this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023

20 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30547 readers

149 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

Whom@beehaw.org

The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org

chloyster@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

AMD is Starfield’s Exclusive PC Partner (www.youtube.com)

submitted 1 year ago by TassieTosser@aussie.zone to c/gaming@beehaw.org

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hoo boy. Not a good look AMD. It was scummy when nVidia did this, it's scummy when you do it.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mika7150@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

you can use FSR on Nvidia too but you can't use DLSS on AMD. Nvidia has been trying so hard to force a monopoly for decades now with these features they lock down to not only their hardware but specific series of them.

it's reminiscent of Microsoft making sure Linux can't use a wide range of software via directx and such, forcing people to resort to WINE and effectively becoming an operating system monopoly outside of apples gated garden

meanwhile AMD let's everyone use their software tech and people cry foul the moment they do 1/1000th of the anti competitive behavior Nvidia does in its sleep, I mean this is literally just sponsoring a game

[–] Poopfeast420@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean this is literally just sponsoring a game

This usually means only FSR, no DLSS. What does it matter that FSR can be used on all hardware, if it's the inferior technology? Let those who can use DLSS, and others FSR and XeSS.

Since it's your mom-and-pop multi-billion dollar company, it's fine that they can screw over consumers. They are not like the evil multi-billion dollar company from down the road.

[–] valpackett@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Keeping out a vendor-specific one in favor of a vendor-agnostic one seems actually positive to me. That vendor-specific "superiority" must be fought.

[–] SevYote@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. The net effect of this kind of choice - what the person above you is saying - is exactly the intended effect. It lowers the value of Nvidia users' cards to them, but, critically, only because Nvidia plays these bullshit exclusivity games.

Nvidia users can't get the most out of their cards on a big, popular new game and they're all mad about it? Well, there's an easy fix, Nvidia, to prevent these situations in the future: Just open DLSS up to everybody. Boom, done. AMD and Bethesda aren't the ones being assholes, here, and it's not their fault that Nvidia's customers aren't getting the most out of their cards.

[–] Mika7150@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not interested in spending my energy on hating the underdog who makes their tech open so everyone can use it and works with 1/10 games when the bigger corporation trying to make a monopoly is working with 9/10 games and forcing out the other. Nvidia goes and tries to force third party card makers to change their AMD branding and nobody says shit but the moment AMD even just sponsors a game (they can still add DLSS if they wanted!) and suddenly its a problem and AMD is "just as bad" as nvidia. no, fuck that. fuck "but but but superior technology!!1"

[–] termus@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have any proof to these claims? This link posted above shows otherwise. Granted this is not absolute proof but the stats show a different story to me.

[–] Mika7150@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah it seems the landscaped changed and some DLSS titles have FSR2 now but they all got it months after DLSS, so it's basically an exclusivity period it seems

the rest of the article is kinda crap, they even admit its all speculation lol

[–] termus@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

So no? The data the article is sourced from https://wccftech.com/whats-up-with-the-missing-nvidia-dlss-support-in-amd-sponsored-fsr-titles/ shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Nvidia explicitly states that they do not block devs from implementing FSR. Whereas AMD completely dodges the question.

[–] Jongaros@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nvidia literally refuted this argument and come out and say they don't force devs to leave out FSR. DLSS workshop also includes tools for devs to put FSR and XeSS in their games along with DLSS.

Where as AMD responded with PR bullshit and fuckall.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/92002/amd-sponsored-games-with-fsr-dont-feature-nvidia-dlss-support-and-thats-little-strange/index.html

[–] Mika7150@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

NVIDIA does not and will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies in any way.

lmao this is such a straight up lie. NVIDIA is one of the most anti-competitive companies in the industry.

Of course, this is pure conjecture and unsubstantiated

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm struggling to find games released in the last two years that support DLSS but not FSR.

The problem is, like it or not, DLSS is way better than FSR. So naturally, people who have capable hardware feel a little miffed when they are saddled with the inferior solution.

Plenty can be said about Nvidia's anticompetitive practices, but I don't think this is explicitly one of them. They don't block games from supporting FSR, though probably not out of the goodness of their heart. They know DLSS is better, so having games support both makes it a lot easier for reviewers and consumers to make this comparison. AMD obviously doesn't want this unfavorable comparison, which is why they pay developers to not include DLSS.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or, just a thought here, it's because FSR is open source. You can literally go look at it on github right now.

DLSS is not. Guess which one is easier to implement into a game? If you guessed FSR, you'd be right. You don't need to involve AMD the company at all to implement FSR into your game. That is not true of DLSS and Nvidia.

You're taking a selection bias as a causative argument from a conclusion.

DLSS being closed source is literally an example of Nvidia's anticompetitiveness, by definition.

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's a stretch to claim that proprietary software is inherently anticompetitive, though I won't argue that Nvidia as a whole is often very anticompetitive.

Implementing DLSS is no more fundamentally difficult than implementing FSR. Source-availability only makes things easier in certain edge cases, most uses will just use the precompiled library provided by the vendor. You don't need any kind of special permission or agreement with Nvidia to use DLSS. The interface for these libraries is so similar that there are already community-made wrappers that adapt between the two for games that only support one.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a stretch to claim that proprietary software is inherently anticompetitive

That's exactly the point of making something proprietary. Like, literally the point, so your competitors cannot use it. It's anti competitive.

no more fundamentally difficult than implementing FSR

So we've established:

That FSR is freely available to implement
That DLSS is proprietary
That FSR is on more games than DLSS and/or that games with DLSS often have FSR.
That DLSS works only on NVIDIA cards
that FSR works on, for all intents and purposes, all cards.

And you think it's evidence of foul play that FSR is on more games? Really? You don't see how your sampling bias has played into this?

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You really don't believe AMD sponsoring these games has anything to do with it?

Ease of implementation in most cases can't have anything to do with it, because most games don't even need to do any work to enable it. DLSS is "free as in beer", meaning we don't have to pay any licensing fees to use it. DLSS support is included in Unreal and Unity, right alongside FSR. They're both just checkboxes. Being open source is not a factor here. The distinction between gratis and libre is a much more philosophical concern than a technical one. Trust me, as a developer, a library being proprietary means very little to us when building a video game. What we care about is how much money it costs, and what do we get for that money.

AMD isn't your friend anymore than Nvidia, they just want you to think they are because they don't have an abusable market position yet.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really don’t believe AMD sponsoring these games has anything to do with 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.

DLSS support is included in Unreal and Unity

This is obviously so neither here nor there that it's silly. Last I checked starfield wasn't on unity.

AMD isn’t your friend anymore than Nvidia

Have I said AMD is my friend, or am I calling someone out on wild speculation with no evidence?

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

Have I said AMD is my friend, or am I calling someone out on wild speculation with no evidence?

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

Direct comparisons between FSR and DLSS are unfavorable to AMD
AMD is paying developers to implement their technologies like FSR
Game developers have no real trepidation about using proprietary middleware and APIs beyond their licensing costs, of which DLSS has none.

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.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You haven't countered the basic fact that you have failed to provide any evidence.

Starfield isn't relevant to my argument,

So... It's irrelevant to this post because it's devastating toyour case? Kay

Consider this [unsubstantiated conspiracy theory]

Ok.

perfectly valid hypothesis

Sure. Now get the data.

You're really making mountains out of molehills

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.

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You haven’t countered the basic fact that you have failed to provide any evidence.

Every single AMD sponsored game has skipped DLSS despite the fact that implementation is free and trivial.

So… It’s irrelevant to this post because it’s devastating toyour case? Kay

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.

Sure. Now get the data.

Every single AMD sponsored game has skipped DLSS despite the fact that implementation is free and trivial.

you’re not actually listening to my arguments and just wildly speculating from something you’ve already decided must be the case.

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.

[–] bear@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't really bother me because FSR is open source and platform neutral.

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But unlike g-sync and freesync, FSR2 isn't good enough to match DLSS3 yet.

[–] bear@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Well, maybe Nvidia should spend time trying to improve it instead of creating more vendor lock-in.

[–] randombit@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

I’d love to know how much AMD is paying to keep DLSS out of the game.

[–] IntergalacticTowel@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

As bad as the performance seems to be (30 FPS on current consoles?), I think they should offer DLSS, FSR 2, and Intel's XeSS. Invite everyone to the table, they're practically printing money already with preorders. Exclusivity is ridiculous.

[–] themizarkshow@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Doesn’t seem that surprising since AMD has its chips in all the consoles. Probably just makes the PC and Xbox version extra similar

[–] JCDenton@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well this is very unfortunate. So poorly played by bethesda that I’m going to rethink buying the game.

I didn’t choose pc gaming so these graphics cards companies can split the market here too like with the consoles.

[–] Onihikage@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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).

[–] Poopfeast420@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Onihikage@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Steinsprut@szmer.info 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but Nvidia partnered games usually also support FSR and XeSS, AMD partnered games only get FSR

load more comments