this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023

13 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30428 readers

401 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

25 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 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mika7150@beehaw.org 11 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 3 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 1 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 1 points 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.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 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.

[–] randombit@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] bear@slrpnk.net 4 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.

[–] IntergalacticTowel@lemmy.sdf.org 3 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

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

I guess this isn't the end of the world for Nvidia users, because FSR 2.2 is pretty good, and this game will be unlikely to have ray tracing that requires a lot of upscaling anyways, but it still sucks that the only way games will run well on any PC hardware nowadays is if the developers are paid to optimize for it.

[–] JCDenton@beehaw.org 0 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 4 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).

[–] 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

[–] 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 4 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.

load more comments