I think we are also missing the point that no one is being forced to buy or play the Game.
Boycotting the game for this? I can think of many reasons one could boycott a game, but this one is far from reasonable.
If anything, we need to send the message to AMD that blocking and/or discouraging use of any competitor's technology through is
NOT FINE. Nvidia's actions in the distant past don't justify this sort of behavior today, and while one can argue that DLSS is closed source and bound to Nvidia hardware, the latter has a technical explanation for it - DLSS makes use of matrix multiplication units (aka tensor cores), with the exception of one DLL version during the 1.x series (I believe it's 1.9). Radeon cards
don't have matrix multiplication capabilities while all of their current generation competitors
do (Turing, Ampere, Ada and Alchemist), this is still the case with the RDNA 3 generation. That's the only reason it got a pass while being worse was because FSR, being simple shader code, can be used on any GPU.
True, Nvidia can probably write a DP4A/INT24 version of DLSS like Intel did for XeSS and extend DLSS support as far back as Pascal and enable it on competing GPUs (Radeon VII primarily, since Vega 10/Vega 64 and Navi 10/5700 XT don't have DP4A support and as seen with XeSS, the INT24 fallback on them is quite slow), but they have little reason to do that. Being the market leader has its perks, and arguably the biggest one is letting your competitors play catch up - and that is what leads technology forward to the benefit of the consumer.
As has been pointed out to you, this is not that. The sheer LACK of ANY AMD sponsored title also having competing technologies (save only for Sony first party titles, oddly), while NVIDIA sponsored titles frequently have BOTH DLSS and FSR supported, plus the non-statement from AMD while NVIDIA's concrete statement about not blocking competitor technologies seems to paint a fairly concrete picture as to what is going on behind the scenes.
Sure, the developers can "choose" to add FSR and not DLSS or XeSS, but when you implement one tech, it's not a stretch to implement others (as has been proven out by other developers speaking on the topic. It's trivial to add the other when the first is added already).
Thank you, you understood it perfectly
Just because NV is saying something about DLSS in a game at launch (the game is not out for Christ sake) is being blocked. Priority dictates to implement FSR first they best way possible since this is the sponsor's technology. In my eyes is a PR play done by NVidia.
What kind of mental gymnastics do you need to do to reach the conclusion that AMD's shady business practices are a PR ploy by Nvidia? It's Olympics grade. AMD isn't worth our trust here. They're not some morally superior, ethical company, they're a Fortune 500 megacorp worth $179 billion in market cap right now and their sole objective is to make money and increase their reach by any means necessary.
The evidence is ahead of us all: AMD behaving like a corporation (non-answers, no regards for customer choice, lack of ethics) while Nvidia laid it bare, explicitly said that "we don't block competitor technologies" and went a further step beyond - pointing out they actually developed an open-source framework to further facilitate deployment of their and their competitors' technologies, while leaving a channel for the press to inquire about any further doubts regarding the subject, which basically clears them out of any wrongdoing on this one.
If this game comes out with DLSS/XeSS support, after attracting the unwanted attention of enthusiasts and the press, it will likely have been because AMD has internally negotiated a reversal of that policy, and not because we or the press are mad at them, it's because they probably consulted with legal and the answer would be "that will eventually incur the wrath of anti-trust authorities, revise".