Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
Many, a lot, of developers wouldn't survive without the PC market to support their Console market.
You need to consider that Nvidia still completely controls the PC market with their products. If software developers suddenly abandoned that, they would quickly starve and go out of business. The PC gaming market is a huge market for developers, they can't dump it.
Is it unfortunate Nvidia has gotten that big? Yes, it is, as it makes it very difficult for AMD to gain ground in it. However, it is possible they will do it, but it is going to take time.
That's very true, but it's not as if Nvidia gpu's can't emulate A-sync, you can still play the beta of AoS with an Nvidia GPU, it just doesn't run as well (or so it seems, I haven't played it). All that would mean is that the coveted benchmarks for some games would lean more in favor of AMD.
Simply put, it wouldn't be cost effective for Nvidia to try and block it. The cost in paying off devs to make sure they don't use A-sync combined with the sales loss from those benchmark numbers that favor AMD with devs who opt to use A-sync despite Nvidia's strong arming would cost a lot more than simply incorporating proper A-sync into their next architecture, be that Pascal or Volta.
That's the way I see it anyway, maybe I'm missing some details as I'm not involved in the industry, but it seems like the cost vs benefit analysis from my position of armchair QB would seem to tell me giving in and building it into future gpus is the best option.