Is GShade allowed?

[InkB]

This is what everyone wanted from their gaming experience: To live in fear of some whiteknight SE drooling fanboy to report people on social media because their gposes might have used gshade to improve depth of field in 2022.

And what of Nvidia Freestyle? XIV is on approved, official list of games supported. A company as big as nvidia wont just randomly add games to that list without approval, surely. SE has therefore approved XIV - they must've. But if we take what its said by random GM or parts of TOS, its not allowed despite being approved by SE??

We need to know is reshade/gshade allowed before we get another witch-hunt hatecrew going ham.

[Packetdancer]

Even the old post wasn't accurate in relation to Gshade though. It was about a specific ENB injector tool. What they say about that does not equate to a different tool or program, even if they function similarly. So realistically, you're still in the same position as you were before lol.

While it wasn't about GShade -- which I'm not sure actually existed in 2013; I'm pretty sure Marot forked ReShade after that point -- the 2013 thread was asking about shader injection in general. There is another later thread referencing that one which does confirm that would cover ENB, ReShade, GShade, etc.

(Sadly, this forum's search tool is terrible, so I can't find the second one to link it.)

None of which is super relevant, because it's been nine years since the original thread. And like... 7? ...since the one that referenced it and elaborated on it. The TOS has demonstrably changed multiple times since then, so we can't really rely on that thread being a current answer any longer.

Obviously, as someone who contributes to GShade and uses it extensively for artistic work, I would prefer that it could be taken as an authoritative and still-applicable answer. I like being able to turn the game into a pencil sketch, or an oil painting, or a flat-shaded cartoon, or slice it apart into layers to do complex operations and overlays/underlays, etc.

I just know that realistically, we cannot treat that thread as still being current/valid information, as it's very old.

And what of Nvidia Freestyle? XIV is on approved, official list of games supported. A company as big as nvidia wont just randomly add games to that list without approval, surely. SE has therefore approved XIV - they must've. But if we take what its said by random GM or parts of TOS, its not allowed despite being approved by SE??

Again, while Freestyle is very similar to ReShade/GShade from the end-user viewpoint -- and you can even add your own custom shaders to it, albeit with some effort -- under the hood it functions in an extremely different manner.

ReShade/GShade rely on injecting their code into the host program by hijacking DirectX; as a result, they do modify the actual game process. GShade doesn't run as a separate program, in other words; GShade is contained in a DLL which FFXIV is tricked into loading instead of DirectX, and from a technical standpoint all of GShade's code thus executes as though it were part of the FFXIV client code.

Freestyle does all of the shader modifications down at the Nvidia driver level; it never interacts with the FFXIV client in any way. From the game's point of view, it's basically the same as monitor color calibration -- something that affects the final graphics output between game and screen, but which happens at an operating system level and which the game has no direct interaction with. (The hotkeys to enable/disable Freestyle are not handled by the game being post-processed, either; they're handled by GeForce Experience, which is why Freestyle does not work when GeForce Experience isn't running.)

This is not something GShade et al can do. As they do not, y'know, control the Windows graphics drivers, as Nvidia does.

To put it another way: GShade et al are shader injection, because they inject the code that actually executes the shader post-processing logic into a host process. Freestyle is merely shader-based post-processing, minus the injection. And the injection is the real problem, as that's the portion which directly interacts with the FFXIV client (and modifies the program's execution once it's running).

So even if they wanted to strictly enforce the letter of the law, Freestyle would still almost certainly remain fine to use; from FFXIV's viewpoint it's basically akin to changing your Windows display settings.

(I believe the same is true of AMD Adrenaline -- that the processing happens at the driver level -- but I haven't ever played with it to confirm that.)

[Welsper59]

While it wasn't about GShade -- which I'm not sure actually existed in 2013; I'm pretty sure Marot forked ReShade after that point -- the 2013 thread was asking about shader injection in general. There is another later thread referencing that one which does confirm that would cover ENB, ReShade, GShade, etc.

Was there an official response in that later thread to cover the broader application? If not, that is of absolutely no help as proof it was okay. The original thread wasn't about shader injection in general, just specifically ENB related to that post. There's a big difference between isolating one example and using that example to apply it across the board lol.

[Packetdancer]

Was there an official response in that later thread to cover the broader application? If not, that is of absolutely no help as proof it was okay. The original thread wasn't about shader injection in general, just specifically ENB related to that post. There's a big difference between isolating one example and using that example to apply it across the board lol.

There was a second thread... I want to say in 2015? ...which linked back to the 2013 thread asking if Tool X and Tool Y and so on were all okay, where a SQEX rep weighed in to note that their reassurance that graphical alterations via post-processing that didn't alter the actual game files were okay was a blanket statement and that people didn't need to ask individually about every single possible tool that let you make graphical alterations via post-processing without altering the game files.

(Unfortunately, as the forum's search tools are terrible, I cannot seem to find that thread to link it here.)

But that was ~7 years ago (or whatever), and the original thread was 9 years ago; the TOS has changed multiple times since then. And moreover, SQEX support themselves noted in a reply to someone that statements like that were very old and did not necessarily apply any longer regardless.

[Welsper59]

There was a second thread... I want to say in 2015? ...which linked back to the 2013 thread asking if Tool X and Tool Y and so on were all okay, where a SQEX rep weighed in to note that their reassurance that graphical alterations via post-processing that didn't alter the actual game files were okay was a blanket statement and that people didn't need to ask individually about every single possible tool that let you make graphical alterations via post-processing without altering the game files.

(Unfortunately, as the forum's search tools are terrible, I cannot seem to find that thread to link it here.)

But that was ~7 years ago (or whatever), and the original thread was 9 years ago; the TOS has changed multiple times since then. And moreover, SQEX support themselves noted in a reply to someone that statements like that were very old and did not necessarily apply any longer regardless.

That is interesting if truly the case. As you said though, the ToS has changed multiple times and they have established further blanket emphasis lol.

[GaiusDrakon]

There was a second thread... I want to say in 2015? ...which linked back to the 2013 thread asking if Tool X and Tool Y and so on were all okay, where a SQEX rep weighed in to note that their reassurance that graphical alterations via post-processing that didn't alter the actual game files were okay was a blanket statement and that people didn't need to ask individually about every single possible tool that let you make graphical alterations via post-processing without altering the game files.

(Unfortunately, as the forum's search tools are terrible, I cannot seem to find that thread to link it here.)

But that was ~7 years ago (or whatever), and the original thread was 9 years ago; the TOS has changed multiple times since then. And moreover, SQEX support themselves noted in a reply to someone that statements like that were very old and did not necessarily apply any longer regardless.

So what exactly IS the status of GShade? I think this is the most important question we all want to know.

[Necrotica]

The intent may he to kill all visibility of the game. Maybe the devs liked it better when the game was less popular?
No more streamer, no more screenshots, no more bard music. Kill all word of mouth praise for the game to the point the population goes back to 2012 levels.

[Theodric]

The intent may he to kill all visibility of the game. Maybe the devs liked it better when the game was less popular?
No more streamer, no more screenshots, no more bard music. Kill all word of mouth praise for the game to the point the population goes back to 2012 levels.

Potentially. I do think they probably see what sort of player created 'content' the game is known for on Twitter. I know multiple people who don't even play the game but are well aware of the shady reputation the weirder portions of the community are known for on Twitter.

[Infinitygirl]

Personally I think GShade should be a default thing in the game I personally don't use it but I've seen some incredible stuff come from it. The way I see it is if you don't advertise that you are using the mod you should be fine. Like don't put #GShade whenever you post a picture using GShade on Social Media as that could be considered as advertising the mod.

[Semirhage]

The devs don't approve of it tho but that's just what they have to say officially if they said they were fine with it then you'd probably see it normalized way more and have it be a common thing talked about ingame.
You'd probably see a pretty big increase in harassment and the general toxicity that comes along with it if it was officially okay:d by the devs.

If the alternative is the current "improvement is for nerds, you don't pay my sub! Now heal me through this enrage; it's not my low damage doing it." toxic casual playerbase, is it truly an improvement?