Support NeoGAF

[iNvid02]

wccftech dug back into this thing, got updated responses from both companies, did a few tests and put out this article which will serve as part 1.

the tl:dr of the gameworks issue is that amd says the way in which nvidia shares and licenses the gameworks libraries/tools to devs gives nvidia an unfair advantage.
nvidia distributes it via DLLs rather than traditional source code, or if its licensed to a dev then they get the source code, but cannot share it with any other company.
nvidia's argument is that they are merely protecting their technologies, amd says its just a way for nvidia to make optimisation more difficult, sometimes impossible for amd hardware.

WCCFTECH: What other methods besides editing source code can an IHV like yourself or your competitor use to optimize the performance of a specific in-game visual effect ?

NVIDIA: It is not impossible to optimize without source code. We don’t get source code for every game. But we still do a great job ensuring games run great on our platform as long as we have reasonable access to builds. Many developers don’t provide source code for their games to third parties, so we optimize games based on binary builds. We invest tens of millions of dollars annually in creating these technologies and it’s our intellectual property. We won’t share our IP with our competitors and I think that’s reasonable.

WFFCTECH ANALYSIS: There are a couple of vitally important points that invite discussion here. The first is that Nvidia fully recognizes the importance of source code access and optimizing through source code. This is why the company, as discussed earlier, provides developers with the option of acquiring a source license to see and adjust source code. This is because Nvidia understands that there’s a lot that can be achieved through working directly with the source code itself. And undoubtedly improving and refining source code is often what yields the best results and leads to the most impactful performance improvements. Which is why it remains as one of the most desirable methods for optimizing performance in games and in fact it can sometimes be the only solution to the problem.

A great example of how important source code truly is would be the Tomb Raider reboot which launched last year. The game performed poorly on Nvidia hardware at launch, particularly so with TressFX Hair enabled which is AMD’s hair rendering and simulation technology similar to Nvidia’s more recent HairWorks feature.

The company laid the blame on not getting access to the final build of the game until very very close to launch. Which funnily enough is exactly the same issue AMD had with a number of GameWorks titles as well. Nvidia even issued a statement at the time saying that the performance issues cannot be completely resolved through a driver update and game code changes on the developer’s end would have to be made.

Tomb raider was the first game to utilize AMD’s TressFX Hair – or any type of physical hair simulation technology – and Nvidia GPUs really struggled to run this DX11 Direct Compute based visual effect initially. This was not out of the ordinary as the compute heavy effect is expected to naturally run better on AMD GPUs which enjoy an inherit advantage in compute performance over equivalent Nvidia hardware, while Nvidia GPUs are inherently stronger in geometry. This is unsurprising as both AMD and Nvidia play to their respective hardware’s strengths with the graphics effects that they develop. We clearly see this with AMD’s compute based TressFX and with Nvidia’s tessellation based HairWorks.

That said GeForce GPUs were brought to parity with their respective Radeon equivalents in TressFX performance despite their compute deficit, no matter which team your graphics card was from running TressFX would have an identical performance impact. And it was achieved through a game patch with the necessary code changes to TressFX. Which goes to show how integral code is to the optimization process and the hurdles that it enables hardware vendors to overcome.

What also played a pivotal part in all of this is that AMD makes the source code for TressFX Hair – all of its developed visual effects – open and publicly available for anyone to download, see and use.

So unlike TressFX where the feature performs the same on Nvidia and AMD hardware, HairWorks penalizes AMD hardware with double and up to triple the performance cost. In a statement issued to PCPer.com, Brian Burke stated that this was because of AMD’s tessellation performance. As we’ve noted earlier in the story it’s been historically well known that geometry performance has been one of Nvidia’s GPU architectures’ strong suits. Conversely AMD’s GPU architectures enjoy a similar lead in compute performance.

So we initially believed that what Brian had told PCPer was the intuitive thing to say. But seeing as how performance parity was achieved on the compute heavy TressFX despite Nvidia’s inherit disadvantage at compute we were puzzled. A performance penalty running HairWorks that’s two to three times as worse on the AMD side vs the Nvidia side stroke us as bizarre despite the inherent tessellation advantage in Nvidia’s favor and our initial impression meant that we wanted to investigate further.

There’s such an absolutely massive delta created by HairWorks that it cannot simply be explained by the innate differences in tessellation performance between AMD’s and Nvidia’s GPU architectures. There’s absolutely no doubt that the AMD hardware itself can run HairWorks far better than what we see today. And it’s so inconceivably bizarre that Nvidia would develop the code, conceal it from AMD and then blame their architecture for performing poorly when running it.

sauce: http://wccftech.com/exclusive-nvidias-amds-perspectives-gameworks-bottom-issue/

 

[spindoctor]

This is the part of the article I'm not sure about

GameWorks is a double edged sword, not just for game developers but for NVIDIA as well. Because through promoting the use of its middleware in games NVIDIA has a responsibility to ensure everyone – not just owners of its latest and fastest products – is able to have a good experience and enjoy the game the way the developers intended for it to be enjoyed.

I don't see why Nvidia has a responsibility to ensure that Gameworks features work well on AMD hardware. The Gameworks suite is obviously optimized for Nvidia hardware and that's the limit of their involvement with it. I feel it's the game developers' responsibility to ensure that features don't get disabled with AMD hardware (like the infamous GPU phsyx incident with Batman Arkham Asylum). And the developer should try and optimize for different hardware. It would be nice to live in a world where everyone helped everyone else but that's not how this business works apparently.

 

[iNvid02]

amd's response should be in part 2 but it shouldnt differ too much from what they said before: https://youtu.be/fZGV5z8YFM8?t=31m16s

And it’s so inconceivably bizarre that Nvidia would develop the code, conceal it from AMD and then blame their architecture for performing poorly when running it.

is it though, is it really

 

[diaspora]

AMD makes the source code for TressFX Hair – all of its developed visual effects – open and publicly available for anyone to download, see and use.

Wait, what the hell?

 

[iNvid02]

This is the part of the article I'm not sure about

i agree they dont, but he goes on to say this and how its also in nvidia's best interests to ensure everything remains well.

This is essential for the company to maintain a healthy image in the gaming community and more importantly in the eyes of game developers who will be contemplating the idea of using NVIDIA technologies. If GameWorks proves to be a detriment to this goal then there’s clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.

dont think nvidia cares too much about that first point, as long as they're cranking out new features and enhancements with solid drivers people seem satisfied.

as for devs, "we recommend amd users disable gameworks effects for increased performance" seems to be a commonly accepted solution.

 

[60EffPeeEss]

The only concern is when Gameworks features are turned off, but performance on AMD seems to be horrific anyway.

Wasn't there that shitstorm with Crysis 2 tessellation that couldn't be turned off, causing problems for AMD hardware?

 

[Seanspeed]

Nvidia probably spends more time, effort and money creating graphics effects and features than AMD does. It's not surprising they want to protect what they do, and I'm sure the fact that these effects often perform worse on AMD hardware is not lost on them, though I wouldn't be so cynical as to say they purposefully design them to do this to any great extent(as not all Nvidia-based techniques run badly on AMD hardware).

I think they simply couldn't justify their investment if they didn't get some benefit out of it. I applaud what AMD does, but they seem to be a bit less 'productive' in this area as a result.

 

[NeOak]

Nvidia probably spends more time, effort and money creating graphics effects and features than AMD does. It's not surprising they want to protect what they do, and I'm sure the fact that these effects often perform worse on AMD hardware is not lost on them, though I wouldn't be so cynical as to say they purposefully design them to do this to any great extent(as not all Nvidia-based techniques run badly on AMD hardware).

I think they simply couldn't justify their investment if they didn't get some benefit out of it. I applaud what AMD does, but they seem to be a bit less 'productive' in this area as a result.

NVIDIA is the boy that cried wolf when TressFX came out got source code and fixed it, but became a worse wolf when they released Gameworks and denying source code.

You forget, Kepler performance also goes down the toilet. And those are their own GPUs. They would like you to upgrade to Maxwell.

 

[iNvid02]

The only concern is when Gameworks features are turned off, but performance on AMD seems to be horrific anyway.

Wasn't there that shitstorm with Crysis 2 tessellation that couldn't be turned off, causing problems for AMD hardware?

yeah that was after the DX11 patch iirc, the level of tessellation was deemed wasteful, it borked performance on amd radeons (that was a "way its meant to be played game" too)

AMD attempted to provide Warner Bros. Montreal with code to improve Arkham Origins performance in tessellation, as well as to fix certain multi-GPU problems with the game. The studio turned down both. Is this explicitly the fault of GameWorks? No, but it’s a splendid illustration of how developer bias, combined with unfair treatment, creates a sub-optimal consumer experience.

Under ordinary circumstances, the consumer sees none of this. The typical takeaway from these results would be “Man, AMD builds great hardware, but their driver support sucks.”

while this whole thing is a bit shady, the above is where it crosses the line into some fucked up territory.

but anyway i'll update this thread when part 2 comes out

 

[tuxfool]

while this whole thing is a bit shady, the above is where it crosses the line into some fucked up territory.

This is somewhat similar to the claims AMD presented after the release of watchdogs, where AMD wanted to offer support in order to improve the performance of their cards but were refused by the developer, who cited a Nvidia licencing agreements as the blocker.

 

[Memorabilia]

I currently own & use more nVidia than AMD GPUs but all of this exclusivity bullshit just sucks the fun right out of gaming. Fuck you nVidia. Stop dicking around with consumers. AMD makes their ideas open source when they develop new tech (TressFX, FreeSync, Mantle = DirectX12, etc...) while nVidia makes everything proprietary & locked in to their ecosystem. nVidias approach may be better for their bottom line, but AMDs approach is better for gamers.

 

[blastprocessor]

Really hate Nvidia game works no doubt it's screwing ps4/Xbox one owners too.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Really hate Nvidia game works no doubt it's screwing ps4/Xbox one owners too.

How is that now?

 

[blastprocessor]

How is that now?

Because they have AMD GPUs and there are console games that use gameworks.

 

[tuxfool]

Because they have AMD GPUs and there are console games that use gameworks.

It is highly unlikely that console developers would blindly use a binary library that affords them no control. I'm not aware of any Gameworks library that is used on current games on console despite there being support in some of the libraries. It should also be noted that most Gameworks features target the high end and consequently wouldn't be something that enticing for console class GPUs.

 

[Bastardo]

I don't see why Nvidia has a responsibility to ensure that Gameworks features work well on AMD hardware.

You are right, they really have no obligation.
You can't even really say it's anti-consumer, because afterall nvidia-consumers get the best treatment. But it is anti-developer and I would like to outline why:

Gameworks is made to 'save money' for game studios. Instead of developing effects by yourself, you plugin a tool, which does it for you. Studios license complete engines for similar reasons.

Yet: Nvidia gameworks results in a world of hurt for 1. Developers, 2. Game studios and 3. publishers.
-> Bad press for the witcher, bad press for arkham. I don't know of any single title, which was praised for using game works.

So, why do people keep using it? Which developer would say: I would really like to use gameworks! Which manager? Which company? It's proven people don't save money with it, but it costs you in the long run. I don't have an answer to that.

 

[Seanspeed]

NVIDIA is the boy that cried wolf when TressFX came out got source code and fixed it, but became a worse wolf when they released Gameworks and denying source code.

You forget, Kepler performance also goes down the toilet. And those are their own GPUs. They would like you to upgrade to Maxwell.

Except Kepler performance has not gone down the toilet. A widespread myth. Maxwell increasing its performance advantage over Kepler with advancements in drivers is nothing new. Kepler's performance advantage over Fermi increased over time as well.

 

[tuxfool]

Except Kepler performance has not gone down the toilet. A widespread myth. Maxwell increasing its performance advantage over Kepler with advancements in drivers is nothing new. Kepler's performance advantage over Fermi increased over time as well.

I do believe the point of comparison was vs GCN and not Maxwell. Either way the data (as sparse as it is) doesn't show it going down, just potentially not improving as much as the other architectures.

 

[Seanspeed]

I do believe the point of comparison was vs GCN and not Maxwell. Either way the data doesn't show it going down, just potentially not improving as much as the other architectures.

Kepler vs GCN is a matter of AMD not having the best initial driver support. It had more room for improvement.

What's funny is wondering how all this would play out like 15 years ago, where shit was basically outdated every single year. Things have slowed down, but it seems to have created this situation where people feel that their equipment is *supposed* to remain relevant for a long time.

 

[spindoctor]

So, why do people keep using it? Which developer would say: I would really like to use gameworks! Which manager? Which company? It's proven people don't save money with it, but it costs you in the long run. I don't have an answer to that.

So if you can't think of a reason why developers keep using it, perhaps it's not "anti developer" after all? If it was they'd stop, right?

 

[Bastardo]

So if you can't think of a reason why developers keep using it, perhaps it's not "anti developer" after all?

The "official" reason why a developer would use gameworks is simple:
It provides effects, which the studio would otherwise have to develop by hand. I guess some developers also use it exactly because of this reason.

My point however was that there are numerous reasons, why they shouldn't:
It is well known by now that Gameworks leads to post-release issues, which costs the companies real money:
-Indirectly: The game gets a bad reception (Arkham PC should be a disaster financially in comparison to the possible sales without bugs; This was not only gameworks, but part of it)
-Directly: Support hotlines, forum outrages (PR firms cost money), developers, which could work on something else

Therefore: There are a lot of obvious reasons not to use it theoretically. People do keep using it.

 

[Seanspeed]

The "official" reason why a developer would use gameworks is simple:
It provides effects, which the studio would otherwise have to develop by hand. I guess some developers also use it exactly because of this reason.

My point however was that there are numerous reasons, why they shouldn't:
It is well known by now that Gameworks leads to post-release issues, which costs the companies real money:
-Indirectly: The game gets a bad reception (Arkham PC should be a disaster financially in comparison to the possible sales without bugs, not only gameworks but part of it)
-Directly: Support hotlines, forum outrages (PR firms cost money), developers, which could work on something else

Therefore: There are a lot of obvious reasons not to use it theoretically. People do keep using it.

Maybe its not actually costing them money?

And this backlash is probably just a vocal minority that makes it seem like the issue is bigger than it is?

The Arkham Knight problem has nothing to do Nvidia, by the way.

 

[Bastardo]

Maybe its not actually costing them money?

And this backlash is probably just a vocal minority that makes it seem like the issue is bigger than it is?

Your second question answers your first:
-> You acknowledge that there is a backlash. This does cost money. I can't answer, whether it costs sales, but it does cost in reputation and definitely also in direct costs, such as PR firms: You wouldn't believe the paid number of people on reddit or neogaf, who try to mitigate these kind of backlashes (I'm not talking specifically about Warner Bros; I just know that everybody does this). They cost money, which could be saved otherwise. Also there are still people who do not use Google, but call support hotlines, when something doesn't work. These cost direct money, too.

 

[Seanspeed]

Your second question answers your first:
-> You acknowledge that there is a backlash. This does cost money. I can't answer, whether it costs sales, but it does cost in reputation and definitely also in direct costs, such as PR firms: You wouldn't believe the paid number of people on reddit or neogaf, who try to mitigate these kind of backlashes (I'm not talking specifically about Warner Bros; I just know that everybody does this). They cost money, which could be saved otherwise. Also there are still people who do not use Google, but call support hotlines, when something doesn't work. These cost direct money, too.

Backlash by a vocal minority does not mean it's costing anything for anybody, as it has to be outweighed by any advantages that gains them money. You haven't shown this at all. There's backlash over all kinds of shit all the time. It's normal. The Witcher 3 had mountains of backlash over #downgradegate(with some people calling them 'lying scumbags'), yet still sold incredibly well and is an undeniable success story.

You say I wouldn't believe the number of paid people on here who 'mitigate' these kinds of backlashes, but that just sounds like paranoid nonsense to me. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I'm here often enough to know that this isn't a big thing. People get found out quick and one little comment here or there doesn't accomplish shit anyways. The people who stick around and actually discuss things are mostly regulars who we can be pretty assured aren't representing any affiliation professionally.

 

[tuxfool]

The Arkham Knight problem has nothing to do Nvidia, by the way.

It certainly makes them look bad. Splash damage, if you will.

There have been editorial comments wondering that if Nvidia cared more about the quality of the product as a whole instead of just shoving in their features, then the game might have not come out in the state that it did.

Was the game really The way it was meant to be Played™

 

[Bastardo]

You say I wouldn't believe the number of paid people on here who 'mitigate' these kinds of backlashes, but that just sounds like paranoid nonsense to me. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I'm here often enough to know that this isn't a big thing. People get found out quick and one little comment here or there doesn't accomplish shit anyways. The people who stick around and actually discuss things are mostly regulars who we can be pretty assured aren't representing any affiliation professionally.

You are correct that I know nobody working for these companies in the games industry. I know them from other industries. These are companies, who pay freelancers to shape the public perception of a product. I can't give you proof and therefore I actually might seem paranoid here, sorry.
However, it's naïve to think they don't exist.

I found one recent study regarding astroturfing:
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream...99/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201412153512.pdf?sequence=1
In her master's thesis, she gave examples, where companies (for example microsoft) hired external astroturf PR firms. Her examples are quite old, but the PR companies themselves still exist; hence they do have customers.

 

[Seanspeed]

It certainly makes them look bad. Splash damage, if you will.

There have been editorial comments wondering that if Nvidia cared more about the quality of the product as a whole instead of just shoving in their features, then the game might have not come out in the state that it did.

Was the game really The way it was meant to be Played™

Again, vocal minorities.

 

[Seanspeed]

You are correct that I know nobody working for these companies in the games industry. I know them from other industries. These are companies, who pay freelancers to shape the public perception of a product. I can't give you proof and therefore I actually might seem paranoid here, sorry.
However, it's naïve to think they don't exist.

I found one recent study regarding astroturfing:
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream...99/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201412153512.pdf?sequence=1
In her master's thesis, she gave examples, where companies (for example microsoft) hired external astroturf PR firms. Her examples are quite old, but the PR companies themselves still exist; hence they do have customers.

I said specifically that I don't deny they exist at all. I just deny that their theoretical existence here on GAF has any meaningful impact.

 

[tuxfool]

Again, vocal minorities.

Website editors have large audiences that sometimes pay attention to what they say. But you're right, the majority will just look at it as Nvidia bundling a game that doesn't work properly (a game with their logo plastered all over it).

 

[Seanspeed]

Website editors have large audiences that sometimes pay attention to what they say. But you're right, the majority will just look at it as Nvidia bundling a game that doesn't work properly (a game with their logo plastered all over it).

The argument was that this hurts the developer being associated with Nvidia Gameworks, not it hurting Nvidia.

 

[spindoctor]

It certainly makes them look bad. Splash damage, if you will.

There have been editorial comments wondering that if Nvidia cared more about the quality of the product as a whole instead of just shoving in their features, then the game might have not come out in the state that it did.

Was the game really The way it was meant to be Played™

I'd love to see these editorial comments that leapfrog over Warner, Rocksteady, Iron Galaxy and whoever the fuck else worked on the PC port and try to pin the blame for the disaster on Nvidia. That sounds hilarious.

 

[Kezen]

Relevant.

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/amd-slams-tragic-nvidia-gameworks-it-even-typically-damages-the-performance-on-nvidia-hardware/036660

So I think it’s unhealthy for PC gaming. And I wish they would go back to the way everyone else develops their SDKs – give it a source code, let the games developer work with it as they see fit, and let us take the industry as a whole forward. That would be a better place to play.

Right.