PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Mac, Linux and money. Guess who won.
May 14th 2000, 18:54 CEST by andy

Blue is reporting that the next version of the Unreal engine will use only Direct3D, dropping support for both Glide and OpenGL.

This may seem like a strange decision, and our kooky friends at Slashdot will be working double-time with the Microsoft theories, but whatever your view of MS and Epic this is really just a case of market forecasting...



Judging by the comments I've read over on Blue's forum, people's immediate reaction to this decision is to think about how much Epic is going to lose.

Supporting Direct3D exclusively will make it much harder for Epic to release their games on Linux and the Mac, as Microsoft's proprietary API is available for neither and is never likely to be. OpenGL is available for both. This means that either Linux and the Mac are no longer a part of Epic's game plan, or there are plans to develop dedicated rendering engines for those platforms, which seems so unlikely that I think we can safely disregard it.

It also creates an interesting dichotomy between the two big boys of both gaming and licensing, with Epic supporting only Direct3D and Id Software supporting only OpenGL. (Expect a LithTech press release any time now...)

I've been doing a bit of graphics work myself recently and I can't for the life of me understand why any programmer would choose Direct3D over OpenGL. And I'm only looking at it from an ease-of-use perspective, regardless of multi-platform support. Even as an amateur, I'm sure in my own mind that John Carmack is doing things the right way - using OpenGL for graphics and DirectSound for audio. To me, at least, it makes sense.

So why is Epic going with Direct3D?

Well, one reason could be that, according to the news item over on Blue's, Epic has "direct input to Microsoft as to the development of the API". This, presumably, does not mean that Tim Sweeney gives Billy G a call every couple of weeks and asks for a new feature to be added.

Epic is no doubt providing guidance on how D3D should progress to make it more desirable for real-world development. After all, whatever programming gurus are tapping away at their keyboards in Microsoft HQ, none of them will have written a million-selling game with dozens of licensees.

So has Epic's decision been 'influenced' by Microsoft? Epic is moving towards development for Microsoft's X-Box console, and it is clearly advantageous to MS if one of the most influential game developers not only abandons both Linux and the Mac, but also publicly declares its support for Direct3D over OpenGL. Outside the hardcore gaming community, this move helps MS big time, and in return, MS will no doubt give Epic a helping hand with X-Box development.

When you look at the bottom line - because this is obviously a business decision, not a programming one - you can see that Epic is gambling on both the success of the X-Box console and the continued 'failure' of Linux and the Mac as gaming platforms.

Within just a few months of its release, X-Box games will probably be outselling PC games many times over. So ask yourself: If you were going to license a game engine, would you go with an Id engine and cross-develop for PC, Mac and Linux, or would you go with an Epic engine and develop for one less platform but sell many times more copies?

There's a lot of love for Linux out there in Coderworld, and releasing on the Mac is becoming more popular, but ultimately licensing decisions are made by biz folk, not developers, and for most of them the potential revenue from X-Box sales is going to be too good to resist. It's sad how the move towards Mac and Linux gaming is going to be turned around in a very short space of time, but as always, someone mentioned dollars and someone else was listening.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Mac, Linux and money. Guess who won.

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 18:56:38
andy@planetcrap.com
Wow, that must be my slickest piece of writing ever. Not.
#2 by "Apache"
2000-05-14 19:06:38
apache@warzone.com http://www.unrealuniverse.com
Mixed feelings on this for me -- on the Voodoo5 Unreal Tournament looks pretty damned slick in OpenGL mode, plus runs very fast. But -- since UT's OpenGL drivers don't have a real full-screen mode (they have some kind of hacked Windowed mode to emulate full screen) Full Screen Anti-Aliasing does not work.

Glide is really fast, but only supports 16 bit color, and to be honest - is pretty f'ugly, even with FSAA.

That leaves Direct 3D, which looks good and runs great on the next-gen cards, plus plays pretty smooth even on the older TNT2 boards.

Do I REALLY care about OpenGL or Glide? Maybe if I was a Linux or Mac user, then I'd be really pissed.
#3 by "Desiato"
2000-05-14 19:12:36
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com
Too bad I'm not -- <a href="http://www.geekculture.com/geekculturestore/webstore/firstpost.html">First Post!</a> heh.

Oh yeah, you know this is going to be a Quad Topic over at Spew2. I'm still looking into the details, but it does seem a weird turn of events. Unless - like it has been suggested elsewhere, that this is just the tip of the Holy-Crap-Lets-Develop-Games-For-The-Console surge that we've been seeing lately. I don't like it.

Andy Says:
"When you look at the bottom line - because this is obviously a business decision, not a programming one - you can see that Epic is gambling on both the success of the X-Box console and the continued 'failure' of Linux and the Mac as gaming platforms."

I don't know how relying on the X-Box is a "good" business decision right now....who knows what microsoft will do to make their box non-extendable, just like they do to whatever formats they "embrace and smother" on a regular basis? And there is also the question whether or not the PC market will kick the X-box's ass when it finally makes its debut.

Consoles over PC's? I never thought I would see it, but in a way it's like saying -- "The PC market is too hard, let's do something easy..." umm....yeah...you're just trading problem sets...

Desiato..
<a href="http://www.spew2.com">Spew2</a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#4 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-14 19:32:01
Does anyone even know which Genre Epic is going to try to rip off with their next game?  

Given Epic's close ties with Microsoft, I can't see this is any big shock at all.   In fact, Brandon Rheinhold has been saying this was going to be the case for months.  (sorry, didn't know the spelling, and if you are gonna get a typo, might as well go big)

Nobody knows what is going to happen with the mac and linux markets.   All of the data I've seen has shown them to be growing at a huge rate.  But it's still the developer's choice, and they are the only ones who can decide which path to take.

For right now,  I doubt skipping the mac and linux markets would make any huge difference in the bottom line.  In a couple years, they may be regretting this decision in a big way.

Seems like they'd probably be wise to stick to the origional plan and push out at least some crappy, buggy, epic-style ports which won't work any better than the ports to any of their current games.  

If nothing else, just to keep their engine worth licensing.




got a bit of a headache today, sorry if it's showing up in my post.  :)



________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "Apache"
2000-05-14 19:36:47
apache@warzone.com http://www.unrealuniverse.com
is there a reason why D3D can't be ported to linux and Mac?
#6 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 19:41:50
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#5</b>, Apache:
<QUOTE>
is there a reason why D3D can't be ported to linux and Mac?
</QUOTE>
It won't be officially ported because Microsoft doesn't want to support those platforms.

It won't be unofficially ported because it would either be illegal or a grey area at best, so no developers would use it.

(My own assumptions, of course.)
#7 by "Dethstryk"
2000-05-14 19:42:43
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
I have a feeling that Epic realizes that the majority of the sales of games aren't in the Linux or Mac department. When I used to bug around with Linux on a spare machine, all I wanted to do was play Nethack, not some fancy game.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#8 by "Desiato"
2000-05-14 19:44:19
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com
Actually, there is a parallel thread about this over on <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/14/1439224&mode=nested">crapdot</a>.

Suffice to say, Linux programmers would rather cut their own hands off than marry a part of the open-source movement to a Microsoft API. Whether or not this is technically feasible is covered in more detail over on crapdot...so I'm not going to pretend at this point to understand it all.

I just don't like this trend. (Hopefully it isn't one...but..)


Desiato..
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#9 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-14 19:49:14
<b>#8</b> "Desiato" wrote...
<quote> Actually, there is a parallel thread about this over on crapdot.</quote>
 
Seems like a good portion of the PC stories are running at the same time on /.
 
I don't think that's a bad thing.  Though we don't tend to get enough hot grits or petrified natalie portman threads.

This is more of a discussion forum, while that's a comment forum where people just tend to post a single opinion and move on.



________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "Timdog"
2000-05-14 19:54:13
TheTimdog@hotmail.com
Andy:
<quote>I can't for the life or me understand why any programmer would choose Direct3D over OpenGL. </quote>

I've actually found the DirectX 7.0 interface to be pretty good. Yeah, its still full of those ExD3DGetADeviceSoICanDrawAndMakeThisNameLong7() style function names, but since you no longer have to deal with execute buffers the added flexibility is rather nice. And the other nice thing about D3D is that due to the COM naming model on the identifiers, you can be guaranteed that subsequent versions of DirectX won't break legacy code (just bloat it real nice :)).

And there's also the fact that the driver support for D3D tends to be far superior to openGL....

-The Timdog

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 19:58:03
andy@planetcrap.com
Notice this post in the Slashdot thread:
<quote>
Linux 3D developers could always stop hating Microsoft for a few seconds, and implement the Direct3D API... I wouldn't imagine it's that much different than OpenGL at this point.
</quote>
That was scored as 'flamebait'. Eugh, what a great bunch of people that site attracts.
#12 by "Timdog"
2000-05-14 19:58:25
TheTimdog@hotmail.com
Also, I don't understand why companies simply don't take Valve's approach and implement both an OpenGL and DirectX version of the same engine. Yeah, its more work, but it also allows more flexibility and if one version turns out to not work so well, it can be easily dropped.

-The Timdog<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "Desiato"
2000-05-14 20:07:11
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com
There's a commentary over at <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/M8784/default.htm#discussion">EvilAvatar</a> by Tim Sweeney about this decision. And, for those of you who would rather not visit that site, I've upped the post and saved it on my site in <a href="http://www.spew2.com/UTD3D.doc">DOC</a> and <a href="http://www.spew2.com/UTD3D.txt">TXT</a> form.

Check it out..

Desiato..

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 20:08:11
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#10</b>, Timdog:
<QUOTE>
And there's also the fact that the driver support for D3D tends to be far superior to openGL....
</QUOTE>
That is a definite plus, and something I meant to mention in the topic but forgot.

As I understand it, the <b>majority</b> of card manufacturers have still not released decent OGL drivers. 3DFX is supposed to be the worst offender, and nVidia one of the best, is that right?
#15 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 20:18:04
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#5</b> "Apache" wrote...
<QUOTE>is there a reason why D3D can't be ported to linux and Mac? </QUOTE>

yup. It is proprietry, unreleased specs that very few people would want to touch as a hobby.

Direct3d is also going to be constantly updated evolved changed and a port would need to support all previous versions. The API is not designed for usability and thus very few in the OS community would touch it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 20:21:29
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#12</b> "Timdog" wrote...
<QUOTE>Also, I don't understand why companies simply don't take Valve's approach and implement both an OpenGL and DirectX version of the same engine. Yeah, its more work, but it also allows more flexibility and if one version turns out to not work so well, it can be easily dropped.

-The Timdog</QUOTE>

Because Valves approach means a lowest common denominator approach, probably trebles your developement time and ends up in drivers being dropeed (which means a lot of cash wasa wasted).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 20:24:28
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#10</b> "Timdog" wrote...
<QUOTE>I've actually found the DirectX 7.0 interface to be pretty good. Yeah, its still full of those ExD3DGetADeviceSoICanDrawAndMakeThisNameLong7() style function names, but since you no longer have to deal with execute buffers the added flexibility is rather nice. And the other nice thing about D3D is that due to the COM naming model on the identifiers, you can be guaranteed that subsequent versions of DirectX won't break legacy code (just bloat it real nice :)).
</QUOTE>

You talk about these features like they are a bonus. In OpenGL you are guarenteed that the API wont change. This added "added flexibility" has been around in OpenGL since the begining. It isa SAD what people learn to put up with. :/<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 20:26:34
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#14</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>As I understand it, the majority of card manufacturers have still not released decent OGL drivers. 3DFX is supposed to be the worst offender, and nVidia one of the best, is that right? </QUOTE>

The majority of vendors have released drivers but as OpenGL is a 3d only api many of them fall over. There is also bugs in some of the drivers (partly because there are more features in OpenGL to support than in Direct3d).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 20:37:24
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
Has anyone considered the possibility that it could come down to ... errr personal factors. When Epic ported to OpenGL they really didn't have a 100% clue on how to work with hardware through it. There game was built so that the drivers act basically as a rasterizer which is a bad bad bad thing today but was acceptable back when Unreal started.

Then they had huge problems with texture memory because they did not have enough knowledge to fix it. Instead of re-engineering their app they decided to try and get an extension to OpenGL. The extension basically consisted of a hack that was only required on 95/98 machines. The OpenGL ARB of course sneered at the idea because it was a stupid idea. Epic's lead got a little upset given he had basically been called a dopey bastard by OpenGL guys (but in a nice way) and since then chose not to support OpenGL. Naturally the only real competitor is Direct3D and their owners have clout so ....

Of course they *could* have fixed their app so texture was managed properly but that would have bruised their ego. Epics support of Linux has been suspect for a while and it was only through the communitys help that Unreal became playable on Linux systems.

There seems to be way more ego in Epics Lead. Thou it was fun watch them try to jump up and down with the Monolith thing :P<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "Timdog"
2000-05-14 20:52:27
TheTimdog@hotmail.com
RahvinTaka:
<quote>You talk about these features like they are a bonus. </quote>

Ok, maybe you got me there. DirectX before ver 6.0 both sucked and blew. Starting with version 6.0, it started to look like a reasonable API to use.

<quote>partly because there are more features in OpenGL to support than in Direct3d</quote>

This is patently false, starting with DX 7.0. I currently am studying the documentation for both and will try to post again in a couple hours with a list (possibly a tome) of DirectX features not supported in OpenGL. In general, anything you can do in DirectX you can do in OpenGL, but if its anything both fancy and new, you'll probably have to implement it yourself or grab some extensions. More specifically, the T&L extensions released by nVidia come to mind; they aren't part of the official OGL spec.

The reason there are better drivers for D3D is because the HAL system developed by Microsoft is genius. It makes the drivers much simpler by allowing features to be hacked in by the drivers (see FSAA, only in D3D)rather than being forced to be properly implemented. And when actually using the API, its a dream. Yeah, its a pain to set up, but its vastly more powerful (flexibility wise) than the driver system OGL offers.

<quote>In OpenGL you are guarenteed that the API wont change.</quote>

In D3D, i'm guaranteed all of my legacy API options as well as anything new. (new + old)  old

In fact, given a programmer with <i>equal skill</i> in both OpenGL (i will give you that OGL is easier to learn) and D3D, I really see only two reasons to use OGL:

1) Marginally simpler code. This used to be a bigger gap, but MS has taken great strides with their API.
2) Multi-platform development. Enough said.

All that being said, I'd probably recommend OpenGL to any developer simply because of the multi-platform aspect of it.

Flame away.

-The Timdog <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 21:09:00
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#20</b> "Timdog" wrote...
<QUOTE>Ok, maybe you got me there. DirectX before ver 6.0 both sucked and blew. Starting with version 6.0, it started to look like a reasonable API to use. </QUOTE>

I would have said 7.0 it started ok but I got high standards ;)

<QUOTE>
partly because there are more features in OpenGL to support than in Direct3d

This is patently false, starting with DX 7.0. I currently am studying the documentation for both and will try to post again in a couple hours with a list (possibly a tome) of DirectX features not supported in OpenGL. In general, anything you can do in DirectX you can do in OpenGL, but if its anything both fancy and new, you'll probably have to implement it yourself or grab some extensions. More specifically, the T&L extensions released by nVidia come to mind; they aren't part of the official OGL spec.
</QUOTE>

Put it with this way. OGL has very few limitations (one of the major ones is a lack of surface shaders). You can do virtually anything if you want to put in the effort. ie FSAA was avaialble 5 years ago in OGL. Many of the *innovations* of recent times were possible back with 1.1's release but weren't used (as hardware wasn't up to it or it wasn't optimised in drivers or no one knew about it :P).

<QUOTE>The reason there are better drivers for D3D is because the HAL system developed by Microsoft is genius. It makes the drivers much simpler by allowing features to be hacked in by the drivers (see FSAA, only in D3D)rather than being forced to be properly implemented. And when actually using the API, its a dream. Yeah, its a pain to set up, but its vastly more powerful (flexibility wise) than the driver system OGL offers. </QUOTE>

yup this was a deliberate ploy by MS. Driver writers have to work much harder to support OpenGL.

<QUOTE>In D3D, i'm guaranteed all of my legacy API options as well as anything new. (new + old) old </QUOTE>

But consider the OpenGL apps wrote 5 years ago. They were already Hardware T&L enabled back then ! When hardware caught up they ran like the clappers ! Direct3D doesn't generally make older apps run better. They have to be constantly updated to use latest features.

<QUOTE>In fact, given a programmer with equal skill in both OpenGL (i will give you that OGL is easier to learn) and D3D, I really see only two reasons to use OGL:

1) Marginally simpler code. This used to be a bigger gap, but MS has taken great strides with their API.
2) Multi-platform development. Enough said.

All that being said, I'd probably recommend OpenGL to any developer simply because of the multi-platform aspect of it.
Flame away.
</QUOTE>

OpenGL does have problems and unfortunately if 1.2 isn't out by the time DX 8 is out I will prolly have to change :{. The beauty of OGL is that any app I write now is likely to work in 10 years time from now and I won't have to learn everything again every 6 months. I doubt I could get away with using DirectX5 now yet OGL stays the same. In ten years I bet DX goes the way of WinG and all those other technologies MS invents and throws away. Anyway thats why I don't like DX :/

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "szcx"
2000-05-14 21:17:02
leslie.nassar@dot-at-dot.com http://www.dot-at-dot.com/
opengl good.  direct3d
#23 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 21:20:13
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#22</b> "szcx" wrote...
<QUOTE>opengl good. direct3d </QUOTE>
bad ?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "szcx"
2000-05-14 21:21:26
leslie.nassar@dot-at-dot.com http://www.dot-at-dot.com/
<b>#22</b> "szcx" wrote...
<QUOTE>opengl good. direct3d </QUOTE>
wow.  way to eat the post there, crapspy.  using the less-than sign is bad mojo.

let's try that again...

opengl good. direct3d less than 7a bad.

i do not understand why people insist on using d3d.  seriously, every time a new version is released, you have to do some major work on your codebase to take advantage of new features.  it's what gives COM such a bad name.

it's a real shame that the DirectX group is too proud to redirect their d3d-fixing efforts into something more useful, like assisting hardware manufacturers in the creation of kickass win32 opengl drivers.
#25 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 21:26:21
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#24</b> "szcx" wrote...
<QUOTE>it's a real shame that the DirectX group is too proud to redirect their d3d-fixing efforts into something more useful, like assisting hardware manufacturers in the creation of kickass win32 opengl drivers. </QUOTE>
That group and others like it go to great lengths to make it difficult to develope drivers. So they do do other stuff besides fixing bugs :P<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "Timdog"
2000-05-14 21:33:54
TheTimdog@hotmail.com
szcx:
<quote>wow. way to eat the post there, crapspy. using the less-than sign is bad mojo.
</quote>

No, crapspy is written in  VB and your trashing a MS product.... I smell a conspiracy :)

<quote>it's what gives COM such a bad name</quote>

I kind of like COM, as it gives a nice amount of flexibility. Then again, I've never done anything more than smallish personal projects with either API. I suppose it could be a pain in professional development if you're not in the habit #define'ing all your interfaces.

<quote>it's a real shame that the DirectX group is too proud to redirect their d3d-fixing efforts into something more useful, like assisting hardware manufacturers in the creation of kickass win32 opengl drivers.
</quote>

I'm of the opinion that the competition created by having 2 API's is a good thing, its just unfortunate that MS owns one of them, especially now that its my preferred API.

-The Timdog<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "szcx"
2000-05-14 22:03:21
leslie.nassar@dot-at-dot.com http://www.dot-at-dot.com/
<b>#26</b> "Timdog" wrote...
<quote>No, crapspy is written in VB and your trashing a MS product.... I smell a conspiracy :)</quote>
don't tell anyone, but i'm really cmdrtaco.

<quote>I kind of like COM, as it gives a nice amount of flexibility.</quote>
used correctly, com is very powerful.  the problem is the way the directx group uses it.

(a lot of the time i don't care about cross-language support, i just want the flexible interface.  for those cases your basic c++ abstract base class works just fine)

<quote>I'm of the opinion that the competition created by having 2 API's is a good thing</quote>
agreed, having competing API's is a Good Thing.  it keeps the providers on their toes, trying to out-do each other.  but until recently, d3d hasn't been able to hold a candle to opengl, it's just hindered things like driver development.  hopefully now they've got a model that works, so directx 8 won't be yet another drastic change in direction.
#28 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 22:15:01
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#27</b>, szcx:
<QUOTE><QUOTE>
I'm of the opinion that the competition created by having 2 API's is a good thing
</QUOTE>
agreed, having competing API's is a Good Thing. it keeps the providers on their toes, trying to out-do each other.
</QUOTE>
The danger is when one of the providers is in a position to force their API upon a market that might otherwise not adopt it.

If D3D was openly developed and OGL was Microsoft's baby, and was going to be used by X-Box, which API would Epic have chosen to support?
#29 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-14 22:30:34
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
(just to annoy Andy, this is my initial gut/emotional reaction ;-)

Good, it's about time someone started seeing that 3DFX stopped giving a shit about quality 3d acceleration some time before they released the V2.

I just hope that the Unreal engine will do better in D3D than the original version did, cuz it sucked so bad in D3D on my TnT that I actually went out and bought a Poodoo2 solely to play Unreal.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "Timdog"
2000-05-14 22:31:36
TheTimdog@hotmail.com
Andy:
<quote>If D3D was openly developed and OGL was Microsoft's baby, and was going to be used by X-Box, which API would Epic have chosen to support?
</quote>

Hmmm... That's probably tough to call. In no way am I speaking for Tim Sweeny et. al at epic, but I have a feeling that the <i>completeness</i> of DirectX as a whole may have influenced their decision. OpenGL is a graphics API, period. If epic has decided to tie themselves down to DirectSound, DirectInput, DirectPlay (which is finally looking pretty sweet if MS comes through on DX 8), etc. to the point where porting becomes a problem, then they might as well use the graphics API in that set if they feel more comfortable with it (and it'll keep the codebase more consistent).  On the other hand, I also think that the X-Box figured into this decision, as well as the ability to get a hotline with the developers of DirectX. As both you (Andy) and RahvinTaka pointed out, that's easier to do with a corporation than a standards committee.

-The Timdog<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "szcx"
2000-05-14 22:35:50
leslie.nassar@dot-at-dot.com http://www.dot-at-dot.com/
<b>#28</b> "Andy" wrote...

<quote>The danger is when one of the providers is in a position to force their API upon a market that might otherwise not adopt it.</quote>

that's a Bad Thing.  which is why i said until recently, direct3d has been a hinderance. it's a shame more companies aren't in the position to do the Right Thing like id.  of course, epic have had a glimpse at what microsoft have install for directx 8+, maybe they know something we don't?

i'm not sure it's really been competition from opengl's point of view.  the ARB just sits there with it's track record and solid api saying "is that all you got?"

<quote>If D3D was openly developed and OGL was Microsoft's baby, and was going to be used by X-Box, which API would Epic have chosen to support?</quote>

whichever one they think will give them the best revenue stream.  if microsoft have promised them a sweet x-box deal, it's an easy decision for the epic bean counters to make.
#32 by "Nick"
2000-05-14 22:43:50
OpenGL is dead. Get over it. Reason's are simple... OpenGL is controlled by ARB which is a <b>big, slow and monolitic</b> board made up of companies who don't give a damn about OpenGL as a gaming API. This is why TONS of "critical" gaming extensions will never become part of the API because, for example, extension is not compatible when you run OpenGL app on a display somewhere else... I mean... who cares?! 2% of OpenGL users might need that but gamers certainly do not. Tim really tried to work with ARB and he submitted with a good faith several proposals and they were all rejected. He went to Microsoft and they were more than happy to take his advice. With every iteration D3D is getting better and better and OpenGL stays in a single place just rotting away (if you need more evdience just check how long it took ARB to approve 1.2 standard. check thew time between 1.1 and 1.2 release... PATHETIC!)

You be the judge...

PS: Don't get me wrong... I love OpenGL because of its syntax and clarity but it's times are over.
#33 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 22:44:02
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#31</b> "szcx" wrote...
<QUOTE>#28 "Andy" wrote...


The danger is when one of the providers is in a position to force their API upon a market that might otherwise not adopt it.


that's a Bad Thing. which is why i said until recently, direct3d has been a hinderance. it's a shame more companies aren't in the position to do the Right Thing like id. of course, epic have had a glimpse at what microsoft have install for directx 8+, maybe they know something we don't?

i'm not sure it's really been competition from opengl's point of view. the ARB just sits there with it's track record and solid api saying "is that all you got?"
</QUOTE>

Yup. DX8 is going to have all sorts of neatness (like both pixel and vertex shaders) that while possible in OGL, take a lot longer to code and are not always optimal for the underlying hardware. If I ever go to D3D, I think that willl be the reason. (Oh and also the DX team has made sure that DX is the only API with *good* multi-monitor support;D)
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-14 23:00:54
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#32</b> "Nick" wrote...
<QUOTE>OpenGL is dead. Get over it. Reason's are simple... OpenGL is controlled by ARB which is a big, slow and monolitic board made up of companies who don't give a damn about OpenGL as a gaming API. This is why TONS of "critical" gaming extensions will never become part of the API because, for example, extension is not compatible when you run OpenGL app on a display somewhere else... I mean... who cares?! 2% of OpenGL users might need that but gamers certainly do not.</QUOTE>

In the future gamers will, this the ARB provides for.

<QUOTE>Tim really tried to work with ARB and he submitted with a good faith several proposals and they were all rejected. </QUOTE>

Maybe he tried to submit the proposals in "good faith" but they were bad engineering. Quick hacks to a problem that would disappear soon (ie not a problem in Win2K only 95/98). Besides the problems were partly concerned with him not understanding OGL (or if he did understand refusing to engineer his app apropriately).

<QUOTE>He went to Microsoft and they were more than happy to take his advice. With every iteration D3D is getting better and better and OpenGL stays in a single place just rotting away (if you need more evdience just check how long it took ARB to approve 1.2 standard. check thew time between 1.1 and 1.2 release... PATHETIC!) </QUOTE>

There are those of the community who like this. Most prefer not to learn to a new API every 6 months. DX changes constantly because MS makes mistakes. OGL changes sometimes to add features and I guess they must fix mistakes (anyone know of any "mistakes" they fixed ????). 1.2 took so long because it was well thought out. Look at the longevity of OGL. Excepting Multi-texturing and polygonoffset you could run 90% of current OGL games using the API of 5 years ago. Try that with D3D.

The ARB has been slow but there seems to be more rampant innovation from vendors at the moment. As these innovations become widespread they will be incorporated into the spec. I much prefer a well thought out plan instead of a wil charge. Tends to be healthier too ... how bout you ?

<QUOTE>
You be the judge...

PS: Don't get me wrong... I love OpenGL because of its syntax and clarity but it's times are over. </QUOTE>

Gladly I can say you are sadly mistaken. OGL is already years ahed in some places (ie BroadcastGL) and is the main API used by researchers. With iD championing it in the games sector, comercial app designers using, the military supporting it in their sector, academics supporting it in their sector I really don't think it is going to go away as you seem to want. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "RAD Kade 1"
2000-05-14 23:31:33
kmradlof@colby.edu http://rad.capecod.net/
Bleah. Whatever happened to interoperability? *sigh*

And re: ego... Tim hired Greenmarine, what more can I say? ;P

*goes back to playing his Loki ports*

-RAD Kade 1
(an upset Linux hacker)
#36 by "Apache"
2000-05-14 23:33:17
apache@warzone.com http://www.unrealuniverse.com
heh, actually greenmarine's really nice :)
#37 by "Andy"
2000-05-14 23:49:06
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#36</b>, Apache:
<QUOTE>
heh, actually greenmarine's really nice :)
</QUOTE>
Something you want to share with us mate? *g*
#38 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-14 23:52:07
rofl.
 
I didn't even know he swung that way.
 
*grin*


________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-14 23:52:42
not that there's anything wrong with that.


________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "Apache"
2000-05-15 00:15:14
apache@warzone.com http://www.unrealuniverse.com
andy: outside of cliffyb, he (GM) was the only epic guy who would give me the time of day at e3 :)
#41 by "Andy"
2000-05-15 00:21:32
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#40</b>, Apache:
<QUOTE>
andy: outside of cliffyb, he (GM) was the only epic guy who would give me the time of day at e3 :)
</QUOTE>
When were you <i>inside</i> cliffyb? :)

I'm shocked that the other guys weren't falling all over themselves to get to you. I mean, you're Apache, gaming journo numero uno, right?

Ah well, more fool them, I guess.
#42 by "Apache"
2000-05-15 00:26:42
apache@warzone.com http://www.unrealuniverse.com
andy: you know I'm into the man-love ;)
#43 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-05-15 00:29:16
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
Interesting thread re. D3D v OpenGL. In general OpenGL has had a lot more engineering behind it. Unfortunately it is relatively slow to adapt to changes in the industry. Sure it has extension support, but that has it's drawbacks. For one it doesn't push IHVs to support the extension supported features. Second they become deprecated and thus you don't see them lasting into the next iteration of the spec. Note how multitexturing has been folded in and the extension effectively killed. It won't be long until drivers don't support the extension and the old apps that are not being actively maintained will die because of a lack of support.
#44 by "Andy"
2000-05-15 00:29:29
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#42</b>, Apache:
<QUOTE>
andy: you know I'm into the man-love ;)
</QUOTE>
Heh, and the quote of the nanosecond is currently:
<quote>
"Haven't been there to take a head count."
-- by: Houston
</quote>
*g*
#45 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-15 00:35:53
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
hrm

Unreal, great in glide, dog in d3d, dog in Gl

tested on, S3&Voodoo1, Banshee, Voodoo2&TNT combo

Unreal Tournament, nifty in glide, dog in Gl, more than playable in d3d

Tested on Tnt2u, Geforce DDr, Matrox g400

at the moment, Gl wont even run UT, crashes due to some odd texture call by infiltration from the ini. I can sit in 32bit at 8x600 and get 50+fps continually with a bit of tweakery.

UT is a dog for resources tho, doesnt behave anywhere near as nicely as Quake3 does, but its still playable.  

Wheel of time, hammers D3d and GL, and unless you have specced up machines, its really a glide based game (unreal legacy code showing through). That said, it _Does_ look gorgeous due to excellent maps and well done textures.

Klingon Academy, fails to run, end of story.



Epic decide to go D3d for their next engine, fine, maybe itll run properly on hardware this time instead of Tim et al having to play catchup.  Its not a snub to linux or mac gamers, as  they make up bugger all of the market and those people I know running linux tend to run the servers and play from Win9x boxes _for better hardware support_.

Most of the big cards out there have excellent drivers, d3d being up there and updated with every DX iteration.  GL drivers, range from the excellent (Nvidia) to woeful 3dfx, Ati... Glide is now open source, and effectively dead as an API (you can have the code, you just cant implement it on a non 3dfx card if I read the EULA correctly). Heck if Creative Labs can put a (VERY) good Glide/D3d wrapper out for their TNT cards......

Oh and I have a friend with an Imac who likes playing UT, he ends up running it in _software_ mode. All this bleating and moaning, and no ones said if the next engine will have a software Rasteriser or not. I know ... lets ask the people who actually KNOW instead of mindless speculating .. Greenmarine, Warren (and others).. care to comment?

Ds
#46 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-15 00:42:07
We are also assuming that whatever comes next out of epic will even be worth worrying about.
 
There is a fair chance that it could just be crap.   Who cares if Daikatana only runs on TNT cards?  Nobody wants to play it anyway.   (intentional harsh overgeneralization hereby noted for the anal-retentive people who were going to reply specifically to it)

________________________________
<b>dumb·ass</b> <i>(Düm-èSS)</i> n. - Anyone who doesn't agree with me.
 
<a href="http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/Bad_CRC.gif"></a><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "Andy"
2000-05-15 00:44:19
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#46</b>, Bad_CRC:
<QUOTE>
(intentional harsh overgeneralization hereby noted for the anal-retentive people who were going to reply specifically to it)
</QUOTE>
Hey, leave that kettle alone!
#48 by "Nick"
2000-05-15 03:54:41
<b>#34</b>, RahvinTaka said:
<QUOTE>There are those of the community who like this. Most prefer not to learn to a new API every 6 months. DX changes constantly because MS makes mistakes. OGL changes sometimes to add features and I guess they must fix mistakes (anyone know of any "mistakes" they fixed ????). 1.2 took so long because it was well thought out. Look at the longevity of OGL. </QUOTE>

I use both OGL and DX (I used DX since v3) and DX8 has now overtaken OGL in both speed and functionality. It has taken MS 8 iterations but they have gotten it finally right. I don't see why anyone would wanna use OGL again. Sure it's a bit easier to use but you will pay with driver problems (OGL drivers from most vid card manufacturers are flakey and there are big time inconsistencies between implementations). DX8's per-pixel shading is awesome (implemented in GeForce2) and OGL doesn't have that functionality. Realism produced by DX apps will be like 20x better than similar programs written in OGL.

DX8 will change the minds of a lot of programmers this year and OGL will be used in a single digit percentage of games.
#49 by "loonyboi"
2000-05-15 05:49:55
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com
As the author of the news story in question, I figure I should step in here... :)

When Brandon told us this, I have to admit, I was a little surprised, but at the same time, I respect their ability to be completely non-politically correct in this manner.

The fact of the matter is, that while Carmack and the Slashdot crowd loves to advocate cross-platform development, the money just isn't there. A publisher of a "bestselling" mac title revealed some numbers to me during the show that were downright shocking. Compared to consoles, PC games sell pretty poorly. Compared to PC games...Mac games don't sell at all, even when they do sell.

And Linux? Don't even joke about that. The costs involved in burning the CDs alone will never be recouped on a Linux game release.

If this trend continues (and I don't see why it won't) expect some major companies to pull completely out of Mac game ports. Even with over a million iMac sales out there, those people just aren't buying any games.

I think Epic may be hurting their licensees by not offering a better cross-platform package, and may wind up crippling Mac gamers of several A-list titles as a result, but the real money is in PS2 and X-Box development, and they are taking that one by the horns.

-jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#50 by "None-1a"
2000-05-15 06:25:37
none1a@home.com
Um, I've just got to say this most PC developers (and hardware venders)have some say in what featrues are added to DirectX. Also there are some features of D3D that would be extreamly difficult to program on OGL (for example texture compresion is built in with D3D, but would need to be programed with OGL.

As for losing Mac and Linux support. Since Apple has made such a big come back MS has started to show some interest in the Mac platform (with newer versions of IE being ported) it's possible that MS and Apple may be working on some version of DirectX for the platform (they have worked together before on the TrueType format so it can happen again, even more likley since Apple has a new OS and MS had a new version of DX in the works). Linux support is a little wired but basicly Linux as an OS has more to gain the Epic does by continuing support for Unreal engines.

One last thing Epics records might show that the majority of develers are asking for just the D3D version, if this is the case there just might not be enough demand for other API's by outside develors to justify continued development in house (anyone else could add support for OGL and with some work on the contract that work could become the property of Epic)
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Mac, Linux and money. Guess who won.

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]