This feature to be implemented in version 702.

This isn't entirely a surprise considering his recent history but heh.

Speaking to bit-tech for a forthcoming Custom PC feature about the future of OpenGL in PC gaming, Carmack said 'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'

If only more devs would go higher than dx9 so I could actually friggin alt tab


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 12, 2011

The way I see it, developers will start making for DX11 when new consoles come out and use that. Then it will become the norm that games use that, and people who don't have compatible hardware or OS will have to upgrade.

 

Also, it's not 56% using 10. You guys suck at reading graphs. There's 78.72% using DX10 or higher, with only 16.04% using DX9.

That means they'd have to increase sales by about 20% to make it worth it. That's still a lot, and it's not counting the additional production costs involved in making the higher-level graphics, just the loss from excluding part of the market.

on Mar 12, 2011

Darvin3

Uh... 56% is a very bad number.  You're talking about throwing away half your potential market by developing for DX10 exclusively.  You'd have to double your sales with the remaining market in order for this to pay off, which is highly unlikely.

Who said exclusively?  I can assure you very few of these lack in DX9 support.  (Just Cause 2 being the only one that matters that does.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support

on Mar 13, 2011

The downside of the best gamingsystem there is, having games developed to run on outdated crap!

 

Like Stardock deciding on Shader Model 2.0(!) when every gamer worth his salt got ATLEST Shader Model 3.0!   Myself I got a GTX 570 which supports Shader Model 5.0. (Good luck with seeing any SM 5.0 effects for a few years though!)

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Why haven't there been a video by Stardock that shows off Shader Model 4.0 ? (which they said Elemental would support)

 

That also reminds me of brad saying that support for DirectX 11 has to wait until 2015 (which is when enough people will have FINALLY upgraded to DirectX 11!)

 

 

About the Steam surveys, they say it's optional but I can't find where to opt-in. I need to get in so the % for Win7 64bit, GTX 570 and 4GB RAM incrreases. The 2nd most popular graphics chipset is 8800    It's my previous chipset though so I believe those who have it will upgrade soon (they better!)

on Mar 13, 2011

I asked Steam support about it and he said the survey only actually runs once a year, which would be really weird.

Would explain why the numbers rarely change though.

on Mar 14, 2011

But the numbers are updated every MONTH!

on Mar 14, 2011

And yet, inexplicably for several months it's said 56% for DX10 users.

I think it used to be monthly but they changed it.

on Mar 15, 2011

I know at least one of my games that can switch up to DX10 or higher, and I have a video card which is capable.  What I don't have is the operating system which supports the API.  Given the price of buying a new operating system, and the cost of the extra stick of RAM I will need to avoid degrading performance, it doesn't make any sense to upgrade at this time.

on Mar 16, 2011

Making the

Darvin3


Uh... 56% is a very bad number.  You're talking about throwing away half your potential market by developing for DX10 exclusively.  You'd have to double your sales with the remaining market in order for this to pay off, which is highly unlikely.

This is really straightforward: in order for it to be worthwhile developing a DX10 game, the increase in sales from the higher-quality product must exceed the lost sales from people whose systems cannot run the game.  For most games, that probably means DX10 won't be viable until market penetration gets up into the high 80's.

When it happens, it's going to be all at once, as the remaining DX9 holdout users upgrade en-mass.  Until developers see it as a worthwhile investment, however, it's really easy to remain a DX9 holdout and so the transition is going to be delayed.

However, the graphics cards that support DX10 are less fragmented and therefore cheaper to  support. And it particularly makes sense to more on when the developer is creating a new engine anyways (say to support 64-bits and/or multithreading) and they plan on using it for some time to come. If they still feel enough people use DX9 to be worth supporting, the DX11 API provides the means to be compable with it (though they would have to dump Windows XP users).

on Mar 16, 2011

Its pretty safe to write off the DX9 market. If they haven't upgraded to 7/vista and a DX11/10 card by now then like shit you are going to be able to sell a game to them. Battlefield 3 will pave the way.

on Mar 17, 2011

kentsfield
Its pretty safe to write off the DX9 market. If they haven't upgraded to 7/vista and a DX11/10 card by now then like shit you are going to be able to sell a game to them. Battlefield 3 will pave the way.

Stardock makes games on a limited budget with nowhere near the graphical fidelity of your average FPS.  If Stardock were to write off the DX9 market they'd probably die.

Valve has yet to make a DX10 game, and they have practically unlimited resources.

on Mar 18, 2011




Quoting kentsfield,
reply 24
Its pretty safe to write off the DX9 market. If they haven't upgraded to 7/vista and a DX11/10 card by now then like shit you are going to be able to sell a game to them. Battlefield 3 will pave the way.



Stardock makes games on a limited budget with nowhere near the graphical fidelity of your average FPS.  If Stardock were to write off the DX9 market they'd probably die.

Valve has yet to make a DX10 game, and they have practically unlimited resources.

 

They have yet to make a game, period. It's been years since their last game, they only buy out hl2 mods and put a $50 tag on them nowadays. Their old source engine cannot do DX10 too.

on Mar 18, 2011

Hmm....I want to disagree with that as I'm not sure it's accurate, and yet I can't.    I wonder if Portal 2 will be any different.  I'm not willing to buy it until I actually know.

on Mar 19, 2011

Campaigner

Like Stardock deciding on Shader Model 2.0(!) when every gamer worth his salt got ATLEST Shader Model 3.0!   Myself I got a GTX 570 which supports Shader Model 5.0. (Good luck with seeing any SM 5.0 effects for a few years though!)

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Why haven't there been a video by Stardock that shows off Shader Model 4.0 ? (which they said Elemental would support)

Of all the thing Stardock said Elemental would support which it doesn't, the shader model hardly seems worth attention. What would the game really get out of it anyway? There needs to be a reason to use some of this stuff given how relatively few computers have access to it, and with Elemental's graphics I'm not sure you'd get anything out of it.

The thing I'm liking in Steam's numbers is that 64 bit and multicore are becoming the norm. As we see games taking more advantage of those, we'll see some nice things happening.

 

2 Pages1 2