're paying through the nose as it is so you can't tell me they really need that extra money to pump back into the games, It's a thriving multi-billion dollar industry, I never wanted to go digital distributor in the first place but I was forced onto Steam because even if you go to a shop and buy an actual copy nowadays it still requires you to sign into an online platform & use a digital code, Far Cry 3 & Metro 2033 were two of the first games that I can remember forced me to go online and create accounts to use, fast forward to today & I would have liked to keep my Metro collection on the same platform, What I found really annoying was I went to bed one night and woke up to the news that the game no longer on Steam, We got no warning, we weren't given the opportunity to pre-order before it was removed, Metro was one of my most looked forward to games for 2019, I did get it on EPIC & all playing it has done was pee me off so I gave up on it after a couple of hours, As far as I'm concerned Epic's a second rate platform that shouldn't be cornering parts of the gaming market in the way they are.

 

[bigmike20vt]

You actually hit on the truth that the "multiple platforms kill gaming put everything on steam" people often ignore imo. It is valve who started it forcing people into a store front anyway . I was forced to put HL2 on steam and at the time it was a rubbish platform as well, for the longest of times you could not choose install directories even. I get it, I don't like multiple store fronts and loads of installs taking up space either..... It's an "evil" I have begrudgingly accepted but am damned if I am going to champion the company who forced it on me by starting it. (As an option fine what ever but I would buy proper retail still if I could).
The privacy issues have been debunked, o can still buy keys from CDkeys and humble store so that leaves the fact that the store front is bare bones..... Granted, it is but given the free stuff they are giving away to get a user base I can live with it.... And the money for exclusives..... It's a necessary evil otherwise no one will ever be able to compete with steam....... That money for free games as well as the 18% loss of revenue for charging Devs needs to come from somewhere

TLDR before you flame me read this and try to come at it something like impartially

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2019-02-01-epic-vs-steam-exclusives-raise-the-stakes


It's makes sense imo. May not be great but it is the only way to rival steam as a multi publisher store like steam rather than like origin.

 

[Panos]

I don't really care if Dev's get a bigger cut, we're paying through the nose as it is so you can't tell me they really need that extra money to pump back into the games, It's a thriving multi-billion dollar industry, I never wanted to go digital distributor in the first place but I was forced onto Steam because even if you go to a shop and buy an actual copy nowadays it still requires you to sign into an online platform & use a digital code, Far Cry 3 & Metro 2033 were two of the first games that I can remember forced me to go online and create accounts to use, fast forward to today & I would have liked to keep my Metro collection on the same platform, What I found really annoying was I went to bed one night and woke up to the news that the game no longer on Steam, We got no warning, we weren't given the opportunity to pre-order before it was removed, Metro was one of my most looked forward to games for 2019, I did get it on EPIC & all playing it has done was pee me off so I gave up on it after a couple of hours, As far as I'm concerned Epic's a second rate platform that shouldn't be cornering parts of the gaming market in the way they are.

Few things

a) The distribution company (in this case 2K) gets more money which trickles down and you paying "through the nose" because of Steam adding 30% to the price the developer/distributor needs to make a profit.
Epic takes 12%. At which platform you believe is more possible for the developers to cut prices easily?

b) The crying of EPIC vs Steam some times I believe comes from "inside Steam" targeting the ignorant. Is ludicrous complaing for games like The Division 2, Anno 1800, or Red Dead 2 been "EPIC exclusives boo hoo", when they all have have their OWN distributor platform, and is needed to run those games on top of Steam/EPIC. Get it on Ubisoft directly for heaven sake, has the same price.

c) When Steam started been the ONLY option for the significant majority of the games, similar complains of "spyware" etc were there. Many of us are old to remember them vividly.
Resistance to something new, is always inherited online. However that resistance should be applied to real life, but sheep still snoring.

d) Personally I buy all my games directly from distributor/dev if possible. Paradox Interactive is a perfect example. The devs said numerous times is better to buy from the shop the Steam Key than from Steam as they get a lot of more money. Price is the same.

e) Steam. On some games like Elder Scrolls Online is horrible experience, yet people flood to buy it there instead directly from ZoS. Do you know that Steam demanded from ZoS to make the client impossible to run stand alone after 2016 and integrate the user account to the Steam account? Anyone who bought the game after 2016 from Steam cannot run the game stand alone. And if Steam is down like happened this week, thousands of people took the forums complaining.

f) I do not use EPIC, and wasn't going to until Julian Gollop came out few weeks back, and out of the blue said that for 1 year Phoenix Point going to be EPIC exclusive and that includes even those who have paid through the investment platform, and kickstarter. Because of getting the deal through EPIC for a year, he is going to offer the first DLC for free.
That is a good example why Steam monopoly should die. A tiny company like Snapshot Games from Bulgaria, will get more money and wont sweat until it breaks even on number of sales and possibly go under.
However EPIC is only needed to download, install and patch the game. Is not needed to run the game. Something that should have been the case with Steam.

 

[Wrinkly]

Few things ....

How many games do you own on digital platforms?

 

[nashathedog]

Few things

A) Being possible to cut pricing's just hot air because they don't cut the price, Metro Exodus on Epic costs exactly what it did on Steam.
B) I'm not interested in the politic's, my concern is what it means for me & I already have too many digital platforms I didn't want another.
C) If not buying through a digital store was always possible I would only buy physical copies of games.
D) I'd prefer to have all my Metro games on the same platform.
E) I'm not really into multiplayer titles I like single player campaigns.
F)

However EPIC is only needed to download, install and patch the game. Is not needed to run the game.

This suprises me, they're DRM free then?

 

[Panos]

How many games do you own on digital platforms?

On Steam, Uplay & Origin combined? Hundreds upon hundreds.

 

[Panos]

A) Being possible to cut pricing's just hot air because they don't cut the price, Metro Exodus on Epic costs exactly what it did on Steam.
B) I'm not interested in the politic's, my concern is what it means for me & I already have too many digital platforms I didn't want another.
C) If not buying through a digital store was always possible I would only buy physical copies of games.
D) I'd prefer to have all my Metro games on the same platform.
E) I'm not really into multiplayer titles I like single player campaigns.
F) This suprises me, they're DRM free then?

All "EPIC exclusives" are for the first year. You can wait until next year to be on Steam.

As for DRM free, in the case of Phoenix Point yes. Idk about Metro, but Anno, Division and Red Dead 2 have their own DRM platforms on top.