Yeah, so in this hypothetical eventuality they rob themselves of income in relation to games already released, as well as goodwill in relation to games in production or planned for production in Unity. Seems to me like a recipe for backing down on one or the other.

I’m pretty sure devs can just withold payment after Jan 1, and for games already released if Unity wants the money they would be forced to sue the dev for not adhering to their illegal and unenforceable contract. They would have to prove the validity of their per-unit charges without having actually ever measured the units.

Sure it can, I’ve got no problems using frame generation on my 3060. Any RTX card can do it

“DLSS2” and “DLSS3” are not references to the version of the DLL. They are references to different output modes of the DLL, which is also backwards compatible, i.e. the 3.5 DLL can output either mode. The Starfiels mods that were available immediately at launch do not use DLSS3, or by extension frame generation. It doesn’t matter which DLL version you use

Are you sure the mod you’re using is injecting DLSS3? Using the DLSS 3.5 DLL is not related to that. If it’s only injecting DLSS2, it would be entirely expected to see negligible performance difference vs. FSR2.

You can’t really measure the proportion of players that would buy the game were they not able to pirate it, which makes it easy for CEOs to imagine every incidence of piracy as a lost sale. Who’s going to convince them they put the cart before the horse? It absolves them of direct responsibility for almost any shortcoming possible