I don't get what you're trying to say. Vulkan needs nothing from MS it's purely a driver thing, as for MS using DX over it I guess Vulkan is far too new and DX is proven and something you control (I wouldn't bet my core platform tech on something done by a committee either, maybe once it's a defacto standard), meanwhile GL is garbage compared to it, talk a aout Balkanization, good luck writing dx11 level features that work across two GL drivers.
And you apparently represent those who profit from lock-in. Is that why you justify it all the time? Because no one would objectively do it. I never saw an engineer who said "lock-in is good, more lock-in please!". Those who do it, are backwards thinking managers like the one from this quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_...
No, I represente those that have real life experience in the industry, and don't care one little second about lock-in, because the industry learned to profit from it since the early 80's.
- game studios specializing in ports among hardware platforms
- consultants doing optimization work in specific APIs
- hardware platforms that offer an unique experience in terms of gameplay, due to their CPU and GPU architectures, that no portable 3D ever exposed, not even Vulkan (hence NVN on Switch)
- middleware engines that allow for portability, while providing access to all hardware features, with better debugging tools that so called portable APIs ever had
Your problema is that no one in the industry, the people that actually pay for tickets to attend GDC and similar conferences not weekend indie devs, don't see lock-in as a burden, rather as a way to make the game exclusive and sell their IP.
Which incidently is something I bet you also don't agree with, the way IP is managed throughtout the industry.
Once upon a time I did think like that, during my FOSS/GNU/Linux phase, then I had the opportunity to have a glimpse how the industry works from the inside, not how people think they should.
Are you aware that even Intel is not putting that much effort on their Vulkan drivers for Windows?
> No, I represente those that have real life experience in the industry, and don't care one little second about lock-in
An oxymoron. Those who care about the industry understand perfectly well, how lock-in is a problem for it. It's like saying that MS cared about the Web so much, that they pushed ActiveX, to benefit it.
Dan Baker (from Oxide) wrote[1] about problems of lock-in and need for portability in computer graphics. And don't try claiming he doesn't know about the industry, he is one of the creators of DirectX itself.
Oxide put their words in action, and were involved in Mantle creation, and naturally participate in the Vulkan working group.
> don't see lock-in as a burden, rather as a way to make the game exclusive and sell their IP. Which incidently is something I bet you also don't agree wit
Yes, I see exclusivity as a stinking practice. Why would creator want to exclude some users on purpose? Normal creator tries the opposite, to reach as many users as possible. Only backwards thinking legacy publishers don't do that. But they aren't equal to creators.
Also, normal creators don't call their art "IP". Just a hint for you, whom you really represent.
> Dan Baker (from Oxide) wrote[1] about problems of lock-in and need for portability in computer graphics. And don't try claiming he doesn't know about the industry, he is one of the creators of DirectX itself.
You mean the same one that a year later wrote about how cool it is that Oxide supports DX 12?
> You mean the same one that a year later wrote about how cool it is that Oxide supports DX 12?
The main point that you conveniently ignored in the link above was this:
> Oxide has a strong interest in supporting platforms
> beyond Windows. Our hope is that Mantle will be a call
> to arms to bring an industrial-strength API to such
> platforms as SteamOS, Linux, Android and MacOS. The
> biggest problem for us moving to other platforms is the
> relative weakness of the graphics software on the
> platforms. Added to this is that we yet have no word on
> whether we can have D3D12 on Windows 7. From a business
> standpoint, it makes little sense to rely exclusively on
> Microsoft doing the right thing.
You of course would pretend he didn't mean that. But he did, and he spoke about Vulkan quite a number of times.
Vulkan came out when exactly? Yes, February 2016. So he couldn't have spoken about implementation of WIP API in their own engine until then. But he spoke about Vulkan design itself around that time, like "Going Wide: Vulkan and Many Threads". See https://www.khronos.org/assets/uploads/developers/library/20...
See others in that presentation talking about the need for common standard. And again, don't try to claim they aren't representing the industry - all those people undeniably are representing it.
> As I said, you don't get how the industry works.
The "industry" you have in your mind doesn't represent creators, but backwards thinking legacy players like MS who profit from lock-in. They aren't moving the industry forward. You made it clear whom you support.
