It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionWhy everyone keep using DirectX?(261 posts)(261 posts)
(261 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 08, 2015
low rated
avatar
F4LL0UT: Thanks for the link, interesting read. Incidentally it includes a statement that delivers a point I meant to include in my pro-DX argumentation:
"But actually we welcome healthy competition between open standard and proprietary APIs – as it pushes both forward."
avatar
shmerl: I agree with it, but the key is healthy, which I understand as competition on merit. I.e. when both APIs are available on the platform, developers can choose between them depending on what benefits those APIs provide. When APIs are barred from some platforms artificially (like MS not letting Vulkan implementation on Xbox, or Apple not letting it on iOS and etc.) - it's not a healthy competition.
Microsoft needs to sell the Xbox One's and with DirectX only.

Be glad Microsoft lets OpenGL, Mantle, and Vulkan on Windows.
Posted July 08, 2015
avatar
shmerl: I agree with it, but the key is healthy, which I understand as competition on merit. I.e. when both APIs are available on the platform, developers can choose between them depending on what benefits those APIs provide.
As it was the case with OpenGL and, until 3dfx' demise, Glide on Windows? :p

avatar
shmerl: When APIs are barred from some platforms artificially (like MS not letting Vulkan implementation on Xbox, or Apple not letting it on iOS and etc.) - it's not a healthy competition.
Of course it is. Keeping open APIs out of proprietary systems while there are entire competing platforms in the race which do support open APIs only fuels that competition. As long as Windows and, depending on how popular it will be, SteamOS will support Vulkan, it's gonna be perfect conditions either way.
Posted July 08, 2015
avatar
F4LL0UT: Of course it is
Of course it's not. Healthy means competition on merit, or to put it on other terms - freedom of choice for developers. Monopolistic lock-in type of competition is far from being healthy since it forces something on developers despite the downsides. I.e. if they target Xbox, they can't decide based on what's better DX or Vulkan (that what competition means). It's only DX for them there.
Post edited July 08, 2015 by shmerl
Posted July 08, 2015
It's not really a question for me, but I can give somewhat of an answer *completely unofficial*.
The simplest short answer is: "steamos will be big, we need to get on the bandwagon".

Somewhat more elaborate:
As you said investment is about the future, and as any developer who's had enough experience will tell you, vendor lock in and third-party-platforms completely between you and the customer mean trouble.

That third-party can dictate all the rules, and you either accept or pack you bags. Sooner or later your margins will get reduced to the absolute minimum that can sustain you.
Basically without freedom you're a slave, that doesn't mean you get beaten with a stick every day, a slave is an asset that gets treated just well enough that he/she can work well.

Of course that's a bit of a stretch. As a slave you couldn't pack your bags and leave, and any such platform-owner isn't immune to competition (either existing or the possibility of one being created).
Linux, SteamOS and Steam is that competition, and it's wise to invest in something to make sure you're not owned in a decade. Note this is a huge simplification, as steam itself is lacking any major competitor right now but whatever;p

Regarding dx12, microsoft has been almost completely ignoring dx and windows gaming for the past couple years, and they would have continued that if it weren't for opengl catching up and going beyond dx11, mantle, and of course Valve announcing their plan.
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/an-awesome-developer-response-to-a-comment-on-the-linux-version-being-a-waste-of-time.5634
Posted July 08, 2015
low rated
avatar
F4LL0UT: Of course it is
avatar
shmerl: Of course it's not. Healthy means competition on merit, or to put it on other terms - freedom of choice for developers. Monopolistic lock-in type of competition is far from being healthy since it forces something on developers despite the downsides. I.e. if they target Xbox, they can't decide based on what's better DX or Vulkan (that what competition means). It's only DX for them there.
F4ALL0UT is right it is healthy for competition.

You just hate Microsoft and their lock-ins we get it, now stop with the crap.

You have no idea how much you are making me made I mean I'm very mad, especially to the fact that Sadya Nedalla laid of about 7,800 people today working in the Nokia mobile phone division so that Microsoft can restructure it's mobile phone division.

DirectX 12 will be better than Vulkan.
Posted July 08, 2015
avatar
Gilozard: This means that OpenGL has a lot of things about it that just don’t make a lot of sense to game developers in 2015. It’s a system that uses crusty old C code, it doesn’t play well with multi-threaded approaches, and it’s filled with legacy systems that nobody is supposed to use anymore. "
That's exactly why switch to Vulkan is quite anticipated, since it fixes those problems.
Posted July 08, 2015
low rated
avatar
Gilozard: This means that OpenGL has a lot of things about it that just don’t make a lot of sense to game developers in 2015. It’s a system that uses crusty old C code, it doesn’t play well with multi-threaded approaches, and it’s filled with legacy systems that nobody is supposed to use anymore. "
avatar
shmerl: That's exactly why switch to Vulkan is quite anticipated, since it fixes those problems.
Vulkan will still have problems just not as many as OpenGL.

DirectX 12 will still be dominating.
Posted July 08, 2015
avatar
adamhm: Regarding dx12, microsoft has been almost completely ignoring dx and windows gaming for the past couple years, and they would have continued that if it weren't for opengl catching up and going beyond dx11, mantle, and of course Valve announcing their plan.
Yes, it's clear that MS is simply catching up, not innovating here. They responded to Mantle (by copying it) and didn't just suddenly decide to move forward. They'll continue the catch up game with Vulkan I'm sure (since Vulkan will be FOSS). But of course MS will trumpet that as their own desire to move the industry.
Post edited July 08, 2015 by shmerl
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Of course it's not. Healthy means competition on merit, or to put it on other terms - freedom of choice for developers. Monopolistic lock-in type of competition is far from being healthy since it forces something on developers despite the downsides. I.e. if they target Xbox, they can't decide based on what's better DX or Vulkan (that what competition means). It's only DX for them there.
First off, with the Xbox Microsoft does not have the monopoly on console gaming, that whole "evil monpolistic empire" argumentation just doesn't fly here. It's one of the three major consoles on the market right now and the only one that's based on proprietary APIs while the other major competitors, one of which currently dominates the console market by far (last time I checked the PS4 had more than twice as many units sold as the Xbone), are using variants of OpenGL. With the choice of platform you have a choice of API. The other thing is, why are you giving MS so much shit while with Sony or Nintendo you don't have a choice either? They are using modified versions of OpenGL, whoop-de-doo, you still don't have a choice there, they just happen to use an API that is highly related to an open API that you happen to like for (in my opinion misguided) ideological reasons. Frankly that appears like major hypocrisy on your end to me, especially since it sounds like you wouldn't mind an OpenGL/Vulkan monopoly. And yeah, despite being a completely free and open API a scenario where they dominate the "market" to such a degree that no other API which is not a derivative of OpenGL/Vulkan has a chance of becoming a major player and we're stuck with a single technology (or family of technologies) and progress is crippled. And frankly I believe that that's quite a plausible scenario if it weren't for DX.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by F4LL0UT
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
F4LL0UT: First off, with the Xbox Microsoft does not have the monopoly on console gaming, that whole "evil monpolistic empire" argumentation just doesn't fly here.
To badly influence the market, you don't need to have full monopoly. It's enough to have a major market share and to be a jerk at the same time. I.e. if by not targeting Xbox developers are losing a lot of reach, it means that Xbox has a significant influence (and when it abuses it, everyone is affected negatively).

Another such example is Apple's iOS and browsers there. Apple simply bans all competing browsers on iOS. You might think it's a minor issue since Apple doesn't have global browser monopoly. However it's not so - it has a drastic negative impact because it's a significant enough market share. See here: https://kenneth.io/blog/2015/07/03/safari-isnt-the-problem-but-the-lack-of-browser-choice-in-ios-is/

Which is a response to this: http://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new-ie/ (this outlines the details of the problem).
avatar
F4LL0UT: The other thing is, why are you giving MS so much shit while with Sony or Nintendo you don't have a choice either?
They deserve the same criticism lock-in wise. DX was the topic of the discussion, that's why related MS crooked practices were discussed.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by shmerl
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
F4LL0UT: Your point (or at least of the section you linked to on Wikipedia) was that MS artificially increases switching costs with deliberately dirty and convoluted design that increases the effort of supporting other OSes
avatar
shmerl: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Not necessarily with convoluted design, but with Windows only APIs. D3D is clearly Windows only, and the only way to bypass it is to rewrite engines which use it, or to resort to wrappers. Both approaches require effort and resources. I.e. the overheard falls on developers. Many can't afford it, and it suits MS lock-in all the same.

avatar
skeletonbow: Just found an interesting commentary which is a comparison between OpenGL and Direct3D as they evolved over time since inception and the ups and downs both interfaces have had over time which ultimately lead developers of particular software to choose one API over the other depending on what their needs and priorities were.

https://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows?answertab=votes#tab-top
avatar
shmerl: This was already linked above :)

avatar
dirtyharry50: I think it is not realistic to expect there will be a singular graphics API that personal computer operating systems and console operating systems as well will all use. That is very unlikely to happen.
avatar
shmerl: Why not? Modern GPU use pretty common logic which abstracts pretty well with APIs like Vulkan. If you paid attention, both Metal and DX12 are very close to Vulkan in design. Not just because they all used Mantle as their base, but also because that's how GPUs work. I.e. those APIs abstract the common hardware design of modern day GPUs. So there is no reason why there can't be one common abstraction.

avatar
dirtyharry50: Apple is not going to be implementing Vulkan.
avatar
shmerl: Only if they are jerks (which they often are). So far they didn't however say they are against Vulkan, so time will tell. May be they won't behave crookedly. Not implementing Vulkan will serve Apple's lock-in and will be a spit in the face of developers. I personally have very low respect for Apple precisely because of this kind of behavior. Apple have a chance to redeem themselves at least in this aspect. As I said, unlike MS they are at least in the Vulkan working group.

avatar
dirtyharry50: It would be redundant when they already have Metal.
avatar
shmerl: Apple are free to kill off Metal if they worry about redundancy. It will help everyone, and developers primarily. AMD are killing off Mantle now, because they see Vulkan as a clearly better single alternative. But as you know Apple have a very strong NIH bend a lot of times, so I personally doubt they'll kill off Metal.
You get farther with sugar. Just a suggestion. You don't need to insult me ("if you were paying attention") or anybody else (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) to make whatever points you wish to about what you think is going to or should happen.

I explained to you "why not?" so far as a unified graphics API. Feel free to reject what I told you but what I am saying there is a view also shared by others including professionals in the gaming industry. On another forum that is Mac specific we've had the pleasure of interacting with someone from Epic Games (Unreal Engine, etc.) and their view matches mine above.

By the tone of your post just now and others I get the impression you feel passionately about these things and even get upset over them. I can only suggest that you might want to calm down a little about this stuff. It's just computer games.

In fairness, companies like Microsoft, Apple, AMD, Nvidia and the open source developers as well who are ultimately funded by for profit enterprises as nobody can afford to work without income, all work very hard on these things and it is not unreasonable for them to do so for money, to do so competitively and in some cases to do so keeping the best interests of their shareholders in mind. They are businesses and their ultimate goal as with all for profit businesses is to make money. That is not a crime. If they did not make money and lots of it we would not have any of this stuff at all.

So I can understand why Microsoft does not open source Direct X for example. Why should they? They spent a lot of money for that competitive advantage. Is it really reasonable to expect them to just give that away? The same holds true for Apple. They spend millions of dollars on R&D. Are they supposed to just give their tech away, just give the source out to whomever wants it? Seriously? How do you expect major companies to remain in business? There is no free lunch.

If you want to subscribe to the Richard Stallman view of software that's fine. Run Linux or BSD and do not ever install anything proprietary by anyone. You can do that. It's up to you. I wouldn't want to but I wouldn't tell somebody else how to live. Whatever.

Your assertions that the management of companies who do not give away proprietary assets they have spent huge sums of money developing are jerks is not reasonable to put it mildly in my view.

It is what it is. Mark my words because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going to happen here. It is obvious. No soothsaying is needed. There is going to be three graphics APIs for personal computer operating systems, actually four when you consider OpenGL isn't going to instantly vanish and that is that.

When a developer at Epic working on OS X tells me that Vulkan is redundant when OS X now has Metal I believe him. I also have background in software engineering myself as a retired senior engineer so I don't need lessons about GPUs, APIs, etc. thank you.

I have one last suggestion for you and that is that it is good to not assume people are idiots or ignorant about things simply because they do not agree with you about something.

I think what you may have missed in what I said above was that of course I understand the issue is not a technical one. The issue is that companies do not give away tech for free. The entire world is not open source and it isn't going to be any time soon. I thought i was pretty clear in talking about that but maybe I was not somehow.
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
dirtyharry50: I explained to you "why not?" so far as a unified graphics API. Feel free to reject what I told you but what I am saying there is a view also shared by others including professionals in the gaming industry.
Professionals in the gaming industry are now waiting whether Apple will implement Vulkan or not. And they agree it would be good for the industry if they do, and it will be a major mess if they won't. No one says "Hey, it's fun to have another API to support in our engine, just because Apple suffers from the NIH syndrome, so cheers to Apple!". And you you know well why they don't say it - because it means a lot more work for them.

avatar
dirtyharry50: So I can understand why Microsoft does not open source Direct X for example. Why should they?
Why shouldn't they? The only purpose DX serves is lock-in. MS doesn't make any money on DX itself, they leverage it to make porting games harder. Lock-in is always a crooked business practice. I never saw anyone saying "Hey, lock-in is great, let's have more of that kool-aid". Well, may be besides Johnathanamz on this forum ;)

avatar
dirtyharry50: I think what you may have missed in what I said above was that of course I understand the issue is not a technical one. The issue is that companies do not give away tech for free. The entire world is not open source and it isn't going to be any time soon. I thought i was pretty clear in talking about that but maybe I was not somehow.
Indeed, lock-in is not a technical issue. It's an issue of dirty and crooked business practice.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by shmerl
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
dirtyharry50: Your assertions that the management of companies who do not give away proprietary assets they have spent huge sums of money developing are jerks is not reasonable to put it mildly in my view.
Oh, really. So what did AMD do exactly with Mantle, huh? Hint - they opened it up for Khronos. Weird, according to you, no? They surely didn't come up with it in a minute, and had serious R&D spent on it. But it's not weird really. Having an open standard benefits the industry and them including. Same applies to Apple and others. On the other hand lock-in and standards poisoning sets the industry back into dark ages. Being jerks is not about them not opening something up. It's about lock-in and forcing developers to do double work when it could be easily avoided. And in case of Safari it's about messing developers up by slacking on standards support on purpose.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by shmerl
Posted July 09, 2015
low rated
avatar
adamhm: Regarding dx12, microsoft has been almost completely ignoring dx and windows gaming for the past couple years, and they would have continued that if it weren't for opengl catching up and going beyond dx11, mantle, and of course Valve announcing their plan.
avatar
shmerl: Yes, it's clear that MS is simply catching up, not innovating here. They responded to Mantle (by copying it) and didn't just suddenly decide to move forward. They'll continue the catch up game with Vulkan I'm sure (since Vulkan will be FOSS). But of course MS will trumpet that as their own desire to move the industry.
Microsoft is not catching up at all DirectX 12 is way more advanced than OpenGL and Vulkan.
avatar
F4LL0UT: First off, with the Xbox Microsoft does not have the monopoly on console gaming, that whole "evil monpolistic empire" argumentation just doesn't fly here.
avatar
shmerl: To badly influence the market, you don't need to have full monopoly. It's enough to have a major market share and to be a jerk at the same time. I.e. if by not targeting Xbox developers are losing a lot of reach, it means that Xbox has a significant influence (and when it abuses it, everyone is affected negatively).

Another such example is Apple's iOS and browsers there. Apple simply bans all competing browsers on iOS. You might think it's a minor issue since Apple doesn't have global browser monopoly. However it's not so - it has a drastic negative impact because it's a significant enough market share. See here: https://kenneth.io/blog/2015/07/03/safari-isnt-the-problem-but-the-lack-of-browser-choice-in-ios-is/

Which is a response to this: http://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new-ie/ (this outlines the details of the problem).
avatar
F4LL0UT: The other thing is, why are you giving MS so much shit while with Sony or Nintendo you don't have a choice either?
avatar
shmerl: They deserve the same criticism lock-in wise. DX was the topic of the discussion, that's why related MS crooked practices were discussed.
Microsoft never did any crooked practices. You are becoming ridiculous now.
avatar
dirtyharry50: I explained to you "why not?" so far as a unified graphics API. Feel free to reject what I told you but what I am saying there is a view also shared by others including professionals in the gaming industry.
avatar
shmerl: Professionals in the gaming industry are now waiting whether Apple will implement Vulkan or not. And they agree it would be good for the industry if they do, and it will be a major mess if they won't. No one says "Hey, it's fun to have another API to support in our engine, just because Apple suffers from the NIH syndrome, so cheers to Apple!". And you you know well why they don't say it - because it means a lot more work for them.

avatar
dirtyharry50: So I can understand why Microsoft does not open source Direct X for example. Why should they?
avatar
shmerl: Why shouldn't they? The only purpose DX serves is lock-in. MS doesn't make any money on DX itself, they leverage it to make porting games harder. Lock-in is always a crooked business practice. I never saw anyone saying "Hey, lock-in is great, let's have more of that kool-aid". Well, may be besides Johnathanamz on this forum ;)

avatar
dirtyharry50: I think what you may have missed in what I said above was that of course I understand the issue is not a technical one. The issue is that companies do not give away tech for free. The entire world is not open source and it isn't going to be any time soon. I thought i was pretty clear in talking about that but maybe I was not somehow.
avatar
shmerl: Indeed, lock-in is not a technical issue. It's an issue of dirty and crooked business practice.
There is absolutely no need for Microsoft to open source DirectX at all.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by Johnathanamz
Posted July 09, 2015
avatar
Johnathanamz: There is absolutely no need for Microsoft to open source DirectX at all.
Not at the moment, no. But it's not inconceivable for them to open source it when Vulkan will start really pushing it to the side. That's not uncommon even for MS. They might like lock-in crookedness, but they aren't dumb and know that when competition gets too strong, lock-in will only hurt themselves.
Post edited July 09, 2015 by shmerl
Pages:
1
5
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhy everyone keep using DirectX?(261 posts)(261 posts)
(261 posts)