It's a subscription model for the artificial stuff. The natural version is dirt cheap. It's always the middle man with these modern services, I tell you.
You haven't seen it in a while, then, because that was definitely not true of the previous version and it's absolutely, objectively not true of the new transformer model version.
But honestly, other than what? the very first iteration? it hasn't been true in a while. TAA and DLSS tended to artifact in different ways. DLSS struggles with particles and fast movement, TAA struggles with most AA challenge areas like sub-pixel detail and thin lines. Honestly, for real time use at 4K I don't know of a more consistent, cleaner AA solution than DLSS. And I hesitate to call 4K DLAA a real time solution, but that's definitely the best option we have in game engines at this point.
I don't even like Nvidia as a company and I hate that DLSS is a proprietary feature, but you can't really argue with results.
See, this is the type of thing that weirds me out. Temporal AA doesn't look good compared to what? What do you mean "real resolution goes down"? Down from where? This is a very confusing statement to make.
I don't know what it is that you're supposed to dislike or what a lot of the terms you're using are supposed to mean. What is "image quality" in your view? What are you comparing as a reference point on all these things that go up and down?
I guess. It's not like downvotes mean anything here beyond... dopamine hits, I suppose?
I don't know that it's Lemmy. Both supporters and detractors don't seem to have a consistent thing they mean when they say "AI". I don't think many of them mean the same thing or agree with each other. I don't think many understand how some of the things they're railing about are put together or how they work.
I think the echo chamber element comes in when people who may realize they don't mean the same thing don't want to bring it up because they broadly align ideologically (AI yay or AI boo, again, it happens both ways), and so the issue gets perpetuated.
Aaaand we've now described all of social media, if not all of human discourse. Cool.
This is incredibly ironic because if you follow the history of this stuff somewhat rigorously there is a very good case to be made that the "pivot to video" beginning of the end starts when Jeff Gerstmann gets told by sales people at Gamespot to mellow out a review for advertising purposes and he aggressively refuses (as this was not at all a usual request), gets fired and starts Giant Bomb as a video-first outlet.
This is one of those things where an insider could have a very nuanced set of opinions about the relationships between the game marketing industry on one side and the craft and art of game criticism and journalism on the other, but it has somehow seeped down into mainstream opinion as "games journalism was all paid for", which is definitely wrong.
There have been magazines and newspapers with dedicated news reporting on TV, movies, cars and sports for longer than I've been alive.
I don't even disagree on the quality of a lot of the material, necessarily, but I'd argue the replacement, which is hyperfocused influencer coverage, is not better, and a good chunk of it is demonstrably worse.
At least old games journalism did actual critique. These days it's all either unbridled hype or ragebaiting, culture wars stuff.
Also, having grown measuring time by the monthly interval between paper magazine releases "I grew up reading a ton of early videogame blogs like Joystiq" reduced me to ashes.
DLSS runs on the same hardware as raytracing. That's the entire point. It's all just tensor math.
DLSS is one of those things where I'm not even sure what people are complaining about when they complain about it. I can see it being frame generation, which has downsides and is poorly marketed. But then some people seem to be claiming that DLSS does worse than TAA or older upscaling techniques when it clearly doesn't, so it's hard to tell. I don't think all the complainers are saying the same thing or fully understanding what they're saying.
Be honest, you were ready to do some hounding, saw that tackled preemptively and decided to pivot. I can see the hounding intent from here. Those ears are so droopy you're becoming a better boy as we speak.
One of the joys of learning languages is getting to be equally annoyed at anglophones thinking ending words in "o" and "a" is hilarious and at Spanish speakers thinking that adding "ing" to random words counts as English.
I've been increasingly frustrated with clickbaity coverage and headlines. Credit to Polygon for being just as obviously opinionated as Gamesradar but titling and writing their piece way more professionally.
I mean, yeah, Ubisoft's lawyers are arguing that the arguments of a lawsuit against them are wrong, that's hardly surprising. Given that they're being sued for taking down an online game they would certainly argue that they had no obligation to keep the game online indefinitely.
It's an interesting case and there are... creative arguments on both sides, but being mad that Ubisoft would argue that the text of their EULA applies seems so weird.
For the record, and because I'll be hounded for this, I've signed all relevant petitions to request regulation about digital ownership that creates an obligation to provide offline versions or access to server code. I'm all for making it illegal to build planned obsolescence into software. That doesn't mean I'm not bothered with bad journalism that I happen to agree with.
That's nice. Gamecube replicas are a bit of a niche case, but there are plenty of expensive fight sticks that would be great to use if compatible. I guess we'll know for sure once it's out.
I mean I, for one, do appreciate the extremely cheap Chinese imports we are about to receive overe here in sanity land. You think nobody in Europe is buying American cars now? Give it a minute, they'll be giving out BYDs in cereal boxes.
It's also true of the partial download carts for Switch 1 that don't include a full playable version of the game in the cart.
Presumably the digital back-compat on the Switch 2 means the Switch will live a lot longer usual for Nintendo platforms, and we don't know if there will be a backwards compatible Switch 3.
But in practice, this is just an iteration of the Switch 1 version of the same thing. It's not great. I avoided both the mandatory download carts and will likely avoid these ones, but it's not a bigger deal than it has been for the past five years or so.
They said it about the DS at the time. It was meant to run in parallel with the GBA as a "premium" thing for adults. They said it about the SNES, too, actually.
This bit of random outrage is fun to me because it's something that has been Nintendo's official stance since the early 90s, but it's swung back around due to Don Mattrick being such a charisma black hole that what used to be the natural, go-to response to "how come the new, more advanced version is more expensive" has now become a genuine snafu.
I genuinely can't tell if milking outrage is more prominent in gaming than elsewhere. I guess not, because... I mean, look at the planet in general, but it does feel like gamers got to that state of mind first and do it best, at least.
So it seems this may just refer to "official support" and the piece of news is at least misinformation-adjacent, but it does make me wonder if there is any forwards compatibility with the Pro Controller. There are plenty of solid alternatives for Switch 1 and that wasn't particularly picky about taking in third party devices.
Not sure if anybody has brought it up in the news deluge.
It's a subscription model for the artificial stuff. The natural version is dirt cheap. It's always the middle man with these modern services, I tell you.