JEMC said:
Studios/publishers working with Nvidia or ATI/AMD has been a common practice since... well, kind of like forever. Nvidia used to run the TWIMTBP program for years while AMD tried to counter that with their Get In The Game alternative. This, the Starfield thing or the close partnership between Nvidia and CDP with Cyberpunk 2077 (and also during the launch of The Witcher 3 with their Hairworks tech) are nothing new, and people only tend to complain about it when they're on the other end of the bargain. The only difference is that now Intel has joined the game, and Ubisoft is more than happy to be bought in order to get more cash. |
Yea but upscaling is becoming such an important feature to gaming that it should really be one of those things that should be included from all 3 vendors. Like back in those days where you had say Hairworks from Nvidia in some games or PhysX from Nvidia in others... Those kinds of features are like, it's nice to have but you can turn it off and still play the game. Ray Tracing in current generation is similar in that fashion. In a game like Cyberpunk or Alan Wake 2, yea if you have an Nvidia GPU, turning it on will look visually impressive but if you have a Radeon GPU, if you turn it off, you can still play the game.
But upscaling on the other hand is becoming a critical part of "just being able to play the game" unless you are willing to turn down the settings drastically. Many games built around new engines like UE5 are running at 720p render resolution on a PS5/Series X and the mighty 4090 is becoming a 1440p GPU if you want to play Naively. So until someone comes out with an upscaler that is not only widely adopted but also looks as good as DLSS and runs well on all modern GPUs, companies really should be including all 3.
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850