On Friday, AMD Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions Frank Azor said that if Bethesda wanted to implement rival Nvidia's DLSS upscaling technology in its upcoming RPG Starfield,...
AMD denies blocking Bethesda from adding DLSS to Starfield | Starfield DLSS mod locked behind a paywall::undefined
I got a 3080 and I would never want to use DLSS 3 anyways. Keep that stupid ass fake frame generation away. I can put up with upscaling since it’s at least a true rendered frame, but that’s pretty much where I draw the line. Fake frames might make it feel smooth, but I’m not into this hobby for the feels.
If small devs are expected to support every platform day one that increases the barrier to entry.
A world where small teams start their release on one or two platform they find advantageous and then port their successful titles to other platforms after is probably safest for them and offers the most product diversity for consumers.
I’m not a fan of using the same word to describe two very different kinds of exclusively.
Exclusivity due to platform contracts (i.e., Sony paying a developer to keep a game exclusive to PlayStation), is not the same as exclusivity you described in your comment.
and then port their successful titles to other platforms
Well, then they’re not exclusives, are they? I get the point to speed up time to market, but I’m questioning the benefit of having “lifetime exclusives”, or anything beyond 1 year, honestly.
The implication is of course that less successful titles will not be ported either because the company runs out of money or feels they are better off working on their next title than investing more resources on porting a middling title to a second choice platform.
yeah, some people might tell, I don’t think it’s worth the trade-off of excluding a large part of the market.
NVIDIA doesn’t even respect their own user base. I have a 3080 and can’t use DLSS 3. I’ll keep supporting open technologies.
I got a 3080 and I would never want to use DLSS 3 anyways. Keep that stupid ass fake frame generation away. I can put up with upscaling since it’s at least a true rendered frame, but that’s pretty much where I draw the line. Fake frames might make it feel smooth, but I’m not into this hobby for the feels.
that’s fair, I’m absolutely in it for the feels haha
I just play to have a good time
I haven’t built an all AMD rig since the early 00’s. It’s time.
No one is saying FSR should be excluded.
Though if there’s only going to be one hardware agnostic upscaler then I’d rather it be XESS than FSR.
afaik it has the same problem of DLSS of being exclusive though
No exclusives at all are as bad for the gamer economy as only exclusives.
I’m interested in the next version of FSR, it’s rumored to include frame generation.
Can you elaborate on that? I don’t see a clear benefit of exclusives to the user base or industry in general, only to those involved.
If small devs are expected to support every platform day one that increases the barrier to entry.
A world where small teams start their release on one or two platform they find advantageous and then port their successful titles to other platforms after is probably safest for them and offers the most product diversity for consumers.
I’m not a fan of using the same word to describe two very different kinds of exclusively.
Exclusivity due to platform contracts (i.e., Sony paying a developer to keep a game exclusive to PlayStation), is not the same as exclusivity you described in your comment.
Well, then they’re not exclusives, are they? I get the point to speed up time to market, but I’m questioning the benefit of having “lifetime exclusives”, or anything beyond 1 year, honestly.
The implication is of course that less successful titles will not be ported either because the company runs out of money or feels they are better off working on their next title than investing more resources on porting a middling title to a second choice platform.