[Updated 11/4/15] Fallout 4 to NOT feature Nvidia Gameworks, but Nvidia is still working with Bethesda on the game.

[Hunched]

That doesn't mean that Nvidia were developing it. Note how they said "Nvidia can help"

"We're fixing a ton of things that are not necessarily related to us," Peterson said. "Some of it may be related to our driver, some not. But at the end of the day the game is the focus and we're going to make it great."

 

Sounds like development to me.

You say "can help" as if they could and aren't, but no, they're straight up fixing the PC port (aka developing the PC port) in tons of ways unrelated to them specifically.

[dragosudeki]

Why does everyone automatically assume that this is bad?

 

This is great if you have a Nvidia card...

 

The idea of GameWorks isn't bad. The Execution seems to be a little less than sub par though...

I'm a bit more worried about how this interacts with the modding aspect with this. When the engine is more neutral, we at least know that the freedom is as good as what the developers allow (which is pretty free). I'm concerned that making it Gameworks (due to the closed nature of Nvidia's Gamworks) might limit the visual mods that can be put in, but I can only wait and find out once it's out. I'd prefer the abundance of modded content/fixes to help keep the game last, rather than a third party library which may be good for now, but possibly not for later.

[Dabombinable]

"We're fixing a ton of things that are not necessarily related to us," Peterson said. "Some of it may be related to our driver, some not. But at the end of the day the game is the focus and we're going to make it great."

 

Sounds like development to me.

If you want to keep on deluding yourself fine. The game that was released on PC was solely a port.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_Knight

Edited October 25, 2015 by Godlygamer23

[Hunched]

If you want to keep on deluding yourself fine. The game that was released on PC was solely a port.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_Knight

 

Stop making yourself look like an idiot.

I'm saying they're developing the PC port, and you call me an idiot by telling me the game on PC is a port?

...

...

...

what?

[Dabombinable]

I'm saying they're developing the PC port, and you call me an idiot by telling me the game on PC is a port?

...

...

...

what?

I'm also saying that they weren't developing the port. Check your facts.

[Hunched]

I'm also saying that they weren't developing the port. Check your facts.

They are developing it NOW. This is what I am saying.

 

I already had to explain the same thing 3 times to someone else in this topic.

You're all making me re-read what I'm saying to make sure I'm not speaking another language.

I'm not using many big words or anything, I don't understand how people are getting so confused.

[Dabombinable]

They are developing it NOW. This is what I am saying.

 

I already had to explain the same thing 3 times to someone else in this topic.

You're all making me re-read what I'm saying to make sure I'm not speaking another language.

I'm not using many big words or anything, I don't understand how people are getting so confused.

Look again, Nvidia is only helping to fix the game, not actually developing it.

[Hunched]

Look again, Nvidia is only helping to fix the game, not actually developing it.

What exactly does the word fix mean to you? Because here's a hint, develop is the same thing.

They're working extensively on fixing the PC port of Arkham Knight, this is known as development. 

When someone makes a patch to fix bugs in a game for example, they have developed a patch.

 

To you, fixing a game with patches would not be development?

 

Nvidia is in the process of developing fixes for the PC port, the fixes don't make themselves, they are developed, by Nvidia.

 

Are we playing 50 questions here? I'm really having to break this down in an unnecessary amount of detail for you.

[Notional]

Look again, Nvidia is only helping to fix the game, not actually developing it.

 

Dude, NVidia is literally putting some of their software programmers into this project (just like they do with most GameWorks games and OpenGL games). So how do you define whether it's "help" or "development"?

[Hunched]

Dude, NVidia is literally putting some of their software programmers into this project (just like they do with most GameWorks games and OpenGL games). So how do you define whether it's "help" or "development"?

I think they're trying to be difficult.

We have word from Tom Petersen, an engineer at Nvidia, that they're doing an extensive amount of work with their QA testers, engineers, and GameWorks developers (wow I wonder if the developers develop?) on fixing a massive amount of issues within the PC port of Arkham Knight related and unrelated to Nvidia.

 

There's nothing not to understand, nothing to debate. Nvidia is the source, you can't get a better source.

[Godlygamer23]

Keep it civil. I don't want to have to lock this thread.

[i_build_nanosuits]

if you want those special effects then buy a GPU from the company that actually has money to give help to developers to effortlessly implement sweet effects

 

it takes nothing away from AMD, and adds stuff if you have an nvidia GPU

WELL SAID BUDDY, WELL SAID B)

[PlayStation 2]

sauce pls

[Humbug]

Why does everyone automatically assume that this is bad?

 

This is great if you have a Nvidia card...

 

The idea of GameWorks isn't bad. The Execution seems to be a little less than sub par though...

You answered your own question.

 

IMO gameworks is Nvidia strategy to get away from always having to rely on competing in terms of hardware (because that's a volatile and unpredictable thing). Nvidia may perform better today and worse tomorrow depending on the competitive situation.

 

By leveraging their financial strength to push gameworks they are trying to bring parts of the software applications under their control so that they have a better more predictable control of their performance in games relative to competition.

[App4that]

This might be too much to ask, but what exactly does this mean? I built my rig specifically to run this game, before I knew of things like this. I'm not going to play this game, I'm going to live in it. (half joking) Should I be looking to sell my 290 and get a 970? I only got the 290 because it was the best price/performance my budget at the time would allow, I'm not an AMD or Nvidea fan. I just want this game to run well on my rig.

[Humbug]

As I mentioned above Nvidia would prefer an environment whereby they have some direct influence over the software ecosystem on which these GPUs are judged. That allows them more control over their competitive position and relative performance than the unpredictable neverending game of trying to 1-up each other's hardware in vendor-neutral applications.

Vanilla Game- Dying Light

Gameworks on- Dying Light

Vanilla Game- Witcher 3

Gameworks On- Witcher 3

Vanilla Game- Far Cry 4

Gameworks On- Far Cry 4

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/6#.VixgYmvkSXg

[Humbug]

This might be too much to ask, but what exactly does this mean? I built my rig specifically to run this game, before I knew of things like this. I'm not going to play this game, I'm going to live in it. (half joking) Should I be looking to sell my 290 and get a 970? I only got the 290 because it was the best price/performance my budget at the time would allow, I'm not an AMD or Nvidea fan. I just want this game to run well on my rig.

It will play just fine, don't worry about. Remember Gameworks features don't work too well on Nvidia either. Just a bit better than AMD. But 290 to 970 is a sidegrade, don't bother.

 

[App4that]

It will play just fine, don't worry about. Remember Gameworks features don't work too well on Nvidia either. Just a bit better than AMD. But 290 to 970 is a sidegrade, don't bother.

OK, thanks. Not too concerned about shadows, and the lighting mods are always better than what the developer comes up with. My main concern is that the core game will function. I saw this and almost puked. That said I play Mechwarrior and that's a Nvidea game, runs great.

[WolfDeville]

Dan Castellaneta, on 25 Oct 2015 - 2:54 PM, said:

sauce pls

I have no idea where it's from.

[The_Strict_Nein]

To everyone in this thread:

Like you wont be able to download a vendor nuetral ENB post launch to have all those graphical features anyway

[jaggysnake57]

Why does everyone automatically assume that this is bad?

 

becasue gameworks tends to run like arse

 

Great that's what Fallout needs - bloatware for free marketing cash... fucking hell lol...

Well for the first time in this game history that I've followed closely since my childhood, and Fallout one of my favorite games, I won't buy this game.

Well done bethesda, well done, you lost a loyal customer for the sake of marketing, for one of the features that's ruining pc gaming.

 

i never understand this. i get not buying games from compainies that show utter contempt for there consumers (ubisoft) but this. its only gameworks

 

 

This should be an area Nvidia stays out of, because they aren't a fucking video game developer, and the games their shit is in isn't from developers they own or games they publish or anything like that. 

They keep going up to random companies they have no business with and make deals to get their barely functional features in their games, it's annoying.

 

The way to properly compete is to produce better products than your competitor, not going after the things both your products are designed to use and trying to make it run better on yours, or have as many features as possible that run better on yours.

That's just being fucking annoying. All they want is GameWorks and Nvidia to be in as many games as possible, to advertise.

 

I want companies that have no business in my games to stay out of them. 

What's next, Intel starts have specific features? How about my RAM manufacturer? Lets just have specific features from every component of my PC that is involved in the games performance.

Fucking. Dumb.

just because they chose to accept easy cash injection.

Yeah I wish but sadly its all about money nowadays, developers would rather save time and money that would be spent on creating their own effects and put it towards other things that they feel are more important.

 

ITT i see 3 things

 

1) a bunch of butt hurt AMD fanboys bitchin because there cards from a provider with a 20-30% market share dont get any love from devs. its not hard, you dont have the share to be relevent.

 

2) pc gamers are seriously entitled pricks with a god complex. your not the centre of the gaming universe. deal with it

 

3) people really dont understand how business works.  of course companies want to save time and money its how they remain in business and grow. they are not gonna throw away there company because you dont like a certain set of features.

 

gameworks tends to suck balls. i get it but there is a solution.

 

are you ready for this

 

 

 

ready

 

 

SWITCH.

IT.

OFF.

 

amazing.

[Valentyn]

Everyone throwing a little fit and I just don't care. I might get the game, and if I do I'll get some extra eye candy on my NVIDIA rigs compared to AMD ones, which for some won't even be noticeable enough anyway.

 

I've honestly never had an issue with gameworks in games. I do have an issue with games that run like crap regardless of if there's GW in there or not. Not a surprise that's mostly the same culprits; Ubisoft, WB, and others. Their games run terrible with or without GW on, so to me that shows it's their incompetence.

 

It wasn't long ago people were Circle Jerking Ubisoft for their terrible quality and statements that PC gamers should just get better GPUs if they want better performance, despite the games being broken. Now it's suddenly NVIDIA GW that caused all those issues magically.

[Humbug]

Now it's suddenly NVIDIA GW that caused all those issues magically.

Game developers should take full responsibility for their games, and even for the 3rd party code which they inject into their games, even if there is money at stake. That's why I take issue with some game developers like CD Projekt Red who come out and say things like "we are not allowed to optimize this feature (hairworks) with AMD" and therefore recommend turning it off for AMD users. Well they shouldn't need to say things like that, it's their game and they shouldn't have agreed to those terms. In that respect I agree with you that developers are the ones to blame regardless of how much money is at stake. Also it's obvious that GPU vendors cannot be held responsible for the rest of the code base which has nothing to do with them.

But then we come to the other question of the bad reputation that Nvidia's Gameworks and TWIMTBP programs have in the marketplace compared to AMD's Gaming Evolved program when it comes to graphics optimization. Like it or not based on the history it appears to the consumer as if Nvidia has chosen not to use their position to promote industry best practices in PC gaming. When they actively associate their name with all kinds of crap then they have to accept the consequences of that. If Nvidia used their position to promote best practices and was careful about which games could carry their branding and get promotion then today people would not hear alarm bells each time they see the words "gameworks" or "The Way it's meant to be Played". You brought up the issue of Assassin's Creed Unity, obviously that's Ubisoft's fault no question. But Nvidia was present throughout the dev process and trumpetted that fact, they heavily promoted the game even after release and they even sponsored PC perspective YouTube channel to promote the game and defend it. So there are consequences and brand association people should not act surprised...

[Valentyn]

Game developers should take full responsibility for their games, and even for the 3rd party code which they inject into their games, even if there is money at stake. That's why I take issue with some game developers like CD Projekt Red who come out and say things like "we are not allowed to optimize this feature (hairworks) with AMD" and therefore recommend turning it off for AMD users. Well they shouldn't need to say things like that, it's their game and they shouldn't have agreed to those terms. In that respect I agree with you that developers are the ones to blame regardless of how much money is at stake. Also it's obvious that GPU vendors cannot be held responsible for the rest of the code base which has nothing to do with them.

 

 

They never once stated that. They said they Couldn't optimise. Which was because the Hawaii architecture was inferior for Tessellation. Which while also a false statement is not close to what you wrote; they never claimed they Weren't allowed to.

 

Both AMD, and CDPR ended up optimising it as much as they could on their end. So much so that the Fury X with Full GW features on matches the 980Ti with it all on.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with NV taking action when it comes to choosing partners better. The likes of Ubisoft have shown time and time again they're pretty terrible at PC games. So NV really need to take a stance, since it is ruining their reputation with GW and TWIMTBP.

Especially in the case of Batman where they helped implement GW and then never looked at the progress after Rocksteady outsourced the PC development. 

I think it's a case of Marketing going gungho, without actually vetting the progress through their engineers and developers. Which itself is causing so many issues. Especially when the games are promoted and given away with High-end GPUs

[Humbug]

They never once stated that. They said they Couldn't optimise. Which was because the Hawaii architecture was inferior for Tessellation. Which while also a false statement is not close to what you wrote; they never claimed they Weren't allowed to.

Checked. You are right. Thanks.

But whatever they mean by " cannot be optimized" is up for debate. All they had to do was allow user control over tessellation levels.