If DirectX died today, would you switch?

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Windows is still the dominant platform for PC gaming, without a question. There are games on MacOS and on Linux, but they are limited in number and usually ports of older (Windows) titles or indie. The main reason for this is DirectX, the pre-eminent API for games development.

Used in its own way on the XBox360 also, as well as an updated version on the XB1, its place of importance in development in 2 out of the 3 main "core" gaming platforms (4 if one includes Nintendo) means it has stood the test of time, even after Microsoft abandoned PC gaming for pastures new.

The other main competition to Direct3D is OpenGL, an open-specification API with moderate popularity, while Direct3D (as I understand it) is a wholly proprietary MS standard. So for PC gamers, we're left with most games being made with an API owned by a company that doesn't care about the platform. But we can't leave Windows for Linux because there isn't major development for it.

So would the death of Direct3D and a wholehearted embrace of a different API, OpenGL or something else, be enough? What is needed for us to be done with Windows? Is it remotely possible on a large scale? What could kill DirectX?

 

[Clowndoe]

OpenGL has problems because it's not properly supported by game-makers, card manufacturers and Microsoft. If OpenGL were endemic to Windows the way it is now then we'd be saying DX is crap. Purely based on performance, OpenGL has always been the better tech for being less of a resource-hog.

What would I need to consider switching? I would need the vast majority of my games to be easily compatible with Linux, and that's without Wine and whatnot. Although, I would dual-boot in a heartbeat if only one of my top 3 games were a good match.

 

[Conza]

Windows is still the dominant platform for PC gaming, without a question. There are games on MacOS and on Linux, but they are limited in number and usually ports of older (Windows) titles or indie. The main reason for this is DirectX, the pre-eminent API for games development.

Used in its own way on the XBox360 also, as well as an updated version on the XB1, its place of importance in development in 2 out of the 3 main "core" gaming platforms (4 if one includes Nintendo) means it has stood the test of time, even after Microsoft abandoned PC gaming for pastures new.

The other main competition to Direct3D is OpenGL, an open-specification API with moderate popularity, while Direct3D (as I understand it) is a wholly proprietary MS standard. So for PC gamers, we're left with most games being made with an API owned by a company that doesn't care about the platform. But we can't leave Windows for Linux because there isn't major development for it.

So would the death of Direct3D and a wholehearted embrace of a different API, OpenGL or something else, be enough? What is needed for us to be done with Windows? Is it remotely possible on a large scale? What could kill DirectX?

If memory serves, in the 90s(?) OpenGL and Direct3D were sort of concurrent, but basically D3D won, but I'd happily switch to OpenGL again. On games like Counter Strike: Condition Zero (probably just the original HL engine if I think about it), you could pick either depending on your Graphics card (or not depending, but you might pick one or the other if you were on an older/modern card that suppported one version over the other).

But then again, that might've just been for textures...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

If memory serves, in the 90s(?) OpenGL and Direct3D were sort of concurrent, but basically D3D won, but I'd happily switch to OpenGL again. On games like Counter Strike: Condition Zero (probably just the original HL engine if I think about it), you could pick either depending on your Graphics card (or not depending, but you might pick one or the other if you were on an older/modern card that suppported one version over the other).

But then again, that might've just been for textures...

You're right, the old 3dfx Voodoo cards used to run OpenGL and for a while in the late 90's it was arguably bigger and better supported than D3D. When 3dfx started losing ground to Ati and Nvidia cards the power balance between D3D and OpenGL changed and when 3dfx discontinued the Voodoo-series that was the final nail in the coffin for OpenGL as a big, mainstream API.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

So now we are just waiting for AMD's Mantle to break through and see what that brings with it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the API choice is not really down to the user, if a proper switch is made from one to another you would never notice a difference.

Sadly the change will need to come from hardware and software devs who have zero incentives to switch, the popular option right now is DX so everything else is just badly supported on all sides and anyone trying to go against that will just be fighting an uphill battle against the industries biggest conglomerates.
Bottom line right now is that MS doesn't want other peoples shit to work properly on their OS, Nvidia is constantly trying to enforce proprietary software portions into OpenGL, AMD instead of doing any proper support for years has just been making it's own API and deals with EA, and with Intel chips OpenGL usually just plain brakes... don't have to guess twice how much support comes from them.
Add all that up and the simple fact is comparatively OpenGL will run like shit on popular OS and hardware, so devs are left with little choice if they want to stay in the loop, which has been creating a catch 22 cascade for years (badly supported OpenGL make it less used then support drops again because devs don't use it).

And as a last note we do need to state the fact that DirectX and OpenGL are very different beasts, while DX is an API designed for gaming OpenGL is actually an engineers graphics acceleration API as it was first designed, so while DX by now combines almost all elements you need (graphics, sound, input, networking,...) OpenGL is strictly to make sure your polygons are put on screen at blistering speeds every other part you do on your own.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

From the sounds of it, the consensus seems to be that best alternative to D3D is not very good for either gamers or developers. That's a real shame. D3D's dominance is just frustrating in light of the fact that MS have no interest in PC gaming any more. A half-arsed "Games for Windows Live" initiative that failed categorically was their only contribution in the past few years. And yet we're still stuck with Windows.

How did MS manage to lockdown a platform they've had little interest in for years (from a gaming perspective)? And is there any set of circumstances that could break their grip on it?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

How did MS manage to lockdown a platform they've had little interest in for years (from a gaming perspective)? And is there any set of circumstances that could break their grip on it?

By having the most popular Operating System. Keep in mind that most gamers aren't of the incredibly tech-savvy variety, most gamers have, at best, a tenuous grasp of what's going on inside their tower or how their operating system works. When they buy a game they do so so that they can play it on their standard, pre-assembled PC and if something doesn't work they are at a loss. Since their PC is also multi-utility, being used for stuff like writing letters, browsing the web, storing pictures etc. they are going with the OS that's the most common and easy for them to use.

That's why Microsoft retains their grip, because i is far easier and safer to use D3D and get all the benefits of DX when developing a game, since you know that most of your potential customers will be using DX. As long as Windows is the, far and away, dominant OS you'll be seeing MS calling the shots.

 

[TelHybrid]

Let's see... if Linux could support all of my Adobe editing software, every single one of my PC games, Steam, Uplay, Origin (urgh... damn humble bundle), Microsoft office, all without any hassle, then yes I would switch.

 

[Alfador_VII]

Let's see... if Linux could support all of my Adobe editing software, every single one of my PC games, Steam, Uplay, Origin (urgh... damn humble bundle), Microsoft office, all without any hassle, then yes I would switch.

Yeah pretty much the same for me, except I've got less non-gaming stuff. I'd probably try SteamOS first as it seems like it would be the best fit.

Oh BTW, Open Office does everything MS Office does, in a free open source program that's available for several OSes

 

[Yopaz]

Let's see... if Linux could support all of my Adobe editing software, every single one of my PC games, Steam, Uplay, Origin (urgh... damn humble bundle), Microsoft office, all without any hassle, then yes I would switch.

Yeah pretty much the same for me, except I've got less non-gaming stuff. I'd probably try SteamOS first as it seems like it would be the best fit.

Oh BTW, Open Office does everything MS Office does, in a free open source program that's available for several OSes

I love openoffice for its formula editor, seriously that thing is DIVINE when you're going to be writing maths or chemistry, but it's quite incompatible with Microsoft Office. Things look great when you save them and even after you change the format, but when opened on a different computer that uses Microsoft Office things don't always look the same and some things disappear. This sucks if you're using it for assignments.

Use LaTeX for writing stuff.

OT: I'm with the masses here, Linux is neat and all, but it's still not a competitor against Windows.

 

[The Lugz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OpenGL_programs

knock yourself out some of the most popular games in existence are already natively opengl, it's a perfectly competent graphics environment for the average end user nothing of significance or note would come of this, and there's no way you'd ever know the difference without being told so don't worry about it!

 

[BrotherRool]

Games aren't really what's tying me to Windows, so I wouldn't switch. Apple in general doesn't coexist well with anyone whose ever had the word 'budget' in their life, and I would feel bad as a person if I wasted 200 pounds paying for a designer mark-up when there are reasonable alternatives I can make do with.

I would be open to Linux except I get the impression there's a bit of a HTFU, EVEish style culture around there. I have no interest in learning how my computer works (Unless it was to do something cool and creative) and as such I like as much pandering as possible in my OS'. Linux not having mainstream saturation means even if the OS' were created with the same amount of dumbing-downness, it will still lose out because software makers aren't targeting Linux as their primary source at the moment.


To break Windows you need 100% cross-compatibility, a completely intuitive interface that Windows users don't have to relearn and then either some massive marketing push with incentive to switching or a side market (like phones and tablets) that you push you're way through and branch out of. Or the fall of PCs. It's a network market like Facebook, Youtube or Steam, being the majority stakeholder inherently makes your product worth more regardless of quality.


I think DirectX is going to take serious hits though. Cross-compatibility is only getting bigger, Valve are pushing against it, middleware software like Unity is on the rise (that I believe doesn't use it). And Microsoft aren't really interested in fighting for it

 

[skywolfblue]

OpenGL would be a step forward (it's a good spec when people take it seriously, but GPU makers and game developers both slip up and rather lackadaisically support it), but it's not the only step that needs to be taken, the game app itself must be made differently for various platforms. A lot of developers just look at Linux/Mac and say "eh forget it", even when modern porting tools have made things much much easier in recent years.

But to answer your question, yes I would switch to gaming on Linux or Mac in a heartbeat.

 

[gorfias]

I can't bring myself to go MAC. I'd go Linux. I would still want the relatively inexpensive but powerful hardware that it can utilize.

 

[Doom972]

First of all, a discontinuation of Direct X doesn't retroactively make all my older games playable without it, and I frequently go back to my older games.

As for Windows vs Linux when Direct X isn't a concern - I still prefer Windows. I tried using Linux for a month (Mint specifically - It's basically Ubuntu but with a more Windows-like interface) and I can't say I recommend it. Other than booting much faster it doesn't seem to have an advantage over Windows. It's much less intuitive and most settings can only be changed through command line. Also, installing things that aren't in that distro's repository is a huge pain, and that means that most users will have to use outdated programs and drivers.

You'd think (I sure did) that these problems can be solved by reading a few forum posts on a Linux forum, but unfortunately they are very unfriendly to users new to Linux - getting an answer that's understandable to a newbie is almost impossible. I know that I can just learn how to use it properly by reading tutorials, but I really don't see why I should bother when I have good old Windows 7 which does everything I want it to do already.

So no, I'll stick to Windows thank you very much.

EDIT: It's worth mentioning that if I were to set up a server I'd go for Linux. I wouldn't even consider using Windows Server. Linux has its advantages.

 

[EHKOS]

I've had good results with OpenGL. I'd choose that. I use it over DirectX on Minecraft and it works wonders. I can't remember, but I think a few older PC games used it to great effect. But I most likely have no idea what I'm talking about at this point.