AMD’s recent exclusive partnership with Bethesda Game Studios for Starfield has stirred the tech world, causing both excitement and concern among various stakeholders. At first glance, this collaboration appears similar to those of AMD’s competitors, with AMD serving as the exclusive technology provider and integrating FSR2 upscaling in Starfield’s PC and console versions. However, questions arise about the exclusion of competing upscaling solutions from Nvidia and Intel – DLSS and XeSS, respectively, creating a potential stumbling block for the gaming industry.
The AMD-Bethesda Exclusive Deal: Unpacking the Controversy
The concerns are focused on whether AMD is essentially paying to limit Nvidia and Intel GPU owners from utilizing superior technologies, hence restricting image quality to that offered by an AMD graphics card. Critics argue that AMD might be leveraging this partnership to gain a competitive edge rather than developing innovative technologies. Importantly, AMD hasn’t explicitly denied these allegations, sparking further speculation about its intentions.
The Underlying Context: A Look at Previous Practices
This controversy began with a WCCFTech article highlighting the prevalence of FSR2 upscaling in AMD-sponsored titles and the conspicuous absence of DLSS and XeSS. This discrepancy became even more glaring when considering games built on Unreal Engine 4, such as Dead Island 2 and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, which readily provides DLSS and XeSS plug-ins. The non-utilization of these plug-ins raises suspicion, especially when the primary upscale used is exclusively FSR2 or DLSS.
AMD’s Response and Nvidia’s Stance
AMD has consistently reiterated its commitment to open-source solutions compatible with all GPUs, without explicitly denying the accusations regarding sponsorships that block competitor features. In contrast, Nvidia confirmed its policy of not obstructing developers from implementing competing technologies, a stance made more straightforward due to its market dominance and the perception of DLSS as the superior solution.
The Mysterious Case of Missing DLSS Support
While there’s no concrete evidence linking AMD sponsorship with the exclusion of competitor features, certain intriguing facts demand attention. Some AMD-sponsored titles have implemented DLSS and/or XeSS, indicating that such sponsorships aren’t universally restrictive. However, the nature of these deals varies greatly, with certain arrangements prioritizing marketing over technology integration.
Unanswered Questions and Fallout
The silence from both AMD and Bethesda regarding their Starfield deal has left many unanswered questions. It’s particularly damaging to AMD’s reputation, given the negative feedback from the PC user community. This situation, coupled with clear image quality improvements showcased by DLSS mods for games like Resident Evil 4, casts a negative light on AMD and its associated developers or publishers.
The Way Forward: A Call for Transparency and Competition
Ultimately, the current scenario is a lose-lose situation for all involved parties, and it’s in AMD’s best interest to focus on developing competitive products rather than potentially blocking rival technologies. Regardless of the manufacturer, sponsorship deals should never prevent the integration of alternative, established features. The most viable solution for the Starfield situation is transparency. All parties involved must disclose the nature of their partnership, especially if there are valid reasons for not integrating competing upscaling technologies.
The PC platform stands out for its unique features and the level of user choice it offers. Nvidia’s investments in AI upscaling and ray tracing underscore this advantage. However, these features should never be promoted at the cost of eliminating viable alternatives. It’s essential that lessons are learned from this situation, and clarity is brought to ensure fair competition and the best possible gaming experience for users.