Starfield isn't relevant to my argument, we don't actually know for certain if it will include DLSS. People are speculating that it won't based on the established pattern of AMD-sponsored games skipping DLSS.

I think there is merit to this pattern. It's not something people started bringing up until there actually was a recongizable pattern. If there were any AMD-sponsored games with DLSS, then this would all be nonsensical. But there aren't. For the majority of AMD sponsored games, adding DLSS support is as simple as ticking a checkbox, so the fact that they don't is suspicious.

Consider this: Why is it that pretty much every non-AMD sponsored game that supports FSR 2.0 also supports DLSS?

Have I said AMD is my friend, or am I calling someone out on wild speculation with no evidence?

We have a pattern that fits perfectly in line with common scummy business behavior, what conclusion do you expect people to draw? The fact that you find this just as unbelievable as alien abductions really makes it sound like you don't even want to consider any of these possibilities.

We've established that

1. Direct comparisons between FSR and DLSS are unfavorable to AMD
2. AMD is paying developers to implement their technologies like FSR
3. Game developers have no real trepidation about using proprietary middleware and APIs beyond their licensing costs, of which DLSS has none.

It is not much of a stretch to argue that AMD wouldn't want the games they sponsor to be using a competitor's technology, especially if it makes theirs look bad. This is a perfectly valid hypothesis that does not rely on any unreasonable assumptions, and does not contradict the data points we already have.

You're really making mountains out of molehills here, and I don't think you even have any real development experience. So I'm not sure why I should trust your suppositions over my own firsthand experience.