3 ms·

> Many AAA studios don't even develop for all platforms, rather target a main one, leaving the port to subcontractors. AAAs are one thing and are mostly based

by exDM69 13y ago

> Many AAA studios don't even develop for all platforms, rather target a main one, leaving the port to subcontractors. AAAs are one thing and are mostly based on engine technology that has been in development for years. For them D3D vs. OpenGL is a non-issue that was solved a decade ago. Or they stick to being Windows only. And they have the budget to port (or hire a subcontractor to port) one way or another. For indies, on the other hand, the most money these days is (probably, don't have any stats at hand) coming from Android and iOS, which both use OpenGL (ES). Using off the shelf game engines is a very popular option but a lot of developers roll their own tech.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Many studios use game engines that either abstract away the graphics API or at least greatly simplify it. Building your own AAA engine is quite expensive even if you have a lot of resources. OpenGL ES 2+ is more like DX10 and less like Open GL.
- exDM69 13y ago
  > Many studios use game engines that either abstract away the graphics API or at least greatly simplify it. Not only do they abstract away API details, perhaps even provide an api independence layer but they actually make the 3d magic hapen. OpenGL/D3D have no notion of "3d", there are no models, cameras, scenes, etc. > OpenGL ES 2+ is more like DX10 and less like Open GL. Not really. OpenGL ES is still like OpenGL. It's a subset of full OpenGL and does not fix the inherent design issues with the API. Feature-wise OpenGL ES 2 is like DX9 which is like OpenGL 2.1 sans the legacy crap. OpenGL 3 is comparable to D3D10 and OpenGL 4 to D3D11. OpenGL 2.x was the "big change" from the old fixed function pipeline to a programmable shader based pipeline, but nothing was removed or deprecated in order to provide an incremental porting path. OpenGL 3 actually deprecates some of the old features but does not change the API, only removes the old parts. But the API is still a horrible mess with a global state and weird side effects, even if a lot of stuff was removed. For the programmer, D3D is a lot nicer than OpenGL in many ways and that is unfortunately not going to change for the foreseeable future. OpenGL gets the job done but it's very uncomfortable to use.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    DX10 was noteworthy over DX9 in that it got rid of even emulated fixed functions and went pure programmable, which is why I compare it to OpenGL ES. Microsoft* seems to be much more eager about breaking backward compatibility between DX versions for the sake of cleanliness and performance, which is kind of ironic.... *(disclosure: my employer, but I don't work in this area)
kevingadd 13y ago
Your statement that the most money comes from Android and iOS is not really supported by the facts for a typical indie. F2P requires a lot of investment/luck and non-F2P on mobile is a steadily shrinking market. Many of the big indie successes are PC titles sold on Steam or console titles. I'm sure you can find some examples of mobile successes that brought in big money for a small indie studio, but I'd be shocked if you could find even half as many as you can if you look at PC and console. It's worth pointing out that desktop GL and mobile GL ES are pretty significantly different (extension support, API, compressed textures, etc), too.
- benzor 13y ago
  > F2P requires a lot of investment/luck and non-F2P on mobile is a steadily shrinking market. I've been an independent developer for a year now, and having just launched our first game I can really echo that this is how we feel about the App Store too. You can rank in the "top 100 highest grossing games" for a multitude of countries and still make absolutely no money on a F2P game... we've been there. And various articles back up this "winner takes all" vibe [1]. [1] http://www.whiteboardmag.com/the-one-percent-winner-take-all-web-positioning/ http://www.whiteboardmag.com/the-one-percent-winner-take-all...
RobLach 13y ago
Most successful indies worry even less about multi-platform support, and very few indie developers roll their own tech. A surprising amount of indie games start as GameMaker games requiring porting for any sort of proper commercial release. The more technically proficient indie developers hopped onto the Unity3D wagon given how that engine is general purpose enough for any type of project and had great support for indies early on. Subcontracting to a porting house is just as common if not more common for indies. If your game is successful on one platform a porting studio will be willing to work for a revenue percentage as indies are much more willing to give away significant percentages. Furthermore publishers are fairly willing to front the money for porting if you have a fully working game already designed and playable no matter what platform it was initially developed for. Indie games rarely push the computation and memory boundaries so porting isn't particularly difficult. The general case for Indie developers is develop for whatever you're most comfortable and worry about that other stuff once you actually have something worth worrying about. The cost of porting a game is pretty trivial if it's worth porting.
sliverstorm 13y ago
For indies, on the other hand, the most money these days is coming from Android and iOS I hope Android & iOS are not eating up all the revenue. Some of my favorite indie games fall under Microsoft Studios. Those obviously don't run on Android, and I hope the developers are getting the marketshare they deserve (IMO)

by exDM69 13y ago

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

Many studios use game engines that either abstract away the graphics API or at least greatly simplify it. Building your own AAA engine is quite expensive even if you have a lot of resources. OpenGL ES 2+ is more like DX10 and less like Open GL.

exDM69 13y ago
> Many studios use game engines that either abstract away the graphics API or at least greatly simplify it. Not only do they abstract away API details, perhaps even provide an api independence layer but they actually make the 3d magic hapen. OpenGL/D3D have no notion of "3d", there are no models, cameras, scenes, etc. > OpenGL ES 2+ is more like DX10 and less like Open GL. Not really. OpenGL ES is still like OpenGL. It's a subset of full OpenGL and does not fix the inherent design issues with the API. Feature-wise OpenGL ES 2 is like DX9 which is like OpenGL 2.1 sans the legacy crap. OpenGL 3 is comparable to D3D10 and OpenGL 4 to D3D11. OpenGL 2.x was the "big change" from the old fixed function pipeline to a programmable shader based pipeline, but nothing was removed or deprecated in order to provide an incremental porting path. OpenGL 3 actually deprecates some of the old features but does not change the API, only removes the old parts. But the API is still a horrible mess with a global state and weird side effects, even if a lot of stuff was removed. For the programmer, D3D is a lot nicer than OpenGL in many ways and that is unfortunately not going to change for the foreseeable future. OpenGL gets the job done but it's very uncomfortable to use.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  DX10 was noteworthy over DX9 in that it got rid of even emulated fixed functions and went pure programmable, which is why I compare it to OpenGL ES. Microsoft* seems to be much more eager about breaking backward compatibility between DX versions for the sake of cleanliness and performance, which is kind of ironic.... *(disclosure: my employer, but I don't work in this area)

kevingadd 13y ago

Your statement that the most money comes from Android and iOS is not really supported by the facts for a typical indie. F2P requires a lot of investment/luck and non-F2P on mobile is a steadily shrinking market. Many of the big indie successes are PC titles sold on Steam or console titles. I'm sure you can find some examples of mobile successes that brought in big money for a small indie studio, but I'd be shocked if you could find even half as many as you can if you look at PC and console. It's worth pointing out that desktop GL and mobile GL ES are pretty significantly different (extension support, API, compressed textures, etc), too.

benzor 13y ago
> F2P requires a lot of investment/luck and non-F2P on mobile is a steadily shrinking market. I've been an independent developer for a year now, and having just launched our first game I can really echo that this is how we feel about the App Store too. You can rank in the "top 100 highest grossing games" for a multitude of countries and still make absolutely no money on a F2P game... we've been there. And various articles back up this "winner takes all" vibe [1]. [1] http://www.whiteboardmag.com/the-one-percent-winner-take-all-web-positioning/ http://www.whiteboardmag.com/the-one-percent-winner-take-all...

RobLach 13y ago

Most successful indies worry even less about multi-platform support, and very few indie developers roll their own tech. A surprising amount of indie games start as GameMaker games requiring porting for any sort of proper commercial release. The more technically proficient indie developers hopped onto the Unity3D wagon given how that engine is general purpose enough for any type of project and had great support for indies early on. Subcontracting to a porting house is just as common if not more common for indies. If your game is successful on one platform a porting studio will be willing to work for a revenue percentage as indies are much more willing to give away significant percentages. Furthermore publishers are fairly willing to front the money for porting if you have a fully working game already designed and playable no matter what platform it was initially developed for. Indie games rarely push the computation and memory boundaries so porting isn't particularly difficult. The general case for Indie developers is develop for whatever you're most comfortable and worry about that other stuff once you actually have something worth worrying about. The cost of porting a game is pretty trivial if it's worth porting.

sliverstorm 13y ago

For indies, on the other hand, the most money these days is coming from Android and iOS I hope Android & iOS are not eating up all the revenue. Some of my favorite indie games fall under Microsoft Studios. Those obviously don't run on Android, and I hope the developers are getting the marketshare they deserve (IMO)