id Software Dev Puzzled By Devs Choosing DX12 Over Vulkan, Claims Xbox One DX12 Is Different Than PC

Microsoft's DirectX 12 appears to be the next generation PC gaming graphical API of choice- which makes sense, given the ubiquity of Windows when it comes to PC gaming, and DirectX's deep integration with Windows.

[TheCommentator]

Wait, so this guy uses Windows 7 PC's DX12 incompatibility as an excuse to complain about it? Win10 is a free upgrade even for people running hacked versions of Windows. Also, we already know that coding for XB1 is not the same as coding for PC, otherwise I would be able to play PC games on my XB1. The DX12 API does make it significantly easier to port games over using Vulkan though. This guy clearly has a bias towards Vulkan, which is fine, but making up paper thin excuses why DX12 is no good is just silly.

[Dabigsiebowski]

Well he is right. The more devs who get away from DX12 then the stronger support becomes for things like Steam OS/linux. Microsoft should be in panic mode because the more games that use other apis besides dx12 then the greater the chance people will start leaving windows.

Vulkan is just as good if not better than dx12, more devs should use it.

[krypt1983]

Vulcan don't have shit on dx12 and it will stay the standard sorry the pipeslines are just way too easy for dx12 a crossed multiple systems

[Vasto]

Microsoft should be in panic mode?

Lmao

Keep hating.

[BossBattle]

People are not leaving Windows. It's the most used OS and universally known.

[yeahokwhatever]

The market was favoring OpenGL for a while and PCs went nowhere. So, I'm not sure why you would think that.

[uth11]

I would think for games that will be multiplatform at all, writing a Vulkan back-end would greatly simplify porting. I think devs will start adopting it for that reason, once the DX12 hype wears off.

[rainslacker]

I doubt people will move away from Windows. The alternatives on PC to Windows just aren't as good as Windows. Some people claim they are, and for some things they are, but Windows is much more robust in both usability and customization than the alternatives. The alternatives do offer some of the same things, or even are more user friendly at times, but they require a bigger learning curve compared to Windows.

Linux is great if you know how to use it. OSX is great if you don't need to use your computer for much or don't care about tailoring it to your own tastes. SteamOS is just a gaming platform. And for all three of those OS's, they still pale in software support for general PC usage. Sure they have all the alternatives, but not the name recognition. I have read more comments about people who want to use these other OS's, but still dual boot into Windows because that is where the programs are.

Windows is here to stay because of it's place in the market, and Vulkan runs fine on Windows. MS doesn't care if Vulkan takes over, so long as people use Vulkan on Windows.

That being said, OGL in general is still the most widely used graphics API available. It's on more devices than DX, and will continue to do so because MS locks DX behind Windows. On PC, DX is still king, but Vulkan or OGL are perfectly suitable alternatives, and going forward, newer GPU's won't be as API specific as they were before, and should be able to handle both API's equitably.

More devs may start using Vulkan due to it being more adaptive to more systems though, but that isn't a problem for MS so long as they still use their wares on Windows....which they will because that's where most of the customers are.

[donthate]

Except, a major developer is whining about people choosing DX12 over Vulkan. Actions speaks a lot more than whining in my opinion.

Either way, Windows in gaming is essentially a monopoly in the PC space so nothing is going to let people leave Windows. The people cheering Linux or OSX clearly is out of touch with reality.

I love Linux for servers and development, mostly because the same reason that Windows is great for gaming. The tools are standardized on the platforms, and works great. On the other platform you often have to make odd tweakes and spend a lot of wasted time.

Now with Xbox Play Anywhere, DX12, UWP, and Windows store, it is never a better time to be a game developer on PC. Combine that with Steam and you are golden.

[starchild]

@ Dabigseibowski

Why in the hell would I want to switch over to another operating system? Windows 10 works very well and I enjoy using it. On top of that, we would lose our backwards compatibility, which would be horrible. Backwards compatibility is one of the things I love about PC gaming.

[madpuppy]

@Donthate
"Either way, Windows in gaming is essentially a monopoly in the PC space so nothing is going to let people leave Windows. The people cheering Linux or OSX clearly is out of touch with reality."

Yeah, IBM for the longest time was a company that everyone thought you would have to be crazy to think it would be knocked off it's thrown as the Number one tech company in the world.

"I love Linux for servers and development, mostly because the same reason that Windows is great for gaming. The tools are standardized on the platforms, and works great. On the other platform you often have to make odd tweakes and spend a lot of wasted time."

See, even you notice that Linux and Posix compatible OS's are taking over large parts of the tech Industry. Linux changes and improves on a monthly basis, much faster than any other OS in existence, only a person in denial cannot see what is happening, Android (Linux based) ChromeOS (linux based) thousands of embedded systems, Even Linux haters are most likely using Linux in their home without even knowing it. set top boxes, Smart TV's ect... Like with IBM, it's only a matter of time.

[MasterD919]

The average user wouldn't know how to even get away from Windows and go to another OS.

[glassgannon909]

no one ever chose windows for just for dx support and no one will abandon it because of anything related to it.
.people buy it because its the best option for casual pc usage. linux is a tad bit more hardcore and mac is objectively bad for gaming not just because of software but also hardware restrictions.
this is also kind of the reason why i dont get ms's play anywhere thing. i honestly dont think anyone who was content with something else , would now choose windows because it has a few new games.

[joeorc]

@Dabigsiebowski
Exactly100%

Right now Android OS default Graphical Api is infact Vulkan, that means Smartphones , smartTV's and Streaming TV box's along with the majority of Tablets use OpenGL and are now moving to Vulkan graphics Api. If its iOS its now Metal as Apple's graphical Api.

That's is a very large development 🎱 pool that will be using Vulcan or Metal as their default graphics Api instead of DirectX.

PC is not the only computing platform with its own Advanced OS and graphical Api.

Google and its partners with Android OS is now one of the largest used operating systems, with Millions of Consumers using their Operating system.

Many developers are now making games and applications. For the Android OS instead of just Windows OS anymore.

This also goes to Apple 🍎 with its iOS, and its Metal graphical Api. Apple 🍎. Sell millions of iPhones, iPod touches , iPads every year..
And the graphical Api used is not Vulkan or DirectX it is Metal.

Between just Vulkan and Metal alone , DirectX for windows May be the Default Graphical Api for The Windows OS ..but for every thing else..DirectX is not even close to being the most used Graphical Api anymore.

@krypt198318h ago
[Vulcan don't have shit on dx12 and it will stay the standard sorry the pipeslines are just way too easy for dx12 a crossed multiple systems]

And in Mobile how is that working out for DirectX?
I'm Sorry , but the fact you and others are so arrogant enough to say Vulkan is or has nothing on DirectX just shows how ignorant. You and others are really being.

But ; that's 👌 you and others can keep thinking the way you have been , and as the mobile space keeps moving forward where more and more developers are coding for it just as much as they are for PC because they have to now.

If you want to think DirectX will now be mobile space's default graphical Api..you go right ahead..reality show quite the opposite outcome.

Its very Easy to frame an argument in a way that only shows one strengths, which Is fine, its far to easy when you just so happen to ignore the glaring weakness of your platform also.

Hey on PC..as far as graphical Api's go directX is the leadership role..but outside of PC..that is not the case. And since. Vulkan & Metal are..you may want to bring down the rhetoric. A little bit about how Vulkan does not have anything on DirectX. Because it does.

[LastcenuryRob]

"Panic mode"....Really? Somehow I very much doubt MS is in panic mode especially since DX12 is pretty darn good.

[Eonjay]

I think Vulkan will win out overall with so much support and because it is just easier and cheaper to make one code path and have it scale across multiple devices. What he didn't state is whether Xbox One supports Vulkan. I assume it does because... well Doom runs on Xbox One. But in the end, its not about loving or hating Microsoft. its about what is the most efficient method for distributions across multiple platforms. Obviously, since gamers are still on Windows 7, if you can code once, its going to be more efficient than coding twice. I think its going to take some time for adoption, Sony could do it by explicitly supporting and promoting Vulkan on PS4 as the top software platform for AAAs but don't hold your breath on that considering that Sony has an even lower level API that they want to push developers into.

Its a conflict of interest all the way around. Sony wants GMX, Microsoft wants DX12 and everyone else wants Vulkan. There is nothing special about DX12 at all... and there is even less special about GMX... I think Vulkan will win only because it supports more devices. Its like WMA vs MPS vs RA. MP3 became the most popular back i the day because so many damn devices and platforms supported it. No pandering or hate, just reasoning. If Android and iOS and Windows and Mac and Linux all supported DX12 I would say its up in the air but Vulkan just has too much of a real world advantage.

[Mulando]

Why the hell do people still think that you only need one code-path for multiple devices with Vulkan. That's just not true. You must still implement different code-paths for different devices. Just some basic operations may just be the same.
Also DX12 still has some things beside the graphics API inside, nobody is talking about. Sound, input devices etc, everything is included in DX12, while Vulkan is only the graphics part.

[rainslacker]

One can use their own graphics API's on Xbox. You aren't restricted to DX except for some system level functions which are built into the Xbox API. Vulcan is useable on X1, or any custom built solution that a dev can come up with....which is quite rare or non-existent nowadays.

In any case, porting between Vulkan/OGL and DX is common, and they share many of the same features to make it even simpler compared to past iterations of the API's. In general, on consoles, even if a dev is using Vulkan or DX, they wills till modify it to suit their needs. The really low level stuff uses the same processes between the chips, the developer just has to be aware of how many of those processes can be used at one time. The reason it's probably better to use DX on Xbox is because the system is designed around the API, and can perform DX tasks with quite a bit of efficiency, thus making it more beneficial, and less work, to simply "port" the code over to DX....which isn't as hard as it sounds. Vulkan, or some variant, is still the primary starting point for most games that are multi-plat though.

That being said, there is no such thing as one code path. If that's what a dev wants, they will have to use a fairly high level API or framework, and that isn't ideal for demanding games because too much power is wasted in the process. However, if a dev is good, they can encapsulate their code to be able to adapt it easier between different API's, and adjust where needed if a system can't do certain things. More often than not, a game engine is used, and the better modern game engines handle all that for the dev, but likely needs device specific optimization.

There isn't really anything "special" about DX12. It's a nice API, and has it's advantages over Vulkan. But Vulkan is just as good in terms of the render pipeline, and is more adaptable due to it's ability to allow more custom code to be attached to it and either circumvent or supplement aspects of the pipeline which don't suit a particular developers needs. DX12 allows this on consoles to some degree, but it can cause compliance issues if done without considering code security and isolation.

You are right though that Vulkan, for the grand scheme of things, actually does have the advantage. Quite a bit actually, and is in use on more devices than MS has available to them. That's just because MS locks DX behind Windows, and it's not available to use on non Windows systems. For games though, they still get Windows support, and thus DX support, because that is where the gamers are.

Luckily going forward, the distinction of DX and Vulkan will be less of a thing in GPU's, as there is more harmony between the two API's through GCN.

@Mulando

Those other, non graphics part of the API are often not used as most game engines have their own built in solutions to such things. Most of them allow for using those extra things though. On Xbox, I believe the only one that is required to be used is the input part of the API. Everything else is up to the dev, and they can forgo DX graphics API's altogether if they wanted to, although I can't imagine why they would. If you notice in most games, there is usually some 3rd party sound solution at play. Developers coding specifically for Windows PC would likely use more of the DX functions available.

[joeorc]

@LastcenuryRob26m ago
["Panic mode"....Really? Somehow I very much doubt MS is in panic mode especially since DX12 is pretty darn good.]

Well, you and others may not see it, but there is some kind of mode and its to try to keep developers from using other Operating systems. As well as other frameworks. Other than Windows as the developers. Go to code base for what ever framework. They happen to be going to.

Now Microsoft. Has Built into Windows 10 :

http://www.pcworld.com/arti...

Top it off Microsoft. Also done this:

http://www.theverge.com/201...

If those. operating. Systems were of no consequence, why would Microsoft invest, take resources and put those resources toward adding support for such in Windows 10 OS? Its very simple .

Microsoft. Want to keep the consumer and development community to use Windows 1st before other Eco systems..upto this point Microsoft. Has never had to add Linux command line or an Apple 🍎 OS or a open source OS built into their Windows Operating system this is not just 3rd party doing this..this is Microsoft themselves doing this , so after all of these years with Windows 98 on to Vista , windows 7, or Windows 8.1.

Why would Microsoft now have to invest Time and Money and Resources into another OS outside of their own Windows OS, but now not just make software for those Other operating systems, but now include directly into the Windows 10 Operating system itself and has done so with the start now? Even after unifying the Xbox & PC Eco system..

Its very simple, those other Operating systems has enough Consumers using those Operating systems and enough Developers using another Operating system to build Games & Applications. Without needing or having to use or even for that matter using Windows OS or its DirectX graphical Api..that Microsoft. Now needs to offer such Consumers and developers this option.
They Had no choice, Or it could or may end up getting worse for Microsoft as a company not to do such..

[XanderZane]

I thought Phil Spencer said Window 10 and DX12 were Open. Why is this guy flipping out because no one wants to use Vulkan? He can still use it if he wants to. What's the problem?

@uth11
Ok, but it doesn't seem like developers care since many of them are still flocking to it to use in their games. The rest of the industry must be a small few then. The rest of the industry can still use Vulkan if they choose to. So why is this guy complaining. That would be like Wii U fanboys complaining about other gamers buying PS4 and XB1 consoles only. The funny part is, Wii U fanboys aren't even complaining about trivial things. They are sitting back enjoying their game console. Also, I thought MS was trying to get XBL onto IOS and Android in an App form.
https://www.thurrott.com/xb...

[uth11]

What MS considers open and what the rest of the industry does are two different things.
Does DX12 run on Mac? No
Linux? No
Android? Ios? No No.

It's the exact opposite of open

[Eonjay]

It doesn't even run on Windows 7 or 8... or Xp. Its closed to Windows 10. Thats the point of this whole story.

[rainslacker]

Open to MS means people can write their software to it without restriction. Not that they can use it wherever they want to, for whatever purpose they want to. DX is free to license, and there is no restriction on the software itself, but it most definitely isn't an open API if one were to use the proper use of the term open in relation to such things.

[Tzuno]

Dude, you sound so selfish, dx12 force people to win 10 and i hate that, i am happy with my 8.1 and i don't need win 10 right now, i don't like it.

[otherZinc]

@TheCommentator,

Spot on, I completely agree!

id, is nothing without John Carmack anyway.

[NotEvenMyFinalForm]

It makes sense. Why use dx12 when vulkan would benefit more people? That is his grip.

[XanderZane]

Why can't developers use both?

[Mkai28]

But (for most in this company) id software has mostly been pro OpenGL, it's only natural that Vulkan would be there preferred API..

[1nsomniac]

ID Software have always been against Direct X & Microsoft as a foundation & they've always been the front runner in OpenGL. Competition wise they've been a savour to the industry as a whole but whether it still good enough is questionable at this stage.

At least they're still trying to fight for something they believe in though.

[Timesplitter14]

According to my limited knowledge of this, Vulkan has more potential 'power' than DX12, but DX12 is easier to work with. And that sometimes results in DX12 performing better than Vulkan, because not everyone does a good job at using Vulkan (or can afford to do a good job at it). Vulkan takes more time and has more pitfalls/risks than DX12 for inexperienced devs. It requires more manual threading/memory management, which is why it also has the potential to be more powerful. It's a bit like comparing C++ to C#

The good news is that industry heavyweights like Epic, Valve and Unity will all do a proper integration of Vulkan into their game engines in the near future, so a lot of people will be able to benefit from it, regardless of their skill level. We'll even be able to make proper Vulkan vs DX12 comparisons by making test projects in Unity for example and switching between the two APIs

Overall, I side with Vulkan in all this. Proprietary, limited-platform things suck in general. That's why Valve, Epic and ID Software are all pushing for Vulkan's success

[rainslacker]

"C++ to C#"

That's a bit extreme. C# is a framework language which has a ton of overhead, but has the ability to run on any system that has .NET installed(even if it's not windows).

DX itself is not anywhere near that level of abstraction, and for the most part, runs on the same abstraction layers that Vulkan runs on.

Vulkan is more robust in that it allows more flexibility for those that know how to utilize it. For an experienced dev, more often than not, they will get much better performance out of Vulkan than they will out of DX. This is because DX doesn't allow as much customization and side loading of tangent processes. DX is more restricted to what is available within the API itself, and while there is a lot to the API itself, it doesn't allow for some tricky solution which substantially increases performance to be implemented as easily, and instead, requires a level of abstraction be implemented to couple it with DX itself...thus removing some of the efficiency. This may or may not be a problem depending on what's being done, and on a powerful enough system, it's rarely a problem.

On Xbox itself, the DX API is more customizable to the developers needs. I feel this was probably a necessary implementation so that devs could port to the X1 easier, as OGL or it's variants are actually more commonplace when it comes to designing games meant for more than one system. This could cause problems on a PC though, as there is still a level of abstraction required for DX to run.

For the most part, a game engine will have it's own interface that can translate between OGL or DX. Things that aren't directly translatable due to a custom interface, aren't offered as engine level processes, and instead requires the dev to manually implement their own interpreter for those processes. The better game engines do have better interpreters though, and have for quite some time. There are also numerous 3rd party solutions for such things, and they tend to sell well to devs because it's cheaper than having to do the work themselves, and are usually quite good at what they do.

I actually prefer Vulkan too. The rendering pipelines between the two seem just as capable to get the job done, so it's more a matter that Vulkan offers more flexibility. DX as a limited platform doesn't really suck, it's just that it's actual release is hidden behind system upgrades that aren't required in order to move new systems. in this case, it's holding back newer iterations of DX from being implemented as quickly by the devs, because people don't upgrade on MS time table. This means, that since DX itself is backwards compatible to prior versions, that older versions will be used more often, or very limited use of the newer DX will exist. This is the case as it is now on PC, and it will likely remain the case if MS continues to use DX to push new OS's...which they may not do because Win10 is supposed to be their last OS with future versions being free.

OTOH, you have Vulkan, or it's cousin API's, which are upgradable with the install of a new game, and aren't restricted to the OS. In most cases, people don't even realize their OGL versions have been updated, because it's pretty seamless. Even on PC, with a DX branded GPU, one often uses OGL or Vulkan if the game is coded for it. There is not much that prevents older GPU's from being able to run both, and going forward, there is even less preventing it, as the hardware isn't made to the API anymore, but rather the API is made to the hardware.

[donthate]

Keep in mind that the benefit of more abstraction layers is typically better compatibility in the long term. In terms of performance difference, it is minimal. We are often talking low single digits and it isn't even always clear who the winner is.

For developers, it is far more important to have proper support, a big community and knowledge sharing combined with efficient processes to create what they want. Performance is pushed, but only after all the other consideration are satisfied first.

[rainslacker]

"In terms of performance difference, it is minimal"

Uh huh. Yeah, and what are your qualifications for making that kind of assumption? Abstraction makes porting easier, and less need to write different code between devices or platforms. The performance hit is there, minimal or not, and while it may not seem like much on a single process or function, when you multiply that by thousands of processes, all running hundreds or thousands of times a second, it most definitely isn't minimal.

What's this single digits we're talking about? Is it an integer value? A double? Is it a percentage hit to performance? While for the most part, a "winner" may not be clear, the winner is more often than not the non abstracted implementation. How many bits of extra processing data before it becomes too much, and the developer hits a wall, because now they have code which isn't optimized to the system?

You are greatly unqualified to talk about abstraction layers. You don't really understand anything about interfaces or software/hardware protocols, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you would try to speak on it so authoritatively as if an abstraction layer is nothing to be concerned about. When DX12 was first announced, the idea of less abstraction layers was the godsend to cure all the overhead that existed within PC game programming. Now adding back in abstraction layers is OK?

What long term compatibility needs to be thought of? Is the dev writing their code to a specific device and that code needs to last through the ages, or are they writing to a platform which will already have the interpretive abstraction layer it needs to run that code going forward? That was the whole point of consoles going to x86, that they wouldn't have to worry about this constant incompatibility, and that the processes were more understood by the mainstream programmer. So they should build to that, and whatever GPU processes may be available to them through GCN to maintain that compatibiility going forward, not writing to some library which may or may not be supported in the future...but would be because it'll be running on a platform that is compatible. You don't need abstraction for compatibility, you just need the hardware or platform that can interpret the code properly.

For developers, by which I assume you mean game developers, it's important to be able to have the flexibility to achieve what they want, and if they have to go through abstraction layers, it means they will have less flexibility to do so, because it means they will have to write to an abstraction layer which may not support what they're trying to do. Abstraction layers exist to make coding easier. Not make it faster or more optimized.

What you're talking about here isn't some single abstraction implementation used to allow for some portability, you're talking about an overall API level abstraction layer which will have a real hit on performance. There are many abstraction layers that get put into a game design either from a game engine or the developer themselves for whatever reason. They do so because the "supported" and provided API's abstraction isn't good enough.

On consoles, why in God's name would you now be saying that not using low level implementation is perfectly fine? Consoles gain their power advantage through low level implementation, not abstraction, and I'm sorry, but any abstraction is a hit to performance. Performance isn't pushed through abstraction, sloppy optimization is, and we all now how well poorly optimized games run on any system. That is essentially what you are saying is now OK.

[MasterCornholio]

@dont

Please don't talk about tech like a developer would if your not qualified to do so. Rainslacker has proven many times over that he is quite knowledgeable with programming, APIs and in general anything related to software development.

Let the real experts explain how development works. Many times Rainslacker manages to explain software development in a manner that's easy for unqualified people to understand. That's why I appreciate his knowledge because while I'm no software developer, his explanations makes it easy for people like me to understand the subject and that's something that I highly value.

Meanwhile your comments (and lack of knowledge on the subject) only confuse those who are not experts that want to learn more about it.

Please if your not qualified to talk about software development please don't. There are others like you who want to learn from experts instead of unqualified people.

[ThyMasterDebater]

DX12 has never been better then Vulkan or any openGL distro. DX12 is more user friendly in some aspects but I've always found vulkan to be a little more sweat for a lot more optomization, Maybe 10 to 15 years ago opengl was hard but now a days it's way more user friendly, The greatest part about it is if studios want to try to leverage or make their own tools with it, they can to leverage the system. Just remember that most playstation first party games use a form of opengl, some of the best looking games ever made for their time

The weird part about this site I find is.. most people don't actually understand what an API is or does and they just use marketing speak to explain why one is better then the other.. You really need to do some research to get a better understanding of what an api does to understand that it's more of an IO/Controller and interpreter than bringing more power. More optimization giving iterations of the tools for sure making room to use more resources for the engine but never more raw power, and api cannot provide more power, Hardware has it's limits and those limits determine the raw performance, Api interactions can only be used to try to hardness more of the power the hardware offers but will never allow the hardware to enhance past its theoretical threshold.

[rainslacker]

What I find, on here at least, is that most people that talk about it like they understand it, they seem to be talking about it from the point of view of library implementation, as opposed to interface implementation. When these kinds of articles crop up, or when people speak of game engines, or porting code, or things of that nature, they're speaking about interface implementation, and that is something that is completely lost on the non-programmer...and in many cases, programmers don't really understand interface implementation. Even some very astute PC techy people don't really understand the distinction, or even what it means or that it exists.

I also find that most people that speak about it authoritatively on here as some sort of godsend couldn't for the life of them define, much less explain what a protocol, interface, or library even is, or how they all relate to the development process to make things work on the software level, with even less understanding of how all those things relate to the hardware level.

[ThyMasterDebater]

Yep, Agreed. That's what I was getting at. The word directX 12 = more power, That's how it's chalked up. Maybe better optimization per iteration which might help push the game out the door a bit quicker. Might help you get a handle of some resources your recently could from the metal but yeah, Never will it exceed the limit of the hardware.

Another concept with hardware that is lost is theoretical performance vs real world. Basically these technologies are to harness more of the theoretical performance or resources to obtain closer to that point then what the currently real world state is, an api helps to do that but so does an engine or a framework as well all in tandem and of course Hyper-V interations. Strictly speaking from a hardware software relationship.

Most people should at least know what a protocol or an interface is if they are talking about technologies per say, Libraries is more of a programmer thing but yeah.. agreed.

[ILostMyMind]

A matter of time. Both APIs are new and people always first choose the most familiar things. DX12 API will be used more in the beginning. Now it is up to him to show that the option is more advantageous to use.

[rigo8582]

Id has always been about OpenGL. They can be the white knight all they want they still put their games in a directx wrapper when it comes to the xbox. Time is money, the devs are going to use what saves the most time and resources. I'm sure OpenGL would be used more if gaming on Macs and Linux wasn't such a small number when compared to Windows. For Id software doesn't hold the clout like they used to for me like they did in the 90s and early 2000s.

[uth11]

It's one thing if you are writing Windows exclusives, but nowadays devs have Mac, Linux, iOS, Android and PS to consider.

10 years ago gaming market on Linux was non-existent, now Steam has over 1000 games for it. Mac has more than doubled its marketshare in the same time period. Windows has less clout than it used to. To support all those platforms, you will benefit from cross platform development tools, and DX12 won't cut it.

[rainslacker]

OGL and Vulkan both run in Windows just fine. There isn't really much need for wrappers with newer GPU's. The reason there was a distinction between PC software is because the GPU's themselves were tailored to specific API's, however, now the API's are being tailored to certain levels of GCN, and for the most part, any card should be able to run either API without taking a hit on the performance.

Those DX and Vulkan branded GPU's will still exist, because there are still some things that are specific to each API, but for the most part, with Vulkan, it's not that hard to do one's own implementation of something that exists in DX. It's not quite as easy on the DX side of things, but still possible.

For devs making games that aren't exclusive to Windows platforms, Vulkan is likely to be much more attractive to them, because it requires less work optimizing Vulkan specific API processes for the porting process. If they start with DX, then there will be more work involved in writing their own interfaces to make sure any special processes they implemented within DX work on the other systems, and since DX is the less common API overall, it just makes more sense to start on OGL.

If a dev is only releasing on Windows and Xbox, then yeah, it makes more sense to go with DX, as it will require less work on both sides. But if they want to take that game anywhere else, it's not as practical, as there will be more ported code to have to be considered between more devices.

Nowadays though, so many tools exist to do this porting, that it's less of an issue, but Vulkan is still more go-to for the dev process than DX is despite DX being just as capable overall with it's own advantages.

[OpenGL]

Interesting that the Xbox One version of DirectX 12 isn't the same as on PC, although it kind of makes sense. Microsoft did the same thing with the 360 which used a custom version of DirectX 9 that was not the same as what was available in Windows.

[rainslacker]

I actually think the X1 version of DX is much better than the PC version. It has less abstraction, a better low level interface, and much more customization options than it's PC counter part. it's rendering pipeline is also highly tuned to the design of the XBox One, and is quite proficient, whereas the PC pipeline still has some overhead which can make it run slower with certain types of implementation. DX12 on PC is still a big step up in relation to prior versions though, and it brings things that should have been brought long ago.

[OpenGL]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is closer to the hardware than on PC given they only need to support the Xbox One's GCN based GPU. DirectX 12 on PC needs to support Nvidia and AMD GPUs.

[qwerty676]

Ey the way I see it, win 10 is already being heavily adapted.

Granted its free, but according to steam numbers, win10 has surpassed win7 users.

A year from now the number will be even greater.

[Herbalistic]

Microosoft knew what they were doing when decided to give Win10 free upgrades.

[Kurdishcurse]

Woow. These guys should start talking AFTER designing a competent engine, rather than a talentless mess of one. Doom still crashes on my pc and based on the articles and forums, its still a wide spread issue on top of a game code issue too. To add insult to injury the problems increased after the patch they got out about a week ago. Any dev associated with the technical failures that are bethesda should shut the hell up, and walk the walk 1st before talking the talk. Piss off with your nonsense.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

Doom is the most technically competent game I've played on my PS4 during the year I've had it. Now if you're talking strictly PC then my apologies.

[Timesplitter14]

Sorry but the new DOOM and its engine are a technical marvel. It looks and performs amazing

[rightway]

Is it not true AMD hardware is performing better with DX12? And why the hell would devs choose vulkan when devs are making games for console and PC. Dx12 is available on xbox and PC. Its just easier to go with DX12

[noksucow73]

They're very different. Dx12 can render at a set path, loading digital fields in , while scaling geometry , then pushing sec/ring files. Vulkan cannot. Both use frt.wte to access cpu though. ........................

I just made all that up just to sound smart. Lol

[hiredhelp]

Ok guys calm the beep dowm, the guy knows way more stuff we ever inow.
Hes a coder look at the twitter replys below also he works at ID.
What he sais is right again read the tweets below the article.
However even he knows dx12 will over shadow open scource sadly,unless you hit pc's in 90's you never understand this.

[joeorc]

Notice it says Appears to be the [PC] graphical Api of Choice, there is more computing platforms other than just PC...and in that point..in Mobile for instance, smartphone, Smart TV's , streaming box's it is Vulkan & Metal as Graphic Api's are the graphical Api's of Choice..not DirectX.

[Bobafret]

So now we are arguing over the tools used to make games. Are we really going to choose sides on this?

[feedthereaper]

Remember when Betamax was superior than VHS and much better for everyone, and nobody supported it.......... that!

[Ulf]

If Vulkan implementations are anything like OpenGL ES, its hardly a standard at all. That's the trouble with an "open" standard.. no one conforms 100%, which actually makes Vulkan development more bothersome than DX12.

[Perjoss]

Vulcan might not be the one to break ahead, but its really exciting that we are getting closer all the time to a good successful alternative to DX12. Eventually it would be great for MS to have competition and maybe even users have a solid choice and not have to use Windows or DX12.

[ScorpiusX]

Could be that they like it , feel comfortable using it . Either way its their call

[joeorc]

@feedthereaper1h ago
[Remember when Betamax was superior than VHS and much better for everyone, and nobody supported it.......... that]

That is not even close to the same thing..
Betamax was Sony only Format.
Vulkan is not just a single companies Graphics Api.
Vulkan is completely. an open Graphics API, it works on Windows OS, SteamOS, Linux, Android OS.

Now if you are talking about DirectX 12..well that is Proprietary and only Windows OS 10.

While Vulkan is not such..
So no in my opinion it is a far cry from the same thing.