Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
United Kingdom 06/02

Regularly scheduled events

AMD/DirectX Follow-up

An interview with AMD's Richard Huddy on CRN follows recent comments where he said that "DirectX is getting in the way," and developers frequently express a desire to "Make the API go away" (thanks Gamasutra). Huddy takes the opportunity to clarify. Here's a bit:

Huddy cited developers including Dice, known for its successful Battlefield series, and Critech are among the minority of game developers who are looking to get around the API. Its not something most developers want, he said. If you held a vote among developers, they would go for Direct X or Open GL, because its a great platform.

In particular, Robison touted Direct Xs stability and the standardization it has brought to what was a highly-segmented industry. We saw some of the chaos before Direct X coalesced the industry, Robison said. In the past there were all kinds of APIs developers had to worry about.

10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

10. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 27, 2011, 17:47 swaaye
No, MS made DirectX for two reasons. 1) To be able to completely control their own API 2) to make Windows the #1 PC gaming platform and strengthen their hold on the market.

DirectX then went on to allow the Xbox consoles and PC to have essentially interoperable development. This of course is allowing MS to diversify into consumer electronics and dominate it too. That it ties in with their Windows dominance is just more icing on the cake. Quite the web they've weaved.

OpenGL's ARB couldn't make decisions fast enough. They simply can't get things done as well as MS can apparently. MS has completely outpaced them. Part of this is that OpenGL is/was primarily for engineering / modeling apps which have much different needs than games so there is conflict and indecision there.

Now on the other hand DirectX makes life a lot easier for game companies who want to release multiplatform games on PC and 360. Although it is proprietary MS technology the way it works out as separate from the hardware companies has made it generally beneficial for it to be dominant. You do not want any graphics company to have total API control because they will use it as a competitive advantage and everyone loses in that case other than the hardware company who's winning.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2011, 17:53.
Avatar 49717
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
9. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 27, 2011, 11:04 ldonyo
While no one has to use DirectX, every software developer has to use an API of some kind to access hardware in Windows. Microsoft did this on purpose because too many bad drivers (e.g. most of Creative's sound drivers for Audigy) were killing the user's experience by causing BSODs.

No sane developer wants to have to write code for each and every hardware architecture that they want to support as they had to do back in the days of Glide. No sane user wants to have to buy games based on the hardware in their PC. I think Huddy should put the pipe down and take a nap before sticking his feet further down his throat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
8. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 27, 2011, 10:56 HorrorScope
I'd love to see what they are talking about. So that would be a Direct X vs Native HW version. AMD makes it sound the Native version could be superior. Would love to see it!

To me the bottom line is until AMD and NVidia start making their own games. They have no room to talk in this arena. If they want to push their HW in more ways then one, they can and should be game developers as well. They need to make the next generation games to push sales imo.
Avatar 17232
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
7. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 27, 2011, 10:45 Beamer
That bit about Direct X bringing unification to an otherwise chaotic world is total bullshit.

Oh, so you're still messing with IRQs?
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
6. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 22:19 Manfromx
I think there are pro's and con's to both methods. A unified instruction set would be useful like x86 (both AMD and Intel can run the same software even though the hardware has a lot of differences).

You can keep OpenGL and DirectX around as they'll always have that nice pro of being easier to write for (especially OpenGL since it's multi-platform) but it'll be slower than using the instruction sets.

Both Nvidia and AMD make good hardware. It'd be nice to see them (together, with hopefully professionals in the graphics/game industry) set the standard for features instead of Microsoft.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
5. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 21:27 Lit_Reflex001
That bit about Direct X bringing unification to an otherwise chaotic world is total bullshit.

Anyone with their facts straight will remember it was OpenGL that did this.

To tell you the truth, Glide (3DFX) was the first working graphics API. Open GL still sucked back then comparatively.

DirectX still sucked ass when OpenGL became the main API.

What a load of crap.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
4. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 19:37 Bludd
Critech? They develop medical stuff, they are not a game developer. Weird.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
3. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 16:14 TheEmissary
I for one do not want a repeat of the API wars of the 90's. Do you really want to lose an established and some what cohesive platform to strike it on your own. Back before Silicon Graphics created OpenGL you constantly had to worry about if the game would run on your hardware. Different vendors would support different features and there was no consistency.

If we were go back to that it would be worse than now contending with multi-platform releases. Suppose the API market was fragmented again you could find yourself getting marginalized because you bought hardware that didn't quite sell and so no games were produced for it. Fragmentation would also increase development time and resources.

They may at one point get around DirectX and OpenGL but to do so they would have to trade one set of APIs for another if they want to maintain consistency. Those APis would be OpenCL and DirectCompute. They could treat the GPU as a GPGPU to change how the rendering and effects or take greater control how things are done on the card.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
2. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 16:05 Cutter
Sounds like a challenge for the Linux community. Give people a reason to not use MS and they won't.
Avatar 25394
You've got to be cruel to be the right measure.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
1. Re: AMD/DirectX Follow-up Mar 26, 2011, 15:37 justice7
Okay so, you have the Developer and the Hardware manufacturer saying "We'd like to go around the DirectX API"

Well, you have the people in agreement who are needed to make it happen. So then make it happen!

You don't need microsoft's permission NOT to use DirectX. wtf?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.


Blue's News logo