- cross-posted to:
- gaming
- pcgaming@lemmy.fmhy.ml
- starfield@lemmy.ml
Hoo boy. Not a good look AMD. It was scummy when nVidia did this, it’s scummy when you do it.
Hoo boy. Not a good look AMD. It was scummy when nVidia did this, it’s scummy when you do it.
FSR2 splits the market the least since it can run on any GPU, unlike DLSS which wouldn’t be able to run on the console versions (so they’d have to add and optimize for FSR2 anyway; extra work for little benefit).
What split? You can implement all three technologies.
As far as I know it’s not a lot of (extra) work to add them, and if half of the PC player base can use DLSS it’s more than “little benefit” to me.
Sure, you can, but if one technology is both “good enough” and “works on everything” I can understand why the developer might only bother with that one. Proprietary, vendor-locked standards leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I would like to at least see XeSS implemented in addition to FSR2, as it’s another open standard. With any luck, pressure could be put on Nvidia to make DLSS vendor-agnostic as well, but they’ve proven over and over again that they really don’t care about gamers.
How about pressuring AMD joining Streamline, so devs can add all three technologies at once and players can choose whatever they want?
I didn’t even know about Streamline until your comment. As an open-source framework to make it easier for game devs to add upscaling tech from multiple vendors in the form of separate plugins, I’m definitely in favor of it.
Nah, they do care about gamers, they just don’t want them buying AMD or Intel
“Buy our $400 product with 8gb VRAM over an 8x PCIe lane, we really care about your experience.”
Yeah, but Nvidia partnered games usually also support FSR and XeSS, AMD partnered games only get FSR