Chazore said:
I don't even think AMD paid to have it play better on their end, it's just that having only one vendor working with said team, means the other doesn't have the same chance of getting it ro run nicely, which leads to drivers being the last resort. Don't forget that current gen systems, besides the Switch sport AMD hw. |
And besides the cases where let's say AMD paid a game to have it developed together... the cases where no one is paying, do the devs works with all GPU manufacturers? I would guess when no one is paying they don't work with any developer. When AMD pays they help and provide solutions that are open source and easier to patch and also as you admitted not even asking to run better on their HW. But when it's developed with NVidia there have been cases of they purposely making it run worse on AMD rigs (we even had scandals of the situation being so bad that a flagship GPU from AMD was running worse than mid level NVidia that when looking for games that weren't sponsored run lot worse of course).
So basically you want to fault AMD for when they work together with a dev without paying for better performance or locking features under proprietary code the same others fault NVidia for taking the extra steps to be anti-consumer? It doesn't make much sense.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







