4 ms·
It's not lower than Vulkan (Vulkan pretty much matches GPU functionality already). Lower would be GPU assembly or machine code. And older isn't the reason not
by shmerl 7y ago
It's not lower than Vulkan (Vulkan pretty much matches GPU functionality already). Lower would be GPU assembly or machine code.
And older isn't the reason not to offer Vulkan for developers. Nintendo managed to figure that out. So it's not "no", unless they are dumb and stuck in extreme lock-in mentality.
- pjmlp 7y agoOver 50% of games on the Switch use Unity, with the remaining ones using Unreal or in-house middleware built on top of NVN. Very few Switch titles actually use Vulkan. Just like GL ES 1.0 on the PS 1, it is more a box to tick than anything else.
- shmerl 7y agoIt doesn't matter what they use. We are talking about engines themselves here, like Godot. And they shouldn't be wasting time and resources working around lock-in stupidity. Offering Vulkan for developers is the right thing to do for every platform. I.e. targeting Switch for them aligns well with their current Vulkan work. Targeting PS or Xbox - not really, they'll need to rely on translation (like gfx-rs), if one even exists. I'm not sure if anyone implemented Vulkan → GNM translation yet.
- pjmlp 7y agoExcept that isn't what gets spoken about on GDC corridors, rather IP business opportunities.
- shmerl 7y agoEngine developers have clear needs that don't depend on what someone discusses in the "GDC corridors".
- pjmlp 7y agoEngine developers do whatever is required to turn the game designers ideas, and publishers, into a commercial IP success.
- shmerl 7y agoThe point was explained above, and you get it. Godot case demonstrates it more than clearly that having a common API is good for developers. You simply avoid admitting that lock-in is bad - all this talk about "IP" has no relevance to the issue.
- pjmlp 7y agoSo let me put this in another way, neither OpenGL or Vulkan are a common API, beyond the basic step of putting a triangle on the screen. Any production grade, cross-platform engine, has so many extensions and workarounds for drivers and cards, that each code path ends up looking like a different API is being used. They are common only on paper, write once, patch everywhere. In fact, if you want to use OpenGL in a way to avoid such mess, OpenGL 3.3 is probably still the best target to hope for, with all the constraints that it entails as legacy version. Just like on mobile devices, as Godot was forced to redo their engine, anything beyond OpenGL ES 2.0 is more headache than it is worth. Google has made Vulkan a required 3D API on Android, because most drivers outside flagship devices are unusable and they hope that via this option to force OEMs to actually provide something that developers can actually make use of. So much for "portable" APIs.
- shmerl 7y ago> So let me put this in another way, neither OpenGL or Vulkan are a common API OpenGL is legacy case, so no point in bringing it. Vulkan is the only common API, there is simply nothing else for that role. With all your talk about how "great" proprietary APIs are, none of them ever can be common, because they all are the total antithesis of it - their goal is lock-in in, not something that helps developers reduce their work duplication by providing the standard. So so much for "great IP". They are DOA basically in this sense, and exist only because walled garden owners force developers to use them by not providing them a choice. Your personal advocacy for lock-in is also more than questionable.