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

[GuyNwah]

@Guy N'wah Well, all I know is that it would mighty unprofessional to have the game be unoptimized for 40% of your playerbase on PC.

Looked at another way, it would be equally unprofessional to fail to provide the best experience possible for the other 60%.

Nothing about CDPR's approach to this game has the purpose or effect of making it unplayable or poorly playable on AMD GPUs. All claims to that effect are mere FUD.

 

[Scholdarr]

I am not a party to anything that went down between CDPR and AMD. But it sure looks to me like nVidia offered them something they could use now and knock man-years off their workload, and AMD didn't.

Of course nvidia offered them something: cash, money, monetas, Franklins.

It's probably as simple as that. And equally sad.

Little question: Do you really think hat someone at EA or Ubisoft in the upper management cares if the PC version will have some additional effects or not? They don't use AMD or nvidia programs because they think it will make the PC version better. They use them because AMD and nvida offer them money. We have really no information or even indication that it's otherwise in this case.

And from the point of view of someone who has worked in the IT and software development industry myself: bringing third party people into your team who only work on certain stuff and can't have full access and don't have the same knowledge as yourself and so on doesn't really improve your development process or takes some weight of your own shoulders. It's even very likely that you have more overhead work than before. But I would likely be proven wrong from anyone official at CDPR. They should explain to us in detail why they use Gameworks. I think we as their customers have a right to know, especially if you always act like you are customer's darling.

 

[bwat47]

Let's be honest: Gamesworks is 90% about nvidia-only proprietary libraries. The only thing not limited to nvidia GPUs are CPU Physx effects but they usually don't work very well. Optimized HBAO+, TXAA, optimized tesselation and the good Physx stuff only run on nvidia GPUs.

You can say whatever you want: choosing Gameworks for development is favoring nvidia above AMD.

HBAO+ does run on AMD, I've used it in several games on my r9 280x (AC4, Watch_Dogs)

 

[gregski]

Of course nvidia offered them something: cash, money, monetas, Franklins.

It's probably as simple as that. And equally sad.

Little question: Do you really think hat someone at EA or Ubisoft in the upper management cares if the PC version will have some additional effects or not? They don't use AMD or nvidia programs because they think it will make the PC version better. They use them because AMD and nvida offer them money. We have really no information or even indication that it's otherwise in this case.

And from the point of view of someone who has worked in the IT and software development industry myself: bringing third party people into your team who only work on certain stuff and can't have full access and don't have the same knowledge as yourself and so on doesn't really improve your development process or takes some weight of your own shoulders. It's even very likely that you have more overhead work than before. But I would likely be proven wrong from anyone official at CDPR. They should explain to us in detail why they use Gameworks. I think we as their customers have a right to know, especially if you always act like you are customer's darling.

Also from the point of view of someone who is working in the IT and software development industry - it's not always additional money that you have to offer to win someone over with your technology.

Sometimes a product that gives your customer some tangible results combined with good support in using it in your own development environment is - surprisingly - enough.

 

[Sardukhar]

We don't have any right to know why CDPR does things, unless we are shareholders and even then, only in a limited basis. It's pretty hard to run a company at all, never mind justifying your decisions to customers..before the product is even released.

If CDPR is the customer's darling, that says good things about them. If not, then not.

Customer care is a challenging field, because for our pitiful amounts of money, we each expect to be treated from a range of ' "pretty well" to "as kings once were".

Which isn't to say you shouldn't express your displeasure, within reason - but don't expect a company to tell you the decision process behind the choice. Even if they change that choice.

The company choice may not be maximised for you as a user - and indeed, it should not - but will hopefully satisfy the company's aims at the time of adoption.

In my case, if Gameworks is that definitive, I will buy an Nvidia card.

If my Ford works best with BF Goodrich tires instead of Firestone tires, I'll buy BF Goodrich.

 

[Scholdarr]

HBAO+ does run on AMD, I've used it in several games on my r9 280x (AC4, Watch_Dogs)

It runs on AMD in some games...with a bad performance compared to nvidia GPUs....but you're right, my bad. HBAO+ is possible on AMD cards.

 

[Scholdarr]

If my Ford works best with BF Goodrich tires instead of Firestone tires, I'll buy BF Goodrich.

Bad example since you probably drive your Ford a few years. In gaming I can't and won't buy a new graphics card for each and every game I want to play just because it runs best on nvidia OR AMD...

What AMD and nvida are doing right now is forcing PC enthusiasts to buy two GPUs and changing them depending on the game you play. I don't know how any customer could really support that...

And as someone who knows quite a bit about business: every choice you make should be maximized for the customer. If your customer is happy you will most likely happy and healthy as well. That is in act the mantra of the modern way to do business. And of course you can't explain everything in detail. But there are controversial topics which should be addressed imo. Good communication with customers isn't all that difficult, really.

How about talking about their decision to use Gameworks in the next interview instead of stating again for the half interview why they hate DRM?

 

[Sardukhar]

Bad example since you probably drive your Ford a few years. In gaming I can't and won't buy a new graphics card for each and every game I want to play just because it runs best on nvidia OR AMD...

And as someone who knows quite a bit about business: every choice you make should be maximized for the customer.

True. But Witcher 3 is not just any car - it's going to be a target buy for me. The Ford isn't the gaming card - the card is the tires.

I do buy tires a lot, though, since I run a passenger transport/freight business and, yes, we swap to new tires a lot. At $250-400 a tire, no less.

Not that I'm saying you should rebuy a card with every new game - just that if you want to optimize your "driving" experience, get that card the developers like best. Otherwise, use your current card. I run AMd right now, not really missing PhysX much.

I do think these platforms are a poor idea...for the consumer. Terrible idea, really. For the hardware and software developers, well, obviously not. From a consumer standpoint, we get screwed a lot in the software/hardware game. The list isn't short. DRM, "leasing" not owning software, proprietary hardware, aging standards...but then again, look at what we get. Also a lot.

You will never, ever make every choice maximized for the customer. That is hyperbole. Which customer? Which groups of customers? What about when their interests oppose?

You must make the choices that preserve your business and enhance your business' future. The customer is the tool for that purpose, not the goal. The rest is PR bullshit. Any sane businessperson appreciates and respects his market, but you will not survive if you build your business in a way that breaks these rules. Your creditors don't care if you went too far on sales or customer "bennies", the taxman doesn't and your people need to be paid. You can either maximise for as many customers as you can NOW and go out of business or you can make smart business calls, make most of them happy most of the time and be serving them 25 years later.

 

[Scheuk]

@sardhukar This isn't about "optimizing your driving experience", this is about making sure the game just runs decently on AMD hardware which is something that many titles that use Gameworks fail to do. And while I do not care for an explanation as to why CDP chose Gameworks, I want a clarification from them on how well the game will run on AMD cards before putting down money for a pre-order.

 

[CostinRaz]

That's horseshit not grounded in any reality. Let's take a look at some major games which incorporate Nvidia tech.

Batman Arkham Origins: http://www.techspot.com/review/733-batman-arkham-origins-benchmarks/page4.html Runs well enough on both.

Watch Dogs: http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page3.html. Runs terribly on both.

Warframe: Runs well on both

So exactly which games that have Gameworks run like shit on AMD cards?

 

[Xtreme-Void]

My last Xfire graphics cards have problem like CTD ocassionally, I have no problem from NVIDIA one now

 

[Aver]

You will never, ever make every choice maximized for the customer. That is hyperbole. Which customer? Which groups of customers? What about when their interests oppose?

I wouldn't say "never". If it wouldn't be possible then there wouldn't be so many games that are performance neutral and with perfect physics/effects. Like games made on CryEngine - it even offers TXAA or something like that for Nvidia users and I still believe that it's perfect engine.

But mind that after I did interview with lead engine developer, I much calmer about TW3 and I think it might be neutral too. There are no Nvidia exclusive features planned for now (I only mention it because it shows that they don't try to please Nvidia, I wouldn't mind if they would add TXAA or whatever), only one GPU powered feature is planned (hairworks) and it's based on Direct Compute, not physX, so it works on AMD cards. Cloth physics will use only CPU. They don't even use Nvidia famous water physics solution, but they developed their own.

I'm not worried anymore about TW3.

 

[Scholdarr]

I wouldn't say "never". If it wouldn't be possible then there wouldn't be so many games that are performance neutral and with perfect physics/effects. Like games made on CryEngine - it even offers TXAA or something like that for Nvidia users and I still believe that it's perfect engine.

But mind that after I did interview with lead engine developer, I much calmer about TW3 and I think it might be neutral too. There are no Nvidia exclusive features planned for now (I only mention it because it shows that they don't try to please Nvidia, I wouldn't mind if they would add TXAA or whatever), only one GPU powered feature is planned (hairworks) and it's based on Direct Compute, not physX, so it works on AMD cards. Cloth physics will use only CPU. They don't even use Nvidia famous water physics solution, but they developed their own.

I'm not worried anymore about TW3.

You did the interview yourself? Can we read/watch this interview somewhere?

 

[mavowar]

After I saw this: https://twitter.com/thinkinggamer/status/452737821946970112

I question "better support". Also there are some doubts about "awesomeness" of nvidia driver technicians in there.

Just to clear the air on this tweet. It means nothing now. The "tweeters" that responded were responding before they knew Game works does in fact have code available to devs to optimize drivers. As long as the Dev pays a fair licensing fee. Which is reasonable. At first Yes, Nvidia did not openly state that this was the plan. So as typical Hyperbole ensues....... So, to be clear Game works has code available this is fact and if the Dev purchases a license they can work with AMD to optimize for amd hardware. That said, the dev does not have to purchase the code license and can still use Game works libraries. So blame the devs if your amd card runs bad, will not be Nvidia's fault...

 

[Aver]

Just to clear the air on this tweet. It means nothing now. The "tweeters" that responded were responding before they knew Game works does in fact have code available to devs to optimize drivers. As long as the Dev pays a fair licensing fee. Which is reasonable. At first Yes, Nvidia did not openly state that this was the plan. So as typical Hyperbole ensues....... So, to be clear Game works has code available this is fact and if the Dev purchases a license they can work with AMD to optimize for amd hardware. That said, the dev does not have to purchase the code license and can still use Game works libraries. So blame the devs if your amd card runs bad, will not be Nvidia's fault...

It was after one of them created Assassin's Creed: Black Flag (and it uses Gameworks) and they are using terms like "it was already bad before it got it's name (Gameworks), so they are talking about long time relationship (most of them have like 10+ years experience in top studios). Also they don't complain only about gameworks (there are devs in this discussion who don't use it - like people from Firaxis and DICE), but about various thing like openness of other things and how Nvidia make drivers.

Of course I don't believe that Nvidia is all bad and evil. I just wanted to show that Nvidia is not universally loved by devs, as some people might believe.

You did the interview yourself? Can we read/watch this interview somewhere?

It was already posted (but to be honest I missed it first time too ): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-W...cher-3-welche-Grafikkarte-welche-CPU-1107469/

 

[mavowar]

It was after one of them created Assassin's Creed: Black Flag (and it uses Gameworks) and they are using terms like "it was already bad before it got it's name (Gameworks), so they are talking about long time relationship (most of them have like 10+ years experience in top studios). Also they don't complain only about gameworks (there are devs in this discussion who don't use it - like people from Firaxis and DICE), but about various thing like openness of other things and how Nvidia make drivers.

Of course I don't believe that Nvidia is all bad and evil. I just wanted to show that Nvidia is not universally loved by devs, as some people might believe.
It was already posted (but to be honest I missed it first time too ): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-W...cher-3-welche-Grafikkarte-welche-CPU-1107469/

Nvidia is a company. They are not supposed to be "perfect" nor should every dev suck up to them, I would not expect the same for AMD. I wish AMD would step up we need competition. As I stated in a pm to a member here. I wish we had a third company step in and make cpus,apus, and GPUs, That way we can get rid of the duopolies that exist currently and drive innovation instead of these 10 to 20% increases.

BTW a link to prove amd has drivers issues that brick cards just like nvidia did back a few years ago. This is recent though.

http://wccftech.com/msi-r9-290x-lig...-side-fans-stop-working-catalyst-14-3-update/

It happens on both sides. drivers are not always perfect but having used both NVidia has a much better driver team.

 

[Aver]

BTW a link to prove amd has drivers issues that brick cards just like nvidia did back a few years ago. This is recent though.

http://wccftech.com/msi-r9-290x-lig...-side-fans-stop-working-catalyst-14-3-update/

It happens on both sides. drivers are not always perfect but having used both NVidia has a much better driver team.

You can see in update to the story that it was MSI fault (not AMD's drivers) and problem was happening only on one model of MSI card.

But let's head back to the topic .

 

[mavowar]

You can see in update to the story that it was MSI fault (not AMD's drivers) and problem was happening only on one model of MSI card.

But let's head back to the topic .

The point was no company has perfect drivers for all card's that are under their influence I can also link about 5 more articles if you like. I posted this one since it was recent . It was technically both teams faults.

 

[Aver]

The point was no company has perfect drivers for all card's that are under their influence I can also link about 5 more articles if you like. I posted this one since it was recent . It was technically both teams faults.

I never said that they are perfect, they are not, but in that case it's not their fault. MSI added their own fan control to the firmware and it didn't work well with driver's fan control - it's up to MSI to make their custom solutions work, not up to divers team.

 

[Scholdarr]

It was already posted (but to be honest I missed it first time too ): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-W...cher-3-welche-Grafikkarte-welche-CPU-1107469/

PCGH: Do you use Nvidia's Temporal anti-aliasing TXAA?
Balázs Török: No, at least not currently. We are still in the development phase and are not yet sure whether we will eventually use TXAA or not. If we should use it, we'll probably use it only for the PC-version.

I mean, that's not a good sign if the lead-engine developers doesn't even know that TXAA is nVidia proprietry tech that can't be displayed on next-gen consoles anyway (both consoles use AMD tech)... :-|

PCGH: Will the hair and fur simulation run on Radeon GPUs?
Balázs Török: Yes, yes it should. At the moment it works, but if it will work in the end, is the decision of Nvidia, the direction in which they continue to develop the technology and whether and what barriers they implement. But I think it will also run on Radeon cards.

Another good point: since the fur simulation is nvidia tech they could always say that from now on only Geforce cards can use the libraries. At the moment, the physics can be displayed on Radeon cards as well but nobody knows if that will be the case in February 2015 and beyond. Who can say for sure that nvidia won't make more effects Gerforce-exklusive with their new generation of graphic cards at the end of the year?

PCGH: So unlike, for example, the smoke in Assassins Creed 4, which can be activated only on Nvidia cards and even then requires a lot of power.
Balázs Török: The problem with the smoke effect using APEX Turbulence is that the effect can be solely rendered by the GPU. Turbulence is one of the modules, which can only be calculated on the GPU and only works - at least at this moment - with Nvidia graphics cards. We are thinking to implement it, but that decision is to be honest less on the programmer's side and more a Buissness decision. And it is not an effect that necessarily results in an advantage for the gameplay or the immersion of the player.

And this statement is a clear indication that the choice to use Gameworks and its various libraries and effects is not only a technical decision like some people here wrote. The designer clearly states that it is a business decision. It's about money not about bringing the best tech to the game (at least not only).

Apart from that the interview is really good, big thanks. I definitely like that they apparently still focus on PC first.