- 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.
I don’t think aliens are abducting people either, no. Again, you’re starting with a conclusion, finding sample biased not-even-data, and saying “see?”
This isn’t evidence of AMD locking DLSS out. This is just someone being upset NVIDIA doesnt get special treatment all the time, because FSR is just a bigger market for developers to sink time into.
Which by the way, for in house engines, FSR or DLSS are nontrivial dev times. Even for unity or unreal they can be nontrivial depending on your game.
This is obviously so neither here nor there that it’s silly. Last I checked starfield wasn’t on unity.
Have I said AMD is my friend, or am I calling someone out on wild speculation with no evidence?
Starfield isn’t relevant to my argument, we don’t actually know for certain if it will include DLSS. People are speculating that it won’t based on the established pattern of AMD-sponsored games skipping DLSS.
I think there is merit to this pattern. It’s not something people started bringing up until there actually was a recongizable pattern. If there were any AMD-sponsored games with DLSS, then this would all be nonsensical. But there aren’t. For the majority of AMD sponsored games, adding DLSS support is as simple as ticking a checkbox, so the fact that they don’t is suspicious.
Consider this: Why is it that pretty much every non-AMD sponsored game that supports FSR 2.0 also supports DLSS?
We have a pattern that fits perfectly in line with common scummy business behavior, what conclusion do you expect people to draw? The fact that you find this just as unbelievable as alien abductions really makes it sound like you don’t even want to consider any of these possibilities.
We’ve established that
It is not much of a stretch to argue that AMD wouldn’t want the games they sponsor to be using a competitor’s technology, especially if it makes theirs look bad. This is a perfectly valid hypothesis that does not rely on any unreasonable assumptions, and does not contradict the data points we already have.
You’re really making mountains out of molehills here, and I don’t think you even have any real development experience. So I’m not sure why I should trust your suppositions over my own firsthand experience.
You haven’t countered the basic fact that you have failed to provide any evidence.
So… It’s irrelevant to this post because it’s devastating toyour case? Kay
Ok.
Sure. Now get the data.
This is projection.
I’m done here, this is entirely unproductive, you’re not actually listening to my arguments and just wildly speculating from something you’ve already decided must be the case.
Every single AMD sponsored game has skipped DLSS despite the fact that implementation is free and trivial.
How is it devastating to my case? I clearly labeled it as an unknown. It is a test of the predictive power of my hypothesis. If it has DLSS, then my theory can be called into question. If it doesn’t, it becomes another data point.
Every single AMD sponsored game has skipped DLSS despite the fact that implementation is free and trivial.
The core of your argument was that these games lack DLSS because it is not open source. I laid out, very clearly, why that has very little impact on us developers decision making. You haven’t laid out a clear argument for why my explanation is wrong, you are simply attacking the way I constructed it.
Saying something is true isn’t data. Share data. It’s not rocket science lmao. Repeating “im right just trust me” isn’t doing anything for your case.
For the last time, share the data. Substantiate your claims that “every game sponsored by AMD lacks DLSS” (which by the way is not true even given a cursory web search) and how your methodology avoids cherrypicking biases or any other sampling bias.
I’ll wait.