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.
Katana314@lemmy.world 1 hour 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 1 hour 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.