Since FSR works on both nvidia and AMD you could argue, that implementing DLSS is extra work/cost with little return.
I was puzzled by the same thing at the beginning, until this very interview was published today )There's so much insinuating by the author that's being taken as fact, in my opinion. I think to get to the bottom of this, the people that need to be interviewed are the developers themselves, not the PR rep from both Nvidia and AMD.
That is because DLSS released much before FSR.According to the following, there are more NVIDIA Sponsored games without FSR support vs AMD Sponsored games with out DLSS support
There is a whole tutorial from Epic/Nvidia on how to implement DLSS in UE4. It is even faster than what AMD claims is the time to implement FSR 2, which is three days. You (the developer) clicks on an EULA, download the DLSS files, put them in the plugins directory of UE4, start your project, check if the plugin is installed correctly, and recompile the project.Isn't there what @igor_kavinski just said? That is
There's nothing "open" about it. Anytime NV does anything like this, it's to lock out competition and control the narrative. We sure trust NV to maintain impartiality and help competitors.Also, AMD has not yet committed on being on board with NVIDIA's open source Streamline, which makes it easy to implement various upscaling technologies.
It's on GitHub.There's nothing "open" about it. Anytime NV does anything like this, it's to lock out competition and control the narrative. We sure trust NV to maintain impartiality and help competitors.
This is the same company that locks out hardware PhysX from their own paying customers if they dedect a non-NV GPU in the system.
It may very well be, though the dev implicitly mentioned RT, not DLSS.It's that simple.
It looks absolutely horrible in Jedi Survivor for example. That's why people are mad - DLSS would offer much better experience.Since FSR works on both nvidia and AMD you could argue, that implementing DLSS is extra work/cost with little return.
The problem arises when you lock out competitor solutions, and in some cases like with Boundary, force the developer to remove competitor solutions that were already implemented.AMD paying to have only their tech included in games is a problem why? Unless I was stirring up a row in the hopes leather jacket man will send me an autographed spatula, I see no reason whatsoever to engage in manufactured outrage about it.
As I test my A750 in old games, I continuously run into exclusive Nvidia graphics features, the Nvidia girl whispering Nvidiaaaaaaaa, and the Nvidia The Way It's Meant To be Played logo. It's been like this for decades, with vendors sponsoring games. So again, what's the problem?
Yeah, WCCFTech typically rubs me in the wrong way because they typically aren't neutral in how they present information, which I'm not sure is intentional or not.I was puzzled by the same thing at the beginning, until this very interview was published today )
But you're right. Why bother developers when it's so fascinating to read between the lines or cling to all manner of conspiracy theories.
Can this statement be verified independently? Or is WCCFTech just assuming that upscaling tech can be implemented easily just based off what they were told by the vendors? If Nvidia says it's easy, it must be easy, right? /sSo all of this leads to one of the biggest questions that most gamers have right now and that's the DLSS support in some of the biggest recent releases? We have told you how NVIDIA has made it a lot easier to integrate upscaling technologies in games and has provided tools to everyone to make their choice of upscaling tech easier to integrate into any title.
Again, this is speculation by the author. Why not verify this information directly instead of assuming? I could make a similar statement about how WCCFTech might have been paid to write this article, but it would be an opinion or speculation until I can verify it directly.This is something to be concerned about since these are major AMD-sponsored titles and game developers might have been asked to keep upscaling technology exclusivity to the Radeon camp since there's no reason to not have DLSS or XeSS support within these titles.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Yes, upscaling technology is a benefit to gamers, but does the omission of DLSS and XeSS mean that gamers are being hurt? Last time I checked, upscaling tech was a benefit and should not be seen as the cure for poorly optimized games. If people are saying "I need DLSS so that I can run this game properly, and any attempts to block me from using DLSS is a bad thing" then instead of pointing the finger at AMD for sponsoring developers (because sponsoring developers has been a thing since forever), why not point the finger at developers? Isn't the root of the issue the game itself? It's not like AMD tells developers to cripple FSR on non-AMD GPUs, and I would be hard pressed to believe that AMD intentionally tells developers to make a game look like dog poop on FSR because they wouldn't be doing themselves any favors.The only problem is that gamers on NVIDIA camp are being punished for not having DLSS support integrated into their favorite games. Considering the number of bad PC ports that we have gotten this year, upscaling technologies can assist a lot in boosting performance but having just FSR and leaving out DLSS or XeSS support only means that you are hurting gamers and not NVIDIA or Intel in the process.
This portion of the article just sounds like they are doing marketing for Nvidia... Just highlighting all the pro's of Nvidia as if they got a script from them.NVIDIA Is Making It Easy For Everyone To Integrate Super-Resolution Technologies
NVIDIA, with the help of its open-source tools, is helping game devs not only integrate DLSS but also AMD FSR & Intel XeSS into their titles.
Why don't you go on YT type "how to implement DLSS in Unreal Engine 4" to see for yourself how easy/difficult it is to implement?Can this statement be verified independently? Or is WCCFTech just assuming that upscaling tech can be implemented easily just based off what they were told by the vendors?
Even if I learned how easy/difficult it was to implement DLSS in UE4, I could only be speculating as to why a developer doesn't implement it. Until you ask the developer why they didn't implement it, regardless of how easy it is to do, my opinion of why developers can't just implement it is worthless because I'm not the developer who chose to not implement DLSS.Why don't you go on YT type "how to implement DLSS in Unreal Engine 4" to see for yourself how easy/difficult it is to implement?
Even if I learned how easy/difficult it was to implement DLSS in UE4, I could only be speculating as to why a developer doesn't implement it. Until you ask the developer why they didn't implement it, regardless of how easy it is to do, my opinion of why developers can't just implement it is worthless because I'm not the developer who chose to not implement DLSS.
LOL. It's only a problem if a legally binding contract was breached. Paying for exclusivity is not a problem, it's a well established standard industry practice. One Nvidia perfected long ago. If the game lacks DLSS support, it's because Nvidia wasn't willing to ante up for it. Probably didn't think the game was worth it.The problem arises when you lock out competitor solutions, and in some cases like with Boundary, force the developer to remove competitor solutions that were already implemented.
Yes, I agree in that particular instance, it appears that the developer pivoted away from Nvidia's technologies after they accepted AMD's sponsorship.In the case of developer that already implemented it, then it became an AMD supported game, and they un-implemented it in favor of FRS, it's completely obvious why... They were paid by AMD to do it that way.
This is going to apply to most AMD supported games. That's just one of the way companies market their products.
No one should be surprised(or in denial) about this.
Yes, I agree in that particular instance, it appears that the developer pivoted away from Nvidia's technologies after they accepted AMD's sponsorship.
I personally would like to see more examples before concluding it applies to most AMD supported games, seeing that one sample does not represent the entire population.
Digital Foundry: nvidia detailed like streamline uh in april this year and they released some code on github it's gameworks named and stuff like that but uh the the idea was essentially that super resolution tech it's now here on pc all the vendors have are coming up with their own solution intel included um obviously amd's much more open uh regarding that though um but the initiative was basically we want a common api platform plug-in interface for developers to use to just make it so that if you have an intel gpu you can run xess if you have a nvidia gpu well then the developer has an easier way to put in dlss and same for amd's fsr 2.0 uh hopefully i was just curious whether amd or you have any ideas about this or stance on it whether or not amd wants to support such initiative in the future.
AMD Engineer:
right i'm going to be direct with you here we don't plan to support streamline at this time right now obviously why we believe that focusing on open source technologies is the best approach for gamers and game developers inherently we don't believe that streamline provides any significant benefits to game devs beyond what is currently available and essentially the underlying nvidia technologies like dlss that plug into it while they're still closed right and proprietary so you're talking about having an open source framework that plugs into a closed source technology right so if i
was to contrast this with fsr2 obviously it's fully open source easy to implement and supported on multiple platforms including consoles which i think is actually key to that particular you know topic so there is no need for developers to learn and implement a new framework for something that can they can already do easily today.
Off topic but many of the recent AAA AMD-sponsored titles (except perhaps RE4 Remake), whether they have DLSS or FSR or both, have been disasters performance-wise at launch. So PC reviewers roasting said games for not including DLSS when it could have helped with performance, is justified.LOL. It's only a problem if a legally binding contract was breached. Paying for exclusivity is not a problem, it's a well established standard industry practice. One Nvidia perfected long ago. If the game lacks DLSS support, it's because Nvidia wasn't willing to ante up for it. Probably didn't think the game was worth it.
My hot take: Getting AMD to spend money on it, to only have PC reviewers roast them for not including DLSS, is a pro gamer move.
Food for thought, why isn't Intel supporting Streamline? Nvidia featured them in their communication materials, yet there are no signs of Intel plugins for Streamline. In fact, I would be curious to know how many games have included Streamline as their solution to add DLSS / DLAA.Comes off as strikingly arrogant, implying that you should not even bother with APIs, whether open source or not, that plug in to proprietary technologies, because FSR is automatically the best because it's supported on consoles.
LOL, the 2 titles at this midway point of 2023 vying for the worst game of the year award are Redfall and Gollum. Gollum is completely broken and a terrible game at every level. Redfall is the poster child for malicious compliance. Redfall was bundled with RTX, and Nvidia pimped their features in Gollum, which they were heavily involved in for PC-Off topic but many of the recent AAA AMD-sponsored titles (except perhaps RE4 Remake), whether they have DLSS or FSR or both, have been disasters performance-wise at launch. So PC reviewers roasting said games for not including DLSS when it could have helped with performance, is justified.
It's been going on for decades, and the worst offender now dominates the industry. I don't think any amount of condemnation is going to do anything. I do 100% agree with your sentiment though.I can't say where the blame lies exactly, whether it be AMD or the developer. Possibly both. But supporting multiple technologies, especially open ones, is important, and we should hold AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to higher standards, as well as developers.
Also, paying money to or strong arming developers so that they don't include other options is unacceptable, no matter who does it, and should not be supported.