AMD accused of (and implicitly admits) preventing sponsored Games from supporting DLSS

[AlTech]

Summary

WCCFTech and other media outlets have made accusations against AMD that AMD is preventing Games sponsored by AMD from supporting DLSS.

 

WCCFTech for their part has compiled a list of recently released AMD sponsored games and has noticed the pattern: Whilst many AMD sponsored titles either shipped with or later added FSR support, no DLSS support has come to the vast majority of those games sponsored by AMD; even in the case where the developer would otherwise likely have launched the game with DLSS.

 

An AMD spokesperson replied to WCCFTech implicitly admitting that the accusations made against AMD are correct BUT that AMD feel this is justified because FSR is open source and AMD wants to promote a cross-platform approach rather than platform specific approaches.

 

GN asked AMD specifically about whether they forced Bethesda to make Starfield exclusively use FSR. AMD Replied with: No comment.

 

Quotes

Quote

Looking at the other camp (AMD), out of the 13 or so sponsored AAA titles, only 3 titles received support for DLSS. This is something to be concerned about since these are major AMD-sponsored titles and game developers might have been asked to keep upscaling technology exclusivity to the Radeon camp since there's no reason to not have DLSS or XeSS support within these titles. Even in Intel's camp, the company has been very open in the integration of its own and competition tech in AAA titles.

 

This is the response AMD's spokesperson gave to WCCFTech. Formatting/Highlighting is mine.

Quote

To clarify, there are community sites that track the implementation of upscaling technologies, and these sites indicate that there are a number of games that support only DLSS currently (for example, see link).

AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is an open-source technology that supports a variety of GPU architectures, including consoles and competitive solutions, and we believe an open approach that is broadly supported on multiple hardware platforms is the best approach that benefits developers and gamers. AMD is committed to doing what is best for game developers and gamers, and we give developers the flexibility to implement FSR into whichever games they choose.

 

 

My thoughts

Damnit AMD, when you do stuff like this it does tend to undermine people viewing you as consumer friendly or caring about gamers. If AMD really feels passionately about this issue they could have just said to their Game Sponsorship partners: You can implement DLSS but we won't spend our money on you to do that; You can pay the development costs out of pocket.

 

Whilst FSR should be supported in games instead of DLSS, the ends do not necessarily justify the means in this matter. I would not be surprised if Nvidia follows suit in retaliation.

 

Doing bad things is bad even when good people do them. However, even with this debacle AMD is the better choice for the vast majority of gamers due to Nvidia: doing anti-competitive practices of their own, failing to care about gamers, and releasing e-Waste products that nobody wants.

 

Sources

 

https://wccftech.com/whats-up-with-the-missing-nvidia-dlss-support-in-amd-sponsored-fsr-titles/

[da na]

god forbid a man do anything

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, da na said:

god forbid a man do anything

?

[starsmine]

Ima be honest.
I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

Just do FSR 2, it runs on my Nvidia cards. If AMD is giving a dev team extra resources, why spend divert that money to add DLSS 2? 

[da na]

Just now, starsmine said:

Ima be honest.
I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

Just do FSR 2, it runs on my Nvidia cards. 

Well, DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia's new cards. And after all, any form of anticompetitive behavior hurts the market

[da na]

7 minutes ago, AlTech said:

?

nevermind, it's a joke downplaying what happened

[starsmine]

8 minutes ago, da na said:

Well, DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia's new cards. And after all, any form of anticompetitive behavior hurts the market

DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia cards like G Sync is vs free sync. 
Like its true, but not true enough to matter. 

Also, I disagree with both OP's and Steve's news editorialization
AMD has NOT admitted, they just explicitly did not comment.

To expand on a potentially different way to read the "No Comment". For AMD to give resources to a game, it's kinda weird on the back end to move money and resources around to include something other than FSR. So the situation could be more along the lines of the resources given by AMD should not be used as justification to move resources around on the dev's side to allow DLSS/XeSS. Cause then it's just AMD paying money and dev time to include FSR and giving the devs money and dev time to add in DLSS. Which is kinda a bit gross in terms of business deals. I don't see a winning take here in any direction for AMD or the Devs. 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia cards like G Sync is vs free sync. 
Like its true, but not true enough to matter. 

I think the emphasis was on NEW. GTX and GT Nvidia cards work on FSR whereas they don't on DLSS.

[da na]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia cards like G Sync is vs free sync. 
Like its true, but not true enough to matter. 

Also, I disagree with both OP's and Steve's news editorialization
AMD has NOT admitted, they just explicitly did not comment.

Okay, I was a little deceived too. I htought this was a new development in the story not just... well, what was known

[RONOTHAN##]

I see both sides to this. More options is more better, but at the same time if you're being sponsored by someone and their tech works with everyone and is within 90% of the proprietary option, why would you spend time/money trying to implement the competitor? I get the anger behind this, but it won't really be stopping me to buy any of the AMD sponsored titles. 

[johnno23]

DLSS is ok but I seldom go looking for it as a solution to improve my gaming experience. In fact on my 3080 I often have far better overall results in game with FSR. BUT i generally run games native without any software trickery. if the game has good graphics and it looks good on screen and my FPS is fine without any issues then I am a happy camper. best upgrade for games i ever did was simply moving from a 60hz monitor to the 144hz  I also stopped using 1080p so many year ago i cannot even remember howe it looked........but then again i thought back in the 90s when marathon and Duke Nukem atomic edition were released that they looked amazing.

 

[AlTech]

7 minutes ago, da na said:

Okay, I was a little deceived too. I htought this was a new development in the story not just... well, what was known

There is a new development: AMD was given the opportunity to deny the allegations. AMD refused to do so by refusing to provide any comment when asked.

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

I see both sides to this. More options is more better, but at the same time if you're being sponsored by someone and their tech works with everyone and is within 90% of the proprietary option, why would you spend time/money trying to implement the competitor? I get the anger behind this, but it won't really be stopping me to buy any of the AMD sponsored titles. 

Tbh I'm just annoyed cos of how it will make recommending AMD in the future feel. As a practical matter if a game can only support 1 technology out of XeSS, DLSS, or FSR I would prefer FSR be implemented.

[da na]

1 minute ago, AlTech said:

There is a new development: AMD was given the opportunity to deny the allegations. AMD refused to do so by refusing to provide any comment when asked.

Makes sense, AMD devs were too busy fixing bugs in drivers......

 

 

 

..................................right???

[Brooksie359]

8 minutes ago, da na said:

Well, DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia's new cards. And after all, any form of anticompetitive behavior hurts the market

How is this anti competitive? Imagine AMD sponsored some monitors and told them to only include freesync not gsync would that be bad? I mean both amd and nvidia cards can use freesync so its not like it's favoring one brand over the other it's just using a standard that works for both gpu brands. I would even say implementing dlss in a game sponsored by AMD would make no sense when that money can be spent implementing FSR which works on both. I'm sorry but if AMD sponsored the game it would be stupid for them to allow resources to go into a technology that is exclusive to their competitor. Also to say that they could use their own money instead of the sponsored money for dlss is a nonsense claim because at the end of the day they gave them money which allowed them to have extra money left over so no matter how you see it you can't disconnect them spending money on dlss and AMDs sponsorship money. 

[da na]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

How is this anti competitive? Imagine AMD sponsored some monitors and told them to only include freesync not gsync would that be bad? I mean both amd and nvidia cards can use freesync so its not like it's favoring one brand over the other it's just using a standard that works for both gpu brands. I would even say implementing dlss in a game sponsored by AMD would make no sense when that money can be spent implementing FSR which works on both. I'm sorry but if AMD sponsored the game it would be stupid for them to allow resources to go into a technology that is exclusive to their competitor. Also to say that they could use their own money instead of the sponsored money for dlss is a nonsense claim because at the end of the day they gave them money which allowed them to have extra money left over so no matter how you see it you can't disconnect them spending money on dlss and AMDs sponsorship money. 

Saying "Hey, don't implement our competitor's technology, use ours instead" sounds pretty damn anticompetitive, whether or not FSR works on all cards

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, da na said:

Makes sense, AMD devs were too busy fixing bugs in drivers......

 

 

 

..................................right???

Or helping Bethesda launch Starfield .

 

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

How is this anti competitive? Imagine AMD sponsored some monitors and told them to only include freesync not gsync would that be bad? I mean both amd and nvidia cards can use freesync so its not like it's favoring one brand over the other it's just using a standard that works for both gpu brands. I would even say implementing dlss in a game sponsored by AMD would make no sense when that money can be spent implementing FSR which works on both. I'm sorry but if AMD sponsored the game it would be stupid for them to allow resources to go into a technology that is exclusive to their competitor. Also to say that they could use their own money instead of the sponsored money for dlss is a nonsense claim because at the end of the day they gave them money which allowed them to have extra money left over so no matter how you see it you can't disconnect them spending money on dlss and AMDs sponsorship money. 

I suppose they could allow DLSS support to be added post launch once all the AMD money is spent.

[dizmo]

Anyone that thinks AMD cares more about gamers than any other company is ridiculous. They, like every other company, care about the bottom line. Their "gamer friendly" facade is simply a marketing tool. 

 

AMD is not always the better choice. Nvidias software suite is vastly superior. They (albiet at a higher price) perform better at the high end. They're not producing e-waste as you claim either, as the cards will sell and those that do will likely be happy with them. 

 

I while heartedly disagree with them telling Devs they can't implement something that they want in their game, sponsored or not. That just shows they're scared that the other solution works better. 

 

18 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Ima be honest.
I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

Just do FSR 2, it runs on my Nvidia cards. If AMD is giving a dev team extra resources, why spend divert that money to add DLSS 2? 

To give people choice. IIRC DLSS is also vastly superior. 

10 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

I see both sides to this. More options is more better, but at the same time if you're being sponsored by someone and their tech works with everyone and is within 90% of the proprietary option, why would you spend time/money trying to implement the competitor? I get the anger behind this, but it won't really be stopping me to buy any of the AMD sponsored titles. 

Agreed. I've never put any thought into what game is sponsored by what graphics card company. Though, i do think if they want to implemt something on their own time and dime, they should be allowed to do so. 

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, dizmo said:

To give people choice. IIRC DLSS is also vastly superior.  

To FSR 1.0 yes... But DLSS 2.0 is also vastly superior to DLSS 1.0 as well. 

Its a hair better than FSR 2.0, but not enough to split hairs over given the fact they ALL inherently look worse than native. If you cared about how much it looks you would not be using any of them. IMO its not worth the investment to put in DLSS AND FSR when DLSS only works with Nvidia and FSR works with nvidia, intel and AMD. 

[RONOTHAN##]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

IIRC DLSS is also vastly superior. 

From the bit I remember looking at comparisons, in slower moving games they're within margin of error of each other. For more fast moving segments, DLSS does start to pull ahead, but unless you're pixel peeping you're not super likely to notice a difference. Performance wise they're within 5% so practically the same, though DLSS does tend to win. Both are great, DLSS is better, but not really "vastly superior." If both were implemented in a game and I had an RTX card, I'd be enabling DLSS, but I wouldn't care if I only could enable FSR. 

[Quackers101]

forgot if fsr 2 could work on older cards as fsr is disabled to use on gtx 1000 when I play.
thought it was only fsr 1, sad to see the support/implementation isn't quite there, and the community mods that made it work for others on older fsr versions?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I while heartedly disagree with them telling Devs they can't implement something that they want in their game, sponsored or not. That just shows they're scared that the other solution works better. 

Eh this is just the same as TressFX, GameWorks, and all the other times both companies have fought over different software feature solutions and games suffered for not having one or the other. It'll happen again too.

 

Unfortunately the way both companies act the best solution doesn't get to win out as the other does not and has never adopted the others competing solution or won't allow the other to do so.

[BachChain]

People are surprised? Or have they already forgotten about the whole Nvidia tessellation scandal?

[LAwLz]

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed, that this forum seems to side with AMD when they are doing something blatently anti-competetive.

 

Paying a company to not use something from your competitor, is never okay. If these allegations are true, and even if FSR is really close in terms of DLSS performance, it's still not okay to pay money to a company to have them ignore your competitors product.

 

If FSR is so close in performance then just let devs implement that and be done with it. There is no need to forcefully block then from implementing DLSS unless the developers feel like spending the time implementing it in addition to FSR is worth it. 

[starsmine]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Paying a company to not use something from your competitor, is never okay. If these allegations are true, and even if FSR is really close in terms of DLSS performance, it's still not okay to pay money to a company to have them ignore your competitors product.

We still dont even know that is what is happening. All AMD has said was "No Comment". I gave a possible other reading of the situation. 

Paying a studio to NOT add dlss is different than Telling a studio to not use resources given to them by AMD for the use of adding DLSS.
One of these situations leaves the door open to either before AMD was involved or after the game release including DLSS. 

There could be other variations as well not brought up.... Or amd is actually preventing games from supporting DLSS, we dont know yet.