A lot of PC gamer's are literally just doing that already with the original switch. 

A curious game for sure. They seem to have picked some advanced UE5 features and later realized they're not going to get it running well at a high resolution, at which point it probably didn't make sense to spend a huge amount of effort in 'unpicking' those features. Instead, they've tried to make the best of the situation, and game does look quite good technically (aside from the blurriness). What's interesting is that they chose 60 FPS instead of a higher resolution, and I would be tempted to guess they had more trouble getting it to run at a sufficiently good resolution than they had with getting it to run at 60 FPS. Personally I'd say I'm fine with this trade-off, but it's definitely not an uncontroversial one. Due to the interesting trade-off and the advanced UE5 features, it also seems a bit hard to judge whether they were simply too ambitious or if they've actually skimped on optimization, or perhaps a bit of both. I'd be curious to hear if anyone has more knowledge about the performance of Nanite and Lumen in actual games (instead of just tech demos).

Isn't Silent Hill 2 remake also supposed to run on UE5? I think that game may have one sole 30 fps mode on PS5, but hopefully there's also a 40 fps mode. I can't see them hitting 60 fps at anything above 1080p.

I mean even recommended PC requirements of RTX 2080 say it's only good for 1080p 60 fps medium or 1080p 30 fps high.

I'm predicting 1440p (internaly) may also use FSR 2, at 30 fps (optional 40 fps mode probably unlikely)

Time will tell, but hopefully we're not headed for a generation where devs don't bother optimizing for a decent resolution and just slap FSR over the top as a bandaid.

Smart upscaling tech like FSR can be an impressive tool when used right, but it isn't magic and even watching it on Youtube it's clear Immortals of Aveum's image quality is less than stellar.

I'm not a stickler for perfect graphics, I'm a satisfied Switch owner after all, but there's a point where it seems a bit ridiculous to have sub-Gamecube resolutions on a 9th gen home console. 

I don't want to disappoint you, but there are already devs who are designing games entirely with DLSS/FSR in mind, like the devs behind Last Remnant 2. 

Go to 3:45:

I've been having this convo in the main PC thread for some time, in that I hope devs aren't going to forgo optimisations/actual power of the cards/chips, in favour of a temp band-aid solution to what current gen is offering in terms of tech.

The more Nvidia keeps pushing AI, and being the market leader, the more the other 2 are likely to follow and that will inevitably include consoles as well. 

I wouldn't worry, the reception to the terrible resolution & scaling is pretty bad. 

I'd honestly rather have a 30fps at a native resolution somewhere between 1080-1440p. 

My understanding is that FSR3 will be suitable for games already running at around the 60fps mark and above, so wouldn't necessarily help with immortals on consoles. So ironically it potentially won't help the hardware most in need of the extra frames on a lot of games...

I'm not seeing that all over Reddit and tech youtubers, who are claiming upscaling is an ultimate godsend, and anyone objecting it is downvoted or pushed into a corner by this group.

I feel like people are taking whatever they can get in this current time, that instead of seeing it for a band-aid, they see it as a new norm (which it shouldn't be, because it removes options like brute forcing). 

WOW you make all the DF threads and only own a switch lmao.

They're likely PC gamers taking games (can toggle options including using DLSS) and likely not talking about this exact implementation of FSR2 in this game. No one is praising this game for how it responses the image on consoles. Plenty of games are upscaled and do not have this level of artefacting.

Upscaling is hugely important going forward but developers need to figure out what basis to start from (resolution wise) and which implementations to use.