Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Phases Out XNA and DirectX?

Posted by samzenpus on from the so-long-farewell-auf-weidersehen-goodbye dept.

mikejuk writes "It is reported that Microsoft has sent an email to DirectX/XNA MVPs which informs them that they are no longer needed because XNA and DirectX are no longer evolving. What does this mean? If you don't need MVPs then presumably you anticipate nothing to support in the future."

30 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Use OpenGL instead by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Informative

    All the growing platforms use OpenGL. Even Windows can use OpenGL (although it is not tyhe favored child). If you have an eye on the future, it makes far sense to develop with OpenGL. That way you can develop shaders that will work on: Android, iOS, Mac, Linux, Windows, Unix, embedded devices (eg. commercial avionics), the PS3. What you miss out on is XBox 360 and Windows Phone. Compare the combined size of the coverage of OpenGL platforms to the Direct3D-only platforms. There is simply no contest anymore in terms of units shipping and growth rate.

    OpenGL is the future of hardware accelerated graphics. The nice thing is that no matter what changes in the hardware/platform space you investment in OpenGL is never lost, it comes across as you migrate.

    1. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OpenGL is the future of hardware accelerated graphics.

      And the past, and the present, just to round out the hat trick.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because XNA is actually a pretty good framework embedded in a really good toolset and there's really nothing that matches it in terms of ease, speed, and quality of development without also losing much real flexibility and power to do what you want to.

      I agree with you for the most part, I'm using OpenGL now because XNA at least does have an awful lot of uncertainty under it with the fact Microsoft have chosen not to support it in RT and Visual Studio 2012, suggesting there is indeed no future for it, but if you just want to make games as say, a hobbyist, and don't really care about sales figures or market reach then XNA is your best bet, especially if you work a full time job - XNA can mean the difference between having time to embark on such a project alongside work, and not. A lot of this comes down to OpenGL's inconsistency of support meaning more bug hunting, more time and effort to setup, and the fact the API design is dated and often painful to work with and that the only language it was really developed hand in hand with - C, isn't exactly a productive language (unless you have to use it, for performance concerns). XNA being developed hand in hand with C# is partly what made it excellent to work with because it was a modern framework design melded with a modern language.

      But for what it's worth I think there's another point in OpenGL's favour, Microsoft have a long history of failing to provide graphics API stability, GDI, GDI+, WPF 2D/3D, DX, MDX, XNA, and so on - so many APIs over the years have come and gone with support disappearing to a large extent or even completely. It's one of Microsoft's developer weak points.

      I've always been a fan of Microsoft's graphics APIs and have always defended them over OpenGL because they haven't had most the headaches OpenGL causes, but even I'm fed up now of the fact that each graphics API has a lifespan of a few years, that if you upgrade Visual Studio you can likely no longer use the integrated tools for that API for years afterwards, if at all. It's just gotten stupid at this point and has become such an overriding concern due to the frequency of the problem that all the benefits are now irrelevant.

    3. Re:Use OpenGL instead by non0score · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd rather we scrap both and start anew. Both of these abstraction layers are wholly inadequate for modern GPU architectures. Just the fact that both of these APIs are architected on the idea of single-threaded CPU cores building out a single, final command buffer is completely antiquated (even with DX's addition for parallel command buffer building).

    4. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the growing platforms use OpenGL.

      No, they Use OpenGL ES.

      Even Windows can use OpenGL

      ...just not OpenGL ES.

      OpenGL is the future of hardware accelerated graphics.

      It might be. If they finish OpenGL ES (make it support missing desktop graphics card features), then actually allow people to use it on the desktop.

      Unfortunately most of today's graphics cards will never have a working OpenGL ES driver so we're looking at five or ten years before it's worth trying to use OpenGL ES on the desktop, if ever. It's too little, and far too late.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Use OpenGL instead by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Informative

      OpenGL has been far more fragmented in terms of the numer of vendor extensions you needed to use for a long time to get access to recent functionality.

      Your OpenGL knowledge is clearly out-of-date. The extension mechanism still exists, of course, but is not needed to get GLSL shaders that have advanced functionality.

    6. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But with OpenGL you get all of the other most used gaming platforms put together. That's much larger than locking yourself to the Xbox.

      (Windows runs either, so if you wish to include it, it counts on both sides, thus not changing the outcome).

    7. Re:Use OpenGL instead by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well there was an implementation of Direct3D 11 on Linux but it died due to lack of interest in maintaining it.

    8. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Molt · · Score: 3

      I don't think Microsoft cancelling the entire DirectX MVP program can be a good thing for Direct3D unless they then do start a Direct3D-specific MVP program. For one thing I don't think DirectX will become that much more stable as GPUs are still changing dramatically and I would prefer to see the API reflect these changes, but more importantly a good amount of the MVP awards go to people who consistently provide good answers to questions of forums and suchlike. Even when a technology is 100% fixed there will still be people learning it from scratch and those who want to strengthen their skills, and these people will have questions.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    9. Re:Use OpenGL instead by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I miss the days where Slashdot was populated by actual developers.

      We're still here. It is just that the signal (developers) is probably buried under the noise (fanboys) half (most?) of the time.

      It is harder to stick to the facts then to go all emo over speculation which sadly /. is becoming more and more.

    10. Re:Use OpenGL instead by Molt · · Score: 3, Informative

      OpenGL ES is essentially OpenGL with the parts which embedded hardware can't handle removed, and so adding the functionality to support the missing desktop graphics card features would either result in the normal OpenGL again, or an oddly forked version based on where embedded hardware is today. Also it's not that hard to run an implementation of OpenGL ES on the desktop today, it's the basis of WebGL and Chrome and Firefox both happily run it, the render loop is changed to accommodate the fact it's running in a browser but other than that it's pretty much the same OpenGL ES you'll find elsewhere.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    11. Re:Use OpenGL instead by qbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah we are here.. I'm a developer here too who rarely posts. The thing is, I come here for the sometimes interesting, informative and well-vetted news article summaries, but it's the informed comments from other devs that I stay for. UnknownSoldier is dead on about the facts and speculation.. it's easier to speculate than to talk truth, and reading nothing but spec gets old, fast.

    12. Re:Use OpenGL instead by RaceProUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit, doesn't work anywhere else, but XBOX, what flexibility are you talking about?

      It also works on WinPhone (even WP8) and Widnows XP onwards, with the ability to share 95%+ of the code between them. So it covers the two largest segments of the videogame market, platform-wise.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  2. It Means by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Too many people got too good at writing DirectX emulation layers. Obviously someone fell down on the job, or Valve wouldn't have managed a Linux port. Watch for new incompatible "standard", soon.

    Cynical? This isn't my first rodeo. I watched them kill off OS/2, pretty much exactly the same way.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:It Means by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. Having said that, IBM did not really help. While OS/2 was in many ways a 'better DOS than DOS', as they promised, it fatally lacked support for non-IBM devices in the early days... I remember trying to install on a very-standard config beige box, and sixteen disettes later getting nowhere.

      Called up an ex-colleague in IBM, who got me through to a senior dev in the OS/2 team. "Ah, we've never tested it on a non-IBM machine...better buy a PS/2..."

  3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think everyone is just as confused. Its really unlikely that MS is ditching D3D. The standard joke is "embrace extend extinguish" but... extinguish makes no business sense here. It's more likely they are trying to collect everything under their "apps store" like Apple has. Presumably steam understood this better (and earlier) than everyone else, and that's why they're making another basket for their eggs.

  4. DirectX is fine by TonTonKill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft is not getting rid of DirectX.

    1. Re:DirectX is fine by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, were they lying then, or are they lying now? Either way, we seem to be getting different story from anonymous PR bunnies in unspecified divisions.

      Me, I get the vague impression that Uncle Fester is losing his grip, and that Microsoft's System Lords are preparing to carve mini-empires out of the wreckage when it comes off the rails.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Unlikely by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's very unlikely that Microsoft will abandon DirectX. It is afterall the reason why most games for the PC are Windows-exclusive. If they OpenGL becomes king, porting to Linux will be a lot easier. Windows will be dumped by a lot of people whose only reason to keep a Windows desktop is gaming.

  6. This actually only relates to XNA by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 4, Informative

    As anyone who deals in this knows XNA is a dead end and DirectX most certainly is not. They are retiring the XNA part of the XNA/DirectX MVP.

    Link

  7. "if the email is valid and authoritative" by eksith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did we learn nothing from the x-surface debacle?

    --
    If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
  8. Nebulous spokestalk alert! by game+kid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing that the NBC Universal--Comcast thing taught me was that "inaccurate" != "false". (They said news about the merger was "inaccurate". They merged anyway.) Here we go again.

    In short, I'm not convinced that either system will survive the axe, and you should probably just polish your HTML5-optimized-for-Metro-or-whatever-it's-called-now (or OpenGL?) skills if you still want to make games for Windows:

    1. They never reversed the actual decision to retire the two from the award program.
    2. They did not mention that XNA or its MVP award...status...program...thing would not be axed.
    3. "Microsoft is actively investing in DirectX as the unified graphics foundation for our key platforms, including Xbox 360, Windows Phone and Windows. DirectX is evolving and will continue to evolve. For instance, right now we’re investing in some very cool graphics code authorizing [sic] technology in Visual Studio." - it's great that they're still developing it now, before April 1, 2014, but what about after?
    4. "We have absolutely no intention of stopping innovation with DirectX, and you can quote me on that." - this didn't start because we thought would somehow "[stop] innovation with DirectX" (a concept as nebulous as fuck, because they could be taking it to mean that, e.g., they'd try to actively prevent people from using a newly-deprecated API, instead of just deprecating it). No, we wondered whether they'd stop developing, supporting, and maintaining the platform after the stated date, aaaaand *crickets and a coquí or two*.

    So will both die on April 2014? In the words of $got_talent_judge, "I vote Yes."

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  9. Re:Huh? by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Premature abbreviation is the root of all evil.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  10. Re:Huh? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its actually quite simple, Steve Ballmer is burning the company to the ground because he has it in his big fat head that he has a "brand" like Prada and Nike when in reality he has a replaceable good, like Coke or Pepsi.

    You see Steve Ballmer thinks if you click your heels three times and say "There is no place like Cupertino" why you can just turn the company into Apple, of course those of us in the trenches know there ain't enough dope in the world to make it so, but old fathead doesn't see any value in anything that isn't just aping Apple, hence why he shit on the desktop, he's shitting on the OEMs, and now he's shitting all over DirectX which frankly is the only thing that keeps many on windows.

    My only question is will Gates get tired of seeing everything he spent so many years building being burnt to the ground and step in, or will he kick back with his big piles o' cash and just watch the whole thing burn?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  11. The big problem with OpenGL by tlambert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The big problem with OpenGL is that the shaders are not guaranteed to run in bounded time. DirectX doesn't have that problem, and the OpenGL emulation layer on top of DirectX unrolls the shaders, and for the ones which won't run in bounded time, just throws them away.

    When Chrome implements OpenGL on Windows, it runs it through its own code which does the same thing and preflights it, then renders the OpenGL which will run linearly and in bounded time via DirectX.

    The Linux and Mac OS X versions hand the OpenGL to the user space renderer or to the kernel-based renderer, respectively -- there are significant performance advantages to OpenGL on Mac OS X compared to Linux because of this; this ends up being most apparent on portable devices, which have a limited memory copy bandwidth (read: ARM devices), which is why Android doesn't directly use the Linux graphics model, apart from the inability to use binary drivers in kernel space due to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().

    But both the Linux and Mac OS X OpenGL renderers take the shaders without preflighting them, as is done on Windows when converting to DirectX calls, and so it's possible to crash the user space driver on Linux, or crash the Mac OS X kernel, on Mac OS (the disadvantage you get in exchange for the reduced copy overhead relative to Linux).

    I tried unsuccessfully for several months to try and convince the Chrome graphics guys to run the preflight portion of the Direct X converter on Linux and Mac OS to prevent these crashes on these platforms, to no avail. It'd be more processing, but no more than is already done on Windows, in exchange for a significant improvement in stability for OpenGL/OpenGL ES/WebGL/NaCl on both platforms, which is probably worth the additional processing cost, given that the bottleneck is copying, not processing, on the portable platforms. There are cycles to burn on the desktop systems, even if you'd prefer not to burn them, it's probably worth it for the stability.

    In any case, a lot of game developers try for a lot of effects with shaders, and most of them are more concerned with the visual appeal, rather than in running in bounded time and not eventually crashing the system. DirectX protects them where OpenGL doesn't -- except on the Windows platforms they use for development, and that doesn't help get these games stable and running on Mac OS X or Linux, which is what you'd hoe the portability of OpenGL code would have bought you.

  12. Re:Another fad ends by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3

    Because Microsoft had to justify their purchase of RenderMorphics in 1995 -- the company that made the Reality Lab API that was renamed Direct3D.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

    Of course Microsoft didn't get it right until version 3. DX1, DX2, DX5. :-/ (DX4 was never publically available.)

    At the time there was a petition of game developers telling Microsoft to support OpenGL - but typically Microsoft didn't give a dam -- they have always just wanted vendor lock in with all their technologies.
    http://www.graphicsgroups.com/6-opengl/c476ebf66db4600a.htm

  13. Re:Huh? by jmauro · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article all that's dying is likely the name. The same technologies will still exist and be limited to Xbox and Windows only. No OpenGL.

  14. Re:Huh? by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not even Coke or Pepsi. Microsoft is and has always been an office supply company. They're rich because they worked out how to sell an expensive box of paperclips to every business in the world. But y'know, turning pens and paperclips into a consumer shiny toy company? A bit unlikely to happen.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  15. Re:Huh? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

    That would be OpenGL+OpenAL, a few games do use it on Windows.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. ANGLE by paugq · · Score: 3, Informative

    The performance hit is small enough for Chrome, Qt and other projects to use ANGLE to translate Direct3D to OpenGL:

    https://code.google.com/p/angleproject/