Yes it is. I made this account in 2016 and then when these games released they became 2 of the highest rated games of the gen xD

I was pretty irked when I found out Wolfenstein 2 was AMD sponsored and how that ran on my rig, as well as Human Revolution. 

I didn't play any of them even on the console (although being free I played Human Revolution for like 2h last month) I can surely appreciate you feeling aggravatted for the bad performance. At least from what we know on console realm one platform holder doesn't pay for it to have better performance on their HW.

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.

I can't really think of a game that came into being, one that was solely funded by just AMD. Ideally, if you want the game to work well with the majority out there, you'd want to work with both. I mean, if it's fine to work with one vendor, it should be for the other or none at all.

AMD pays just like nvidia does. But they do not "open source", in a way that makes said game magically work better. Their open source tech is related to their Tress FX, not their drivers.

There have been cases like I mentioned, where AMD sponsored games ran better with AMD hw and worse with Nvidia hw. It's one thing to suggest one side is working fairly and all blame going to the other for reasons unknown, but it's another to suggest that making a game working well with one vendor, means the other is "unfairly" crippled.

I want to fault AMD like I'd fault Nvidia. Both are companies that create their own GPU's for their respective market targets. Both have had situations where it ran good on their GPU's and bad on their competitors. What doesn't make sense here, is excusing one vendor over the other, while also outright trying to suggest that the other one die out or do exactly the same thing, but at the same time, retain the same level of blame for "reasons".

I can see a path, where Nvidia does what AMD does and still getting the blame for "not getting gud", because that's how it falls for them whenever AMD gets good performance with a game and when Nvidia gets bad performance. The way it is set up for them makes it so they can never win by that logic. Seriously, that's how it looks each and every way. The same way with MS, that no matter how hard they try, people will always go for their competitor over them, and it's been this way throughout the generations thus far. 

Also, you say you appreciate aggravated view on bad performance, but it seems as though you now don't, based on the Nvidia side of things.

Wow! Who would have thought in 2016 that God of War and The Legend of Zelda would become high rated games in 2017 and 2018?

Nobody even heard of these niche IPs before 2017... you are a real prophet!

Greetings from RDR2GTA6TLoU2

Did you see them doing 96 and 94 on Metacritic? Don't tell me that it was expected of them, people had their doubts for God of War and The Legend of Zelda wasn't expected to do that well. They aren't merely high rated games, they are the highest rated games as is Super Mario Odyssey which wasn't announced.

I have nothing against you pointing the shortcomings of AMD, I'm not a defensor of them. I just found it that from the evidence we have that NVidia have been doing worse practice than AMD.

And perhaps I have expressed myself wrong for your last paragraph interpretation. I meant that I understand you not liking the bad performance you experienced in those games.

I'm on about both vendors shortcomings, not just one of them.

I don't like it when either side is lacking in performance, but I also dislike whenever a new card is marketed as being "strong" and then not being able to handle said tech that is marketed as being "well used" with said strong cards.

My one wonder out of this thread though is, if AMD decides to take on the same or if not higher bad practice than Nvidia, will they be held accountable, or simply defended because they are the "good guys". having seen what's gone on this gen with consoles, I don't really see AMD getting much if any rap for anything bad they could do in the future. One of my friends is already heavily deluded into thinking AMD is their best mate, and "down with the man" that is Intel/Nvidia.