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.

  • @beefcat@beehaw.org
    0•1 year ago

    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

    1. Direct comparisons between FSR and DLSS are unfavorable to AMD
    2. AMD is paying developers to implement their technologies like FSR
    3. 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•1 year ago

      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•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.