AMD is proud to announce that we are Bethesda's exclusive PC partner for the next-generation role-playing game, Starfield. Watch this special announcement vi...

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

  • Mika@beehaw.org
    0·
    1 year ago

    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

    OK

    • beefcat@beehaw.org
      0·
      1 year ago

      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
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.