AMD Claims Starfield Devs Have the Power to Add DLSS Support

Starfield
(Image credit: Steam)

In a recent discussion with The Verge, AMD's Chief Architect of Gaming, Frank Azor, affirmed that the company is not preventing Starfield from utilizing Nvidia's DLSS technology. Contrary to many people's opinions. Azor assured Starfield fans that AMD does not control what upscaling solutions Starfield utilizes, and if Bethesda wants to add DLSS in the future, AMD will give its full support.

However, Bethesda has not announced plans to add DLSS support to Starfield, so there's no guarantee that DLSS will make it to the space RPG. Azor gave a possible explanation for Bethesda's prioritization of FSR2 over DLSS, stating the fact that FSR2 can run on all PC hardware and the Xbox Series X and S. He also admitted that AMD requests FSR (FSR2?) to be prioritized in a game if the company is paying a publisher to bundle their game with its own graphics cards. However, Azor clarified that AMD's requests are not demands for FSR2 to be implemented in sponsored games.

(We should note that FSR and FSR2 are different beasts, and games that support FSR only would require more work to support DLSS — as well as FSR2. But FSR2, DLSS, and XeSS all use similar hooks, so if a game supports one it should be relatively easy to add support for the others.)

AMD Limited Edition Starfield-Themed 7800X3D and 7900 XTX

(Image credit: AMD - YouTube)

It's good to hear that AMD is not preventing its gaming partners from incorporating Nvidia's competing DLSS upscaling technology into their games. Assumptions about AMD blocking DLSS started when enthusiasts and media outlets began actively tracing the number of AMD-sponsored games that support both FSR2 and DLSS and discovered that very few of the games actually support DLSS. This was backed up by the suspicious removal of DLSS and ray tracing in Boundary after the game's development studio, Skystone Games, became an AMD partner — the DLSS support already existed, so why remove it?

Unfortunately, The Verge failed to get an official statement from Bethesda to see if Starfield might receive DLSS integration in the future. It wouldn't be surprising if Bethesda is prioritizing FSR2 due to the reasons Azor suggested, since AMD's FSR2 technology does indeed work on different hardware configurations and doesn't require dedicated hardware to function like Nvidia's competing tech. At the same time, Bethesda could wait to implement DLSS and even XeSS later, once the game is launched and development resources are freed up.

But if you're really desperate for DLSS, DLSS modder PureDark has promised he'll have a Starfield DLSS mod ready when the game launches. He's done the same for several recent AMD promoted games that only had FSR2 support, which tells you a lot about how easy it is to add DLSS support to a game that already has FSR2 support. At least there will be ways to get DLSS working in Starfield unofficially.

Aaron Klotz
Freelance News Writer

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    How much do you want to bet the backroom deal is "You add DLSS, you have to pay us $XXXXXXXX"?
    Reply
  • A Stoner
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    How much do you want to bet the backroom deal is "You add DLSS, you have to pay us $XXXXXXXX"?
    Situations like that set the company up for some pretty bad events and I doubt they are very likely. And the incentives just do not seem to be there to make that argument. As the AMD product is universal and works on Intel, NVidia and AMD products, which means the lack of the DLSS add on does not really force anyone to buy AMD products.

    DLSS on the other hand, it does lock players into buying NVidia products if they want the best experience.

    Anyways, can you point me to the incentives that would make the back room deal risk worth pursuing?
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    A Stoner said:
    Situations like that set the company up for some pretty bad events and I doubt they are very likely. And the incentives just do not seem to be there to make that argument. As the AMD product is universal and works on Intel, NVidia and AMD products, which means the lack of the DLSS add on does not really force anyone to buy AMD products.

    DLSS on the other hand, it does lock players into buying NVidia products if they want the best experience.

    Anyways, can you point me to the incentives that would make the back room deal risk worth pursuing?
    A reverse ransom, if nVIDIA wants DLSS in _____ games, they have to PAY $$$ to the Game Developers for their time and effort to implement & test DLSS.

    We all know that Jensen Huang / nVIDIA has the $$$ now to afford it thanks to the AI Profits.

    Otherwise the dev's can just default to FSR1/2 and it'll work on everybody's GPU's.

    Less effort & Testing needed to validate one set of Upscalers.

    So if Intel & nVIDIA want to play ball, pay ALOT of money for Dev time & Testing + Profit Margin, or else we won't put in the effort to implement. The fans can go and mod it to their hearts content.

    Not one line of code will be written until we get paid.

    Money! Money! Money! MONEY!!!!
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    How much do you want to bet the backroom deal is "You add DLSS, you have to pay us $XXXXXXXX"?
    And what would be the logic behind that?
    Reply
  • RedBear87
    Makaveli said:
    And what would be the logic behind that?
    None, developers who are actively excluding competing technologies simply risk to alienate potential players who vote with their wallet. And considering the widespread diffusion of Nvidia GPUs between gamers there's a lot of people that they could alienate.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    90% of PC gamers use Nvidia
    yes, but a large # of those still use pascal or older. (dlss only works on RTX gpu) and doesnt work with Intels gpu.

    FSR does work with them.

    be an nvidia fanboy all you want (and b4 u say im an amd fanboy I run a nvidia gpu) but facts are theres benefits for having FSR in game as its much more beneficial to majority of users and not locking anyone with older gpu or other color (amd/intel).
    Reply
  • For some reason, whenever I hear about DLSS and FSR, all I can think of, is games that will still need a lot of work, before offering satisfying frame rates to all users.

    DLSS was supposedly for gamers to get that extra bit of performance... now you have poorly optimized games using it as as crutch... as if to say "oh it's OK that this sucks because DLSS will pick up the slack."

    I’m afraid that this will be the case with Starfield.

    I hope I’m wrong, though.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    So it took AMD's Chief Architect of Gaming like 5 minutes of an interview to say "yeah, we're not blocking DLSS", but the entire Marketing Team NEVER gave an official answer or clarified AMD's position? REALLY AMD? REALLY? Also, not to point out it's been... What? 3 months or something?

    Gosh... I don't know what to say about this. Baffling. Anyway, good at least they now have a clear answer to that whole debacle.

    And in another topic: the DLSS copium/brainwash is stronk.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Tim_124
    “Unfortunately, The Verge failed to get an official statement from Bethesda to see if Starfield might receive DLSS integration in the future.”

    If only there was another publication that had ‘journalists’ who could ask such questions…
    Reply
  • HyperMatrix
    I feel like there are details that haven’t been shared. It makes no sense for a game company to support FSR2, and not include DLSS2 which would take less than a day to implement. Nvidia even put out the open source streamline api that lets you do the work of implementation once, and plug in FSR, DLSS, and XeSS all at once.

    There are other considerations here that AMD isn’t divulging. Such as “sure you can add DLSS, but then we won’t sponsor your next game.” I’m not saying that’s what’s happening but I’m saying there’s more to this story because from a business sense, it doesn’t make sense to go through the hassle of enabling FSR2 but then not supporting the objectively superior DLSS2/3.

    Some will argue that not everyone has an RTX card. And that’s true. But Nvidia still has the largest share of the market and RTX numbers are growing and people who have newer cards likely have more money to spend buying games than people who are using a 7+ year old card. RTX cards have been available for 5 years now.

    Either way….it takes no time to add the feature as modders are showing. So there has to be something else they’re not telling us. I’m personally not buying Starfield for 2 reasons. 1) lack of DLSS support. 2) premium $70 pricing.

    Haven’t bought a single PS5 game at those prices either. The combination of the 2 leads me to believe they’re just greedy while simultaneously not caring about the consumer. “You will take what we give you and you will like it. And also you will pay an extra $10.” Paaaasssssss
    Reply