Skyrim AMD CFX: Blame the developer

Read a few posts ranting how bad AMD drivers are because of lack of support for Skyrim CFX. Well there you have the reason why. Blame Bethesda for being so attentive when porting the game to PC working with PC hardware manufacturers...

AMD had a profile for this game based on the code which was supplied by the developer. The developer didn't provide the final game code which was different to the previous code so the previously created profile didn't work properly. So the game needs re-profiling.

So if you want to whine to anyone whine to the game developer.

Bethesda loves you AMD PC Gamers!

 

These threads are really getting tiresome.

 

Then stop reading and opening them, ROFL.

Anyway, hope for those with AMD CFX wondering why it took AMD a week to roll out the CF Profile for Skyrim, there you have it. Bethesda loves you.

 

I can't avoid them, they're everywhere. You forgot to proclaim Witcher 2 as game of the year in your OP, though.

 

Sometimes the truth hurts and in this case the evidence of poor coding on Bethesda's part is overwhelming, especially when from day one, you have to change ini. files !

Answer this for me , since your the one who brought up The Witcher.

How does a small company, who's only produced 2 games, CD Projekt , produce a superior product, as far as pc optimization, to a Bloated Behemoth like Bethesda ?

I don't remember having to change ini. files, in order to surpass console rendered graphics, in The Witcher 1 or 2 ?

 

It kind of hard to avoid them when you're spamming every ES thread with how much you hate Bethesda, Elder Scrolls, etc. Give it a rest, it's becoming a joke

Bad, bad, bad, bad example. They created a PC game for a PC, they did not create a console game and than port it over to PC. I would wait until TW2 comes out on 360 and then see how well it holds up vs. the PC version

 

There are no console rendered graphics for Witcher 2, so I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

The fact that I had to go into ini file to turn on shadows is rediculous. You are telling me they couldn't have taken 2 seconds to update that file before it was sent out or 2 hours it would have taken to code that into the video options.

This isn't about whether they had to do it because of profit that is just a poor product. I have been PC gaming for 20 years now and I have never had to do anything like that and most of my friends wouldn't even know how to.

And don't give me that crap economics argument. I'm an equity analyst and based on some quick back of the envelope calcs the PC sales ended up being about 20% of sales opening weekend sales. As an investor that would be a significant segment of a companies revenues. Given that many of the improvements would have been very simple to implement like you know I had to do on my own is assanine. I mean really the game can't take advantage of more than 2 gigs of ram? What is this 2001?

I love the game but the fact that I have spent as much time playing with ini files as playing the game is very frustrating. I will also say that next time if they had a game coming out and I thought there was something comparable i'll be getting the other game.

If you are going to do a half job of porting it over than do not charge me a full 60$.

 

Torchlight runs smoother on my machine than Battlefield 3 does. I guess Runic Games has better developers than DICE does. Because, after all, there couldn't be any other variables at play, could there?

 

Oh please get out of here with that crap. Almost every game I've ever played on the PC I've had to tweak in some way, shape, or form. Stop acting like EVERY game released on PC is perfect as-is and Skyrim is some freak of nature that needs to be modified to some ridiculous degree to play. Does it have bugs? Yes. Is it playable without messing with the ini settings? YES.

 

For some time, Mass Effect 1 required users to change a setting on a .ini file in order to prevent the sound from glitching out on the Citadel's Presidium.

I guess Bioware, like Bethesda, are nothing but a big pile of bungling incompetents.

 

You can throw Rockstar in with that bunch as well, I spent an obscene amount of time getting GTA4 to run properly

 

That's weird, I didn't have to change anything in my .ini file at all for graphics.

And congratulations on being an equity analyst that doesn't understand marginal utility or the concept of maximizing shareholder benefit.

 

This went so off topic and out of hand.

All I pointed out was in AMD driver threads and in Skyrim threads people were whining about how bad AMD drivers are and how bad they are for not supporting CFX on day 1 release.

All I did was tell the truth of it. It's not AMD's fault. Blame Bethesda for being so incompetent as giving AMD an unfinished product to create their hardware profiles for so they don't work on the final product was released on Day 1.

 

You made a separate thread to answer a question nobody was asking.

 

hulawafu77: That is of course assuming that you got the truth from AMD. We will never know.

To the earlier poster:

As far as the Witcher 2 releasing "perfectly" - bull. I love the game but it was horribly bugged for many people on release. Go check the forums for dates/posts around its release. Crossfire was broken far worse than it is for Skyrim from what I've seen.

Point is, CDProject released a graphically buggy game, then patched until it worked. Skyrim has some graphics bugs and they are planning a patch. Every developer now does this.

To say that Skyrim is somehow worse (or different) than any other developer is simply disingenuous.

 

Breaking news: Bethesda just killed 50 pro-democracy protesters in Syria, destroyed the last bit of spotted owl habitat, and urinated in Taylor Swift's cereal.

 

Give us a source of this information please. Nvidia apparantly got a working product since they have made a working SLI driver.

 

The fact that I was able to improve the quality of graphics significantly and end up with a stable game says it all. Nice of them to leave it to the customer to do their work for them.

It's like buying a new car and the power windows not working because they didn't feel like putting the fuses in.

 

non of us have any idea whats going on behind the scenes... could have been Bethesda not cooperating, it could have been AMD not putting in enough effort.

point is you just don't have a clue whats going on, so not worth pointing fingers.

and to the point I think all major games have patches released after the games been out for a bit. all games have bugs in the first release, nice thing about skyrim is they let us fix them ourselves and they make it pretty easy to do so.

 

It's because Nvidia paid them off, Kick Backs, it's common Business Practice. Damn those green Greedy tards!

 

Could have been nvidia paying bethesda for the right to be the first ones with working SLI...so you are right. Who the heck knows. And who the heck cares. Wait a few days and this will all be sorted out.

OR

Rename TESV.exe in skyrim dir to Fallout3.exe and start the game from Fallout3.exe. Your Xfire issues might be solved! (I say might because i know it works on 5870's for some people but not sure about the 6000's)

 

I don't see how it's up to Bethesda to make drivers for AMD

 

The coding for SLI and CFX has to be merged into the core code of the game engine. AMD can only improve CFX performance if the engine allows CFX. AMD sent the code for CFX support to the game engine to Bethsoft, but Bethsoft never finalized and implemented the code into the final product, there AMD can't add any support to CFX until Bethsoft uses their integration code to the Crystal Engine.

People don't get and often are ignorant about that fact and always points fingers to the driver makers and not the game developers.

 

Didn't AMD have a driver incompatibility with the HP dv6 for a long time as well?

 

It's not so much an incompatibility as it is that the dynamic switching for AMD cards just doesn't work with OpenGL. Dell and Lenovo had the same problem with the switching.

I generally like AMD because they have cheaper hardware, but Nvidia gets the win for driver support.

 

This is 100% AMD's problem. It isn't the only recent game that AMD drivers absolutely failed to work well with.

It's entirely possible that nVidia developers are helping game studios to write code that works well with SLI, and that AMD can't or won't provide the same support (smaller company, fewer resources, and definitely a perceived attitude of laziness these past few months). You can't blame nVidia for AMD's faults. That being said the last time I checked all this stuff was written in pure OpenGL or DirectX...anyone have a link substantiating the claim that devs have to build in SLI/CFX support?

 

This. The m17x-R3 suffers from driver updates because of switchable GPU because AMD is lazy on not supporting in their releases real-time for switchables. This is something that nVidia has been good on by making every Verde release Optimus-friendly.

However where AMD/ATI are a bit lacking in their drivers, we get better hardware implementation of GPU switching than Optimus, which never works right even with drivers due to the hardware implementation. Even with the drivers not always installing smoothly, there are ways to install the latest drivers for ATI switchable systems without any problems.

 

Yeah I agree with this. Nvidia have always drivers published right after new major releases.

@Star Forge: Do you have any source/link to an article whatever that explains that Bethesda is the one at fault?

 

Congratz on never making it past over simplistic econ 101. Paying 60$ for triple a title means I shouldn't. Have to edit files to make it work. I would also expect them to work with both major gpu makers. Bringing up disasters like GTA4 only reinforces the point. How about all pc game makers cut budget charge full price to increase their margins and do away with all settings menus? That would increase shareholder benefit right? No because in the end it will cost customers.

If you are happy with that fine but don't run around criticizing anyone who feels like this should have been a better product. I just happen to like shadows in a modern RPG. If you don't want them good for you but it has nothing to do with marginal utility or shareholder benefit.

 

I'm not criticizing people who want a better product, I'm criticizing people who seem to think that more effort into a product ALWAYS equals more revenue or more profit. If anyone's got a simplistic, naive view, it's you.

 

Finally ! Someone else who gets it and is not a Bethesda Fanboy that thinks the almighty Bethesda can do no wrong.

As to "The Witcher was made for the pc" post above, you hit the nail on the head !

Bethesda should have made this game for the PC first, kinda where they got started anyways, then turned off all the bells and whistles in order to accommodate the console gang.

BTW, having to go into the ini. files to increase shadows, tweak mouse lag and using no more than 2 gigs of ram " Are not bugs!"..............it's laziness and not caring enough to put out the best product that your capable of !

Then again........maybe this "IS" the best they are capable of and they expect the mod community fix the game !

 

Tell you one thing, more effort "ALWAYS" earns a better reputation, which in turn, affects profits !

 

That is true but in this case it seems with very little effort they could have a much superior product and avoided people like me and websites like RPS and pcgamer from complaining. The fact that within hours of the game coming out the internet was filled with tutorials on how to make these changes tells me that it was a blatant oversight on their part. I can deal with it being a port but I see no reason not to make it a good port and pay attention to the things that matter to the segment you are selling too. How hard would it be to add and advanced tab to tje setting or to do a littlr thing like set the default field of view to something more suited to a pc screen. These chanhes would have cost little to nothing but made a big difference to the pc game consumer. Don't ignore them because you can. In the long run people will offer what people ask for as long as there's some profit in it and you will lose business.

Also if you haven't tweaked the ini files I definitely recommend it because it makes a huge difference.

 

No it doesn't. For example, when it comes to flight sims, driving sims, and military sims, realism = effort, and arcade = profits. There are plenty of situations where the hardest-working way does not result in one iota more profit.

Compare and contrast DCS: Black Shark (ultra-realistic PC flight sim that probably took one bazillion hours to make) and Ace Combat: Assault Horizon (pretty but simplistic arcade flyer for the XBox 360). Which involved more effort? Which will be more profitable?

 

If Sims weren't profitable no one would make them. They are just a differentiated product. The only people working for free are the modders.

 

Ironically, the flight sim market IS all but dead. Almost nobody DOES make them anymore, particularly outside of Russia.

 

I think what he's trying to say is, a couple more options in the settings would have taken minimal work on Bethesda's part and eliminated a lot of the negative backlash from PC gamers.

 

Outside of this forum, though, I'm not seeing any backlash from PC gamers. The ones I know in real life are all drooling over Skyrim.

 

So in other words, the count was zero balls and two strikes and they snagged a stand-up double. Looks like we need Bioware to give David Stern a wedgie to drive the run in.

In other news - for anyone who was wondering or complaining about the lack of CFX support in Skyrim, hulawafu was addressing that issue. If you don't care, it's perfectly fine to ignore it, but I'm sure somebody felt like this was useful information.

And @Mitlov re: the Economics debate -

I'm pretty sure rdalev's point was that given a single product, greater effort and production will equate to better revenue. I don't necessarily agree 100%, since sometimes an overdeveloped product becomes a total mess, and at the very least there will be diminishing returns at a certain point, but the point is essentially comparing a game to itself, not comparing the game to others. You mentioned the earning potential of sims versus arcade style games - but consider the earning potential of a 7/10 sim versus its earning potential if it were designed and developed to the point where it got consistent 9/10 ratings.

Or consider Angry Birds - if Angry Birds had originally only been 75% as well-made as it actually was, it wouldn't have stood out on the App Store and thus it wouldn't have earned even a fraction of its actual earnings. The extra effort to create a quality product made the difference between a couple thousand dollars of revenue and millions and millions - trust me, I've seen quite a few alpha builds of three-quarter-baked iOS games that were fun and pretty, but not quite up to the level of something like Angry Birds; most of them didn't even make it into the App Store, and thus they made no money whatsoever.

And a final thought: judging a game by its state at release is all well and good in theory, but the fact is that most games need multiple patches to reach their maximum potential, or whatever portion thereof the developer is willing to bother reaching. You can fault the developers for the time between release and realization of its final form, but a significant portion of players are only going to see the game once it's been cleaned up by at least a couple patches. I don't like the culture of releasing an unfinished product any more than the next guy (though it doesn't affect me as much as a budget gamer), but it's been the fact for a long time now, and patching wasn't always as easy as it is now. The best thing you can do as a consumer is to have a little patience and wait until the developers clean up the game before you buy it; if enough people do that the developers might actually pay attention and start putting in that extra couple weeks to clean the game up. Then again, it's hard to argue with the benefit of thousands/millions of free beta testers that you get when you release a game before it's quite ready.

 

to be fair, Witcher 1 was a horribly coded game. It's probably the buggiest game ever right after gothic 3. In Witcher 1, your save files get corrupted now and then, loading and saving time was about 5 minutes, getting into a room and getting out of one another 2-3 minutes. It was so horrible it was close to unplayable hence they had to come out with the enhanced version 1 year later.

 

And so in closing arguments, the majority of you would buy a Ferrari with 4 cylinders disabled and a top speed 50 mph, instead of 200 mph and be happy with it, just because the manufacturer wanted one in every garage !

 

Yeah anybody that argues against betheseda but applauds cd project for being a pc only dev definitely did not buy the original withcer when it was first released, I did. That was the buggeist game I have ever played. I could not open the inventory without the game crashing. Its the only game I've ever had to place on the shelf for over a year before I could get it running for more than 20 mins. After the enahnced edition came out I could play it with few crashes and really enjoyed the game eventually logging in over 30 hours before I beat it. Also I love that they patched the Witcher 2 right after it came out but their patching methods were ridiculous, you basically had to re-download the entire game to apply a few small changes.

I love both Witcher games and I like cd projeckt red (I even tried out that withcer browsing 2d battle game) but come on, you can't argue and rant about a missing cfx driver being a major fault for a developer when a competitor released a game that was near unplayable for a year.

 

What is with you people and crap analogies? I mean this is just awful.

 

No you didn't. Having to redownload the whole game was ONLY for those who used it on Steam. EVERYONE else who bought box or from GoG or Direct2Drive etc, did not. We downloaded 100-200mb patches.

And that Steam update issue is not just for Witcher 2. Other games are affected by this Steam idiocy, having to redownload the entire game.

 

I have never had to redownload an entire game for an update on Steam.

 

I have the game on steam and I have basically downloaded the whole thing at least 2 times now (maybe 3 not even sure), I have never had to do that for any other game and I have about 60 so it sounds like cd projeckts fault to me. Also considering that an article was just released that stated that 81% of all Witcher 2 sales were on Steam it seems to me that they should have known that a majority of their customers would have to deal with re-downloading over 15gb's yet it still occurred. What was really interesting is the latest patch did not require an entire game re-download, did steam change? I don't think it did....

 

Good for you. It's not CD Projekt's fault. It happens with Civ V for example. Steam forums is FULL of threads of people complaining Steam is redownloading the game for patches. This is happening with MW3 as well. Steam updates on Dead Island meant re-downloading the whole game.

So get off your high horse, just cause YOU haven't encountered doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you are going to play the blame game, you should at least at minimum try using google...

Oh and Valve knows this. They are trying to make it so Steam updates only download the files that need to be updated instead of doing an entire redownload. Now why would Valve be working on this fix if it's not a Steam issue? Oh right, because it is a Steam issue and what they are working on is a Steam update...
- Right now Steam redownloads all of the files that have been modified rather than downloading a patcher to patch the files. Steam udpates = lunacy

 

You shouldn't start a post off with the response "No you didn't" when someone is simply stating an objective fact. Being called a liar causes me to get on my high horse, excuse me if you were offended. I never stated that the problem did not exist, seems you inferred that bit. I stated that I have never had it happen before with 60 other games so it appears to be a small problem but one that existed with the Witcher 2. What I did state is that it seems to be developer or game based and not steam based since it does not occur for all games.

 

Bought The Witcher I on release day and played through the entire game, no crashing to desktop , no game ending bugs, no nothing ! Maybe it was your rig ?

Now please lay down your Bethesda banner and slowly step away from it !

And btw, if people like you tell Bethesda, "It's ok that I'm playing a console game on my pc. It's ok that on day one I had to tweak ini. files. It's ok that I paid console prices for this game, it will only encourage more "DISREGARD" for "PC-ONLY" gamers ! So have at it ..................dude !