I disagree with a lot of this, lets skip the fanboyism and look at things more objectively.
That's fair and that's your right, I disagree with a lot of what you wrote too, it doesn't make me wrong or you right, or vice versa. Happy to skip fanboyism, I don't fanboy for any company anyway, I just buy products that I want and that are right for me.
1. XeSS might be better but not nearly enough games support it yet so calling FSR pointless is just wrong, if every game that supported FSR also supported XeSS or could easily with a drop in be added, then you would have a point.
Well, I thought the context was obvious that it was a joke, I don't think FSR is pointless, but calling attention to what I mentioned made for an interesting point of comparison. The way I remember it adoption had very little to do with many maaaany people singing FSR's praises purely because it was open, if XeSS really is this good, it just might supplant FSR long term given it's open and is shaping up to be very robust IQ/AA wise.
2. If DLSS was just open to all to use, like so many technologies beforehand, then FSR would have never become a thing, it would not be needed....
But big N being big N, it isnt, so FSR is needed...
And FSR is open so DLSS is kinda not needed.
Having 3 technologies all doing the same is just a silly waste of effort, you praise that modder and attack AMD when really you should be attacking Nvidia for not just making it an open standard, this is just arbitrary nonsense and you know that its also just a matter of time before one becomes the standard and we can move on from these (nvidia brought on) shenanigans.
Hard disagree, when so much of the potential customer base owns RTX, and DLSS is consistently superior, and exceedingly simple to implement, DLSS should absolutely be implemented and I'd say "is needed", PC gamers want it added to games, not the vocal minority of course, the silent majority. Absolutely not a waste of effort when all 3 could and should be put in easily and simultaneously, if only there was an open source solution to that.... It might be a matter of time, but how long till then, if it happens, do we need to deal with substandard bs and AMD's also anti consumer practices? time will tell. And yes, I 100% view AMD's purposeful blocking of DLSS as anti consumer. Certain games have undeniably lost potential sales over this BS. I wouldn't stand for it if NV did it either, but both companies have every different takes on this subject...
AMD:
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is an open-source technology that supports a variety of GPU architectures, including consoles and competitive solutions, and we believe an open approach that is broadly supported on multiple hardware platforms is the best approach that benefits developers and gamers. AMD is committed to doing what is best for game developers and gamers, and we give developers the flexibility to implement FSR into whichever games they choose.
-AMD Spokesperson to Wccftech
NVIDIA:
NVIDIA does not and will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies in any way. We provide the support and tools for all game developers to easily integrate DLSS if they choose and even created NVIDIA Streamline to make it easier for game developers to add competitive technologies to their games.
-Keita Iida, vice president of developer relations, NVIDIA
One in objective terms without any wiggle-room for foolery on committing to not being anti-competitive on technology, and by the VP of developer relations nonetheless, and another effectively saying nothing about the issue they’re being confronted on.
DLSS was only made to make real time ray tracing something actually possible....but the narative has weirdly shifted to DLSS being the selling point....
If RT was the selling point and Nvidia was selling their hardware on the merrit of it being really good at that and pushing for games to atleast support it, that would be fine, then the ball is in AMD and Intel's court to get off their behinds and match the performance.
But...they also just lock out DLSS.
Who cares why it was made (you might, I don't), the point is it's here and it's great, and yeah, it's on AMD and Intel to match them and be open to negate that selling point, it's a legitimate feature, like/accept it or not, it certainly is to many buyers.
When FSR/Xess matches or even surpasses DLSS, you have to admit, that would make DLSS pointless, like Freesync did to Gsync.
I don't
have to admit anything, but hey if FSR matches or exceeds performance, image quality and a balance of artefacts, all
concurrently, I'd certainly view DLSS as less of a selling point, and perhaps entirely mitigated if it held zero advantages whatsoever. And I also don't think Gsync is pointless, it's far less of a selling point now with freesync, yes, but still a premium option on certain premium monitors. This appeals to some buyers. if it was dead/pointless, Nvidia would stop making it.
Heck personally I dont think any game should support DLSS and instead devs need to come together and help make FSR or Xess just better and use either one instead.
I think Dev's, considering how easy it is to implement all of them once any is done, is give every gamer the options to fine tune their experience to best suit their tastes and hardware.
Perhaps we need to agree to disagree, because I don't see you changing my mind, and I don't see myself changing yours.
This is Todd's baby after all
Though I must admit, it can be worse than MS.
