Comment on Developers Were Left in the Dark About DLSS 5
ech@lemmy.ca 15 hours agoThat said, theres been so much focus on how it looks. IMO, its completely overblown, especially when all of this needs to be manually configued on a game-by-game basis. Devs can tweak the settings to their own preferences, and make things more or less extreme.
It’s wild that every defense of this garbage is “Just have devs spend even more time finetuning for this.” Yes, let’s double (or more) the workload of workers that are already overworked and crunched beyond reason, all for a “feature” that looks like garbage in it’s showcase demo and is so resource intensive that very few users will be able to utilize it, if they even want to.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Its more an argument against the, “artisit’s intent” and “disrupting gameplay” points. As I said, the feature is dumb not because it “looks like AI”.
Do you have any evidence for this? Given whats been shown, this seems relatively easy to implement on the game dev side.
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Even if implementing it turns out to be trivial, testing art assets for quality and consistency will be a nightmare. Especially if the underlying generative AI isn’t deterministic.
Katana314@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Even if implementing it is trivial, it’s also still “one more thing”. Just like optimizing for the Steam Deck, considering features that might not be on the lowest-tier console release, accessibility requirements, and dozens of other checklist items that might go further and further down the list. Worse, if DLSS ends up interfering with those other checklist items after it’s already been verified.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
Yes, but what the tech costs to implement has a huge impact on what it is, and how (or if) its ever implemented. So far as I can tell from my own research, the original commenter was lying, which makes sense. If it actually increased dev time that much, even Nvidia wouldn’t be stupid enough to try and sell it. “AI graphics costs $10 million dollars to implement, and has negligible impact on sales.” would not look good for their bubble.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Yes, depending on implementation details. I mean, its never going to be completely consistant, but I don’t expect these companies to mind a little brand damage if they get short-term boost in invest.
I’m more thinking that as it stands, the hardware requirements make it DOA for users. They’re saying they’ll improve it, although I have my doubts. That said, even if no one can run it, it may be popular among publishers for screenshots and marketing. On the other hand, if it does actually double dev costs, then it’ll be DOA even for corporate use.