Why everyone keep using DirectX?

[Amadren]

I've seen on many reviews and website that OpenGL was faster, better looking and cross compatible. So why everyone keep using DirectX if OpenGL> DirectX? OpenGL would open your game to a wider market nope?

I posted it in GOG (thread: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/why_everyone_keep_using_directx/page1) and it was an epic battle. I don't want to make a fight with pro DX vs pro GL. Please don't troll/feed and keep being polite to keep this thread clean not like the other one

The main questions is: Why do the big studios keep using DX?

Please don't make off topic :c

 

[VinsCool]

From what I could see, both has their advantages and their defaults. None is better than another. Go with preference, compatibility, rig, etc. Any detail is important.

 

[Amadren]

I even read it on pro windows website. It **may** have better overall performances. Also Mantle in BF4 proved it :/ But you can't really find some good/neutral comparisons. OpenGL is almost never used for big studios video games. And with the upcoming Steam machines, why do they keep using DX?

 

[VinsCool]

I even read it on pro windows website. It **may** have better overall performances. Also Mantle in BF4 proved it :/ But you can't really find some good/neutral comparisons. OpenGL is almost never used for big studios video games. And with the upcoming Steam machines, why do they keep using DX?

DX is windows targeted. The new version of it should be a lot better too. But, we'll know in time
OpenGL is portable, so it might be better, compatibility-wise. As long stuff gets compatible with drivers, video cards of all kind, it's fine, I guess.

 

[Amadren]

So both are great but it doesn't answer my question :c Why do the big studios keep using DX? Even valve is making a -native- OpenGL version of L4D2 for both Windows, Linux and Mac. I think they just didn't came here and said "Hey gabe, know what? -What? -I found a way to delay HL3! - SRSLY? - Yeah, tell gamers that GL>DX then make a native version of L4D2 -OMG YOU'RE A GENIUS"

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

DirectX is simply better documented and "easier" to learn than OpenGL was, especially back in the day when OpenGL first came around. Originally, OpenGL was a straight up mess until the last couple years, with so much garbage and fragmentation that DirectX was simply the better API to work with all around. Both have their flaws and advantages, so it's difficult to say which is truly "better".

While OpenGL might seem to be the "faster" or "better" of the two APIs, it's still considered more convoluted and difficult than DirectX is (most likely because everyone and their grandma has stuck with DirectX for so long). Not to mention DirectX doesn't just include graphics, but audio and input as well which makes it easier to implement for game development. Game devs don't use OpenGL because the time and effort possibly involved wouldn't be worth the outcome. But you also have the fact that DirectX 12 is a massive overhaul of DirectX period, it could completely blow the current OpenGL API out of the water in terms of performance, so that might not even be a factor.

Mutli-platform is a rather moot point, though, since a majority of big dev PC games are, y'know, made with PC gaming in mind. Guess which OS happens to take up practically 90%+ of the PC Gaming market? It only makes sense to keep working with an API practically all of your previous games were built on and nearly all of your consumers user.

But, with Linux "gaming" and SteamOS sort of becoming actual things (at a snails pace, albeit, but quicker than originally thought), some AAA developers have been porting their games over to OpenGL, and the massive influx of indie titles nearly always makes use of OpenGL, too, for better cross platform support.

There's also the non-gaming aspect of it, as well. OpenGL is much more common in graphics designers and CADs compared to DirectX. OpenGL was more suited to professional graphics than it was gaming, whereas DirectX was the opposite and both were generally marketed that way.


You also mention Mantle, which I think is funny, because AMD basically abandoned Mantle as soon as they realized nobody would ever use it cuz the world is using DirectX Though it has nothing to do with OpenGL besides the fact it's a third alternative, so not sure why you brought it up at all lol. Vulkan will probably follow suit

 

[grossaffe]

Microsoft scared people into using DirectX with their Fear Uncertainty and Doubt campaign during the transition period of one of the OSes (transition to XP?) saying that OpenGL would have to run on top of DirectX therefore be slower. This gave them the jolt of developers working with DirectX and creates a big Positive Feedback Loop where developers already working with DirectX will continue to do so because it's what they know, and new developers jump in and work with DirectX because that's what everybody is using.

 

[Amadren]

@Tom Bombadildo Thanks for your precise answer but AMD didn't abandon Mantle, they sold it to Khronos and they made Vulkan with it. ^^ Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2894...ises-from-the-ashes-as-opengls-successor.html <- You can even see that M$ copied some features from Mantle (in some website you can see the comparison of both documentations, if you see them, you'll remark that M$ copied/pasted most of Vulkan's API)

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

@Tom Bombadildo Thanks for your precise answer but AMD didn't abandon Mantle, they sold it to Khronos and they made Vulkan with it. ^^ Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2894...ises-from-the-ashes-as-opengls-successor.html <- You can even see that M$ copied some features from Mantle (in some website you can see the comparison of both documentations, if you see them, you'll remark that M$ copied/pasted most of Vulkan's API)

I'm sorry, but no, Microsoft didn't "copy paste most of Vulkan's API", let alone any of Mantle's, they simply use the same idea for low-level implementation. That's practically where the comparison starts and stops. Anyone who says any different either doesn't know what they're talking about, or has some weird anti-Microsoft boner they like to stroke from time to time.

And yes, AMD did abandon Mantle and they didn't "sell" it to Khronos, Khronos is just building off of Mantle parts with their API. And, as with OpenGL and Mantle, I believe Vulkan will follow the same exact path and never truly "compete" with DirectX, at least not in any large scope, unless it has some magically insane performance boosts that are impossible to ignore.

 

[Amadren]

The API is a lie :o http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...rectx-12-will-imitate-and-destroy-amds-mantle

Also I have no opinion about it, I just read those things on a lot of forums/blogs :c