A $5 Starfield mod to enable DLSS Frame Generation has been cracked to remove modder's DRM

Usual_suspect said:
Well, in a lot of ways it's a valid point. If people are plunking down $1000+, then buying the games in question, then $5 for access to one modders works to add something that doesn't exist in the games they may be looking to play, especially one that's high in demand, isn't an outrageous price. Now I'm not endorsing modders start charging considering a majority of the mods are just taking existing assets and just making minor tweaks or adjustments, but in the case of PureDark he's taking an external element that's not present in the game itself and implementing it, in this case adding DLSS and Frame Generation to a game that doesn't support either. Honestly, in any expensive hobby people should expect to have to pay something, and they should also know to stay within their limits and not extend.

So, if someone is building a 13900ks with a 4090 and 64GB DDR5 7200, etc. and then turning around and plopping down $70-$100 bucks for a game, then an extra $5 shouldn't be an issue to have a feature that doesn't exist in the game that'll benefit your setup in a game you're wanting to play. Just like someone looking at buying a Corvette, anyone with an inkling of understanding is going to know that it's going to be costly, and they would also understand that total cost of ownership over the lifetime of it's car is going to be expensive as well since they aren't known for great gas mileage, cheap maintenance, or cheap insurance. Those who go into things that are notoriously expensive without planning out or at least making sure they can support the habit, and then turn around and complain about the costs after the fact should probably dial it back a little, especially if $5 is too much of an asking price.

It's not the worst thing, but when compared to DLSS and XeSS it's inferior. I know it's a catch-all solution, and Starfield's FSR implementation isn't bad, but DLSS has been shown to be superior in every way, and in some cases superior to native resolutions. I honestly don't mind FSR, but having an Nvidia GPU, I'd prefer DLSS, and if it's not hard to implement, why not include it? I think that's what made FSR appear to be worse than it actually is, because in the eyes of someone like me, it makes me question why an AMD sponsored game wouldn't include DLSS? People with Nvidia RTX GPU's are going to use DLSS anyways, so there's going to be little to no comparisons from that camp, and the people that can't use DLSS are going to probably use either FSR or XeSS so there'd probably be little comparison there either, so why exclude others, and force people on to the worst looking solution of the three?
Click to expand...

Or I don't know, you could just buy a card that gets the job done without all that crap being needed. FSR works on everything and thus why you see it being used more and more these days. DLSS is proprietary and unless Nvidia wants to pony up cash or assistance then it's likely to go the same way Gsync did. You could also wait a few months and the developer themselves may eventually add it in to the game as well. Also gaming is not a hobby it's entertainment and we all have limits on what will spend for that. You are however free to spend your money however you like, just that the majority likely will not pay for a mod.

You don't see me whining that Baulders Gate 3 is Nvidia sponsored and should have FSR 2 support in the game, it just has FSR 1 support. Buy the game or don't but I am getting tired of the entitlement that it should have every feature on your video card be useable at release or else it's all AMD's fault. Also there is no way to verify if this is actually working the way Nvidia intended it to, people just assume because frame rate went up it's working like it should and thus why I expect Nvidia to Cease and Desist it at some point.
 
Gideon said:
Or I don't know, you could just buy a card that gets the job done without all that crap being needed. FSR works on everything and thus why you see it being used more and more these days. DLSS is proprietary and unless Nvidia wants to pony up cash or assistance then it's likely to go the same way Gsync did. You could also wait a few months and the developer themselves may eventually add it in to the game as well.
Click to expand...
Or not. Star Wars Jedi Survivor getting DLSS right after AMD made their statement isn’t just mere coincidence.

Either way, how does it harm AMD if a developer implements DLSS alongside FSR? Just because FSR is a catch all doesn’t give developers a valid reason to not include DLSS, it’s either money related or laziness, and would you give money to a developer that’s the latter?

Also, not everyone can afford cutting edge hardware, 4080’s, 4090’s, 7900XTX’s. Another thing to take into consideration is in some cases with bad TAA implementations, DLSS will replace that and actually improve IQ over Native.
Gideon said:
Also gaming is not a hobby it's entertainment and we all have limits on what will spend for that. You are however free to spend your money however you like, just that the majority likely will not pay for a mod.
Click to expand...
PC building is a hobby. You have people who put untold amounts of money into their hardware, and if these are people that are complaining over having to spend $5 to have something added to a game they enjoy them maybe they should look elsewhere, or spend less on the hardware since obviously to them $5 is a deal breaker. For me, it’s about convenience, and having what I want right away, and it’s like that for a lot of people, so I consider $5 to be a nothingburger at the end of the day.
Gideon said:
You don't see me whining that Baulders Gate 3 is Nvidia sponsored and should have FSR 2 support in the game, it just has FSR 1 support. Buy the game or don't but I am getting tired of the entitlement that it should have every feature on your video card be useable at release or else it's all AMD's fault. Also there is no way to verify if this is actually working the way Nvidia intended it to, people just assume because frame rate went up it's working like it should and thus why I expect Nvidia to Cease and Desist it at some point.
Click to expand...
Larian has also gone on record that they plan to implement FSR2, most likely around the launch of the PS5 version. The fact that they had it in there already shows that Nvidia doesn’t do deals like that.

As for a cease and desist… why? He’s not modifying the code, and he’s increasing DLSS’ presence in games, and making Nvidia look good at the same time.
 
Usual_suspect said:
Well, in a lot of ways it's a valid point. If people are plunking down $1000+, then buying the games in question, then $5 for access to one modders works to add something that doesn't exist in the games they may be looking to play, especially one that's high in demand, isn't an outrageous price. Now I'm not endorsing modders start charging considering a majority of the mods are just taking existing assets and just making minor tweaks or adjustments, but in the case of PureDark he's taking an external element that's not present in the game itself and implementing it, in this case adding DLSS and Frame Generation to a game that doesn't support either. Honestly, in any expensive hobby people should expect to have to pay something, and they should also know to stay within their limits and not extend.

So, if someone is building a 13900ks with a 4090 and 64GB DDR5 7200, etc. and then turning around and plopping down $70-$100 bucks for a game, then an extra $5 shouldn't be an issue to have a feature that doesn't exist in the game that'll benefit your setup in a game you're wanting to play. Just like someone looking at buying a Corvette, anyone with an inkling of understanding is going to know that it's going to be costly, and they would also understand that total cost of ownership over the lifetime of it's car is going to be expensive as well since they aren't known for great gas mileage, cheap maintenance, or cheap insurance. Those who go into things that are notoriously expensive without planning out or at least making sure they can support the habit, and then turn around and complain about the costs after the fact should probably dial it back a little, especially if $5 is too much of an asking price.

It's not the worst thing, but when compared to DLSS and XeSS it's inferior. I know it's a catch-all solution, and Starfield's FSR implementation isn't bad, but DLSS has been shown to be superior in every way, and in some cases superior to native resolutions. I honestly don't mind FSR, but having an Nvidia GPU, I'd prefer DLSS, and if it's not hard to implement, why not include it? I think that's what made FSR appear to be worse than it actually is, because in the eyes of someone like me, it makes me question why an AMD sponsored game wouldn't include DLSS? People with Nvidia RTX GPU's are going to use DLSS anyways, so there's going to be little to no comparisons from that camp, and the people that can't use DLSS are going to probably use either FSR or XeSS so there'd probably be little comparison there either, so why exclude others, and force people on to the worst looking solution of the three?
Click to expand...

Now I dare you to just ask the simple question "How about AMD just improves the image quality of FSR upscaling?"

A lot of the problems you listed go away or become to a lesser degree at least, if AMD did so, right?

Don't hold out hope for an answer or acknowledgement around these parts though.
 
staknhalo said:
Now I dare you to just ask the simple question "How about AMD just improves the image quality of FSR upscaling?"

A lot of the problems you listed go away or become to a lesser degree at least, if AMD did so, right?

Don't hold out hope for an answer or acknowledgement around these parts though.
Click to expand...
Definitely. We won't get an answer though because it's wrong to expect the underdog to improve. Amd is like a charity that has huge administration fees and wastes cash, yet for some reason some people defend it with their lives as if it's a religious cause.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Definitely. We won't get an answer though because it's wrong to expect the underdog to improve. Amd is like a charity that has huge administration fees and wastes cash, yet for some reason some people defend it with their lives as if it's a religious cause.
Click to expand...

Quality bad.
 
NightReaver said:
People leave out the ghosting crosshair and some objects being totally different sizes with the DLSS mod.
Click to expand...
They do. It's bizarre the modders / developers release fixes to DLSS implementations that reviewers want everyone to believe aren't there.
 
At least DLSS gets many and frequent updates (image quality and performant ones for the upscaler notably, as well as frame gen and reflex - and now ray reconstruction)

Was it a year or a year and a half for AMD to deliver frame generation, I forget, while FSR upscaling still sits in the state it's in?
 
staknhalo said:
Now I dare you to just ask the simple question "How about AMD just improves the image quality of FSR upscaling?"
Click to expand...
No kidding. I don't like DLSS because it is nVidia, I like DLSS because it, in my experience, looks better than FSR at the same settings. Neither is perfect and both are usually ok on quality, but I find DLSS to be better. So, I like it better.

If AMD changed that around and made FSR better, we'll I'd use that instead. I don't have an ego stake in one "winning" over the other, I want what looks best and right now, that's DLSS.

Now not a huge deal for me, I have a chonk card so I only need to run it on quality, if at all, for the most part. But for someone with a smaller GPU, you might want performance mode. That's where DLSS really shines. It still doesn't look wonderful, but it looks WAY better than FSR performance mode.

I would like nothing more than for AMD to change that, but for now nVidia has the better tech so I'd like to see it implemented particularly since it doesn't EXCLUDE FSR. If it was a case that you could only choose one, then sure I'm on board with using FSR since it works on all GPUs. However you can have both, and heck XeSS too, and just let the consumer choose which they want.

Heck, same goes for multiple AA modes, if you aren't using a scaler. I'd like to see not just TAA, but FXAA, CMAA, maybe TXAA. Let me choose which I like best.
 
Sycraft said:
No kidding. I don't like DLSS because it is nVidia, I like DLSS because it, in my experience, looks better than FSR at the same settings. Neither is perfect and both are usually ok on quality, but I find DLSS to be better. So, I like it better.

If AMD changed that around and made FSR better, we'll I'd use that instead. I don't have an ego stake in one "winning" over the other, I want what looks best and right now, that's DLSS.

Now not a huge deal for me, I have a chonk card so I only need to run it on quality, if at all, for the most part. But for someone with a smaller GPU, you might want performance mode. That's where DLSS really shines. It still doesn't look wonderful, but it looks WAY better than FSR performance mode.

I would like nothing more than for AMD to change that, but for now nVidia has the better tech so I'd like to see it implemented particularly since it doesn't EXCLUDE FSR. If it was a case that you could only choose one, then sure I'm on board with using FSR since it works on all GPUs. However you can have both, and heck XeSS too, and just let the consumer choose which they want.

Heck, same goes for multiple AA modes, if you aren't using a scaler. I'd like to see not just TAA, but FXAA, CMAA, maybe TXAA. Let me choose which I like best.
Click to expand...


Options = good

100% with you 👍
 
staknhalo said:
At least DLSS gets many and frequent updates (image quality and performant ones for the upscaler notably, as well as frame gen and reflex - and now ray reconstruction)

Was it a year or a year and a half for AMD to deliver frame generation, I forget, while FSR upscaling still sits in the state it's in?
Click to expand...

Hasn't been stale. There have been improvements from 2.0, 2.1, 2.1.2 and 2.2 etc. Just because you aren't aware of the changes, doesn't mean it has been stale. Hell FSR in Starfield looks pretty great all things considered, just that DLSS still looks better (FSR still has some flicker). Interesting times if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
TrunksZero said:
Mods are not, and should not, be treated as a revenue source. They are passion projects,
Click to expand...
That is an important point too, one I made when Bethesda themselves tried to make mods a paid service. As soon as it is viewed as a source of revenue greed will take over passion. Mods are things people want in the game themselves, that is then shared with others. Not things that are made for profit. If it was all about profits nobody would make niche mods, that are only interesting to a smaller crowd. It would be all about chasing the lowest common denominator.
GoldenTiger said:
A guildmate of mine made what was considered an essential add on for elder scrolls online when it launched. It got over 2 million downloads in a month and got a whopping single $5 tip. I disagree tips are a viable option therefore. Sometimes the freeloaders need to be made to pay up if your goal is making money. Just an example.
Click to expand...
I don't know how substantial that mod was. An ini edit can also be downloaded 2 million times, that doesn't mean it is worth $5. And as I mentioned before, downloading a mod means nothing, what if 99% of people didn't end up using it, and just tried it? If your theory that tips don't work were true then streamers and youtubers wouldn't be making any money on donations. When in reality that is a far bigger revenue source for them than ads. And a one trick pony is unlikely to make money anyway. People donate to make you continue to do what you do, not for what you already made.

Also, if you are not getting paid you might be asking for more money than your contribution is worth. I mean if the entry option was a $5 donation that is a very high bar. Maybe if the default tip was 1$ instead of $5 not one, but a thousand people would have decided to donate.
 
TrunksZero said:
Again if charging/paywalling of mods gets acceptance... it will lead to more people charging for mods/mod tools. PureDark is not the first, or last, person who has charged for a mod tool like his. But if the idea keeps catching on it could be the end of PC Modding entirely. Mods are not, and should not, be treated as a revenue source. They are passion projects, learning tools and something to put in your portfolio/resume not a place to make money. And treating the mod community as a place to make money, does the PC Gaming community a giant disservice.

Because if it shifts towards a place to make money, the developers and publisher will come crashing down on it and kill it off entire. Either legally or just not making games moddable at all. PureDark could easily be targeted by any of the developers, or publishers, for violating a games EULA. Or by nVidia if by some odd twist they turned on the modding tool for whatever reason. At which point it, even if he lives in China, can make his professional career in coding trouble some.
Click to expand...

Exactly, parts in bold for emphasis. Mods will seldom work if paid, they often build off each other. Someone might use a texture, script, 3D model, sound file, or something. The licensing would be a nightmare, and if money is being made the developers will want a cut. Which will work as another 30% increase in "mod" prices. At which point it will just be questionable quality DLC that will likely get pulled from sale and Steamworks (ruining the entire mod) because Porsche and Glock didn't approve of the mod/viral video using their trademarks of someone running over pedestrians and then shooting them in the head.

You bring money into modding, you have the same legal limitations and profit driven desire as any other DLC, without the quality control.
 
I like the reasoning here that somehow paid mods would price free mods out of existence. It's greed if someone decides to charge for their work, and if they do the altruistic gamer will.. pirate/steal that work, because that apparently isn't greed. 🤨

Wait til you find out about flight sim mods.
 
staknhalo said:
At least DLSS gets many and frequent updates (image quality and performant ones for the upscaler notably, as well as frame gen and reflex - and now ray reconstruction)

Was it a year or a year and a half for AMD to deliver frame generation, I forget, while FSR upscaling still sits in the state it's in?
Click to expand...
Actually, AMD is moving overall more quickly with FSR, than Nvidia did with DLSS.

DLSS 1 released-----and sucked, for a whole year. Until DLSS 1.5 debuted with Control. That was run as a Shader or Cuda, but still took some queues from their AI data. But, it wasn't yet optimized enough, to run on the tensor cores. Not too long afterward, they released DLSS 2.0 for Control and a couple of other games. Full AI based code, running on Tensor Cores. And then.........they released DLSS 3.0 with Frame Gen, late last year. Like 3.5 years later.

AMD released FSR 2, about 1 year after FSR 1. And FSR 3 with Frame Gen will probably be about 1.5-ish years, after FSR 2.0.
 
chameleoneel said:
Actually, AMD is moving overall more quickly with FSR, than Nvidia did with DLSS.

DLSS 1 released-----and sucked, for a whole year. Until DLSS 1.5 debuted with Control. That was run as a Shader or Cuda, but still took some queues from their AI data. But, it wasn't yet optimized enough, to run on the tensor cores. Not too long afterward, they released DLSS 2.0 for Control and a couple of other games. Full AI based code, running on Tensor Cores. And then.........they released DLSS 3.0 with Frame Gen, late last year. Like 3.5 years later.

AMD released FSR 2, about 1 year after FSR 1. And FSR 3 with Frame Gen will probably be about 1.5-ish years, after FSR 2.0.
Click to expand...

So more updates you're saying, yet still worse image quality.....

Fantastic job AMD 👍 Maybe they should let someone else take a crack at it ? 🤷🏼‍♂️

So why does FSR still look so bad if updated so much, especially compared to DLSS, as many others here and elsewhere (I'd go as far as to say a majority of gamers and game tech reviewers) have pointed out? Just objectively and optically obviously the worst technology? Explains why people would pay for DLSS mods I guess. Edit: I think paid mods are dumb, I'd never buy a DLSS mod myself for that reason - and I'm too cheap on principal when I probably got the game itself for $5, but it helps explain why some would.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
staknhalo said:
So more updates you're saying, yet still worse image quality.....

Fantastic job AMD 👍 Maybe they should let someone else take a crack at it ? 🤷🏼‍♂️

So why does FSR still look so bad if updated so much, especially compared to DLSS, as many others here and elsewhere (I'd go as far as to say a majority of gamers and game tech reviewers) have pointed out? Just objectively and optically obviously the worst technology? Explains why people would pay for DLSS mods I guess. Edit: I think paid mods are dumb, I'd never buy a DLSS mod myself for that reason - and I'm too cheap on principal when I probably got the game itself for $5, but it helps explain why some would.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not saying FSR has had more updates. I'm saying they are advancing the product in a shorter timeframe. Even if FSR 3 doesn't release until April 2024, it will still only be 2 years after FSR2.

I think its likely that FSR3 will be a big improvement in visual quality. Not simply adding frame generation. And I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up having some aspect of it connected to AI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
chameleoneel said:
I think its likely that FSR3 will be a big improvement in visual quality. Not simply adding frame generation. And I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up having some aspect of it connected to AI.
Click to expand...

I honestly and earnestly hope you're right. I hope the 'big improvements' you think are coming, are 'FSR no longer looking like garbage', and not just 'Still looks like garbage, just less so somewhat if you look at this one pixel here'.

I don't think it's too big of an ask for anyone to say, to any company, "Hey, if you're gonna put out a visual/optical tech, can it not look like ass? Especially compared to native resolution if it's supposed to be an alternative for that?"

Just as others here said, I'd like to use it myself when it's the only option available, without it looking like garbage, which is why it just doesn't get used now even when it is the only option.

I'm not gonna hold my breathe on this though, for obvious reasons and past examples.
 
staknhalo said:
I honestly and earnestly hope you're right. I hope the 'big improvements' you think are coming, are 'FSR no longer looking like garbage', and not just 'Still looks like garbage, just less so somewhat if you look at this one pixel here'.

I don't think it's too big of an ask for anyone to say, to any company, "Hey, if you're gonna put out a visual/optical tech, can it not look like ass? Especially compared to native resolution if it's supposed to be an alternative for that?"

Just as others here said, I'd like to use it myself when it's the only option available, without it looking like garbage, which is why it just doesn't get used now even when it is the only option.

I'm not gonna hold my breathe on this though, for obvious reasons and past examples.
Click to expand...
IMO, the issues we see with FSR2 are maybe because developers don't put in the time to adjust it correctly. Because there are some games where it looks really solid. Such as Starfield.
 
I bet they add this natively sooner than later, and luckily I'm in no real hurry to play Starfield (yet) since I'm certain it'll be on Gamepass indefinitely. As far as charging for mods go, I don't necessarily mind it if the work done took some serious effort. Since there's a free alternative in this case, I can't imagine most people will want to pay for this one.
 
staknhalo said:
Any others?
Click to expand...

Looked fine in Hogwarts when I tried it out just to see. In motion it's much harder to notice differences. However despite all the praise, I can spot DLSS/FSR use when it's turned on, creates obvious noise in the picture. Thus why I'd rather use native resolution over FSR or DLSS, both are really there so you can use ray tracing at playable frame rate. It's a crutch I would rather not use.
 
chameleoneel said:
Actually, AMD is moving overall more quickly with FSR, than Nvidia did with DLSS.

DLSS 1 released-----and sucked, for a whole year. Until DLSS 1.5 debuted with Control. That was run as a Shader or Cuda, but still took some queues from their AI data. But, it wasn't yet optimized enough, to run on the tensor cores. Not too long afterward, they released DLSS 2.0 for Control and a couple of other games. Full AI based code, running on Tensor Cores. And then.........they released DLSS 3.0 with Frame Gen, late last year. Like 3.5 years later.

AMD released FSR 2, about 1 year after FSR 1. And FSR 3 with Frame Gen will probably be about 1.5-ish years, after FSR 2.0.
Click to expand...
Well, copying a prior work that already did all the heavy lifting in innovation and development is going to tend to be faster.

Not that that's a bad thing if one can improve upon the prior work and then make it superior - Apple famously did it with iPhone and most of their other shit, but that's not necessarily happening with FSR, at least so far. AMD's effort is still a positive for the space overall though, can't diminish that.
 
Last edited:
IcePickFreak said:
I like the reasoning here that somehow paid mods would price free mods out of existence. It's greed if someone decides to charge for their work, and if they do the altruistic gamer will.. pirate/steal that work, because that apparently isn't greed. 🤨

Wait til you find out about flight sim mods.
Click to expand...
Big difference there. Those are usually Ok'ed and encouraged by the developers or publishers. This isn't.
 
staknhalo said:
Any others?
Click to expand...
Ghostwire Tokyo eventually got it's implementation sorted out over the course of patches & updates. It now actually looks pretty good, especially after it looked so bad when they first implemented it.

*laaaate edit* Forgot to mention Judgment and Judgment Lost. Think they are also the first games to do thier own custom FSR 2 at native resolution as well.
 
Last edited:
rgMekanic said:
I don't get the hard on for either DLSS or FSR, they both look like garbage to me.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Add that to the fact that Bethesda games usually look and run like shit and there you have a big ol' turd sammich.

Give this game a couple of years so Bethesda can fix 10-20 percent of the bugs and modders can make it not shit.
 
rgMekanic said:
I don't get the hard on for either DLSS or FSR, they both look like garbage to me.
Click to expand...
In my case I just need 75+ fps for most FPS games, otherwise, I get motion-sick. And if I have a choice between crap lighting and characters that look like a child drawing Mr.Potato Head characters, and things looking awesome though slightly blurry around the edges I am going to go for the slightly blurry edges.
The whole "Just turn down the resolution" thing doesn't actually work on most LCD screens, it just stretches it funny and looks worse.

But Native with DLAA, all day long unless I can't keep the framerate where I need it. And as I'm not made of money, the GPU I got is the GPU I got, until I absolutely must replace it, but I assure you that this generation is not that generation.

So I will use FSR or DLSS where needed when needed, but I would prefer that Developers do both because if they are going to implement a non-standard tech then you might as well go for it all. And yeah I get that FSR is a catch-all and it works for everybody as a lowest common denominator, but the thing with that is you are always going to have people who can go above and beyond the bare minimums and it's just going to piss them off because they will feel their experience is being held back because of somebody else, that is a human reaction and doesn't go away regardless of the medium it's presented in.
 
TrunksZero said:
Big difference there. Those are usually Ok'ed and encouraged by the developers or publishers. This isn't.
Click to expand...
Well it's no surprise they're not going to OK or encourage a mod that adds features for the competitor of their game partner, not that this is even a traditional mod in the first place. Don't forget Skyrim had paid mods that was set-up by Bethesda with the creation club though, but people freaked out so they canned it. Also, there is no shortage of free mods in flight sims even with paid mods that can cost the same or more than the sim itself. There's even free ones that do a better job at a given feature than the paid ones.

Either way, it still doesn't make it any less amusing when the sentiment is someone asking for money for their work is greedy, and people expecting for others to provide work for free isn't. The person doing the work should be able to decide if they want to do it for free or not, and the people who want the benefits of that work can decide if they want to pay for it or not - or you know, do the work yourself. Seems pretty simple.
 
IcePickFreak said:
Well it's no surprise they're not going to OK or encourage a mod that adds features for the competitor of their game partner, not that this is even a traditional mod in the first place. Don't forget Skyrim had paid mods that was set-up by Bethesda with the creation club though, but people freaked out so they canned it. Also, there is no shortage of free mods in flight sims even with paid mods that can cost the same or more than the sim itself. There's even free ones that do a better job at a given feature than the paid ones.

Either way, it still doesn't make it any less amusing when the sentiment is someone asking for money for their work is greedy, and people expecting for others to provide work for free isn't. The person doing the work should be able to decide if they want to do it for free or not, and the people who want the benefits of that work can decide if they want to pay for it or not - or you know, do the work yourself. Seems pretty simple.
Click to expand...

And thats fair. I don't think it's greedy and I'm not ok with people stealing PureDarks work either. The best way to combat paywalled mods, is free alternative mods.

All that said, I just don't agree with the approach PureDark has taken for this mod. His other work is another story, but the FSR to DLSS being paywalled is pretty uncool and I'm glad free alternatives exist.
 
Lakados said:
In my case I just need 75+ fps for most FPS games, otherwise, I get motion-sick. And if I have a choice between crap lighting and characters that look like a child drawing Mr.Potato Head characters, and things looking awesome though slightly blurry around the edges I am going to go for the slightly blurry edges.
The whole "Just turn down the resolution" thing doesn't actually work on most LCD screens, it just stretches it funny and looks worse.

But Native with DLAA, all day long unless I can't keep the framerate where I need it. And as I'm not made of money, the GPU I got is the GPU I got, until I absolutely must replace it, but I assure you that this generation is not that generation.

So I will use FSR or DLSS where needed when needed, but I would prefer that Developers do both because if they are going to implement a non-standard tech then you might as well go for it all. And yeah I get that FSR is a catch-all and it works for everybody as a lowest common denominator, but the thing with that is you are always going to have people who can go above and beyond the bare minimums and it's just going to piss them off because they will feel their experience is being held back because of somebody else, that is a human reaction and doesn't go away regardless of the medium it's presented in.
Click to expand...

When there are two standards competing, one is going to come out the loser. Beta was superior to VHS, but VHS won out as it cheaper and embraced by the Movie industry, while Beta lost out because it was more expensive despite being a superior quality picture because it needed more tape.

Being better is no guarantee of mass adoption by developers, being easy to use and useable by all customers will most likely win out. No industry wants to spend more time to support both standards, costs more money and time to do that, just the way it is.
 
Gideon said:
When there are two standards competing, one is going to come out the loser. Beta was superior to VHS, but VHS won out as it cheaper and embraced by the Movie industry, while Beta lost out because it was more expensive despite being a superior quality picture because it needed more tape.

Being better is no guarantee of mass adoption by developers, being easy to use and useable by all customers will most likely win out. No industry wants to spend more time to support both standards, costs more money and time to do that, just the way it is.
Click to expand...
Maybe but when blu-ray and HDDVD were competing you saw just about every release in both formats, not a one or the other deal.
Movie studios finally forced the DVD Forum's Steering Committee to make a call because they were tired of half their product ending up in a landfill and they didn’t want to do both any more. So developers need to go to Microsoft and Kronos and do the same, but until they do they should be doing both.
 
HD-DVD also has lower max bitrate limitations than Blu-ray on lower max capacity discs - and also even though it supported H264 IIRC - most HD-DVD titles were authored in VC-1/MPEG2

HD-DVD was hands down and unarguably the inferior technical format - whether it was one's favorite or not - we're lucky Blu-ray won
 
staknhalo said:
HD-DVD also has lower max bitrate limitations than Blu-ray on lower max capacity discs - and also even though it supported H264 IIRC - most HD-DVD titles were authored in VC-1/MPEG2

HD-DVD was hands down and unarguably the inferior technical format - whether it was one's favorite or not - we're lucky Blu-ray won
Click to expand...
but waaaaay cheaper to produce with using standard DVD media.
 
rgMekanic said:
cheaper
Click to expand...

That's all that means to me, and that's not always a good thing - sometimes cheap is good, sometimes cheap is bad - I don't think that alone overcomes all the other technical shortcomings of HD-DVD
 
TrunksZero said:
If all mods followed PureDarks example of charging say 5 bux.. You apply a couple hundred mods and now your paying 2000+ dollars for mods... No, that would be insane.
Click to expand...
These slippery-slope strawmen have been the same on this topic going back to 2006, but it's the market that continues to determine what's equilibrium. This doomsday scenario had plenty of opportunities to happen along the way, but the market always said no. One DLSS hack was never going to turn modding on its head or be some grand ignition point.

Maybe the real mistake PureDark made was calling this a "mod" to begin with, instead of a tool/utility/hack that it actually is. Because once the word "mod" is invoked, it's NATO Article 5 and entitlement goes rushing to keyboards to type words.

kcKDas.gif
 
Last edited:
NightReaver said:
People leave out the ghosting crosshair and some objects being totally different sizes with the DLSS mod.
Click to expand...

Old versions of DLSS did do some odd things. In more recent games I have not noticed anything that drastic.

These slippery-slope strawmen have been the same on this topic going back to 2006, but it's the market that continues to determine what's equilibrium. This doomsday scenario had plenty of opportunities to happen along the way, but the market always said no. One DLSS hack was never going to turn modding on its head or be some grand ignition point.
Click to expand...

The real problem is if a big company backs it, like Valve and Bethseda tried to do.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
These slippery-slope strawmen have been the same on this topic going back to 2006, but it's the market that continues to determine what's equilibrium. This doomsday scenario had plenty of opportunities to happen along the way, but the market always said no. One DLSS hack was never going to turn modding on its head or be some grand ignition point.

Maybe the real mistake PureDark made was calling this a "mod" to begin with, instead of a tool/utility/hack that it actually is. Because once the word "mod" is invoked, it's NATO Article 5 and entitlement goes rushing to keyboards to type words.

View attachment 596834
Click to expand...

lol, to be fair he found a niche and exploited it. The likely hood of it causing everything to collapse is likely me over speculating and modders are very likely to keep releasing free alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
Old versions of DLSS did do some odd things. In more recent games I have not noticed anything that drastic.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mentioned in the Control thread - that was the only DLSS title I ever noticed an artifact in (perceptible to me during gameplay, without freeze framing pixel peeping A/B images) when I played it back in 2022 (recent 'unofficial' patch/mod by one of the devs fixed it though)

When Jesse would get up from the conference table where the science chick was - you'd often see a large trailing ghosting shadow of her face as she sat up from or leaned back/whatever while at the table - it was the only place I recall seeing it in that game - but it was also unavoidably and consistently noticeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top