Slashdot Mirror
Valve Says Choice to Make DX10 Vista-Only Hurt PC Gaming
Erris writes "Valve's President Gabe Newell is calling Microsoft's choice to make DirectX 10 Vista-only a 'terrible mistake' that has harmed gaming. His company's latest hardware study shows the strategy has not moved gamers onto Vista. The result is that almost no one is using the newest version of DirectX, and companies are shying away from creating new input devices that support it. Nine months after release, after Christmas, after graduation, and with school mostly back in session, still only 8% of gamers are using it." Update: 08/27 21:09 GMT by Z : An AC points out that these numbers may be framed poorly given uptake numbers for XP's release.
Didn't you already write about this?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
The original journal entry already had comments that poke holes in twitter's claim about those numbers, which is probably why it became inconvenient and forced him to switch to his sockpuppet account instead.
Ironically, the same story in Heise.de has a link to another one about a gaming convention in Leipzig drawing all-time record attendance. I suppose it's possible that DX10/Vista will hurt the gaming industry, but with the game release cycle being 12-16 months, I'd say that will be apparent later on.
Here is a direct link to the original Valve survey, which amusingly enough shows Vista as having an even larger market share among Valve gamers as it has overall (8% vs 5-6%). That means Vista's market share among gamers has been increasing at a rate of about 1% per month since it was released, which is even higher than XP's uptake vs. Windows 98/ME. I can't even begin to imagine what the relevance of Christmas and back to school as claimed by twitter is for gamers who probably switch OSes only when they switch their $3,000 boxes anyway, but I'd say that 8% share is actually not bad in that segment. That share will probably start growing more exponentially as time goes by.
Welcome to the Trolled By Twitter Club, Zonk.
have a nerd cookie
er on second thought, that sounds kinda gross
No, really?
Was there any other reason NOT to have dx10 support on XP than attempt to boost Vista-sales among gamers? If not, it is even bigger mistake. One should not try to shove new os's down our throat etc.
Don't know what the biggest reason was, but still, seems like stupid thing to do.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
their inability to get memory virtualisation working for them caused MS to drop the requirement, and as such there is NOTHING about DX10 that makes it technically undoable on XP.
yet here we are!
The reasons MS made DX10 Vista only is to force people into upgrading just so they can play Starcraft 2008. The developers are luckily breaking MS's grip but telling them, we're the content providers, the reason people buy your system now do what we need or we won't follow.
before: Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only and excluding Windows XP.
after: Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing Vista.
Doesn't matter if it's dx10 or dx 18.
Computer gaming sucks, that's the end of it.
p.s Gabe Newell eats babies.
Sure, it's bad for games and indeed gamers, needlessly straining the hardware more for one thing, not to mention content-protection, buying vista, etc., but it's a gamble MS are taking to force users onto their OS. Of course, it will shrink the DX10 market and thus slow graphics development of games. Who knows, maybe a little emphasis on other things would be good for the industry?
Now multiple applications and games can share the 3D hardware. In DX9/WinXP and earlier only one App at a time could use the 3D hardware. It needed to be done, and it could only be done with the cooperation of the OS. This cannot be put back into XP because this sort of control and separation could not be done in XP.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Vista is what it is, a bloated, DRM filled, resource hog designed to take more of your computer away from you and in exchange it gives you unrecognized drivers, unsupported software and nothing but aggravation. The new spectacular games that were supposed to be there are not there, all we can see are promises and vaporware for sometime in the future but for now all you get is pain and misery. Tell me again why I want that? Tell me Microsoft why DirectX 10 is so much more special? I see the side by side comparisons and I don't see much difference, certainly not worth me busting everything I own now and investing in something with no real tangible difference. I hear the FUD, the hear the huckster Microsoft cheerleaders saying how great it is but this is the internet and the voices of everyone else are heard loud and clear so the lying isn't being believed. 8 Percent using it? Sounds on the high side to me. It's just a matter of how long until Microsoft admits they've created a loser and perhaps we can get to real innovation. I won't hold my breath on that second part though.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
And why should I? I'm really not much of a gamer; having problems with my arms, wrists, and fingers, I can't really play games anymore. I still have and use on my main home computer, Windows 2000! And it works just fine for what I need, thank you! It's fast, solid, reliable. XP is an OK OS, and I use it at work.
I've seen and used Vista, and it just frustrates me to move around in. I don't like it, and I'll likely end up buying a Mac before I ever get Vista.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Everyone will experience a forced upgrade. It is simply a matter of time. When your non-tech friend buys his next gaming machine it is going to come with Vista because XP won't be an option. I remember a similar reluctance between 3.11 and Win95. Eventually everyone got there - or skipped Win95 and went right to Win98. In another year the landscape will be much different. Microsoft will eventually pull the plug on OEMs who are still selling XP (Dell).
This is a great time to consider an alternate desktop OS.
...Will this mean that if my graphics card is optimized for DirectX 9, that it won't work at the same level with DirectX 10? If so, can I simply uninstall DirectX 10, and go back to DirectX 9? I haven't made the download yet.
Sorry if this is a noob question, but I'd like to know before I decide to upgrade. Please, no flaming.
can anyone help me port RO to my Zune?
i mean it has affected me prescisely 0 times since DX launched back in 95.... Must be equally as bothersome for other users
Future versions of Wine will be compatible with DX10, so Linux (and maybe XP) can use that. Also, there's Alky (at http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/) which promises DX10 on XP in the future. Of course, with developers dragging their heels it's not impossible that Microsoft might bite the bullet and release DX10 for XP. I don't know how DX10 works, but I guess it's also possible that somebody might find a way to hack a DX10 redistributable to work with XP.
When game developers chose to standardise their efforts on Windows they bit the hook. Now they are unhappy about being on the line. Too bad.
We warned them. Now if some forward thinking company thought to maintain some cross platform efforts they are ready to seize a significant opportunity. Unreal engine? Id? Is that you?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Instancing, geometry shaders and fast critical paths are just some of the developments DX10 has to offer developers with an eye on better games... and we're not seeing any of them on XP. The OpenGL ARB, while faster under the purview of the Khronos group, still lags behind the direct-x pace of adoption.
Does Microsoft know they are driving developers onto the PS3 by forcing the adoption of OpenGL on XP... ultimately a lead in to OpenGL ES - the standards compliant graphics API of choice for the PS3.
OpenGL 3 will be officially granted ARB status by the Khronos group come the end of September - if Microsoft still hasn't gotten their act together, they might find the next big start-up with a game engine to offer won't be using DX, and won't be an exclusive 360 product!
Matt
I mean really... providing your customer base with a buggy, heavy GUI (XP with drop shadows and a huge gut), having to have a middle-to-top tier video card regardless of RAM and CPU just to run the OS, and then slapping a new version of DX-10 that is allocated only to the remaining memory on the video card that's not being used by Vista... and then saying this is the ONLY way to have DX-10 prior to releasing Vista-only games...
Somebody actually thought this would be a good, marketable idea? You would think, in this age of backwards-compatibility, that Windows would have maybe, I dunno, thought this through a bit more...
...but it's nice to hear the industry say what everyone else has been thinking, especially when they have the Steam user statistics to back it up.
Is Microsoft obliged to provide new technology for old versions of Windows, free of cost? Graphics card manufacturers are free to agree on alternative standards, such as OpenGL, to expose new features of their products without forcing an OS upgrade or locking game writers into a particular OS. Last I heard, OpenGL works fine on Vista, XP, Mac and Linux.
It's software. You can ALWAYS make it work. I hate all this "you can't back-port it" bullshit. It's their API on their OS that they wrote. They can do whatever the heck they want to do.
It's not like DX10 uses a new expansion bus that only works with 64-bit operating systems or something. It's just an API, and the cards are already plugged into the PCIe slots.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Computer gaming sucks
:)
Except for emulation
It may provide programmers new features and supposed efficiencies, but all the DX10 games kick the ass of any top hardware in even SLI and crossfire (hell most of the DX9 PS 3.0 games can slow the best hardware). It doesn't turn any DX9 turds into diamonds. And any visual improvements will go largely unseen if I have to drop from 1600 x 1200 to 1024 x 768 to see them. DirectX 10 is about the future, not about changing the now.
Even if they had an XP/2003 port, DX10 will not be rocking anyone's DX 9 world anytime soon.
It's pretty funny that Microsoft in its stronghold (PC OSes) made the same exact mistake that Sony made in its stronghold (consoles). Sony thought that tying Blu-Ray to its new console would be a win-win for format licensing and for the Playstation sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. Similarly, MS thought that tying DX10 to its PC OS would be a win-win for gaming licensing and Vista sales, but instead, high prices and lack of compelling software have kept people back. As a result, people generally prefer to keep buying last-gen PS2's and Windows XP.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Use opengl.
These game producers are idiots.
You got what you wanted when you only support Microsoft.
They got you by the balls.
I'll do everyone a favour and actually link to all the comments on your journal. That way people can be slightly more informed as to how dedazo and I 'helped' you.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
roflmao, you're hilarious ^^ :).
....
where did he say you need a 3000$ box (or that a 3000$ box isn't enough?)
it's just that most pc gamers make big updates from time to time, so dx10 cards and vista will grow in marker share when people feel the need to update their dx9 generation rig to a dx10 generation monster
also, about the ps3 (and xbox360), yeah, we know, it's cheaper, but the hardware stays the same for the next few years, so little progress over that time, and the pc's are already matching it's performance, in 2 or 3 years pc games will be a lot better than the console games. not to mention it are also different kind of games (besides the generic cross platform hyped crap for teens)
and just wondering, why a ps3? i'm no console player myself, but from what i heard so far from xbox360 vs ps3 is that the 360 is cheaper, better graphics (for now at least), more and better games,
or is this another episode in your great quest against m$?
Spoken like a true expert in the field.
As for the PS3 comment, what does that have to do with anything discussed here?
This is nothing more than a ploy by M$ to force users to buy Vista. I loved Halo and 'Privateer' - both MS games. I was going to Buy Halo 2 until I saw it was Vista only. Did I say, "Man, I gotta upgrade my computer!"? Sure I did. But, if MS thinks for 1 second that I'm investing ~$300 into their Vista OS, they got another thing coming.
Microsoft's approach to 'Vista only' has only propelled me further from their business. I used to be of the mindset that gaming platforms are so one dimensional and not useful for anything else but play games why would I want to buy one? Now, I'm actually considering buying a PS3 - and I *loath* Sony far more than Microsoft right now - but, I've determined that MS's gaming division isn't getting any more of my money because I see right through their shoddy business practice of strong-arming consumers into buying their OS.
I'll be damned if an XBox or Vista enters my house.
That being said, I also will refuse to purchase any product from any gaming company that *also* supports 'Vista only' games whether the title I'm currently interested in supports XP or not.
Valve making games Windows-only has hurt PC gaming.
You spent $3000 on a computer???
There went your nerd credentials.
More seriously, sometimes you have good points but you rarely make logical or well reasoned arguments. It's your reasoning that is most often ridiculed.
Anonymously yours,
AC
In other words...takes one to know one!
Blar.
This is the relevant part of the survey you need to look at:
So indeed the author of that Journal was correct: ~2% or 1 in 50 users can't use DX10. In other words the people "poking holes" need to learn to read.
Just looking at the Nvidia card numbers we can easily see the problem is most likely Vista and not the cards themselves.
Roughly 37k out of 61k Nvidia users on Steam have DX10 cards but can not utilize DX10 because they have not upgraded to Vista. So approximately 60% out of a group of people composed of people who are cutting edge sorts, buyers of new computers, or people who've done a recent computer upgrade have not yet upgraded to Vista.
None of this is proper statistics of course but as far as this sort of thing goes that's a pretty shocking number. I want to believe gamers are being smart but the realistic side of me though says the most likely reason is simply that Vista has a lot of problems for gamers right now and they are just waiting till driver issues resolve.
It seems like the article is trying to be negative, but if 8% of gamers are on Vista that's actually amazingly good for Microsoft. Especially since I don't know a single soul who uses it except the QA department at my company. That much market penetration for a product that has been bashed and beaten in the press is amazing.
It just goes to show how Microsoft can force people to upgrade by pushing Vista through the manufacturers.
I've been a video gamer for the last 25+ years (nerd), since the early 90s this meant I was a PC gamer with the last console purchased being the original NES. Most of my games no longer work on my current PC, Win XP, just because they are too old and backwards compatibility isn't what it used to be, or ever was. I'm tired of MS, the poor documentation and the lousy user experience, it got where it was by being the low cost alternative and now it isn't. My XP box is old, P4ish with AGP and IDE drives. When I last looked at buying a new box all the major retailers were pushing Vista, which I wasn't thrilled about. Instead I bought a MacBook Pro, which I now love, don't know a thing about what it does in the background but I don't need to, it just works, perfectly, all the time. At this point I don't see any reason to pump out that much cash for a new PC, or move to vista. If I buy new games they will need to work on my Mac, which many don't but that's OK by me. If the Mac doesn't work out for me as a gaming platform I will need to buy a console, I guess. Being that I feel MS has put me in this situation, I won't be buying an XBox, screw them.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, this is just how I see it.
Why is an anonymous personal attack modded +5?
You'll have to excuse me for not being able to test the following. I do all my gaming in Linux (no seriously, I do!)
We all know that if you play music on Vista, it causes a degradation of network performance. What happens if you have a networked game decoding an MP3? Is this all handled in the game's own system, or does it depend on the OS to do it. Do you get a drop in network performance in the game? That would be incredible...
twatter is fat attention whore with an obsession with mikkkro$$oft
STOP calling it "upgrading."
Anybody remember Windows XP and the adoption of DX9?
Jeez, for nerds we have a bad sense of history.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Most people don't switch to the latest, greatest, whatever it is. The vast majority of people aren't going to have DX10 capable hardware for quite some time. This is how it has always been. Right now, it's rare to find a game that requires anything more than DX8 hardware. That's shader model 1.x. There's even a good number of games that don't support shader model 3.0 (DX 9.0c) and can only use up to 2.0 (DX9).
There's no reason to believe this won't continue. The only change is in how it is done. Rather than having multiple different render paths you can turn on and off with software options, that maybe people understand and maybe they don't, different render paths will use different DX versions. So if you want a SM 4.0 path, you use DX10, and so on.
The idea being that in the future, you'll be able to tell what your hardware supports and if you can run a game easily. You have a card that's DirectX 11. A game says "Requires Direct X 10.1, 11, 12, or better." You then know that your card will work fine, and that you probably won't get any eye candy benefit with anything better than a DX12 card.
Right now it is more confusing since cards only support older feature sets, but can use newer APIs. So say you have a GeForce Ti 4400. That's a DirectX 8 card. However, it can use DirectX 9.0c. But it isn't a 9.0c card, it doesn't support those features, it only supports the 8.0 features. So game makers either have to list cards that work, or refer to feature sets which users probably don't know about.
This is a much clearer way of doing it.
So I don't see the big problem here. To use DX10, you must have DX10 hardware which is very rare right now. Most people don't have it, most people don't care, games will continue to target DX9 (or even older). This is going to continue for some time. I bet games will still be targeting DX9 hardware when DX11 is out. I'm sure some of them will support the newer standard for more eye candy, but they won't all mandate it.
It's moving in a similar direction to OpenGL in that respect. If you look at nVidia cards, only the 5 (FX) series and later support GL 2.0, the earlier ones are 1.5 only. Why? They can't accelerate GL 2.0. Rather than have it implemented in either a semi-working fashion, or a slow software emulation, you just support the maximum level you can. It's going to be the same deal with DirectX. Rather than only supporting part of the latest API, you'll just support the level you are capable of.
Hopefully it should make it much clearer for all involved.
*Claps* Well said. Now mod him up!
Why people stick to direct3d for graphics is beyond me. Why would you target a single proprietary platform when a Free, well performing, cross-platform alternative already exists?
But as the parent said, any one using Microsoft software willingly fully deserves to get shafted by them.
This is what happens when you only write games for a proprietary API (and for that matter only a single OS). Newell and other game developers cannot truly be shocked about this problem; anyone with half a brain could have told you something like this was bound to happen when you are so wedded to Microsoft. If games were still developed with OpenGL, this would not be an issue. If games were written for multiple OS's, this would not be an issue.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Think about it, here's the chance for Microsoft to actually sell this crap OS. Release DX10 for XP, make sure it runs slower then on vista, and viola, gamers, with all their wisdom (okay not really), will switch to Vista, because it's "faster" and has better "benchmarks". -W
As seems usual many Slashdotters seem to be overreaching, equating their fantasy lives with what's happening in the marketplace, and what most users are experiencing.
Among machines I use regularly in Seattle and in Southern California I'm now running:
- Two machines that use XP
- A TabletPC with XP
- A Dell XPSII laptop that was running Vista RC1, then Vista RC2, and as of a week ago is running the release version of Vista
- A smaller Dell laptop that followed a similar upgrade path to the machine above
- A new Dell 9200 Desktop with a quad-core Q6600 CPU and a DX10-capable GTS8600 video card
I have used all of these machines to run a wide variety of software:- Office
- the original Unreal Tournament from 1999
- Homeworld 2
- Visual Studio 2005
- Visual Studio 2008
- Photoshop CS2 suite
- Sorenson's toolsets
- Morrowind: Oblivion
- ...and tons of other stuff
The problems I have had to date?- In Vista RC1 headphone support on my laptops didn't work
- Some of the more advanced developer tools I've used and plugins for VS.NET have required elevation to install correctly
That's it, folks. Other than that Vista seems like a pretty decent tool that chugs along and mostly stays out of my way whether I'm using it for new or old software. It has not been the ordeal that some of you wish it was, and if my problems are limited to issues involving beta OS releases and installation issues associated with expert-level tools, I can't imagine Joe Sixpack is tearing his hair out over ubiquitious tools like say, Office.Part of being a good advocate for a cause like free software is having the maturity to be intellectually honest. Your hyperventilating every time the name of Microsoft is spoken doesn't make FSF any better or any more appealing. Indeed, people whose living depends on computing may shy away from free software solutions, afraid that they might attract more of your kind to the workplace. Who would want to work with such a negative personality type?
-KF
are you serious? here in europe i here the opposite, the store where i buy games, the owner says he's got trouble selling the ps3, while the 360 keeps doing good...
about the power, ps3 has got better processors, the 360 has got a better graphics card, how it will balance out, dunno...
the cell chip has some phenomenal theoretical capabilities, the only problem is wether they manage to make use of it before the ps4/next xbox launch...
but then again, maybe i should get the hint, and not feed the troll. it's not as if you're ever gonna look at these thongs objectively ^^
Its possible that features from DirectX 10 could be implemented on WinXP (indeed, most (all?) Direct3D 10 features are supported on XP through OpenGL extensions if your hardware supports it and you have the right drivers.) but make no mistake that it would *not* be the same Direct3D 10 we know from Windows Vista.
One of the major goals for D3D 10 (and going forward) was to release OEMs from legacy baggage, a not-insignificant portion of which stems from the Win2k/XP display driver model which is simply not equipped to provide the facilities that both Vista and the graphics cards themselves need. There's also a signifigant "slimming" of the API (removal of the fixed-function pipeline, cap bits, etc.) which, BTW, is the exact same direction that OpenGL is going.
What really would be the better solution? Creating two distinct next-gen 3D APIs for the XP and Vista lineages? I'm sure the IHVs would love that. Bring the XP D3D10-alike into Vista, continuing the status-quo of legacy-burdened software? Thats very forward-thinking. Hack a version of Vista's D3D 10 onto XP but having wildly different performance characteristics and losing all the benefits that stem from the new driver model? The software devs are just itching for yet another scenario to optimize for, I'm sure.
Simply put, its possible to support most D3D10 features on XP, but it is *not* possible to create a single next gen Direct3D API that supports both Vista and XP without making severe concessions to performance and/or feature set. Sometimes you just have to cut the cord.
Valve Says Choice to Make DX10 Vista-Only Hurt PC Gaming What should be said: Gamers say Developer's choice to use DirectX over OpenGL only hurts PC gaming. I mean seriously, if they thought it out completely, does it make sense to lock your product to another product that is controlled completely by one company? Yeah some will cite some shortsided reasons to use DirectX and ignore the major disadvantage.
You ACs and M$ spammers do this to me all the time. No big deal, it's not like I'd enforce a copyright or anything. Enjoy Twitter's work anyway you like.
Two points:
1) If you don't want people debunking your lies, FUD and idiocy, don't tell lies, use FUD or be an idiot.
2) I "enjoy" your work in the same sense as film buffs enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space. For all the wrong reasons.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Of course MS is going to use any means possible to push people onto Vista to hike their revenue.
We all know that gamers are the cuting edge/high paying consumers in desktop computing so from MS perspective this is an easy target.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If anyone still has any doubt that you are gaming Slashdot with sockpuppet accounts, they need to read this:
Keep reading indeed.
OpenGL is not available on the 360, and DirectX is not available on the PS3. If you want to make leading-edge games for more than one platform, practically speaking, your engine must support both OpenGL and DirectX.
Unfortunately a lot of game engines are wedded to one technology or the other. (There's nothing wrong with being wedded to OpenGL, other than not being able to sell on the most widely-distributed next gen console in North America/Europe).
Is this something nobody knew? More interestingly, why does Valve think that MS decision to only do DX10 on Vista should be based upon what is good for PC game market? Is Valve trying to create a public outcry for their own good? Why would Valve state the obvious, what is in it for them?
Well there's one thing correct about your post, but that's only from assuming that your name is correct.
You people are stupid-crazy and M$ should spend their money on code. Even if I was Twitter, I would not play the game by your rules and no one else cares.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
So no one's figured it out yet? How MS will still keep DX10 Vista-only but (possibly) appease the people? DirectX 9.0d for Windows XP, includes compatibility with your DirectX 10 card. They've had no problem so far extending 9 out three times; keep in mind a DirectX 9.0 card is hardly the same as a 9.0c card. They slap some of the stuff from 10 into this 9.0d driver, but leave out a couple nice little things to push their adoption further. We'll see I guess.
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
I upgraded to Win95 because it finally worked like a Mac.
In fact, I didn't buy a PC until I have a beta version of Chicago in hand.
and shun DirectX since it is controlled by one company which does stupid things like tie it to particular OS versions? Is OpenGL not advanced enough for modern games?
Everyone *will* eventually be using Vista. It's just a adoption thing. This should be expected to be slow, maybe a tad slower because of some of the wild mis-steps MS has made but you can not discount their unique position and monopoly.
And yes, I know there are 'alternatives'. But Apples market is pretty specific and Linux no matter what anyone says is still quite a ways off (and yes, I use Red Hat in production and now Ubuntu on my secondary workstation at home).
And FTR after over 8 years of Linux use, most of that full-time (as in no Windows OS anywhere in my home, including my wifes desktop) Ubuntu is the best I've seen from an end user POV. But it's still Linux and it still suffers from the same technical hurdles that will be part and parcel until either Linux based systems as a whole overcome (not likely, too many different goals) or someone seriously forks their set and reworks the system from the ground up to be a USER system.
Now feel free to flame me. I know how well open discussions go over here (I won't take it personally).
Quack, quack.
I would use Vista and DX10 if I didn't suffer a 50% performance hit in current games. Not much more to add to that.
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
I read somewhere that SC2 will be Dx10 only (and Mac)!- talk about decision time for some people - upgrade a rig because your forced to (because of MS) or buy a Mac.. guess we'll have to see which route people go... interesting though
Maybe valve should join id and jump on the openGL bandwagon. Source engine is probably the best directx game engine there is, but in my opinion, openGL 2.1 graphics look better than dx10 graphics. OpenGL is also backwards compatible because new openGL games still work fine on crappy windows openGL 1.0. Maybe for their next game engine... whenever that happens.
Weaksauce as they say...
Works pretty good for console gaming, and consoles are tied to a single company.
Some time ago, I started wondering about Microsoft's decisions wrt Vista and DX10 in the light of their console gaming business. As a long-time PC gamer, I've seen Microsoft leverage Windows to gain more power in the game development process via DirectX and thus some degree of influence and control over most of the PC gaming market. These days they're also running a business in the competing console market.
Now, it seems to me that the recent "Games for Windows" bullshit they've been throwing around is a deliberate attempt to "consolify" PC games (Yes, even more than they have been recently).. this even goes as far as requiring compatability with their XBox 360 controller. While people might argue that this is good because it makes it easier to produce games which are consistent across platforms, it's also bad for the same reason. The PC loses its uniqueness as a platform through developers refusing to leverage its benefits which cannot be easily ported. Basically, MS is making it easier for traditional PC developers to cross into console territory.
At the same time, they're trying to force adoption of DX10 and Vista... this has two basic outcomes - increased Vista sales as gamers drink the kool-aid on offer, and lingering support for DX9. MS is essentially putting PC game developers in a position where they must choose between the two technologies or bite the bullet and develop both if they want to appeal to the largest market.
So, what I'm seeing here is a perfect storm of MS:
Making it harder and more expensive to develop PC games.
Making it easier and cheap to develop 360 ports.
Reducing the competitive advantage the PC has against consoles.
I don't know the figures, but I'm guessing MS makes a lot more $$$ out of 360 game sales than PC game sales.
MS also owns several PC game development houses and seems to have been directing their attention away from PC exclusives and towards 360 exclusives, while releasing mediocre PC efforts (I had a damn good example a couple of months ago, but forgot what it was.. I think it was Bungie).
Doesn't this seem like the sort of thing the government makes laws against? Is MS trying to gut PC gaming to make a quick buck on the consoles?
DX 10 is not designed to force anybody to do anything. It was a big change in the way DirectX works so it required significant changes in the kernel's video system and significant changes in the structure of video drivers. That kind of thing is really hard to stuff into a service pack.
I think that in the long term, the change (moving to the Vista video architecture) will be a good thing. The Vista video model seems to address a lot of real issues like sharing the 3D features of the video card (previously not a real possibility). In the short term, the change is a bit painful and offers no real benefit (just nifty eye candy and effects). If I were a game developer, I certainly wouldn't develop any games that only run on DX10.
I don't think that is entirely unexpected -- most developers still support DX8. However, just like most developers can expect most of their gamers to have DX9 hardware and software, eventually developers will be able to expect gamers to have DX10 hardware and software. Then there will be benefits.
In the meantime, I can understand some frustration. For example, due to my laptop's lousy video driver, I can't play full-screen video in DX10 (Aero transparency enabled) mode. However, if I switch to the "Basic" mode, suddenly all is well. So this is certainly painful.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
People are forced to go to Vista if they want DX10. Win.
PC gaming is further messed up and more people go to console (Xbox). Win.
The downside for Microsoft is what? People pissed with Microsoft tactics? Yeah that would be new...
No flames. I agree that Vista is eventually inevitable for most home users. People keep buying new computers in spite of Vista. But how much that's changed since the days when people would buy a new computer because of Windows 98 or Windows XP even. I've got four computers at home, two of them with XP and two with Vista, and frankly, Vista has no compelling features that would make me want to choose it over the older OS. I know it's potentially more secure out of the box. (I also know I just last week wound up turning off UAC because I couldn't get it to stop bugging me about the last.fm plugin. Off-topic but it boggles my mind that there is no way to exempt individual programs from UAC) So for MS to arbitrarily make DX10 Vista-only strikes me as a bit of a scam. They're trying to make it a reason to want to upgrade, but instead they've made it a reason for developers to stay DX9. Oops.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The sad thing is, the single player campaign is easily cracked to play on XP (at least on some machines). It obviously doesn't need DX10. But Windows Live (for multiplayer) requires Vista. At least, I don't know if anyone has gotten that to work on XP.
I get a chuckle out of people who pay to beta test products.
C xoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
? i=3044
The truth is that there are a host of issues.
The best experiences I have heard from anyone is that it is almost as good as XP.
Reviews that tested gaming performance, show Vista slower across the board.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCw2L
Testing also revealed that Vista had changed it's driver model to virtualizing Vram into limited user address space, leading to minor things like crashing out in the midst of heated gaming sessions.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx
Vista brings networking to a crawl when playing audio:
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=83112
So we have slower gaming, crashing from memory space exhaustion, and networking reduced to a crawl if you play an audio file, and this is just recently and major headlines.
Basically you are very lucky if it works anywhere near as well as XP. For degraded performance/lower reliability you get what? Aero?
I realize that in a few years most of use will be using Vista, but I never touch a MS OS without at least 1 service pack. Vista is MS most unnecessary upgrade since Millennium.
I have Vista as a dual-boot option, but Steam won't see it generally because I only use it when I want to play a direct X game. (I would have for BioShock -- but there are some technical problems with the game.)
As annoying as DX10 is, i'm more frustrated with the relatively stealthy move to SM3.0 only games.
I consider myself tech literate, but I don't keep up with every trend/fad in the gaming scene or worry myself with what shader model my card has. I have an oldish PC, but it still more than adequately runs everything I throw at it, on medium settings, fine (it's an XP3200, 2gigs with a Radeon 9800pro).
I ordered Bioshock, it came - it didn't work. The box simply states DX 9.0C compatible and lists a 6600 as the bare minimum (a 9800 pro is 'better') - no warning, no big red sticker. I'm not alone, my local store has never seen so many returns... the official forums are bombarded.
This kinda compatibility mess is surely doing more harm to the PC gaming platform than DX10's adoption, what ever happened to legacy support? Valve's survey shows 50% of gamers don't have SM3.0 capable cards yet...
I'm not going to upgrade for a couple of games, not when it runs everything else fine.
are because its so much slower than xp and half the games people play aren't compatible, i mean try getting 1 out of 5 korean mmo's to work, and when it does work the fps rate is a good 15-20 slower in some cases, its just not worth the money to upgrade, then the time to get the games to work and the useless settings disabled so it can even run them, gamers dont want aero and UAC we want speed, compatibility, and something that just plain works.
-Noc
Where do all these idiots come from, who think that people should reinstall an OS just because a new one came out?
People's computers have an average lifespan. Even when narrowed down to the gamer demographic. Most won't shorten that lifespan and buy a new box just because Vista came out, and most who periodically upgrade their OS won't install a new OS just because. They'll wait for their existing one to require replacing - the OS too has an "average lifespan". Let's wait for that average lifespan, and measure vista acceptance then.
That said, let's narrow down to what Vista has to offer to the gamer demographic.
* PRO (though perceived by most as CON): It has sudo and a user model. As a sysadmin, I generally regard that as a good thing and have been pissed at microsoft for not having implemented it and educated their users to use it 20 years ago, but most gamers will regard this more as an annoyance than a feature that does them good, and what should have been a cause to adopt vista is effectively deterring its adoption due to "spoiled" users who want to "continue working as root".
* CON: Vista guzzles 500MB of RAM more than XP (~700MB rather than ~200MB). True, RAM is dirt cheap, but
[a] Unlike Mum's PC, gamers NEVER have enough, (typical games can easily lop 1, 2 or even more GB of RAM) let alone too much of it. Further, many already have all their memory banks occupied (if due to former upgrades or to take advantage of dual-bus memory controllers, and upgrading RAM means replacing existing chips, not adding more.
So with vista, RAM that can be used for gaming is used to simply keep vista around. Many also run a bankful of sweet-spot priced chips (say, have two banks and 2x1GB), and plugging in 2GB ones is not as cheap as buying an additional 2x1GB. Not nearly as painless as dropping a single new 1GB chip in mum's PC for that vista upgrade.
[b] Mum's PC doesn't go anywhere near saturating memory bandwidth. Mum can be using PC133 and wouldn't feel it impact her in the slightest (not due to ignorance, just due to not ever noticeably saturating CPU to RAM bus). Gamers will not want to be a mixed assortment of old and new slow and fast RAM chips.
* CON: I game. I've got both an XP install and a vista install. I run a dual-head rig using both outputs for a wider viewport. 8 months out, Nvidia VISTA 8800 drivers still do not support SPAN (aka making windows think it has one virtual 2560*1024 screen rather than two 1280*1024 heads) required for gaming on both. That's an Nvidia thing, but that's a dead showstopper keeping ME back.
* NOT-PRO: Hey Id CEO dude. What fucking DX10 games? WHERE? when it's on STEAM rather than vapor, give me a yell.
* Gamers are typically neither insanely rich nor uninformed. Vista costs $$ that can be alternatively spent on a faster graphics card, which will impact their experience unfathomably higher on the benefit scale. A huge block of that demographic will not have the cash to do both. (and that in itself is an oversimplification - there are yet other things that will give more benefit than the vista upgrade - more RAM, etc).
The above list of CONS makes a no-brainer choice:
Do I throw money at making my life better or worse?
For the gamer demographic, Vista offers damn little, even debatably NEGATIVE value as an upgrade. As a new computer initially bought with it rather than XP and already full of RAM to the point of not being affected by the "loss" of 500MB, it makes more sense, but for that we need to wait a couple of years for gamers to "cycle out" their PCs. In addition, strip out the gamers that never actually "buy a PC" and get a bundled OS, but who just keep upgrading parts.
To sum:
Take gamer XP install base.
[1] Remove "upgraders", they gain no benefit, most will not buy vista (this could very well be the majority, though I have no numbers). This will not change until there is something that Vista can do that the XP product they already own can't. DX10 comes to mind.
The remainder, "ful
-
Personally? I think that Windows Server 2003 is the BEST THING Microsoft has going, right now, & IF somehow DirectX 10 was ported to it, along with Address Space Randomization (load area of apps in RAM)?
There would be NO REAL NEED for VISTA... despite the fact I think AERO GLASS is quite nice/pretty! By itself, AERO is NOT ENOUGH!
AND, above all else, certainly not when faced with OpenGL being hosed up in VISTA (last I knew of @ least, or running slower than ever, because MS wants to make DirectX "king of the graphics display hill" etc.), & DRM just is the straw that breaks the camel's back!
(Plus - Ballmer's "hell-bent" on making VISTA a money maker, but making HUGE mistakes... bigtime. Ones like DRM, VISTA being slated to become basically an adbanner machine (the new ad framework he's championing for example), & restricting DirectX 10 to VISTA ONLY, is a giant mistake, & for the reasons you noted!)
APK
P.S.=> When companies stop listening to what their buyers/customer's want? Pretty soon, they have NO CUSTOMERS, period... I hope MS does not end up this way, due to what I feel is 1 man's greed... apk
Heh, I think you got modded Troll for the PS3 comment. s/$600 PS3/Wii/ and you'd get at least 2 more points in Interesting/Informative.
I mean seriously, if they thought it out completely, does it make sense to lock your product to another product that is controlled completely by one company?
Nintendo and Playstation developers say "Yes!" Why can't Xbox and Windows developers say "Yes!" for the same reasons the others do?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Why do I feel like everybody, Microsoft advertisers included, are missing the point about DirectX 10 and Vista? It frustrates me. DirectX 10 is not some magical new API that somehow gives games a whole bunch of new features that can't be done with any other API. It won't magically make games look batter. It was built to make it easier to develop for. To improve flexibility. To be able to do complicated things easier and faster. And to create a new assured feature set.
. aspx
OpenGL is very flexible. It can gain new features at any time with extensions. DirectX doesn't do that. With DirectX, all new capability is packaged into one version and to support that version of DirectX is to support all of the capabilities of it. DirectX represents a complete feature set. If your graphics card is DirectX 9.0c compatible, you can be assured of what it can do. Same as if it is DirectX 10 compatible.
Now, DirectX guarantees capabilities that are provided by the new Windows Vista graphics model, WDDM. WDDM does things like virtualizes graphics card memory, among others. With DirectX 10, when you Alt+Tab out of a full screen application, the application doesn't lose all of its resources. WDDM will maintain the content of video memory allocation across display transitions. Under the old Windows XP model, the application would lose its resources and have to re-create them when you Alt+Tabbed back in. Things like this are guaranteed under DirectX 10 now so applications won't have to maintain a copy of its resources in system memory.
I fail to see HOW Microsoft could backport DirectX 10 to Windows XP. The entire premise for DirectX is a guaranteed set of features you could rely on. Some of these new features rely on WDDM. Do you suppose Microsoft should backport WDDM to Windows XP? Do you realize the problems that would cause? Do you roll out the WDDM upgrade on patch Tuesday and have everybody's computers break at once? Do you make it an optional upgrade? Will everybody have to manage two different sets of Windows XP drivers?
Because of the major change in the underlying graphics model, all of this was pushed into Windows Vista. That way companies only need to support the one possible type of Vista, instead of two different types of Windows XP. It just makes sense.
Read the WDDM section of this and see: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa663366
I'm sorry. DirectX 10 isn't the holy grail of graphics APIs that guarantee better graphics. DirectX 10 won't be backported because part of its feature set relies on WDDM, the new Windows Vista graphics architecture. There. I feel better now.
With a thorn like this in Microsoft's side, there is certainly a part of me that hopes that we will begin to see more OpenGL games released versus DirectX.
i on/) to very little fanfare. About the only companies it really mattered to were the Xbox competitors, namely, Sony and Nintendo. The PC gaming industry as a whole didn't care, because they had a solution that was "good enough" -- DirectX 9.
u bb=get_topic;f=3;t=015351;p=0
P ortability This cripples OpenGL's performance advantage. Of course, if you want to run the newest OpenGL on the newest hardware, as you should, they've put another roadblock in the way with Vista: you have to use the Windows XP drivers, which disable the nice flashy Aero interface. At this point, you're probably thinking, "Wait, wasn't Aero a selling point of Vista?" Well, that certainly makes sense. Only hardcore gamers would want to trade off their interface for OpenGL's performance, but your average casual gamer doesn't care.
Don't get me wrong, DirectX is a nice graphics library, but the seriousness of the vendor lock-in is just staggering -- and scenarios like this are a perfect example of a game development company's worst fears.
This situation was created because not enough effort was put into OpenGL when it needed it the most to make it a truly cutting-edge standard. The blame for that particularly lies with Microsoft and their aggressive campaign for Direct3D (and DirectX). As a result, OpenGL languished for several years, with only incremental feature updates (to version 1.5, which IIRC wasn't even a real release, but more of a vendor patchset for 1.4). In the meantime, DirectX leapfrogged its way to version 9 with a ridiculous amount of features being added.
OpenGL 2.1 finally came out last August (http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_vers
Now, OpenGL 3.0 is "on track" to be finalized at the end of this month. Whether that will happen is anyone's guess, but it looks like the DX10 situation has finally lit a fire under their collective asses. Who knows, we may even see an OpenGL 3.0 specification by September, but I'm not really holding my breath.
http://www.opengl.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?
Of course, even though there's a brand spanking OpenGL almost ready to again kick Direct3D's ass performance wise, Microsoft has already taken steps to ensure that won't happen. OpenGL 1.4 (yes, 1.4!) is implemented in Vista as a translation layer to run Direct3D calls on the hardware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL#
So even if OpenGL 3 is technically superior, publishers probably won't adopt it because of the widespread view that it's slow (thanks to Vista's emulation). iD Software will likely use it as they always have, but it'll become harder to explain to your average user why he needs to install unverified drivers and disable his nice flashy interface just so he can run said game.
It's almost sickening, really, when you think about the damage DirectX has done.
Actually, despite some negative publicity that Twitter's been getting lately, I have yet to read one of his posts and really see it as overboard.
Disclaimer: he's on my friends list. He appeared there after I read enough of his posts that I really noticed I liked what he said. He did not appear there because I'm sleeping with his grandma or whatever.
And no, I'm not sleeping with his grandma, but I bet she's hot..... Ok I lied.
There is always OpenGL, which will work on Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS X, and Linux. With macs finally getting OpenGL 2.1 and the other platforms getting OpenGL 3.0 it could become more than just very compelling. It would mean you could make a hell of a lot more money for very little effort. ^^
MS wants people playing games on consoles
That's incorrect, the box clearly states under minimum requirements:
"Video Card: DirectX 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550)"
This is not hypocrisy. FUD is a completely different thing when you have a monopoly to back it.
Stop writing games using DirectX and start using OpenGL. This would also make it easier to port your games to Linux.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Most folks here don't understand why DirectX dominates over OpenGL. I enjoy both APIs, who doesn't that's a professional? It's the kids at home who take religious sides, aka going to OpenGL Church.
1. Microsoft has a much better marketing strategy than Khronos ever will. Needless to say, they have the market base.
2. Microsoft's tools are much better than OpenGL's - XBox 360 and the PC. XAudio, D3DX, dxdiag, and much more.
I want to see Khronos succeed too, but it all comes down to money and how they market their product. Microsoft has more money to spend on their operating system. Developers use DirectX on the PC because they were recommended to, and developers need support on that system. Khronos fucking sucks at support. If you use OpenGL, you are on your own pretty much. If you can't accept that, you haven't experienced releasing a product.
I think Micro$oft should update Windows XP so that before loading a game, it temporarily dumps the GUI and enters a command line mode before running the game to reduce overhead. Of course if the game errors out, the GUI will be reloaded by default. Meanwhile the GUI is rewritten to run on GPU cycles and not CPU cycles. If you are not gaming, your GPU sits there and idles; why not use it for something? All this would support DX10/DX10.1 as well. This is what MS should have spent that 6 years writing. Frankly, I would rather use DOS than Vista. I simply hate the way it runs and looks. I can't find anything I like about it except for DX10 support. Would be nice if Ubuntu could run Windows games better. There are emulators, but I have never used them. Just my 2 cents.
Look at the upcoming game enemy territory: quake wars. That game is fully OpenGl and looks great. Also the upcoming Id Tech 5 is also OpenGL. Its one of carmacks selling points that the content can be developed on one system and work on all the other platforms without changing a thing in the content !
No, but you strike me as one of those cretins who fights with windmills.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I still don't understand why any developer would lock themselves into a M$ only technology. Why bother developing for DX10 at all? Make everything in OpenGL so it's more portable to any platform including the bazillion 'nix OSes out there. Is there some part of the OpenGL API that doesn't do some particular funciton or have some feature? If not, make it yourself and contribute it to the code base.
Honestly, I think lots of developers are stupid. M$ wants you to write software for their platform, but only as long as it suits their purposes. When the wind changes, they'll either kill you off, or buy you out (and then kill you off). M$ is clearly interested in the gaming market (xbox). Look at what happened to all the other vendors in markets M$ became interested in. WordPerwhat? dBasewho? Developers, developers, developers, you better have an alternative platform fallback plan... or have the concept of being forced out of business not bother you.
I have no doubt that they used it for this reason. I mean people would still happily pay for Windows XP, even Dell will provide it if asked. Vista hasn't been a vertical or even lateral step for Microsoft. But they still employ a lot of very sharp minds and aside from their domination (mainly via lock-in) I won't rules Vista a technical failure until SP1, even SP2. Still, it's frustrating and disappointing that they would take their most decent product to date (Windows XP Pro) and release what for all intents and purposes feels like a downgrade all around. But most people just buy what they are familiar with and will endure this and maybe, eventually, MS will show some features that actually shine.
Quack, quack.
Because it is faster, more functional, better supported by graphics cards, not stuck in the dark ages due to a abysmially slow standards body, and also ports directly to a major console?
If MS provide OS features I want at a price I can live with, I'll keep buying their products. But I don't see anything at all compelling about Vista as a gamer right now. Certainly no real reason I want it.
And I probably won't for the foreseeable future.
Almost everyone is aware now that performance in Vista is generally worse than with XP (for the same games on the same hardware), so that's not a selling point...
There aren't huge advantages to DX10 the earlier DX's don't match pretty closely right now, so that's not a selling point (at least not yet, and perhaps it never will be)...
Vista is supposed to be more diffiucult to use for other tasks, while allowing less freedom and flexibility (in my case I've already moved all those other tasks to Linux anyway, so I'm not even a potential buyer anymore...at least for these other, non-gaming purposes), so that's not a selling point...
I would even argue (certainly it's now true for me) that by making Vista more difficult and onerous to use for other tasks, they've effectively turned their flagship into a gaming-only OS. But since it struggles in head-to-head comparison with XP, and given the higher costs, it's the poorer choice of the two on many fronts.
I'm holding out for the Vista "gaming only" edition (which won't let you do anything else). No loss for me, since I really won't do anything else with it anyway.
$39.95.
So what are all those *portable* 3D games written in? You know, that also run on PS2, PS3, GameCube, Wii, maybe the PSP or the NDS?
OpenGL, AFAIK, gives you the widest array of portability, and for the rest you'll need to write your own. Well...
By the way, if I was a content producer, I'd much rather target Windows-PC + PS2 + PS3 than Windows-PC + Xbox.
PLEASE PLEASE DON'T feed the retards! It just makes them bigger!
You got quite a bit wrong there.
Let's start with the suspense in OpenGL versions. This was caused by a board that was taking too long to arbitrate disputes and pander to everyone. It was full of many companies, all of which who were competing and would stop each other as much as possible. That's why not many OpenGL updates were issued, but plenty of things became vendor specific extensions. Now I've heard that the board has been disolved and a single entity is taking the reigns. This explains why OpenGL has been picking up lately. No disputes, just progress.
For issue number 2, the Vista / OpenGL myth. You are partly correct, Aero will be disabled. Where you are wrong is that it will be disabled while you are using the OpenGL application. I have already tested this myself and it is no biggie. It is also somewhat expected, as OpenGL and Direct3D would fight for the hardware. They work fairly differently and if the OS cannot keep context you end up with missed renders/glitches/etc.
-]Phreak Out[-
Nice rant, but I think Microsoft is far from crashing and burning. Even if Vista becomes the new ME, they'll continue to own the lion's share of the marketplace. As bad as Vista may be, it already has a larger market share than Apple and Linux combined.
Microsoft can afford to play the "long game" and dump cash into Vista until it either owns the market place or they come up with something else (which still contains the DRM and other trusted computing "feature" Microsoft needs to survive). No, the group that will suffer the most will be the software developers. Even the larger game houses (like EA) can't afford to have their market split like this (part of the reason for more console and casual game titles).
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
The first paragraph conflicts with the rest of your post. You point out interesting and helpfull things but then say that forces adoption of OpenGL.
-]Phreak Out[-
Considering the fact that new engines like Unreal Engine 3 were also made for non-DX platforms (ie PS3 and Linux) and developped when DX9 was around, DX10 is quite useless for now; the difference between DX9 and DX10 in Bioshock is for instance ridiculous http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bioshock_direc tx10_performance/page4.asp. This may not change for quite a while if everyone is staying on XP.
So, you're admitting to gaming Slashdot and using a sockpuppet to shill your own submitted stories? That's great. Thanks!
Also the original goals of openGL were very different from DX. Just about every single CAD program uses openGL and the priority on game performance came much latter. However the old texture system in openGL was totally horrible, its a wonder even ID stuck with openGL with that.
Personally I find DX9/openGL very similar and the "features" of DX10 rather bland. So i go for portability and use a openGL subset.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
As has been pointed out by others, I don't think it is the time to make judgments yet.
There are lots of gamers who are simply waiting for some top games to come out to upgrade they're machines.
I'm one of them.
I think many people in the business are making very short time predictions that aren't completely to the point.
There are lots of criticism this days but there are some major things that aren't being taken into count
1 - The fact that Geforce 7 or lower Geforce still kick ass.
2 - The fact that some major games that use Directx 10 haven't come out yet(Crysis)
3 - Connected to the above fact. The fact that many people are waiting for the new game line up and the new graphics cards (that can ACTUALLY run DirectX 10) to come out
4 - The fact that people are waiting for Vista drivers to mature to migrate to Vista.
Personally since my computer is almost technology dead I'm looking to buy a new one.
But fact is I've been evaluating alternative choices like the PS3 and Xbox 360...
The reason I haven't bought them is simple.
For price/quality If I wait for the right time I can get a better experience with a new PC
You can buy a pretty decent PC that can beat the Xbox360 easily just for about $600
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/sp3.asp?v=d
The top xbox360 (the elite edition) costes about $450
with a $600 I get better graphics, I have more disk space. I can run many more applications, to hear music, see videos of whatever type.
In terms of hardware power a Core 2 duo with even on of the less powerfull Geforce 8 can give a better experince than say an xbox 360
Not only graphically, but specially regarding choices.
I can get mods. I get (usually) cheaper games. My PC as a longer longetivity then a console since we can tweak graphics and it's backwards compatible. The PC allows to do more and pay less. I can see trailers, movies, hear music, play online using many kinds of matchmaking services without paying a dime or if I'm willing to pay for quality, I have more choices then being stuck with one service.
This are just some of the things
And this is TODAY'S hardware.
People are just waiting because they want to take full advantage of what DirectX 10 can offer (new graphics card). and are waiting for better vista driver support (a question of time really)
It's too early to make a veridict.
And specially, with new processors coming out soon, christmas and all, and with no new console on the horizon, I think the next year will be pretty much a return to PC gamming.
Remember PS4 is probably going to be released aroung 2010. 3/4 years is a long time. Even if microsoft launches a console before (2009 perhaps). Its still 2 years for the PC market.
Sharable 3d could be achieved in XP (or in any O/S, for that matter) by using a server process which owns DirectX and handles 3D requests from the other applications, ala X-Windows. By using shared memory, the overhead of data copy is eliminated, and the data can be fed directly to the 3D card by any application, with a small overhead for synchronization.
I can give you one good reason.
nVidia's OpenGL support on Windows is fantastic. In some cases it's actually better than their D3D support. Their Linux and Solaris support is just as good. ATI's OpenGL support is nearly as good as their D3D support on Windows, and a little sluggish on Linux but at least it works. Not quite as cutting-edge as nVidia's (nVidia make every feature of every card available from OpenGL, even if you have to use nVidia-specific extensions), but still good. Apple's OpenGL drivers are good - on MacOS X, the OpenGL system is written by Apple, just like D3D on Windows is written by Microsoft - and have great support on ATI, nVidia or Intel hardware.
It's all great for OpenGL until you get to Intel hardware on Windows. Their OpenGL drivers are basically stuck on OpenGL 1.3, have been for years, and are far slower than their D3D drivers. In the old days, when there were other graphics card manufacturers, they had similar issues with OpenGL, but not with D3D.
If you're writing a cutting-edge game, that's irrelevant. Won't work on Intel hardware anyway. But if you want normal people to be able to play it, you have to support the graphics hardware with more market share than any other, and that's Intel. Crappy as their graphics hardware may be, it's pretty much ubiquitous.
They were complaining about new input devices that were directx 10 only, last time I checked opengl wouldn't have coped with those input devices as it's purely for graphics.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
One of those features, the virtual ram stuff.... If one were to instead pay for the extra ram rather than vista, one could afford a 2gig DDR3 video card.
Then no one needs the virtual ram features.
When one lets business analysts run things too much thats when things go down hill.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
We told them that back in the first quarter of last year. I guess they didn't get the memo. If someone HAS to upgrade, which could cost close to $600, just to utilize your new software....guess what....IT'S NOT GOING TO SELL VERY WELL!
This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
I am Running Windows XP with a single ATI card running DX9.
I've run 2-3 instances of EVE-Online in windowed mode which if my memory serves me right, is a 3D game. I also ran EVE with starwars galaxies. GPU sharing works... if developers know how to program.
Generally I only play 1 game at a time on a PC, because well, i'm a human and can only really play one game at a given time.
Granted tHere are other 3D apps out there aside games. 3D modeling programs like TrueSpace (personal favorite) Maya, Milkshape and the sorts. It's nice to open up one of those programs, render in 3D and import that object into another app/game. With Windowed mode in modern games, you can do all that on XP without needing Vista.
I tried to install Vista once, it failed, and after the 4th attempt, I gave up. Instead of paying $400 for Vista Ultimate, I bought a PS3 and Wii. Microsoft dont want me gaming on windows, I wont be gaming on an Xbox either.
The slow vista adoption does pretty much mirror XP uptake... I mean, there was a time, it might have been more than a year, during which me and most of the people I knew, swore off XP and stuck with 2k. Citing it as being merely a 'pretty' upgrade with a lot of useless-ass features, that won't work right for months.
DX10 makes little difference. ESPECIALLY since so few cards support DX10 anyway... And now with the idiocy of the whole DX10/DX10.1 issue... Well, fuck it. No one cares. DX10 may unleash the pretty, pretty, explosion-y goodness in World in Conflict... But the whole Vista situation is a clusterfuck.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
If you are carrying Windows Vista installation media, stay the FUCK away from my PC. That shit is not going on my system unless someone steps over my still-warm corpse to do it.
1 million?
That's over nine-THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!
Nobody upgrades their Windows OS. They only "upgrade" when they buy a new computer, and it comes pre-installed.
What is Microsoft thinking?
People will program for Vista, with optional extra Vista features, when it gets greater market share. They won't program for Vista-only until XP & friends drop to a certain low percentage, like Win98, ME, 95, 3.11, etc. before it.
More powerful 3D cards and processors drive upgrades. Operating Systems do not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm not saying that a bunch of us consumers are going to bring down Microsoft by running Linux on our desktops, but if consumers were to change their attitudes toward the big companies that are using us as the raw materials for their profit machine, it could have a revolutionary effect on our lives. Think about how our experience of necessary transactions like buying technology or connectivity would change if the Microsofts and Apples and AT&Ts were to suddenly realize that they had to start giving us what we want.
Think about the last time you had to interact with a company like Microsoft or AT&T or Verizon or (pick a company). How would that interaction have been different if the person on the other end really believed that "the customer is always right". How different would the transaction have been if there really was a competing product readily available.
There's a feature that's been near the top of consumer wishes for cellular phones since the beginning of cell phones. That is, people want a call timer that will tell us exactly how many minutes we have used and how many minutes are left before we go over our plan, and how much each call was costing. People have been asking cell phone manufacturers to include this feature forever. But the phone providers have forced the Motorolas and Nokias and other phone manufacturers to leave this feature off because they make a huge part of their revenue from people going over their plan limits. The story of the 1st month's phone bill of $500 is so common that we've all heard it by now. Either it has happened to us or to someone we know. A useful call-timer application would be trivial to build and if the phone OSs weren't closed there would be dozens of freeware versions available right now. Of course, you'll say that it's possible to find such an application right now, if we download something from some hacker site and crack our phone's OS and so on. But that works for a fraction of one percent of cellular consumers, who mostly just want a phone that works. In the early days of cell phones, some phones had this feature. I had an ancient Nokia that had it, but my carrier didn't support it so although it would time my call, it didn't give me any useful data about how many of my minutes I was using. Soon, the feature disappeared from the new phones and the carriers pressured the manufacturers into never trying it again.
So, we can get mp3 players, video players, text messaging, Flash games, and hundreds of other less critical applications for our phones, but not a simple call timer that is tied into our accounts.
So now tell me that the "free and open market" really works.
Bullshit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Good Sir, if only the 360 vs PS3 debate was like looking at thongs! If only...
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
I suppose you haven't noticed that most of their exclusive developers are OWNED (in full or partially) by those companies. Look at how many third-party developers are going multi-platform to try and recuperate their absurd production costs. You know what continues to be one of the biggest hinderances of most of them as they go multi-platform? The change in APIs and having to relearn chunks of programming habits in order to make effective code.
Now where did I say that any other company should not be held to the same standard? I never said Xbox/Microsoft/Windows developers were the only ones being a part of the problem.
And who exactly stays tied to their consoles? Pretty much first-party and second-party developers. The ones owned by the manufacturer of their respective consoles. That is why most Third-party developers are going multi-platform. They don't want to limit their available target audience to one group.
Would you market your game to 10 million, or a 100 million?
Used to be @aol.com was the noob .sig.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I note that it doesn't say SM3.0 .
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Having a working and PAID license of Windows XP, DirectX 10 is not enough reason to switch and PAY a new Windows license.
VirtualWorldsHub.com - News, forums, resources
I don't think that it is all that important since no one has even made an offer!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
They do cross platform, but the APIs are tied to each console, just like Direct X with PCs. Its not like making a game for the Wii and then the PS3, followed by the DS and PSP lets you reuse much code, or hell, even textures and graphics.
While Aero, since it requires a WDDM Driver (as does DX10) could be called "DX10 mode", it actually doesn't require DX10-capable hardware. None of my computers (laptops all for the last few years) support DX10, but I can get Aero on all but the oldest.
Indeed, it sounds like you have an Intel Integrated graphics accelerator, which AFAIK has no DX10-capable version yet. Even ATI is only just now releasing DX10-capable cards. If there are any DX10 dedicated cards (let alone integrated) that can be put in a laptop, I have yet to encounter them. In your case, you probably just don't have enough video RAM - Vista uses the GPU and VRAM to streamline video decoding, so trying to do that while also using the VRAM to buffer the screen frames and the GPU to render them in 3D may overload low-end video cards. Turning off the desktop compositor (Basic mode) eliminates the second source of load.
Out of curiosity, are you using full screen by simply maximizing the player window or by actually switching to a windowless full-screen display mode? If you're just maximizing the window, you're basically using the max amount of VRAM. Windowless full-screen mode should cause Windows to move the window frames for other programs out of the VRAM (at least it does on mine, and I have 256MB dedicated VRAM and about as much shared).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Not at all. It's sad that ogl plays catchup to directx, but it does have feature-matching releases (they're aiming for every 6 months atm). This continual feature lag is bad for ogl, but not quite so bad if MS are kicking themselves in the side with dx10. Their inaction is set to level the playing field for a longer period than if directx was improved upon on XP.
I'm no opengl politics guy but what I really want is set for the subsequent release to opengl 3 named Mount Evans. OpenGL 3, while a great shift to a more oop-friendly container/abstraction orientated structure, is not offering the "jewels" we don't already have. Studios already have glsl packers and plugins architectures; translating them to conform to a new specification, without the benefit of extra value added features, seems like a pre-empted waste of time. Often its better to wait and code from a solid base.
I'm not saying that Microsoft can't lose. Just that I don't think they're in much danger right now with Vista.
Releasing Vista was a huge risk for Microsoft, releasing a new OS that removes some key features while giving very few new ones in return, but they are managing to pull it off. Because, as you state, the "free and open market" is broken.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Now I'll concede that wrong is wrong, and I think it's important to point out - I'm glad you did, because without making sure that's on the table my post would have been just plain wrong. So, yes - you're right.
I have a few details that I want to point out though. For one - it's much easier to make an unfounded claim against a Microsoft product without knowing it, because I honestly don't know how it works inside. All I can do is go off results, and a lot of the time it's the user that causes those results. You honestly don't know which, so you just have to guess. However, making an unfounded claim against Open Source stuff is much harder to do accidentally - you have the ability and right to investigate exactly where the problem came from and verify that it's there. You have the ability to tell who exactly is at fault.
Second, if the punishment is to fit the crime the crime must be measured by consequence. In that regard, Microsoft has the money to make sure their words are correct and the power and influence that mandates responsibility to do so. A lie from a king is much more damaging than a lie from a normal citizen, so a king should be very careful to choose his words.
So yes. FUD from a random dude and FUD from Microsoft are both still FUD - but it's easier to accidentally FUD Microsoft than it is to accidentally FUD Open Source stuff, and Microsoft should be held more responsible to be accurate and truthful because what they say is more influential.
They might not be around forever, and people might not be afraid to try alternatives, but they're still one of the most successful companies ever in the IT business.
And like it or not, the same actually holds true for Apple and MS as well. None of these companies got to where they were by not making products that people wanted. Apple did that for a while and suffered. They changed (they started making compelling products again), and people flocked back to them.
The open and free market does work. Never before have we been so spoiled for choice in the computing world as we are now, with OS-X, Windows and Linux all being very viable options.
Even in the cell phone market you have choices. You can go for a pay-as-you-go plan where you can never exceed the amount of minutes you've already charged your account for. It's super-convenient if not exceeding your limit is your concern. You'll have to pay for the price of the phone up-front (no rebates etc.) but you're saving money long-term by only paying for the minutes you use and no extra.
Bottom line is that you always have a choice.
Bottom line is also that all companies exist to make money. If you say that you want the sexy phones you would get with a contract based plan, and the cost control that comes with pay-as-you-go, well, you can't get everything you want. Customer is _not_ always right. Companies will offer you choices from which they can make money. They will not offer you choices that lose them money. Everyone has the option of pay-as-you-go. Customers choose contracts in spite of that because they prefer sexy phones even if they don't tell them about call limits/charges etc. Customers basically chose what was more important for them..
"here in europe i here the opposite, the store where i buy games, the owner says he's got trouble selling the ps3, while the 360 keeps doing good... about the power, ps3 has got better processors, the 360 has got a better graphics card, how it will balance out, dunno..."
The Wii outsells them both. That's how it's balancing out.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I can't see the reason to play several games at the same time, nor the reason to play games in windowed mode.
That only makes sense if all games in the future would become flash based crap, and flash interfaced with DX10 in order to not be the slow garbage it is now (compared with almost everything else).
UHGG
OTOH, besides games and 3D editors, why do I need DirectX? Why do I need DirectX when editing text ?
I can see the ads now: Visual Studio 2008, now with DirectX 10-based syntax highlighting!
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
If gaming in the Windows platform starts to suck...
The last reason a lot people have for sticking to Windows vanishes.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.