4 ms·

I'm failing to see how that sabotages Vulkan. As far as I know, Vulkan has only recently reached 1.0, and nVidia JUST started supporting it. Until recently, th

I'm failing to see how that sabotages Vulkan. As far as I know, Vulkan has only recently reached 1.0, and nVidia JUST started supporting it. Until recently, there was nothing to support. Your entire complaint is that developers have to do more work if they want to support multiple platforms, which has always been the case. I don't recall the original Final Fantasy getting released on the Sega Genesis. There's never going to be a magical catch-all graphics API because technologies like Metal and DirectX take advantage of known hardware specs and OS features to make the games look good and run fast.

shmerl 11y ago
> I'm failing to see how that sabotages Vulkan. In order for cross platform solution to offer value of avoiding duplicate work, it should be really cross platform. MS prevents prevents it by not supporting it on Xbox. > which has always been the case Exactly because of such lock-in. > technologies like Metal and DirectX take advantage of known hardware specs and OS features Let's not try pretending that MS and Apple do it for any technical reasons. There are none.
- coldtea 11y ago
  I think you just blindly champion Vulkan, an unproven and not read for primetime technology. The two largest platforms, MS and Apple have their own stacks, Metal and DX12. And they have been maintaining those from years, especially DX12 which comes from decades of DX development. They should throw all this away (and lose any competitive advantage for their platform in the process) just because there's finally a competent new stack (that's not even ready yet)? >Let's not try pretending that MS and Apple do it for any technical reasons. There are none. Would wanting to offer the best possible experience for your platform, to control how and when any new feature is implemented according to your long term plans, and to not mess with lower-common-denominator cross-platform design-by-committee APIs counts as a "technical reason"? Let's not pretend you ask for this for any technical reason. It's all about developer convenience at best.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > I think you just blindly champion Vulkan, an unproven and not read for primetime technology. It's the only cross platform solution. So yes, it should be pushed forward to make it work. It's not a "blind" push - it's the only reasonable thing out there. Neither Metal nor DX12 plan to do anything comparable. Petty greed of Apple and MS prevents them.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      What you are asking for may become a reality, but Vulkan is not something that any reasonable primetime product should have even considered trying to support until what, like... was it 2 months ago now or not yet? The XBox is not a tech test platform. Neither are the mobile handsets. Claiming this reality amounts to "sabotage" is somewhat absurd.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > Claiming this reality amounts to "sabotage" is somewhat absurd. It's not. MS is not new to sabotaging portability. Learn from history.
        KirinDave 11y ago
        I could use that exact logic to point to many other disingenuous working groups and say Vulkan is an attempt to create a new lock-in scheme under the guise of an open technology. It wouldn't be the first time. "Learn from history."
        shmerl 11y ago
        How exactly is it lock-in if unlike MS it's cross platform and cross hardware? Just saying "it's the same logic" doesn't make it the same when it contradicts the facts.
        coldtea 11y ago
- Delmania 11y ago
  >In order for cross platform solution to offer value of avoiding duplicate work, it should be really cross platform. MS prevents prevents it by not supporting it on Xbox. Vulkan doesn't need to be cross platform because there are tools like Unity which abstract away the graphics API and let developers target a number of platforms. However, you are lodging a complaint against Microsoft that has been the case for every console device since the first ones were released. However, that being said, not supporting Vulkan on the XBox harms Microsoft more than Vulkan since all that means is some games will not be available on the XBox. Just like there are XBox games that are not available on the PS4, the PC, or the Wii U. There's nothing Microsoft is doing that's out of line with the rest of the console makers. It's the console industry in general.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > Vulkan doesn't need to be cross platform because there are tools like Unity which abstract away the graphics API and let developers target a number of platforms. Unity developers will be doing that double work in such case. And not everyone is using third party engines anyway. Don't think that if something is abstracted, it somehow magically happens for free.
    - Delmania 11y ago
      > Unity developers will be doing that double work in such case. I'm pretty sure they're well paid for the efforts.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > I'm pretty sure they're well paid for the efforts. And that cost is passed along the way reaching those who use it including end users ;) Someone will feel the tax.

shmerl 11y ago

> I'm failing to see how that sabotages Vulkan. In order for cross platform solution to offer value of avoiding duplicate work, it should be really cross platform. MS prevents prevents it by not supporting it on Xbox. > which has always been the case Exactly because of such lock-in. > technologies like Metal and DirectX take advantage of known hardware specs and OS features Let's not try pretending that MS and Apple do it for any technical reasons. There are none.

coldtea 11y ago
I think you just blindly champion Vulkan, an unproven and not read for primetime technology. The two largest platforms, MS and Apple have their own stacks, Metal and DX12. And they have been maintaining those from years, especially DX12 which comes from decades of DX development. They should throw all this away (and lose any competitive advantage for their platform in the process) just because there's finally a competent new stack (that's not even ready yet)? >Let's not try pretending that MS and Apple do it for any technical reasons. There are none. Would wanting to offer the best possible experience for your platform, to control how and when any new feature is implemented according to your long term plans, and to not mess with lower-common-denominator cross-platform design-by-committee APIs counts as a "technical reason"? Let's not pretend you ask for this for any technical reason. It's all about developer convenience at best.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > I think you just blindly champion Vulkan, an unproven and not read for primetime technology. It's the only cross platform solution. So yes, it should be pushed forward to make it work. It's not a "blind" push - it's the only reasonable thing out there. Neither Metal nor DX12 plan to do anything comparable. Petty greed of Apple and MS prevents them.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    What you are asking for may become a reality, but Vulkan is not something that any reasonable primetime product should have even considered trying to support until what, like... was it 2 months ago now or not yet? The XBox is not a tech test platform. Neither are the mobile handsets. Claiming this reality amounts to "sabotage" is somewhat absurd.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > Claiming this reality amounts to "sabotage" is somewhat absurd. It's not. MS is not new to sabotaging portability. Learn from history.
      - KirinDave 11y ago
        I could use that exact logic to point to many other disingenuous working groups and say Vulkan is an attempt to create a new lock-in scheme under the guise of an open technology. It wouldn't be the first time. "Learn from history."
        shmerl 11y ago
        How exactly is it lock-in if unlike MS it's cross platform and cross hardware? Just saying "it's the same logic" doesn't make it the same when it contradicts the facts.
        coldtea 11y ago
Delmania 11y ago
>In order for cross platform solution to offer value of avoiding duplicate work, it should be really cross platform. MS prevents prevents it by not supporting it on Xbox. Vulkan doesn't need to be cross platform because there are tools like Unity which abstract away the graphics API and let developers target a number of platforms. However, you are lodging a complaint against Microsoft that has been the case for every console device since the first ones were released. However, that being said, not supporting Vulkan on the XBox harms Microsoft more than Vulkan since all that means is some games will not be available on the XBox. Just like there are XBox games that are not available on the PS4, the PC, or the Wii U. There's nothing Microsoft is doing that's out of line with the rest of the console makers. It's the console industry in general.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > Vulkan doesn't need to be cross platform because there are tools like Unity which abstract away the graphics API and let developers target a number of platforms. Unity developers will be doing that double work in such case. And not everyone is using third party engines anyway. Don't think that if something is abstracted, it somehow magically happens for free.
  - Delmania 11y ago
    > Unity developers will be doing that double work in such case. I'm pretty sure they're well paid for the efforts.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > I'm pretty sure they're well paid for the efforts. And that cost is passed along the way reaching those who use it including end users ;) Someone will feel the tax.