Yeah I would have waffled something or other, not taken the silent route.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Poll: AMD Screws Gamers: Sponsorships Likely Block DLSS
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Yeah I would have waffled something or other, not taken the silent route.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,503
Glad you understand the difference so hopefully you won't support that poorly derived take going forward.
Just to confirm timelines so I don't have it wrong:
FSR2.1 was released in Sept 8th 2022 per AMD's own blog: https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming...ution-2-1-out-now-even-more-fsr-2/ba-p/544170
On Nov 8th, exactly 2 months after AMD's announcement above, CDPR added FSR2.1 in not just PC but also both next gen consoles. https://www.videogameschronicle.com...heoretically should mean improved performance.
A 60 day program cycle aligned to the next patch release seems quite reasonable no? I'm failing to see the outrage.
You should reach out to your favorite tech tubers/publication and ask them to question the devs on why those games above didn't get FSR support. It's a valid question and I'd be just as curious.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I think if DLSS was open source it wouldn't be an issue. If you read the licence agreement (please do, maybe you'll have a different opinion) you can see why DLSS integration might be problematic in some situations. For example, if a developer uses DLSS, you have to have Nvidia RTX/DLSS logos all over your game, Nvidia can market your game on their website, and a lot more too if you read the agreement. Just my personal opinion.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I corrected the dates, take a look at my post again and you'll see the true timeframes.
Last edited:
free advertisement for you game from nvidia then? as long as nvidia dont charge royalties to use dlss then its all good.
Are those AMD sponsored games that do have DLSS advertised on the Nvidia website now? Is that the reason AMD are blocking DLSS?
Soldato
I've answered yes to the poll, and if the situation was reversed, and Nvidia were found to block FSR, I'd answer yes to that also.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Which games are you talking about? How do you know which games are sponsored?
I gave you my personal opinion, what's yours? Sounds like you've made up your mind already.
Soldato
Its not even been confirmed that Starfield will released without DLSS, everyone has just assumed it won't. Would be pretty funny if after all this it does have DLSS support.
Also on another note what if this is how AMD plan to release their updated version of FSR with frame gen and maybe improved upscaling. Will people still be raging if that is the case and the visual improvement end up being on par with DLSS?
Also on another note what if this is how AMD plan to release their updated version of FSR with frame gen and maybe improved upscaling. Will people still be raging if that is the case and the visual improvement end up being on par with DLSS?
Last edited:
I fully agree. Anyone blocking anything should be called out for what it is.
Of course not, is ocuk out of order for not advertising or including competitor's products?
Like ocuk?
Caporegime
I'm not even against them for it lol, because it's business.Damn dude, checkmate on @Stanners.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,923
no.
Who else opinion would it be, I know it came from you...
I have made my mind up in as much as if it is true then it is out of order. It is beyond me why AMD if it is not true do not just say so.
Caporegime
It's this kind of black and white thinking that leads to threads going off on weird tangents. You do realise those aren't comparable situations?
Stanners is referring to AMD potentially blocking the use of a competitor technology within a game. If true, it could raise significant antitrust issues and questions about market manipulation. It's essentially about how a company might be leveraging its position to potentially harm competitors and consumers by limiting the potential utility of their products. Yes, I'm aware nVidia may do or have done the same.
Your response, on the other hand, pertains to the retail business practices of OCUK and their decision on what products to stock and advertise. As a retailer, OCUK has the discretion to choose the products they believe best serve their customer base or align with their business model and that includes choosing not to sell or advertise certain brands or products. It doesn't directly disadvantage any competitor in terms of product functionality, unlike the first scenario. Retailers often have exclusive deals with suppliers or make strategic decisions about the brands they carry without it being an issue of fair competition.
So yeah, while both situations could potentially influence consumer choice, they do so in fundamentally different ways and engage different aspects of market competition and regulation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,503
You didn't correct the dates, you completely reverted to a FSR1.0 argument. Your 2.1 point that you had originally crafted which as you see now, is poor.
FSR1.0 was by all means a generally horrific implementation of upscaling technology. That's just brand protection 101. Why would CDPR who are already taking heat for CP2077 issue now implement a universally panned upscaling tech and offer a poor experience?
Caporegime
I forgot that FSR 1 was even in Cyberpunk tbh and only discovered it when looking up the time lines, but the point is still completely relevant as it still took an incredibly long time to integrate something that takes a few days development time. Development cycles for a feature like that are not usually well over a year.
Anyway it was for that reason that I gave some other examples aside from Cyberpunk.