Starfield to Finally Get DLSS Support

[btarunr]

The space opera RPG everyone's been lapping up over the week, Starfield, is finally getting official support for NVIDIA DLSS, among a handful of other glaring omissions for its PC version. Bethesda Game Studios on Wednesday announced that it will release a "small hotfix patch" for the game which adds a few must-haves for the PC version. To begin with, it adds support for the 32:9 ultra-wide monitor aspect-ratio (something that should have made it to a space sim), along with an FOV slider. The display settings include brightness and contrast controls, along with an HDR calibration menu. The most important of these announcements is that the game will now receive first-party support for NVIDIA DLSS. This would be DLSS 2 (super resolution), and not the newer DLSS 3 frame generation.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Deleted member 185088]

What's good, all those so called "techtubers" showed their ignorance and their nVidia fanboyism.

 

[LFaWolf]

There is another news announcement on the same topic?
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rfield-promises-dlss-support-and-more.313584/

 

[HisDivineOrder]

What's good, all those so called "techtubers" showed their ignorance and their nVidia fanboyism.

That might have been true had it been there Day 1. This is an obvious response after-the-fact. AMD's complete lack of response for a month of being reamed for having so many of their games exclude DLSS seems to suggest their post-launch response is just that.

Post-launch attempts to ease one of the low hanging fruit complaints by Bethesda.

This is easier than fixing your game to run right on non-AMD hardware. (Reference: Digital Foundry.) And watching that review score drop on Steam has been giving me real Diablo IV vibes and just how many companies newly owned by Microsoft are going to have games launch with massive hype and then slowly deflate as the hype proved unsustainable before Microsoft realizes it's not these companies.

It was them all along. They're terrible at running these former third party publishers and they don't even fully own Activision yet.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Again, I mean "they do them" but it's better to NOT buy a game at release....so many have finished the game and had an inferior experience to anyone who would buy it now

 

[john_]

All this drama and attacks at AMD from tech press and users and trolls, about blocking DLSS on Starfield.

And I read this comment at Videocardz comment section

"And still no FSR2 in Baldur's Gate 3...the game have been out for more than 1 months, in early access for months (with dlss2) and the PS5 version is out with FSR2 inside...
Is it because its a gameworks title ?"

Assuming this is true.

Where any articles, videos, drama about the lack of FSR2 on BG3? Remember. In Starfield EVERYONE gets an upscaling tech. NO ONE IS LEFT OUT.
In BG3 ONLY RTX users get an upscaling tech. EVERYONE ELSE lerns that their graphics card is inferior to an Nvidia RTX. What Nvidia's marketing department tries to sell from the PhysX locking period.

Tell me now that Nvidia is not manipulating the public and the tech press is not promoting it's marketing.

SHOW ME THE ARTICLES AND THE DRAMA ABOUT BG3.

....and enjoy your future monopoly.


PS Waiting for nvidia fans to tell me that I am whining.

 

[N/A]

What good is it when the game shader path is broken and there is so much performance left on the table. No more jagged edges fair enough.

But 4080 running at 220 watts,
4060 Ti at 110 W new driver 120W and 5% performance. When 10W equals 4-7% performance gain and the card is rated 160W there are another 20% missing.

 

[srekal34]

All this drama and attacks at AMD from tech press and users and trolls, about blocking DLSS on Starfield.

And I read this comment at Videocardz comment section

"And still no FSR2 in Baldur's Gate 3...the game have been out for more than 1 months, in early access for months (with dlss2) and the PS5 version is out with FSR2 inside...
Is it because its a gameworks title ?"

Assuming this is true.

Where any articles, videos, drama about the lack of FSR2 on BG3? Remember. In Starfield EVERYONE gets an upscaling tech. NO ONE IS LEFT OUT.
In BG3 ONLY RTX users get an upscaling tech. EVERYONE ELSE lerns that their graphics card is inferior to an Nvidia RTX. What Nvidia's marketing department tries to sell from the PhysX locking period.

Tell me now that Nvidia is not manipulating the public and the tech press is not promoting it's marketing.

SHOW ME THE ARTICLES AND THE DRAMA ABOUT BG3.

....and enjoy your future monopoly.


PS Waiting for nvidia fans to tell me that I am winning.

Well you have the point. Both upscalers should be supported from the get go. I guess there is less drama for missing FSR because of low market share.

 

[evernessince]

This is an obvious response after-the-fact. AMD's complete lack of response for a month of being reamed for having so many of their games exclude DLSS seems to suggest their post-launch response is just that.

AMD wasn't being reamed for other AMD sponsored titles not having DLSS, there were being reamed because they had a non-response for a month. Other sponsored titles not having competitor tech goes both way as you can find examples for both DLSS and FSR. A game being sponsored that doesn't have competitor tech doesn't explicitly mean that was a contractual requirement either, that's a huge assumption that ignores the reality of game development. Some game devs are extremely lazy, Starfield didn't even have an FOV slider at launch and that's a single line ini edit.

In addition, merely a game being sponsored discourages game devs from adding competitor's tech. If a company is giving you money, you are naturally going to want to accommodate them and that includes reducing the likelihood you add competitor tech. It's the same reason you don't allow judges to accept gifts, a game dev that accepts a sponsorship from a GPU brand inherently is not going to be 100% impartial to both brands. It's impossible. AMD nor Nvidia have no need to put certain unwritten understandings on paper, those are understood intrinsically.

Last, it's more logical for game devs who are sponsored by AMD to only implement FSR because FSR covers all GPU vendors. DLSS does not. If a game dev only implements DLSS, they are accepting the fact that a portion of their player base will have no access to that feature at all. That includes all AMD GPU owners and console players, given the consoles are all running AMD hardware.

I'm not saying I'd put it past AMD to push something with a wink and a nod but nothing is "obvious" here. That's a vast over-simplification and it could be any number of possibilities based on the extremely limited evidence provided thus far.

 

[john_]

Well you have the point. Both upscalers should be supported from the get go. I guess there is less drama for missing FSR because of low market share.

I wish I didn't had a point. And you are wrong about market share. Not all Nvidia market share is RTX cards. GTX owners are also left out. Combining Intel's, AMD's and GTX's market share could be a 40% or even more.

Tech press was always in favor of Nvidia so you don't see an article about BG3. And in BG3 there is in fact indication of blocking, considering FSR2 IS integrated in PS5 version. Still, no articles, no videos, no drama.

 

[wolf]

This is an obvious response after-the-fact. AMD's complete lack of response for a month of being reamed for having so many of their games exclude DLSS seems to suggest their post-launch response is just that.

Absolutely and this was even said at the time by many that inferred AMD was engaging somehow in the blocking/restricting/dis-incentivising, they could let the sponsorship run it's course, and then now that the the game is out and the vast majority of what either company stood to gain from the arrangement is over, AMD can say "Bethesda can do what they want"... lol. Or even the simple and possible take that, they were absolutely trying it on (blocking), and took a hot minute to wind back the clauses/behaviour because of the backlash. And funnily enough, either way the people that say they were doing it have no reason to change that belief, but similarly the people that never believed it can also use that as a supporting argument, this thread is evidence of both sides using this development as support of their belief.

So, this changes absolutely nothing for me, in the scope of evidence pointing to the fact that AMD has, in some way, shape or form, blocked, restricted, or otherwise dis-incentivised competitor upscaling in partnered/sponsored games. Far too many connected dots to ignore imo. Which is a super bummer personally, because I want DLSS on my RTX card, and I currently have a ROG Ally (and other AMD cards I use in various rigs with the testing I'm currently doing), and absolutely want the oft superior XeSS 1.1 for that too, but am limited to FSR only... yay.

 

[JustBenching]

I wish I didn't had a point. And you are wrong about market share. Not all Nvidia market share is RTX cards. GTX owners are also left out. Combining Intel's, AMD's and GTX's market share could be a 40% or even more.

Tech press was always in favor of Nvidia so you don't see an article about BG3. And in BG3 there is in fact indication of blocking, considering FSR2 IS integrated in PS5 version. Still, no articles, no videos, no drama.

Major difference is, you don't really need FSR or DLSS to play baldurs gate. Even on older cards. Starfield is literally unplayable without it. Actually, it's unplayable even with it on some cards

 

[theouto]

The fact that we've become very focused on upscaling tech and wanting it in every game, and also wanting every vendor's upscaler, not only shows that it's incredibly useful for the end user, but also maybe shows how game optimization is going completely down the drain, so those tools become even more useful. Thus leading to controversy when a game that runs terribly bad without upscaling doesn't feature all upscalers, sponsorship or not. Honestly, if a dev is lazy enough (I am blaming the company, not the individual people) to ensure that their game runs on base line hardware without upscaling, I don't know if they're willing to do more than the bare minimum in that regard.

 

[Vayra86]

Again, I mean "they do them" but it's better to NOT buy a game at release....so many have finished the game and had an inferior experience to anyone who would buy it now

This.
Complaining about featuresets in games on launch... I just lmao.

Get a life is my first thought, and second, and third.
And the next one is 'this is why you don't rely on upscale and other vendor specific tech to game proper'.

Or, you can make your own life more difficult with #firstworldproblems, to each their own eh

I never, not once, relied on Starfield having anything at launch. I'd expected a bug ridden POS. Its better than that. Let's rejoice? FSR2? Whatever, Oh I can use it, great. Seriously... this is the only valid approach when it comes to gaming and it always has been. You'll get what you get and you'll choose whether to buy into it when its in that state. All consumer action. Or you can Cyberpunk yourself into the next clusterfuck at launch, but again: that was you, choosing for it.

Every single complaint beyond that is, frankly, just consumers being idiots. Because implicitly they say "I have no restraint, had to buy/pre order and now I'm stuck with a shitty product so I will whine about it indefinitely". And consumers being led by Youtube realities, which is potentially even more sad and depressing.

 

[bobsled]

What good is it when the game shader path is broken and there is so much performance left on the table. No more jagged edges fair enough.

But 4080 running at 220 watts,
4060 Ti at 110 W new driver 120W and 5% performance. When 10W equals 4-7% performance gain and the card is rated 160W there are another 20% missing.

You’re also assuming that Raytracing takes 0w to accomplish. A card’s draw may not meet it’s total TDP outside of a fixed workload utilising all the card’s hardware, unless you expect it to underclock itself in these scenarios.

 

[big_glasses]

That includes all AMD GPU owners and console players, given the consoles are all run AMD hardware.

and for Starfield, the "why add DLSS" is multiplied
I don't get how people are surprised that a xbox game doesn't have a non-xbox feature....

 

[RH92]

All this drama and attacks at AMD from tech press and users and trolls, about blocking DLSS on Starfield.

Yeah it's not like Bethesda is catering to save their image as a studio after getting slammed for good reason , right , RIGHT ? Got to love fanboys calling ''drama'' objective observations !

 

[bobsled]

It’s pretty easy to see that Nvidia has either paid them or assisted in integrating DLSS - Nvidia just announced Starfield is coming to GeForce Now and naturally they’d ink a sweet deal over it.

Get over it. Whatever. Who cares.

 

[Aikanikuluksi]

Major difference is, you don't really need FSR or DLSS to play baldurs gate. Even on older cards. Starfield is literally unplayable without it. Actually, it's unplayable even with it on some cards

You don't need DLSS to play Starfield, either, as it has FSR, which works on all cards. While the game's playablity can be poor, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not it has DLSS.

 

[JustBenching]

You don't need DLSS to play Starfield, either, as it has FSR, which works on all cards. While the game's playablity can be poor, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not it has DLSS.

If you don't like getting blind, sure you need dlss. Have you seen fsr in this game?

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

doubt this will stop modders from implementing DLSS FG into the game anyway.

 

[Aikanikuluksi]

If you don't like getting blind, sure you need dlss. Have you seen fsr in this game?

Becoming blind has nothing at all to do with upscaling technologies. If you wish to avoid becoming blind (or nearsighted), you should stop staring at your monitor and rather take long nature walks in the outside. It might also increase your joy from the concepts and gameplay of your favorite games, once you come back to them. Have the mindset and will to enjoy life.

 

[las]

DLSS mod was released on day one and works fine, no hurry. It looks alot better than FSR2 for sure. FSR2 looks blurry and has issues with motion while still having shimmering and jaggies. DLSS removes shimmering and jaggies while presenting a clear and crisp image. GTX and AMD users should use CAS instead of FSR2 unless they lack performance.

I used CAS instead of FSR2 on my 4090 before I modded DLSS in. FSR looked too bad. Yet FSR is part of the default presets, like they knew most people would have trouble with performance.

This game should have had FOV slider on release and both DLSS and FSR. Default FOV is horrible. I am using FOV 100.

Game is decent but kinda overrated IMO. Exploration is pretty boring and most planets are lifeless and dull. 30 hours in and probably half way thru main quest but did many sides, exploration and random stuff + tweaking.

Graphics in this game are not even that good, performance should be better across the board thats for sure.

Becoming blind has nothing at all to do with upscaling technologies. If you wish to avoid becoming blind (or nearsighted), you should stop staring at your monitor and rather take long nature walks in the outside. It might also increase your joy from the concepts and gameplay of your favorite games, once you come back to them. Have the mindset and will to enjoy life.

Looking at a blurry image in comparison to a sharp image will actually weaken your sight.
Even TAA is blurry in this game.

 

[Aikanikuluksi]

Looking at a blurry image in comparison to a sharp image will actually weaken your sight.

Interesting. Please, could you expand on that? How does that work, and what is the resulting defect? After all, people have been watching very blurry low resolution images on television sets for decades, so there should be lots of studies on the subject, if it is true.

 

[Kapone33]

I have said this before and I will say it again for the Culture War issue that is DLSS non support. Before everyone jumps down AMD's throat for Sponsoring the title. Do you think that Sony and Microsoft had no input in what upscaler they wanted in that Game at launch? I beg everyone to take a step back on this non issue but I am also going to say that Nvidia has been more desultory than blocking DLSS on 1 Game. Do you think that compares to disabling Physx on Nvidia cards in AMD systems or when Tomb Raider and Withcher got Hair works? So many people think that Nvidia is so good. Yep good enough to sell you a GPU with 12GB for $1000 where I live was acceptable when Crypto mining was viable but this is not that time bu the narrative is strong and has many people in it's grasp. Anytime you use Garbage or worthless to describe software or hardware please use context and not just talking points. Starfield is part of the next Gen of Games made for the high end consoles so if you want upscaling at launch get an AMD card especially as they age or wait for the short time it will take for Bathesda to patch in DLSS.