I've been bombarded with replies to the effect of "just because integrating these technologies is easy in one case (unreal engine), doesn't mean it is similarly easy in other cases as well".Fair enough. I don't bother with upscaling tech though, it doesn't seem worth it to me. At least FSR 2.0 works on a lot of cards so it has that going for it.
That would be more compelling if you had a statement from a developer claiming that AMD had paid them to disable DLSS. Your statement is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Peak whataboutism. Having simultaneous support for DX12 and Vulkan is not even the same level of complexity as having simultaneous support for upscalers.Programmers have said it's easy to add support for Vulkan too if the game already supports DX12, so people complaining about this game lacking DLSS could create noise about that too. Vulkan even has the benefit of being supported on more platforms than DX12.
But easy to add is not the same thing as easy to support. DLSS being added but then broken by a new update would need Nvidia's involvement to be fixed. FSR2 can be changed directly by the developers themselves.
That's cool man, but it still doesn't count for much.I've been bombarded with replies to the effect of "just because integrating these technologies is easy in one case (unreal engine), doesn't mean it is similarly easy in other cases as well".
This statement from the horse's mouth should put an end to that line of argument.
It is. But I don't personally have a problem with it. My hot take is, it's less circumstantial ad hominem, and more employing the appeal to motive fallacy. Everyone opposing your position, you label as AMD nut huggers. Therefore, any contention made by said group can be dismissed. As their only motive is to defend AMD. Then you throw in argumentum ad populum. "This went nowhere on another forum because everyone agreed."Also I'm beginning to think that people are using the term "stan" as a stand-in for another term which is now banned on AT forums.
Graphics programmer at Nixxes, the company that was bought by Sony to develop their PC ports, stating how easy it is to add other upscaling technologies once you add one of them:
Still the AMD stans here would say that "oh you don't know how easy/difficult it is for devs" or "it needs validation that devs are unwilling to go through" or "just because it works on Unreal Engine it doesn't mean that it also works in other cases".
Lame defense. Like the developer says, "inexcusable".
if your paid to add FSR your adding FSR.
if your not paid to add DLSS you probably not adding DLSS.
it is as simple as that. No grand plots. No smoking guns.
Developer time is limited. Everything costs money. Game budgets are finite.
On the flipside if your paid to add DLSS you might add FSR. Why? Because DLSS only works for a few users, and that leaves a large portion of the customer base with nothing. A huge portion of nvidia's install base cannot even use DLSS.
Most games are not AAA. Many games want to be able to be to run igpu if that is what the customer has. Those are the one that need that upscaler, and dlss is not going to happen for them. FSR adds more potential customers, which is why a developer might just add FSR on their own.
DLSS doesn't add customers. Anyone who has DLSS has more then enough horsepower to run your game without it. Why spend any money on it? Unless nvidia is going to give the developer money?
for every rtx gpu there are vast quantity of iGPUs.
View attachment 82413View attachment 82414
One wonders why they couldn’t just answer “no” if it isn’t true.
I'll admit, that's pretty damning. I'm happy to see that GN actually posted the question they asked so that we understand the context for the answer that AMD gives.View attachment 82413View attachment 82414
One wonders why they couldn’t just answer “no” if it isn’t true.
What really bums me out is FSR's open nature. If AMD is going to prevent DLSS on some games, they should really nut up and lock out Nvidia too.
It's such a weird way to go about things. Like NV users can't have DLSS but they can have FSR? No, you paid for exclusivity, they get nothing.
View attachment 82433
I'll admit, that's pretty damning. I'm happy to see that GN actually posted the question they asked so that we understand the context for the answer that AMD gives.
If it wasn't the case they would obviously just say no. I still can't figure it out how some can't connect the dots and see what's going on. In any case, AMD's marketing is truly wonderful... With their discrete GPU market share they get more people to hate their tech than people to buy their cards.View attachment 82413View attachment 82414
One wonders why they couldn’t just answer “no” if it isn’t true.
Meanwhile at AMD:but shame on AMD for either pulling something this or, at the very least, handling it in the worst way posible.
If some employee on Twitter does a better job of communicating company actions and/or intentions, then AMD has a PR department problem. It's their job to get the ducks in a row.That's funny. AMD's official PR dept won't answer the question, but AMD people on Twitter are denying it.
Well yes. Though this may be an instance where AMD won't dignify a response because it's a bit stupid. It doesn't really cost them anything to say "no", unless the PR reps don't know the precise answer to the question (e.g. maybe they did pay Bethsoft to include FSR, but didn't give them any specifics on implementing competing upscalers).If some employee on Twitter does a better job of communicating company actions and/or intentions, then AMD has a PR department problem. It's their job to get the ducks in a row.
It is still not a proof AMD forbids implementing DLSS, though that is obviously a possibility as it was not denied by AMD itself.
Maybe there is an NDA that forbids AMD from telling anything about the contract between it and Bethesda?
Or maybe they do not want people to turn to Bethesda with the questions "where is DLSS?"? That could ruin the partnership between them.
Or ...
Here you go: https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/StreamlineWhile it is good that some developers have written an abstraction wrapper so they can largely do the same thing whether the upscaler is DLSS/FSR/XeSS, we are mainly talking about Bethesda here, right?
Because Bethesda shipped Skyrim with only a x87 codepath. In 2011. When SSE and had been in use for over decade!
Plenty of threads about it at the time like: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/b...cpu-optimization-of-the-decade-gaming.356110/
Now, Bethesda's coding prowess in the past is no guarantee of releasing unpolished this time, and even if their coding is still sub-par this that wouldn't preclude any shady hidden deals with AMD which exclude DLSS (we certainly know the green team have done plenty of those in the past, but with AMD's dGPU marketshare almost in single figures sabotaging DLSS is hardly going to win them any favours).
However, it is equally possible that Bethesda's engine coders are not the kind who would even consider writing an abstraction wrapper to make their lives easier. Whereas a studio only going ports like Nixxes are far more likely to do so.
While FSR may be poor imitation of DLSS, it does work on the consoles, Radeon, GTX and RTX. No matter how much people like to moan about it, unless Nvidia change tactics DLSS is likely to end up like G-Sync vs FreeSync.
IMO, it should be Nvidia swallowing their pride and writing an open-source abstraction layer so that switching from DLSS/FSR/XeSS really is as simple as one config line.
Well, not quite one line config change but at least they are trying to make it easier. AFAIK XeSS uses Streamline in Cyberpunk and Witcher (and it works nicely in those games).Streamline is an open-sourced cross-IHV solution that simplifies integration of the latest NVIDIA and other independent hardware vendors’ super resolution technologies into applications and games. This framework allows developers to easily implement one single integration and enable multiple super-resolution technologies and other graphics effects supported by the hardware vendor.