RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
AMD can't pay for proprietary implementation so next best thing they can do is make it open
You know "open source" is just their way of saying they can't do it, so can some one else do it for free please?
Good, actually amazing! I don't want PC gaming to turn into proprietary "console" like platform with brand agnostic locked out features and unoptimized code created in-house for the sole purpose of making your cards look good, the competitor's look bad, while the game developer then has to spend months and months working with the closed-source developer of said SDK/middle-ware to fix the broken game code. :sneaky:
Sorry, but I laugh at their "open initiatives" that usually end up in failure.
Ironic considering the best looking & optimized game of 2015 - SW:BF - is an open source title; and the entire track record of AMD GE vs. GWs shows your post is just a pigment of your imagination. Most objective gamers want their games to work well because we don't want to be locked into a specific CPU/GPU vendor for life.
No, it's typical on AT forum: any news with something positive about AMD and for sure you will see usual negative spinning.
The thread's title is misleading. If AMD has an open-source program for developers, by very definition, it is NOT GameWorks Equivalent.
Nothing to do with hate, all to do with reality, and previous experience. So to implement gamesworks nvidia has a pretty large team of engineers working full time on it, in addition nvidia send support engineers to help devs implement the effects. In doing so nvidia get feedback on what to develop next, etc. Anyway this has taken many years, and costs nvidia lot of money, which they get back through gpu sales.
Yup, it in the process it help to turn many many highly anticipated titles into absolute turds as far as optimization was concerned. Furthermore, since the developer relied on close-source NV-created DLLs/middleware, instead of using open-source standards and learning them to incorporate into future games/engines, they just relied on a 3rd party to do their work. What does that mean? It means for their next game, they have no clue and previous experience learning & implementing true next gen open-source effects. So what are they going to do? Call NV as their mommy for help again?
The program's closed-source nature goes beyond just GPU sales. It neuters PC game development since it doesn't allow developers to start with a clean slate, using next gen open-source. They are thinking, WOW, I get to make a console port like Watch Dogs of Just Cause 3 and then this 3rd party will come, pay for part of our marketing, and then even send engineers to help do our work for us?! WOW, sign me up. Welfare-state PC game development.
Those open source devs just don't exist, hence it'll just linger there for a few years until AMD quietly forget about it. See bullet physics, various APU efforts, etc.
Sure they do. Open-source development means the entire approach to how a game is made when incorporating next gen graphics tech. These companies use technologies that can be re-used in all future games. With closed-source development, you have to rely on NV's GWs DLLs to get graphical effects since you never made them in-house, have no control or optimization over them without NV's permission. It's basically outsourcing a part of game development to a 3rd party.
Volumetric lighting: Rise of the Tomb Raider features a plethora of volumetric lights throughout. Using a resolution-agnostic voxel method similar to Killzone Shadow Fall, each light is generated using asynchronous compute late in the rendering order. We see these lights appear in a multitude of situations ranging from sun shafts to thick fog. In many cases, volumetric lighting is combined with screen-space light shafts to create some very dramatic scenes.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-tech-analysis
vs.
FO4 = outdated game engine on day 1, NV helps them put in lights using tessellation aka the developer relies on a 3rd party to get their mediocre looking game up to 2012 standards instead of making the game a true 2015 PC game to start with.
The only way AMD could rival gamesworks is if AMD themselves were willing to spend the money to make something like gamesworks - something they can't do.
Even when NV made PhysX proprietary, back then ATI group had enough $ to implement their own closed source standards but they didn't. It's not how they think. The only thing that stands between us buying 2 GPUs for your rig is AMD. If AMD went GWs on us, we'd be screwed. That's why it's amusing to see people defend GWs because in their mind they never envisioned how in 10-20 years Intel's GPUs could get good enough and Intel could just pay to win and beat NV/AMD graphics into the ground. Is that what we want for gaming? Pay to win. I don't.