| Chazore said: What things?. I just look at AMD like I do any other company, that is one that exists to make money and isn't anyone's friend. Despite their "open source" attempts over the years, they still haven't managed to make it so that their "open source" tech works perfectly on all hardware, and even then they haven't really invented much in the way that would put them above Nvidia in almost every way (seriously, I haven't seen a plethora of articles stating that they've trounced NV in terms of tech and progress). I think that Nvidia's partnership GPP program was quite trite, but outside of that I don't take issue with their tech, Their hairworks clearly needs more refinement, but their VXAO is naturally demanding for what it does, while HBAO+ and PCSS more or less work fine. I think some people are just a bit tilted, in that they feel they shouldn't have to go out and buy NV hardware, which is pretty much what the big 3 do with their consoles. I mean, if you want access to the games and tech included in those Sony games, you're going to have to buy that system. If you want that G-sync monitor, you're going to have to buy an NV card etc.
Both pieces of hair tech do have their up and downsides, which is why I think both can co-exist, rather than us just going with AMD only tech. I imagine this topic will rear itself once more, once Nvidia starts working more on their side of Ray Tracing tech. We'll no doubt get threads about how Nvidia should give up it's findings for free. |
I'm not exactly quite sure what it was but you once viewed Nvidia conspiring with their GameWorks technology to cripple their older and their competitors hardware thinking that the performance impacts of these graphical effects were unreasonable and that they were acting anti-consumer (those effects could turned off) in those who wanted the best possible experience for a reasonable performance ...
I have an interesting question, are you going to disapprove of them again for pushing GameWorks RTX (I think we have an absolutely quality of life improvement here) that'll probably "cripple" all of the GPUs out there to the point where they can't maintain even a stable 30FPS aside from their own top part next gen achitecture (after Volta) or will you finally give in to stop chasing the absolute "best" graphical effects ?
I've learned that "we" which is us PC gaming "master race" if consoles were to represent the "peasants" can't have it all compared to the "gods" behind rendering farms or offline rendering but even they too have a limit ... (we have to actually denoise a ray traced output in the foreseeable future while they can use however many ray samples they'd like)
I know we'll never be able to get close enough to movie quality rendering so I made amends to potentially deal with 30FPS if devs will include these demanding graphical options regardless of GameWorks in the future ... (I don't think I'd be willing to go any lower than 30FPS since I won't enable any better graphical effects so that's my "limit" or where I draw the line)
PC is all about those options to customize your experience IMO so I do not believe that lower end options are something to be shunned about even though I prefer having the best graphical effects as much as possible ...
As for their tech, I really dislike PCSS (holy, look at those disappearing shadow cascades and I have no idea why developers just keep working around the flaws either when there's a better solution known as HFTS) just as some of the PC gamers really hate motion blur but the rest of their tech is fine ...
And yeah every businesses should judged by the same standards so exclusivity is to be expected to be used to gain a competitive advantage ... we're already vendor locked with Microsoft to Windows so i don't see a problem with another vendor lock-in)
