Comment on Developers Were Left in the Dark About DLSS 5
ech@lemmy.ca 3 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 2 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 2 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.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 1 hour 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.