Yes, there are quite a few, albeit mostly AA and indie games. Although I guess it comes down to how you determine if a game is sponsored?
They are listed as sponsored by AMD. It's a marketing tool, they make it quite clear.
I don't recall Anno 1800 being sponsored by AMD and it doesn't have DLSS. I just remember that they were one of the first to implement FSR and have stated they have no intentions of ever implementing DLSS.
Isn't Anno 1800 just using FSR
1 though? Spatial upscalers aren't exactly relevant to this topic, of course if a game has no temporal reconstruction method then adding a spatial upscaler is trivial - I'm talking about games that have implemented temporal reconstruction but purposely choose to avoid DLSS and just use FSR2. The work involved to incorporate FSR2 or DLSS to a game
initially is far more involved than adding in FSR2/DLSS to one or the other after the fact, if it took a month+ of work to add in every subsequent reconstruction method then devs only using one would be far more justifiable.
I'm talking about games that use FSR2. I genuinely don't know the count if, I believe
Scorn is one game that is FSR2 only (and it actually works quite well with in that game btw, the reconstruction is the least of its problems), and I don't see any AMD affiliation.
There's also games that are AMD sponsored which have both FSR and DLSS (like TLOU2).
Yes, pretty much all of Sony's ports. This is part of the reason it was more
speculation that AMD has a selective licensing agreement and it's blown up now is entirely due to AMD's hamfisted response when asked about it. You're still speaking as if AMD didn't mumble mouth an answer what should have been a layup if there wasn't actually a restrictive stipulation in some cases.
There's also games that have DLSS but not FSR (like Sackboy).
Indeed!
DF has started to call out games that only have DLSS and not FSR2, and I don't like to see FSR2 excluded either - Sackboy had a ton of patches for example - they even added SER (Shader Execution Reordering)! - but they never bothered with FSR2 support which is ridiculous considering how much work they kept putting into the game otherwise.
So it's not like Sony cares about forcing a partner to allow multiple upscaling techs. Why aren't we crying about games that don't even allow many gamers (even NV GPU owners) to even use any upscaling tech unless they own specific graphics cards by a specific IHV?
We are, as has been said many times. Devs should use all 3. The measure of outrage (?) is because there is mounting evidence that one IHV actually
prohibits the choice of the developer based on their co-marketing agreement. If a developer doesn't want to bother to add FSR or XESS that sucks if the implementation is weaker than what DLSS could likely provide, but if that's their choice, then welp.
I could certainly see there being additional financial incentives if a company were to implement only DLSS or only FSR. Neither NV or AMD's statements from earlier in this thread preclude that.
Oh come on. There is a
chasm of difference between AMD's laughably inept phrasing and Nvidia's:
AMD said:
To clarify, there are community sites that track the implementation of upscaling technologies, and these sites indicate that there are a number of games that support only DLSS currently (
for example, see link).
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is an open-source technology that supports a variety of GPU architectures, including consoles and competitive solutions, and we believe an open approach that is broadly supported on multiple hardware platforms is the best approach that benefits developers and gamers. AMD is committed to doing what is best for game developers and gamers, and we give developers the flexibility to implement FSR into whichever games they choose.
AMD Spokesperson to Wccftech
Nvidia said:
NVIDIA does not and will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies in any way. We provide the support and tools for all game developers to easily integrate DLSS if they choose and even created NVIDIA Streamline to make it easier for game developers to add competitive technologies to their games.
Keita Iida, vice president of developer relations, NVIDIA
If you honestly believe those statements are not illuminating in any way, we're at an impasse I guess.
I mean Nvidia literally makes a tool that makes incorporating their competitors technology actually easier. Of course they're not doing it out the kindness of their heart, they want DLSS in everything and this tool may reduce some hesitation from developers that don't want to tie their reconstruction to one vendor, it's far easier to advocate this approach when you have 85% marketshare and (often) the best reconstruction method on the market now - it's purpose is just to reduce any further hesitation to include DLSS. But it is what it is, it's still a far cry from actively prohibiting FSR with a licensing agreement.
If that was exposed or they whiffed on their response like AMD did if asked about it, they would be raked over the coals - I mean they don't exactly have a lot of stored goodwill in this area (Nvidia Partner Program anyone?), and even Gameworks - while it was additive and not restrictive - was commonly mocked and disregarded in the gaming community from my experience. Nvidia is getting dunked on the regular with their recent GPU releases, this would be more chum for the content waters if this was the case.
But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have worded it as "they want to prevent anyone from getting access to the best upscaling tech"