What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
224 Comments
- lickmygiggle, on 10/10/2007, -32/+196Vista as a whole was a mistake.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -9/+110What about OpenGL? http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13647
It wasn't designed for the sole purpose of locking you into a specific operating system. - BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -9/+103Hey Gabe. Get Halflife and Halflife 2 running under OpenGL in Mac and Linux. That alone would be a big enough of a wake up call to force Microsofts hand on the issue. Even 'without many games', just having Halflife and Halflife 2 in Mac and Linux would be huge.
- loganhid, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74Damn Right
- mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -6/+64OpenGL 3.0 is now officially out and matches Direct3D 10 on the feature level.
Gabe should not ignore his users wanting Linux versions of his games. He should do an Epic Games and make Linux clients for his games. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+49Maybe he should have supported OpenGL. He brought it on himself. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you lock yourself into any Microsoft proprietary software, that they will at some point act in their own interests and not yours. All I can say to Gabe is: "A boo hoo hoo :-P"
- Jambi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+52To put it succinctly: no duh. Microsoft screws something up again, what a shock!
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+43Yeah, Gabe-why not push for a non-proprietary graphics standard-based on OpenGL or something, and push for cross compatibility? id seems on board with that idea-if you and Epic get on board, the whole MS only DirectX thing becomes irrelevant.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41Holy *****, Gabe Newell got something right.
But he'll likely switch his story next week when MS drops $10M on him.
The only good thing about him is he stays bought. When ATI paid him to make Half-Life 2 work worse on NVidia cards than ATI, he did it, and he did it right. He used every arcane feature that ATI cards supported and NVidia didn't (like 24-bit floats). - zwilliams, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24Actually OpenGL 3.0 comes out next month (September). They did preview OpenGL 3.0 back on August 8th, I think, just a few days after they released OpenGL 2.1. Which of course was a big API cleanup and added some new features. But yeah, OpenGL 3.0 on paper rivals DirectX10's Graphical promises.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23he shouldnt, he should code for openGL.
- Gannick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Why not just use OpenGL? I saw some screen shots of the new version (I cant remember where on the net it was) but it looked just as good or better then the DirectX10 games.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Just use OpenGL.
- superal1394, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20it would definately beat what EA is doing
Please note, if Valve brought Source and Gldsrc games over to OpenGL and OSX, I might have a nerdgasm.
*dreams of playing CS and HL2 on OSX* - Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28I'll probably get labelled as a Microsoft fanboy for my comments in this article, but I honestly believe most of the arguments here are sensationalised and flawed. Pointing to an DirectX10 game that's prettier than an OpenGL3.0 game and saying DirectX10 is better is asinine, it simply means the developers did a better job implementing their game with DirectX than the other developers did with OpenGL, and vice versa.
Having a promising new API come out and only being supported by one operating system must be frustrating for developers that are looking to push the technical limits, but it's difficult to legitimately fault Microsoft for doing it. Software costs exponentially more to make changes to as it's life progresses, and such a large change to the driver model to support a more efficient DirectX version would likely not be cost effective for Microsoft to implement in XP, as they would receive no compensation for it since they're aiming for people to migrate to Vista.
On another note however, I think it was not a particularly wise move of Microsoft's to not release a version of DirectX10 that can run on XP without the driver model optimisations. They could sell Vista as increased performance, while encouraging adoption of the new technology and not alienating people that didn't want to migrate. The only reason for reduced performance with XP is that there's thousands of drivers available, to break them all with a major overhaul so late in a product's lifecycle would be a very unwise move, especially considering hardware developers are traditionally slow to get their drivers to an acceptable working state.
I'd like to address the comparison of Adobe's patching policy to Microsoft's that was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think it's entirely a valid comparison, mainly because while Adobe may patch something as trivial as new file type support, they don't patch in massive new feature upgrades. Microsoft is similar in that respect, they can and do patch in trivial updates, but massive iterations usually don't come free.
Should developers move to OpenGL to avoid the problems with DirectX10 requiring Vista? Maybe. I'm (slowly) studying DirectX game development at the moment and haven't really looked at OpenGL yet, so I'm not qualified to discuss any difficulties in programming for it. People in this thread that claim to be qualified to discuss it have pointed out that OpenGL is slightly more difficult to implement than DirectX is, making DirectX a more attractive target for Windows developers. If that's truely the case, then blame should not be directed at developers attempting to make the best game they can for the least money, it should be aimed at the people designing OpenGL. I'm not saying they're bad people, they've obviously done some fantastic work, but if it's ultimately more difficult to code for they seem to have some optimisations to make to their design and people should encourage them to do it, so more developers can switch.
In conclusion, I'd just like to point out that I don't particularly want to take a side in the debate of whether OpenGL or DirectX is better, they both have strengths and weaknesses. I'm just trying to point out that there's more to the decision of which API to use than merely closing your eyes and picking one at random, as some people seem to believe. - Sirocco, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23Sadly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
- alexkorova, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Ditch DirectX and use crossplatform libraries such as OpenGL etc and will be able to quite easy have your game running on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X and you will have the most potential customers.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -10/+25"People are moving to Vista in droves."
LOL....not if Microsoft has anything to say about it!
http://www.digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_WGA_server_down_Results_in_un_genuine_vista_copies - mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Ah yes, the 3.0 was just an announcement, but we'll have it soon enough. Fanboys (sadly they still exist, and for Microsoft no less) have no ground to stand on though... oh I guess they will argue about how "hard" OpenGL is to code for when they have never written a Hello World program.
If id and Epic Games continue to code an OpenGL client, it isn't that difficult for commercial gaming.
If multi-million dollar companies use OpenGL for modeling and movie making, it isn't that difficult at all. - mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Look at id, look at Epic Games, look at Blizzard (World of Warcraft), look at S2 Games (Savage). All have OpenGL clients for their games. All run on Win32/Linux/OS X. All are *very* profitable for each company.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Part of the issue is that DirectX provides an API for input devices and sound whereas OpenGL is just 3d.
- Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I wouldn't hold your breath for them to rewrite the renderer in OpenGL, but I do expect use of OpenGL in new titles to start to rise. I get the feeling that more and more companies are going to start going cross platform, especially with Mac doing better and better every day.
- Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13That's flat out false. Look at the engines John Carmack designs. He uses OpenGL for 3d rendering. It's not slow at all.
The few DX10 supporting programs out there also show a significant performance hit when DX10 is enabled. - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Every time someone sticks up for Microsoft/Vista, I'm not going to say anything at all. I'm going to simply reply with one single link in the hope that someday these people come to the realization that they are morons.
Here it is: http://www.digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_WGA_server_down_Results_in_un_genuine_vista_copies - ravage86, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20I recently ran Steam's hardware survey, and it detected that I had DirectX 9.0c even though I was on Vista and had DirectX 10. The data Gabe is working with is probably very inaccurate.
With that in mind, he's still right. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14and its not because its better, its because its easier
- DigDugDigger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I will get dugg down for this, but even being a Mac user, I think Vista is a step in the right direction in many areas, authough many of them are poorly implemented. Making the newest DirectX Vista only definitely was a mistake, and now Microsoft will pay for it. Forum posts, emails, phone calls, etc. won't phase them, people vote with their wallets. For now the developers are taking 'our' side which will tell Microsoft this type of practice is not only ineffective but also unacceptable and I doubt Microsoft will make this mistake in the future. For a company which prided itself in supporting legacy systems they sure dropped the ball on this one and now they are going to pay the only way a corporation can, with lost sales. It's how a free economy works.
- vanadium77, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Except for the minor oversight on your part that legions of XP users don't feel Vista is worth the upgrade to begin with. Just because its out there doesn't mean everything should necessarily run to it.
- Megatog615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12With any luck he might actually make more money if he made a Linux/OpenGL version.
- lickmygiggle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16linux? mac? oh, right....those won't exist in five years. /sarcasm
- Astaro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10the leaked beta of HL2 was openGL.
I was rather annoyed when the full version didnt support openGL rendering, because I had a dodgy graphics card, that made my pc crash every time I used direct x graphics. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10To be fair, the OpenGL settings probably aren't rendering all the detail that the DirectX Setting was.
But i totally agree with the concept of switching to OpenGL away from DirectX. - Megatog615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11On the bright side, OpenGL is also closer to the hardware, which means it doesn't have to go through so many software layers to render the scene. This means speed.
- Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11OpenGL is "better" in many respects, but it's harder to program for from what I've heard. Developers need to just bite that bullet and do it anyway.
- kingfoot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12wageslaven, this is the third time ive dugg you down for saying something so incredibly stupid about Microsoft or people directly connected to them.
I call shenanigans. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Sorry estvir, your provided link is to a prior ATI marketing flunkies apologist backpedaling: He says, "We can politely disagree about whether or not MS should provide [DX10] functionality to XP users." His rationale?
"At some point, the question "to serve existing customers" or "to get new customers" is a question every business has to ask itself. Given XP has had a 5+ year run it is hard to see how XP customers have a strong case they were not given good value for the money."
His technical arguments are specious and untrue. so we are left with the financial one. There is no technical reason why a version of DX10 can not be made to run on XP. It is code that can be implemented by whatever method is deemed most appropriate. The only reason it is not is to entice people to purchase Vista who otherwise would not bother with it. - kingfoot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11message to Microsoft; NO *****
Gabe got it right, and he is voicing his correct opinion. Something others have neglected to do regardless of their true feelings. - sudowrestler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Uh, that was six months. And mostly on new computers.
- venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9There might not be a reason from a hardware standpoint, but there is from a software standpoint. They didn't feel like taking the time to rip out the old driver model from XP and implement a huge chunk of code from Vista in XP, or rewriting DirectX 10 for XP to work without the new driver model. You can say that's ***** if you want, but it's a lot of work to just give away for free, makes Vista an even less attractive upgrade option, and makes no business sense at all.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11***** I dugg wageslaven's asinine comment by mistake, someone bury him quick!!
- SaladCactusKing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Be patient with the Half-Life Episode 2 delays, as Gabe has eaten the rest of the Source development team.
- DMDekoth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It's just a waste of resources, time and money catering to select, small userbases. Microsoft could have prevented this. You're pointing fingers at the wrong person.
- Coded1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I believe the point is if there *was* a software / hardware interface that was fast and well supported it wouldn't be effected by Microsoft's decisions. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Newell being someone who advocates interfaces well I guess you see it coming.
- awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is true under Vista and Vista only, and intentionally.
- aegis9975, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Gabe is right from the consumers/developers perspective, however, from MS' marketing perspective they need something to sell an OS that has very little appeal to most users (it can be said that the bloat it introduces makes Vista less appealing).
- Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Then perhaps it's time to make OpenGL easier to code for also? If something is more difficult to achieve an effect on than something else, would you really expect people to go out of their way to use it when they don't have to?
- Wartz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7thats because of Nvidia's ***** Vista drivers for the 8800 series,
- venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'd just like to point out, the "true Diggers" are the geeks. Digg used to only be Tech news. Ugh. I kind of miss those days.
- xSEED, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
- Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Well, it could be that the vast majority of the world is still using the old product and the new product is inferior in most respects...
When Nikon or Canon come out with an updated RAW format, Adobe releases a patch for all their photo editing programs...even old versions. MS should take note. -
Show 51 - 100 of 225 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is