On Friday, AMD Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions Frank Azor said that if Bethesda wanted to implement rival Nvidia's DLSS upscaling technology in its upcoming RPG Starfield,...
AMD denies blocking Bethesda from adding DLSS to Starfield | Starfield DLSS mod locked behind a paywall::undefined
If small devs are expected to support every platform day one that increases the barrier to entry.
A world where small teams start their release on one or two platform they find advantageous and then port their successful titles to other platforms after is probably safest for them and offers the most product diversity for consumers.
and then port their successful titles to other platforms
Well, then they’re not exclusives, are they? I get the point to speed up time to market, but I’m questioning the benefit of having “lifetime exclusives”, or anything beyond 1 year, honestly.
The implication is of course that less successful titles will not be ported either because the company runs out of money or feels they are better off working on their next title than investing more resources on porting a middling title to a second choice platform.
I’m not a fan of using the same word to describe two very different kinds of exclusively.
Exclusivity due to platform contracts (i.e., Sony paying a developer to keep a game exclusive to PlayStation), is not the same as exclusivity you described in your comment.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Can you elaborate on that? I don’t see a clear benefit of exclusives to the user base or industry in general, only to those involved.
If small devs are expected to support every platform day one that increases the barrier to entry.
A world where small teams start their release on one or two platform they find advantageous and then port their successful titles to other platforms after is probably safest for them and offers the most product diversity for consumers.
Well, then they’re not exclusives, are they? I get the point to speed up time to market, but I’m questioning the benefit of having “lifetime exclusives”, or anything beyond 1 year, honestly.
The implication is of course that less successful titles will not be ported either because the company runs out of money or feels they are better off working on their next title than investing more resources on porting a middling title to a second choice platform.
I’m not a fan of using the same word to describe two very different kinds of exclusively.
Exclusivity due to platform contracts (i.e., Sony paying a developer to keep a game exclusive to PlayStation), is not the same as exclusivity you described in your comment.