Yeah I'm not sure that hot-patching game dlls was the one here, AMD
Good call going back to the drawing board
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
29 points (100.0% liked)
AMD
1139 readers
1 users here now
AMD news, hardware reviews and analysis and discussions
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This one backfired, but it does show the AMD mentality: They get shit done without making it hard for game devs.
Nvidia tries to use anything to make game devs depend on them to gain an unfair advantage, even if that means the amount of dev work required for a similar result isn't as good.
As long as it stays that way, my money will be with AMD.
I think most game devs would rather their code not be hot patched without their permission. There's a big difference between implementing something in your own code and modifying someone else's. AL+ was advertised as a driver feature but implemented more like a game mod.
But this makes it much harder for devs when it comes to maintenance.
Your source code is no longer the source of truth for what is running on user's computers. Any bug report from someone running AMD hardware would suddenly require a load of extra effort to understand if it's a game problem or something fucky with their monkey patching. Which if there's any time pressure, means AMD bugfixes will be a lower priority because why spend a week trying to understand one bug when you can knock out a few simpler fixes that don't involve that is-it-us-or-them step.
If the libraries are integrated at source/build time, this is a non issue. They don't often, but Nvidia got this one right.
I think there's a difference between 'making it hard for game devs' and just straight up not fucking testing the software they write.
I suppose the right way would be to offer Anti-Lag+ feature as a library the devs have to specifically include?
100%
You don't fuck with software you didn't write as a product feature.