Nvidia’s GameWorks: A double-edged sword for Witcher 3

[Scheuk]

Nvidia’s GameWorks: A double-edged sword for Witcher 3

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is one of the first games that relies on the GameWorks tools for programmers released by NVIDIA, there is one other, Watch Dogs. Accordingly to a recently released statement by AMD's Robert Hallock:

“Participation in the Gameworks program often precludes the developer from accepting AMD suggestions that would improve performance directly in the game code – the most desirable form of optimization.”

“The code obfuscation makes it difficult to perform our own after-the-fact driver optimizations, as the characteristics of the game are hidden behind many layers of circuitous and non-obvious routines. This change coincides with NVIDIA’s decision to remove all public Direct3D code samples from their site in favor of a ‘contact us for licensing’ page. AMD does not engage in, support, or condone such activities.”

This is evident in Watch Dogs where as per Jason Evangelho: It’s evident that Watch Dogs is optimized for Nvidia hardware, but it’s staggering just how un-optimized it is on AMD hardware. I guarantee that when the game gets released, a swarm of upset gamers are going to point fingers at AMD for the sub-par performance. Their anger would be misplaced.

In an article from last year, tech journalist, Joe Hruska, states that Gameworks would end up adversely affecting 40% of the PC gaming demographic that uses AMD graphic cards:

AMD is no longer in control of its own performance. While GameWorks doesn’t technically lock vendors into Nvidia solutions, a developer that wanted to support both companies equally would have to work with AMD and Nvidia from the beginning of the development cycle to create a vendor-specific code path. It’s impossible for AMD to provide a quick after-launch fix. This kind of maneuver ultimately hurts developers in the guise of helping them.

So, is it time for AMD users to start getting worried about Witcher 3 and its use of Nvidia Gameworks?

Relevant links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/why-watch-dogs-is-bad-news-for-amd-users-and-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd

 

[sidspyker]

No.

There is no developer foolish enough to use something like GameWorks as a major part, as the core of the game if it only runs well on 1 brand of GPUs. This is entirely made up controversy. If it was some minor effects, then they would get slapped on top like GPU Accelerated PhysX used to be in titles and it was completely irrelevant.

Watch_Dogs performs terribly on every system, there's widespread reports of how atrocious the title is and unoptimized doesn't even begin to describe it. This sounds like some made up controversy by AMD.

 

[Scheuk]

If only it were unique to Watch Dogs,but the same issues are visible in Batman: Arkham Origins that also adopted Nvidia Gameworks.

 

[sidspyker]

If only it were unique to Watch Dogs,but the same issues are visible in Batman: Arkham Origins that also adopted Nvidia Gameworks.

(I for one didn't suffer some severe issue in Batman AO as an AMD user so I can't say.)

Both of those titles have the Nvidia stuff slapped on top as far as I could tell, they weren't made with the SDKs from the very beginning and only present on the PC version. Witcher 3 is using GameWorks in the very core, meaning most of the features will be present on the console version as well and as we know, next-gen consoles both use AMD hardware.

EDIT:
There is also a counter article about it on Forbes itself that I just noticed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/28/nvidia-fires-back-the-truth-about-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

 

[GuyNwah]

AMD having nothing to compete with GameWorks may have something to do with it.

Software development is about getting the job done with what you can use and others can contribute. It's not about free software ideology or not favoring one competing vendor over another.

If Thracks wishes AMD's products to be seen as competitive with nVidia's, AMD must provide tools and support that are right now in fact, not sometime in the future, competitive with nVidia's.

 

[Scholdarr]

I think this is a very sad move of CD Projekt Red. It's against their "we want to treat everyone equally" attitude imo.

I know that many features connected with Nvidia Gameworks are possible on AMD GPUs as well but some for the best quality are not: TXAA, enhanced fur animation, advanced HBAO+, Physx effects like fabric and volumetric fog/smoke, enhanced DX11 tesselation. Using Nvidia Gameworks means that CDPR give undue preference to owners of a Nvidia GPU.

I guess we won't see TressFX or TrueAudio in Witcher 3, will we? Equal treatment would at least mean that you include the proprietary features of both major GPU companies and not only those of one of them. Now CDPR support CUDA development instead of any open approach (like OpenCL which is favored by AMD) which is bad news for the PC community in general. And I guess Gamworks is cool, but Mantle isn't? Right? Battlefield 4 and Tomb Raider were both branded as AMD games so you guys can't tell me that AMD isn't in the competition anymore. They just have a focus on different things and believe more in open tools than in proprietary tools like Nvidia...

I get that Ubisoft has a contract with Nvidia which grants them a few extra millions in their pockets. It's a big company with a money above all strategy. But I expect more from CD Projekt Red, the company which is on a crusade for customer rights, equal treatment and anti-DRM. That just doesn't fit into the picture, sorry.

 

[Tuco]

Just for the record: that claim from AMD "Nvidia is asking to developers to give them exclusive access to code by contract" was subsequently dismissed as baseless bullshit.

 

[Scholdarr]

Just for the record: that claim from AMD "Nvidia is asking to developers to give them exclusive access to code by contract" was subsequently dismissed as baseless bullshit.

No, it wasn't. Nivida never argued against that. They just said that you didn't need source code for driver optimization...

 

[GuyNwah]

This is sad. Robert Hallock ("Thracks") has been head of PR for AMD for a long time. In the past, he has been conservative and careful in his pronouncements, almost to a fault. Then he comes out, even speaking for attribution, with these claims that are easily refuted, dismissed, or ignored as trivial. Something's wrong if AMD and a respected spokesman feel they have to stoop to this to discredit a competitor.

Anyway, I'll say it again. Software development is building what you can build with the tools you can get. If you can build a sufficiently better game by using a company's proprietary tools, you do it, because if you don't, somebody else will, and they will get better reviews and sales than yours.

 

[CostinRaz]

I guess we won't see TressFX or TrueAudio in Witcher 3, will we? Equal treatment would at least mean that you include the proprietary features of both major GPU companies and not only those of one of them.

I dunno about TrueAudio, not that Nvidia has something to offer there, but TressFX is a pile of shit on BOTH AMD and Nvidia cards. The performance hit is too big for even one character as was shown in Tomb Raider.

CDPR went with Nvidia because Nvidia will help them implement the technology into their game. AMD has no such offer to developer nor do they have anything comparable to TXAA, HBAO+, Hair Technology, Fur Technology, PhysX.

Why exactly should a developer not use these? Because that's the choice: Use em or not, and if they don't use them those effects are not going to be in the game regardless.

Nvidia has a very good reputation when it comes to working developers, AMD does not.

This is sad. Robert Hallock

They might be doing very poorly at the moment, at least more then they let on, or they just feel threatened by so many AAA games with Gameworks.

 

[Scholdarr]

I dunno about TrueAudio, not that Nvidia has something to offer there, but TressFX is a pile of shit on BOTH AMD and Nvidia cards. The performance hit is too big for even one character as was shown in Tomb Raider.

Ahem, no. I could easily play Tomb raider with TressFX enabled on my mid-level system. And in all honesty, you could say the same (costs to much performance) for Physx which barely runs on your Geforce GPU if you don't own the best cards available....

CDPR went with Nvidia because Nvidia will help them implement the technology into their game. AMD has no such offer to developer nor do they have anything comparable to TXAA, HBAO+, Hair Technology, Fur Technology, PhysX.

Why exactly should a developer not use these? Because that's the choice: Use em or not, and if they don't use them those effects are not going to be in the game regardless.

How about using open, third party tech instead of proprietary stuff which favours a certain part of your customers???

Nvidia has a very good reputation when it comes to working developers, AMD does not.

Says who? But even if that's true it misses my point. CDPR shouldn't work together with neither of them to "preserve neutrality". They preach that stuff all the time for what it's worth....

They might be doing very poorly at the moment, at least more then they let on, or they just feel threatened by so many AAA games with Gameworks.

So many? Ubisoft uses Gameworks, EA and Square Enix used AMD tech. I would call that pretty even...

 

[mavowar]

No, it wasn't. Nivida never argued against that. They just said that you didn't need source code for driver optimization...

no it was debunked. nvidia offers a license to any developer that uses gameworks to get source code. Also Watch dogs only used one gameworks effect. You can turn that effect off and it changes nothing on AMD hardware at all.. Basically AMD is crying a river over nothing. They got caught with their pants down and had shitty drivers for an already horribly optimized game. When Tomb Raider came out Nvidia did not get the final code of game until after release. That was done on purpose to thwart Nvidia. Nvidia made a statement without whining and promised to deliver good drivers in a timely fashion, and they did. That is how you do business. Amd always whines about something, Intel this, Nvidia that......It gets old.


http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-over-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Program-Devil-Details

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/28/nvidia-fires-back-the-truth-about-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

 

[Scholdarr]

no it was debunked. nvidia offers a license to any developer that uses gameworks to get source code. Also Watch dogs only used one gameworks effect. You can turn that effect off and it changes nothing on AMD hardware out out. Basically AMD is crying a river over nothing. They got caught with their pants down and had shitty drivers for an already horribly optimized game.

Strange. When Watch_Dogs came out I've played it day one with the newest AMD drivers on my Radeon HD 7870 with everything on high or ultra on 1080p at steady 30-50 FPS....but yeah, sure, it was horribly optimized for AMD tech. That's just not true. The only problem was the performance of the high-end 290 and 290x cards which couldn't scale with the GTX 780 and Titan cards on the highest possible settings and in resolutions above 1440p. For the big majority of the gamers - AMD users included - Watch_Dogs was perfectly playable with good graphics DAY ONE.

When Tomb Raider came out Nvidia did not get the final code of game until after release. That was done on purpose to thwart Nvidia. Nvidia made a statement without whining and promised to deliver good drivers in a timely fashion, and they did. That is how you do business. Amd always whines about something, Intel this, Nvidia that......It gets old.

AMD and Nvidia quarrel on a constant basis with both having their fair share of bullshit and devious tactics to preclude the competior. It's not the shiny nvidia aginst the evil AMD or anything. Both try to cheat on the other. That's the reason why CDPR should stay neutral, not favoring one of them. Simple.

 

[CostinRaz]

How about using open, third party tech instead of proprietary stuff which favours a certain part of your customers

Sure, name me one third party AA like TXAA, or something like Fur Tech or Hair Tech. Every game that has TXAA has MSAA by the way.

Also name one company which will help implement third party technologies by sending programmers like Nvidia does.

Says who? But even if that's true it misses my point. CDPR shouldn't work together with neither of them to "preserve neutrality". They preach that stuff all the time for what it's worth....

That's bullshit, companies need to work with GPU makers to improve performance on them, it goes for both AMD and Nvidia. AMD has nothing to offer to developers when it comes to tech while Nvidia does.

By what rules do game developers have to stay hardware neutral?

So many? Ubisoft uses Gameworks, EA and Square Enix used AMD tech. I would call that pretty even...

EA and Square use 1 or 2 technologies, namely Mantle and TressFX ( and TressFX is just used in one game ). There's a lot more games with PhysX and TXAA then AMD games with Mantle.

Call of Duty is using Nvidia tech, Planetside is, Ubisoft is, CDPR is and so on.

 

[mavowar]

Lord Crash if watch dogs plays so good an AMD GPU then what in the hell is AMD and all the AMD paid shills on line complaining about. So you just debunked yourself. Game works does not cause a problem with AMD hardware Awesome!!!! Glad yo can admit it!!!! Now stop complaining.

 

[CostinRaz]

Watch Dogs runs like shit on both Nvidia and AMD. I have a GTX 780, I can't run everything on ultra with anything higher then 40 FPS, and that's if I'm lucky. I can have it running at 24 FPS in some areas.

24 fucking FPS on a rig that costs 2000 dollars?!

 

[mavowar]

Watch Dogs runs like shit on both Nvidia and AMD. I have a GTX 780, I can't run everything on ultra with anything higher then 40 FPS.

Yeah I know that just trying to get the AMD shills to admit it is more a problem with the game itself not some hidden NVida agenda.....

 

[Scholdarr]

Sure, name me one third party AA like TXAA, or something like Fur Tech or Hair Tech. Every game that has TXAA has MSAA by the way.

Hair tech -> TressFX (which isn't proprietary, you know...)

There were way more AA modes in the past of which many got abandon for no apparent reason. TXAA isn't all that good anyway. Supersampling is usually better.

Also name one company which will help implement third party technologies by sending programmers like Nvidia does.

A good studio doesn't need them. CDPR didn't need Nvidia guys for making the Red Engine in the first place, did they?

That's bullshit, companies need to work with GPU makers to improve performance on them, it goes for both AMD and Nvidia. AMD has nothing to offer to developers when it comes to tech while Nvidia does.

So you think you couldn't work together with Nvidia without using Gameworks??? Sorry, THAT'S bullshit. Of course nvidia and AMD would want that Witcher 3 works as good as possible on their GPUs no matter of which contract they have with CDPR and which tech CDPR uses from both of them. Gameworks isn't about driver optimization...

By what rules do game developers have to stay hardware neutral?

By none. But CDPR seems to have such high "moral standards" that it would be a welcomed change for what it's worth. Just because everyone else goes the easy way at the costs of a part of their player base doesn't mean that you have to do so yourself....

EA and Square use 1 or 2 technologies, namely Mantle and TressFX ( and TressFX is just used in one game ). There's a lot more games with PhysX and TXAA then AMD games with Mantle.

That's not a big stunt since Mantle didn't exist before this year...

I talk about CURRENT games not about game made five years ago.

Call of Duty is using Nvidia tech, Planetside is, Ubisoft is, CDPR is and so on.

Activision has a contract with nvidia for Gameworks? Ok, I didn't know that. That's of course a big deal for them. Planetside is just a minor player in the industry, not even worth to mention imo.

 

[Scholdarr]

Lord Crash if watch dogs plays so good an AMD GPU then what in the hell is AMD and all the AMD paid shills on line complaining about. So you just debunked yourself. Game works does not cause a problem with AMD hardware Awesome!!!! Glad yo can admit it!!!! Now stop complaining.

How about staying classy for a start? There is no need to yell at me just because you seem to disagree with my post/opinion. I neither complain nor am I an "AMD shill". I just discuss a topic here. If you're not able to participate in a discussion in a reasonble manner please stay away and don't derail the topic...

AMD reacted because there were many complaints on the net and they seemed to take the chance to attack nvidia (which was more or less pretty stupid. That doesn't mean that there are solid statistics that the game runs poorly on AMD tech in general. Serious benchmarks don't support that claim. And my personal experience with the game doesn't support that as well. But it seems that too many people just don't know how to use a PC anymore. It's not a plug-and-play device like a console. You have to find the right settings working for your system, updating your drivers regularly, searching for the ideal configuration. If you're able to do that you won't have any problems in most games which is also the case for Watch_Dogs.

 

[CostinRaz]

Hair tech -> TressFX (which isn't proprietary, you know...)

There were way more AA modes in the past of which many got abandon for no apparent reason. TXAA isn't all that good anyway. Supersampling is usually better.

There are many AA modes that games can have, having TXAA as an option doesn't make it the only one. I consider it the best AA out there in terms of performance and visuals.

Tress FX is a pile of shit, not worth using since it can only work on 1 character.

A good studio doesn't need them. CDPR didn't need Nvidia guys for making the Red Engine in the first place, did they?

If a company like Crytek can't easily developer such things what makes you think CDPR can? Crytek having hundreds of employees by the way.

So you think you couldn't work together with Nvidia without using Gameworks Sorry, THAT'S bullshit. Of course nvidia and AMD would want that Witcher 3 works as good as possible on their GPUs no matter of which contract they have with CDPR and which tech CDPR uses from both of them. Gameworks isn't about driver optimization...

You can, but there's no good valid reason to not use Gameworks.

By none. But CDPR seems to have such high "moral standards" that it would be a welcomed change for what it's worth. Just because everyone else goes the easy way at the costs of a part of their player base doesn't mean that you have to do so yourself.

Costs? Sorry DRM is one thing, using technologies that are hardware specific has nothing to do with morality.

That's not a big stunt since Mantle didn't exist before this year...

I talk about CURRENT games not about game made five years ago.

Right now? There's 2 games with Mantle and with 1 TressFX.