AMD accused of (and implicitly admits) preventing sponsored Games from supporting DLSS

[cooky560]

Nvidia has done things like historically, most recently with ray tracing, so why is a massive shock when AMD does it too? Yes it's bad, but it's what sadly the industry has become.

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, cooky560 said:

Nvidia has done things like historically, most recently with ray tracing, so why is a massive shock when AMD does it too? Yes it's bad, but it's what sadly the industry has become.

They did? Are you sure about that?

[leadeater]

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You refuse to comment on this, and won't even make a comment about how you would feel if the allegations were true. 

I find that very strange.

I've told you why, it just plays in to crack pot theories without any more basis than "I've seen a bunch of games with only X" that then goes in to deep pointless spirals needlessly forcing the point aka your question now. Like don't take that last part the wrong way but I think you can understand quite well what I am pointing out.

 

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Especially since you don't seem to have any issue making a lot of whataboutism comments about the bad things Nvidia have done in this thread.

There isn't any whatabouism at all. What Nvidia was doing, malice of not, is really well documented and even they saw how it was coming off and made changes like making GameWorks partially open source. And I've also said both companies do the same things so I don't know why you are singling out Nvidia here.

 

Nvidia and my comments about specific situations are well explained why I commented on them, situation does matter.

Quote

While all of this sounds very good, Nvidia's GameWorks initiative has not been free from controversy, as many Nvidia GameWorks games in the past have been known for being overly demanding on systems, especially those running on AMD Hardware and many critics and developers have criticized Nvidia for not making the Source Code for GameWorks tools publicly available, instead only giving it to certain developers privately upon request. 
....
Now it seems that with the Release of GameWorks 3.1 Nvidia is moving to become more Open with GameWorks, having announced that PhysX, PhysX Clothing, PhysX Destruction, Volumetric Lighting and Nvidia's FaceWorks Demo are now all available with Source Code on Github, with HairWorks, HBAO+ and WaveWorks being added at a later date. 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/nvidia_making_gameworks_source_code_publicly_available/1

 

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

but I really don't see why you are so reluctant to answer in my opinion a very simple question. 

I have already answered it, you can go back to the first few posts in this topic. What you want from me is a sound bite answer, you're not going to get such a thing. I've made it very clear already where I stand and what is and is not acceptable.

 

Edit:

I'll make it just a little bit more clear for you, and this is already an answer I have given. Intel has been found guilty in court and fined for exactly this type of contractual arrangement. Since there is established legal precedent for it only fools would follow that path, I don't think AMD nor Nvidia are fools.

 

So unless you think I support businesses conducting illegal activities then you've had your answer ages ago 

[cooky560]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

They did? Are you sure about that?

I'm not fantastically hot on the history pre sort of 780 days, however I know that ray tracing was something that was done for this same reason. Something nvidia does better that the competition at the time didn't do at all, and still can't do well. 

 

I saw a video some time ago with other examples, if I find it again I will post it here. However nvidia is no stranger to proprietary technology used to gain an advantage. Heck I'm sure even TXAA was from NVidia only originally.

 

G-sync is still locked to nvidia products. 
 

Nvidia's website also claims that dx12 ultimate is GeForce only. https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/technologies/directx-12-ultimate/

 

While these aren't the same as telling a partner not to use DLSS, encouraging them to use these features gives nvidia the same advantage that this gives to AMD.

[starsmine]

12 minutes ago, cooky560 said:

I'm not fantastically hot on the history pre sort of 780 days, however I know that ray tracing was something that was done for this same reason. Something nvidia does better that the competition at the time didn't do at all, and still can't do well. 

 

I saw a video some time ago with other examples, if I find it again I will post it here. However nvidia is no stranger to proprietary technology used to gain an advantage. Heck I'm sure even TXAA was from NVidia only originally.

 

G-sync is still locked to nvidia products. 
 

Nvidia's website also claims that dx12 ultimate is GeForce only. https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/technologies/directx-12-ultimate/

 

While these aren't the same as telling a partner not to use DLSS, encouraging them to use these features gives nvidia the same advantage that this gives to AMD.

Ray tracing was never proprietary, Nvidia was the first to be dx12 ultimate compliant yes, but that does not mean any part of dx12 was a Nvidia-exclusive technology.

AMD literally can not run DLSS. 
Nvidia can run FSR and are encouraged to do so.

AMD cards are very good at DXR now, better then Turing ever was. 

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I've told you why, it just plays in to crack pot theories without any more basis than "I've seen a bunch of games with only X" that then goes in to deep pointless spirals needlessly forcing the point aka your question now. Like don't take that last part the wrong way but I think you can understand quite well what I am pointing out.

Okay. So please correct me if am I wrong, but your stance is that this story is not true and so wild that you don't think it is worth even entertaining the idea of what it would mean if it was true? That there is no point in discussing implications if the story turns out to be true, because it isn't true.

You don't feel like there is anything else to discuss about AMD dodging the question either when given the chance to dispel the rumors. 

Is that correct?

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There isn't any whatabouism at all. What Nvidia was doing, malice of not, is really well documented and even they saw how it was coming off and made changes like making GameWorks partially open source. 

Whataboutism can be about well-documented things as well. That's kind of the point of the tactic. 

Whataboutism is when you ignore a question or topic and instead shift it to be about a different thing where you can paint the opposition as worse in comparison.

 

 

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And I've also said both companies do the same things so I don't know why you are singling out Nvidia here.

Because the topic is about AMD. 

 

OP: AMD might be doing something bad.

You: Both Nvidia and AMD are bad. By the way, people who believe AMD did something bad are crackpots.

Me: Why did you bring up Nvidia? It seems like you're trying to shift the topic.

You: I said both were bad. Why are you so hung up on me mentioning Nvidia?

 

 

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I have already answered it, you can go back to the first few posts in this topic. What you want from me is a sound bite answer, you're not going to get such a thing. I've made it very clear already where I stand and what is and is not acceptable.

Maybe I am missing where you answered the question because I can't really find it. Can you quote the part where you gave your opinion on the specific tactic of paying a game developer to not include a solution from a competitor?

[porina]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Even Nvidia is all super sensitive about it too, because Streamline does not "support" AMD it supports "Hardware Vendor #3" lol

 

You really think it would help AMD's brand to push Nvidia Streamline?

I missed Streamline somehow. It looks like the solution to parallel solution bloat, although I would have thought it better placed driven by MS for example. It is interesting Intel are mentioned by name, but AMD are not.

 

27 minutes ago, cooky560 said:

However nvidia is no stranger to proprietary technology used to gain an advantage. Heck I'm sure even TXAA was from NVidia only originally.

 

G-sync is still locked to nvidia products. 

Someone has to be first to do something. Nvidia often takes that risk and comes up with the solution. So yes, they're going to sell it, not give it for free to competitors nor wait for them to have their version so everything is done at once. AMD as usual took forever to play catch up with an inferior solution, a game I'm tiered of seeing them do. AMD's main advantage from not being first is that nvidia has already done the hard work to get market adoption of new features.

 

Besides, old school G-sync is pretty much on the way out. Now they've adopted the more generic solution with a "G-Sync Compatible" certification layer guaranteeing a minimum level of quality.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

I missed Streamline somehow. It looks like the solution to parallel solution bloat, although I would have thought it better placed driven by MS for example.

Same, it was always going to be a problem carrying either Nvidia or AMD logos/brands. That's like asking Coke to say Pepsi tastes just as good 

 

6 minutes ago, porina said:

but AMD are not.

From memory every time Nvidia refers to AMD it's "GPU Vendor #" etc and never by actual name. It's not uncommon type of thing though.

 

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the way, people who believe AMD did something bad are crackpots.

That's a weird way to take it but ok. Accusations need merit, this lacks merit. You're free to disagree but I simply don't need to comment on something that has no merit to need to address in the first place.

 

I understand people are free to make their own observations but a selection of recent games that only have FSR isn't actually a whole ton of merit and it doesn't dissuade me from my own evaluation of no company would likely put that in any contract and follow the folly of Intel.

 

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I am missing where you answered the question because I can't really find it. Can you quote the part where you gave your opinion on the specific tactic of paying a game developer to not include a solution from a competitor?

 

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'll make it just a little bit more clear for you, and this is already an answer I have given. Intel has been found guilty in court and fined for exactly this type of contractual arrangement. Since there is established legal precedent for it only fools would follow that path, I don't think AMD nor Nvidia are fools.

 

So unless you think I support businesses conducting illegal activities then you've had your answer ages ago 

 

As I said you're not going to get sound bite answer to something lacking merit giving credence to furthering the discussion of it as if it were true, which will and is happening. Hence no I will not being going down that path that is so unlikely to be the situation happening.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Whataboutism can be about well-documented things as well. That's kind of the point of the tactic. 

Whataboutism is when you ignore a question or topic and instead shift it to be about a different thing where you can paint the opposition as worse in comparison.

Except I, in my opinion, had a very good reason and point to talk about past events to show why I think one has more merit and basis to comment on and why it has more impacts on the industry necessitating a greater need to get an answer. It's the answer to you as to why I will comment on one and not the other.

 

It is by no means ignoring the question, it is the answer to the question. The question of why I'm not commenting on this like former situations. If you don't want to know why then probably best to not ask.

[porina]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Same, it was always going to be a problem carrying either Nvidia or AMD logos/brands. That's like asking Coke to say Pepsi tastes just as good 

I don't think that analogy works at all. Struggling to come up with something that might be a better parallel, say Coke, Pepsi and Drink Vendor #3 all supply drinks to restaurants. They all have a different connector to the dispenser, being a bit of a headache for the restaurants if they want flexibility to offer variety. This may be like Coke saying, we made this connector, it is open and free for everyone to use to connect to it, and you can put whatever you like through it. Pepsi goes ok. Drink Vendor #3 is no comment.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

From memory every time Nvidia refers to AMD it's "GPU Vendor #" etc and never by actual name. It's not uncommon type of thing though.

I'm not an expert in competition, trademark or advertising law, but not directly referring to a competitor is usually a defensive posture. I don't feel that quite applies here since we're talking about providing a common interface, not a competitive feature. Also nvidia do mention Intel by name. Link below claims Intel did sign up. If AMD are playing hard ball just because nvidia are involved, what would it take? Should nvidia transfer it to a more neutral body?

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-streamline-aims-to-simplify-developer-support-for-upscaling-algorithms

 

[leadeater]

58 minutes ago, porina said:

I don't think that analogy works at all. Struggling to come up with something that might be a better parallel, say Coke, Pepsi and Drink Vendor #3 all supply drinks to restaurants. They all have a different connector to the dispenser, being a bit of a headache for the restaurants if they want flexibility to offer variety. This may be like Coke saying, we made this connector, it is open and free for everyone to use to connect to it, and you can put whatever you like through it. Pepsi goes ok. Drink Vendor #3 is no comment.

I'm not sure this is talking about what we were? I was simply pointing out why AMD isn't mentioned by Nvidia. I don't think Pepsi and Coke directly mention each other either, but I could be wrong. Much like when these company say "compared to the competition". Basically I don't think Nvidia is treating Intel as a market competitor yet so aren't concerned about naming them, or as you point out Intel may be directly contributing to should be named.

 

58 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm not an expert in competition, trademark or advertising law, but not directly referring to a competitor is usually a defensive posture. I don't feel that quite applies here since we're talking about providing a common interface, not a competitive feature.

It doesn't really matter what it is I just think that's how Nvidia deals with AMD. However reading the article it seems there is no current AMD plugin for Streamline from anyone so that is the reason why, it's a placeholder since AMD is not supported.

 

58 minutes ago, porina said:

If AMD are playing hard ball just because nvidia are involved, what would it take? Should nvidia transfer it to a more neutral body?

AMD have their own tools, GPUOpen. They aren't really going to throw away their own just because another competing vendor has something they could use. Why doesn't Nvidia join on to GPUOpen? Same answer.

 

I don't think moving it out to a neutral party would help much, lets use Vulkan for example since that is a comparable situation. There are still tools that sit above Vulkan, or DirectX, that address specific implimentation so even if Vulkan, or DirectX, added in to the API feature set upscaling these tools would still exist anyway.

 

Really it should be more natively integral to the game engine and development tools so it's more a matter of going "yes please I want this and this" as part of the project. Streamline seems to be address a deficiency in Unity/Unreal more than actually needing to exist.

[porina]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure this is talking about what we were? I was simply pointing out why AMD isn't mentioned by Nvidia.

I was talking about Streamline, not in general. Looking back, you were using Streamline as an example, so that may be our disconnect this time.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

AMD have their own tools, GPUOpen. They aren't really going to throw away their own just because another competing vendor has something they could use. Why doesn't Nvidia join on to GPUOpen? Same answer.

Streamline is not about forcing the use of one tool or other, but providing a common interface for programmers to more easily use applicable ones from multiple vendors. Does GPUOpen specifically do that? If not, that's a separate discussion.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I don't think it moving out to a neutral party would help much, lets use Vulkan for example since that is a comparable situation. There are still tools that sit above Vulkan, or DirectX, that address specific implimentation so even if Vulkan, or DirectX, added in to the API feature set upscaling these tools would still exist anyway.

Streamline might not cover all use cases, but for future use cases it could be extended as desired for things that make sense to fall within its remit. Not everything needs to.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Streamline seems to be address a deficiency in Unity/Unreal more than actually needing to exist.

I feel it does need to exist, I just didn't know nvidia made it public months ago. Again, it may have helped if it came from a less hardware invested company. We have lots of parallel software doing essentially the same function, not necessarily same result. I can imagine game devs rolling their eyes every time a new one pops up. The worst case is they just pick one to implement and move on. By adopting a single interface we are hopefully reducing their workload in that respect, while still allowing gamers to have maximum flexibility in hardware and software choice. It may even open the door to alternative independent implementations that otherwise would not have had a chance as they'd never gain sufficient traction for adoption.

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, cooky560 said:

G-sync is still locked to nvidia products. 

This is a very good example, how AMD's open approach in the past positively impacted the whole industry. I don't think variable framerate would be a standard feature nowadays if AMD hadn't spun up a free G-sync competitor.

[Inspirata]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:03 PM, starsmine said:

DLSS 2 is optimized for Nvidia cards like G Sync is vs free sync. 
Like its true, but not true enough to matter. 

Also, I disagree with both OP's and Steve's news editorialization
AMD has NOT admitted, they just explicitly did not comment.

To expand on a potentially different way to read the "No Comment". For AMD to give resources to a game, it's kinda weird on the back end to move money and resources around to include something other than FSR. So the situation could be more along the lines of the resources given by AMD should not be used as justification to move resources around on the dev's side to allow DLSS/XeSS. Cause then it's just AMD paying money and dev time to include FSR and giving the devs money and dev time to add in DLSS. Which is kinda a bit gross in terms of business deals. I don't see a winning take here in any direction for AMD or the Devs. 

It's not true that AMD did not comment.  They did make an initial comment, which was an attempt to redirect the conversation away from the actual point.  After that you just have to draw your own conclusions, but it seems fairly obvious to me at least.

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Inspirata said:

It's not true that AMD did not comment.  They did make an initial comment, which was an attempt to redirect the conversation away from the actual point.  After that you just have to draw your own conclusions, but it seems fairly obvious to me at least.

Op is talking about amd literally saying in response to a question, and I quote. "No comment"

[Inspirata]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:17 PM, Brooksie359 said:

How is this anti competitive? Imagine AMD sponsored some monitors and told them to only include freesync not gsync would that be bad? I mean both amd and nvidia cards can use freesync so its not like it's favoring one brand over the other it's just using a standard that works for both gpu brands. I would even say implementing dlss in a game sponsored by AMD would make no sense when that money can be spent implementing FSR which works on both. I'm sorry but if AMD sponsored the game it would be stupid for them to allow resources to go into a technology that is exclusive to their competitor. Also to say that they could use their own money instead of the sponsored money for dlss is a nonsense claim because at the end of the day they gave them money which allowed them to have extra money left over so no matter how you see it you can't disconnect them spending money on dlss and AMDs sponsorship money. 

It would by definition be anti competitive if money/services exchanged hands under the explicit agreement that a competitor's features not be included in the game.

[Inspirata]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Op is talking about amd literally saying in response to a question, and I quote. "No comment"

Fair enough, but in full context they did already comment on the matter publicly.  It would be misleading to say the company has made no comment.

[starsmine]

8 minutes ago, Inspirata said:

Fair enough, but in full context they did already comment on the matter publicly.  It would be misleading to say the company has made no comment.

They did not implicitly admit in the first quote. The editorialization of OP and GN is that the "no comment" was the implicit admission, and I think that is going to far. I understand how they got to that conclusion. I also think it is highly dubious to be confident about that conclusion and spread it as an editorialized news segment. 

[Inspirata]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

They did not implicitly admit in the first quote. The editorialization of OP and GN is that the "no comment" was the implicit admission, and I think that is going to far. I understand how they got to that conclusion. I also think it is highly dubious to be confident about that conclusion and spread it as an editorialized news segment. 

Being an "editorialization", the whole point is to give their opinion on the subject.  They think it sounds like AMD is avoiding giving an answer because they are indeed making agreements to block the use of DLSS.  Seems like a reasonable assumption, but that is all it is.

[Inspirata]

On 6/30/2023 at 1:07 AM, Blademaster91 said:

It is quite the opposite actually, people defend companies like Nvidia quite a lot here, particularly for things like RTX or DLSS.

Except we don't know if AMD is paying the devs to not use DLSS, AMD could just be paying them to add FSR and the logo, and thats it, or they could be paying them to not use DLSS, we don't know yet.  People insist there is an AMD bias, yet there is a lot of jumping to conclusions that AMD went and pulled an Nvidia.

And the funny thing is Nvidia does this all the time with their proprietary features, yet it isn't in the news.

Please be realistic, that won't happen because Nvidia pays devs to use DLSS, devs aren't going to spend extra time adding FSR as that would cost more even though FSR is a more available tech, especially for gamers with older GPU's.

You know it would be pretty easy for AMD to clear all of the jumping to conclusions up, but they didn't.  I can't imagine any company tolerating even an hour of bad press if it could be cleared up with a simple statement.

[leadeater]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:17 AM, porina said:

Streamline is not about forcing the use of one tool or other, but providing a common interface for programmers to more easily use applicable ones from multiple vendors. Does GPUOpen specifically do that? If not, that's a separate discussion.

GPUOpen is entirely open source and has existed longer than Streamline has, anyone could use it Nvidia or Intel included.  The thing about GPUOpen however is it's full stack, like GameWorks and not just for integrating upscaling.

 

But it still comes back to why would and why should AMD use Nvidia Streamline when GPUOpen covers what they need and enables usage of their technology in games.

 

It is in my opinion unfair and weird to be criticizing AMD for not utilizing Nvidia Streamline as it's still a middleware layer that sits between the game and the render API so utilization of it is still handing over control to an Nvidia technology since they own it, open source or not. Being open source doesn't address any business or long term support concerns and the strategic disadvantage to have yet more Nvidia technology being integral to all of game development.

 

On 7/4/2023 at 1:17 AM, porina said:

It may even open the door to alternative independent implementations that otherwise would not have had a chance as they'd never gain sufficient traction for adoption.

Put it in the game engine, there is no legitimate reason for it to exist if the engine does it

 

• Create a plugin for Nvidia Streamline
• Create a plugin for DirectX and Vulkan that would be universally supported by any game engine

Option B please.

[porina]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Put it in the game engine, there is no legitimate reason for it to exist if the engine does it

You couldn't miss the point harder if you tried. I'm thinking specifically about allowing more possible 3rd party injection without needing a second of extra game dev time.

 

For example, say one of the new Chinese GPU makers came up with an implementation optimised for their GPU, it would be a challenge to get game devs to add yet another variation. With a common front end, this could just be slotted in place.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

• Create a plugin for Nvidia Streamline
• Create a plugin for DirectX and Vulkan that would be universally supported by any game engine

Option B please.

Option B is essentially what we have now. We already have the APIs to the functionality, the problem being they're separate APIs. Streamline would provide a consistent API front end for everyone.

[Nissash]

I want to express my opinion on this issue (I did not read absolutely all the comments, so if something is repeated, I apologize in advance).

 

The main problem is that giving AMD-sponsored games implement DLSS is the same as investing in NVIDIA!

Let's say it this way:

1. AMD is sponsoring the game "A". It may be technology, human resources, or money, but we will call it all just "money" (all this process must be financed).

2. FSR is open source and free for all video card manufacturers.

3. Company that develops game "A" with AMD sponsorship wants to add DLSS support.

4. DLSS is NVIDIA-exclusive technology only for GeForce.

5. So implementing DLSS to the game means to finance NVIDIA-exclusive technology with can be used only by GeForce cards. So this will advertise NVIDIA and encourage gamers to buy GeForce video cards. This means giving money in the NVIDIA basket.

6. So implementing DLSS in an AMD-sponsored game (partly financed by AMD) is the same as giving AMD money to NVIDIA!

 

Implementing FSR is not giving AMD any advantages (it works for all) but implementing DLSS is giving an advantage only to NVIDIA (works only on GeForce)!

Who is more evil here?

The "Hardware Unboxed" video shows AMD as the ultimate evil (it`s really one-sided and IMHO has a feeling like hidden NVIDIA propaganda) and yes they are not the saint, but are they really that evil demon king?

 

In reality, all these problems have its root in NVIDIA-exclusive DLSS technology. If it was open to all GPU manufacturers won't be any sense by blocking it.

So implementing only FSR will give the same gaming experience to all gamers with AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA GPUs. AMD wins nothing. NVIDIA wins nothing.

 

Blocking DLSS - AMD lost its reputation. NVIDIA looks like a "neglected" victim.

 

Implementing DLSS - NVIDIA wins especially with their advertisement for the new 4050..chm 4060 GPUs (witch tightly dependent on DLSS technology). AMD loses.

No matter what solution will be used - AMD only loses and NVIDIA only wins.

 

And Nvidia's answers are "...will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies" and "We provide support and tools for all... to add competitive technologies to their games." 
FSR is not really a "competitor technology", NVIDIA can use this as well, there is no point in blocking it at all. DLSS, on the other hand, their own technology that can be used on their-exclusive GPUs, of course,  support, tools, technologies, etc. will be provided! They will make a huge profit out of DLSS!

While AMD's response is really stupid!

If I was an AMD representative (and I knew AMD is really blocking DLSS) I would just say:

"Yes, I`m blocking my competitor's technology in a game sponsored by me! I won't give my money to support them! Want DLSS - play NVIDIA-sponsored games, there are plenty of these!" (I am that evil). At least it would be truthful and understandable from a financial point of view.

Or, (if AMD not blocking DLSS) I would tell everyone about it, showing what broad views AMD has, even allowing a competitor to make money at its expense (from the company's point of view, this may sound like financial suicide).

 

At the same time, NVIDIA's response is just an evil genius! While looking all good and benevolent outside it simply states that we will not restrict any already open source technology while you use our-exclusive DLSS and we make money on it!

 

And about comments like "NVIDIA is the one who created DLSS and innovated new technology so they have rights to use it" - yes they made it, and made it to take your money! Not because they are that good!

Wouching for implementation of DLSS in all games you simply wouching for giving NVIDIA more money. Instead, we must pressure it to make DLSS open-source and available for other GPU manufacturers. Until it happens, the ultimate losing side is gamers.

So, I believe, if NVIDIA won't make DLSS accessible to all GPU manufacturers the situation will remain the same for a long time.

[Stahlmann]

Here is Tim's take from Hardware Unboxed:

 

 

TL;DW: He is convinced AMD does indeed hinder DLSS implementation because of AMD's behaviour around this whole mess combined with the statistics of FSR vs. DLSS implementations. He said AMD will have to release a genuine and believable statement to convince him of the opposite.

[porina]

44 minutes ago, Nissash said:

So, I believe, if NVIDIA won't make DLSS accessible to all GPU manufacturers the situation will remain the same for a long time.

I'll throw in this question: would you be ok with XeSS support in an AMD sponsored title? XeSS is not limited to Intel, it also works on AMD and nvidia. It is also open. 

 

Even if nvidia made DLSS open, it still wont benefit AMD as AMD just don't have the hardware to use it. Intel is a maybe, with sufficient modification. But Intel already came up with XeSS in that role. For PC gaming as a whole, I feel the best solution is to offer all options in a game for the user to pick if they want. Implementing one does not block implementing others at a technical level.