APIs such as DirectX or Metal receive just as much or more input from developers, albeit mostly through back channels or explicit reach out by Microsoft, Apple, etc.
As far as participating in the design of the standard, are you really saying you'd want everyone and their mother to have their word? I think it's best to leave this to GPU vendors and engine implementers, as they're the ones who know how it can work.
So lets see how Vulkan will improve it.
I am guess you're not a game developer and your post is yet another case of [1].
I am a game dev and here are some links that show to non game devs why DirectX is more popular:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2711231
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html
[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/linus-...
That's exactly what Vulkan is. So where is MS voicing their support?
> I am a game dev
So did you ask MS why they didn't join Vulkan working group?
And I'm not sure what was your point in those links about OpenGL. We are talking about Vulkan.
Edit: The below blog redirects HN referrers to a funny image macro, copy paste the link instead.
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/i-have-ported-xscreensaver-...
The delayed spec hasn't even been released yet and Nvidia is already making Vulkan extensions on its own.
It can. Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone. Depends on how it's done. Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL. I guess we'll see more once it's released. Either way, what's the alternative? There is none, unless of course you work for MS and envision them controlling everything.
Just MS alone? DirectX helps hundreds of millions of gamers, a whole bunch of game and application developers and companies.
That's like saying improvements to the Linux kernel help only the Linux kernel.
>Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL
Huh, how do you see that? The spec is developed behind closed doors by corporate folks each with their own interests. Even the W3C holds open discussions with specs.
A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.
Yes. How can you use DirectX on non MS platforms? If MS wanted to help someone besides themselves, you could answer that question in a satisfactory fashion. But of course, they don't care about it, they only care about lock-in. Trying to pretend that lock-in serves anyone besides those who push for such lock-in is highly disingenuous.
> Huh, how do you see that?
From what was published about it so far (origin in Mantle, collaborative input of those who know better and so on).
> A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.
Linux community was involved. In fact the main link in this post is from one of the contributors to Wayland and Mesa who was working on Vulkan.
Linux is basically irrelevant to game developers.
Other folks have been nice, but let's just be clear here. Linux's graphics story is a stupid joke, the driver story is a stupid joke, the 3D story by way of OpenGL is a stupid joke, audio is a stupid joke.
That's why it doesn't matter if you can only use DirectCX on MS platforms--because by reaching only that teensy tiny vast majority of installed computers, devs can do well.
MS has always treated their developers better than anything in the 'nix or BSD ecosystem, and that extends to better thought-out and implemented APIs.
Sorry, but that's the world we live in, and in reality there is little point in MS worrying about a non-DX API--and little point in supporting one if you're making games for PC.
Sounds like a quote form early 2000s. We are long since past that. If you didn't pay attention to the last few years - then may be research what's going on now.
> That's why it doesn't matter if you can only use DirectCX on MS platforms
It does matter. Lock-in forces developers to do double work. I.e. if they can't reuse the effort - they need to duplicate it. To put it differently - MS on purpose increases the cost of making cross platform games. Obviously for the reason of putting competing platforms at a disadvantage. How can any developer find such behavior beneficial is hard to understand. All normal developers have no respect for lock-in.
> MS has always treated their developers better than anything
Oh, really? Forcing people to do double work is not called treating you better. It's called being a jerk. And jerks they are, same as anyone who uses tools for lock-in purposes (instead of for what they should be - tools).
How exactly did you read that into my words? I said those who force people to do double work are jerks. I.e. those who create and enforce lock-in (MS and their ilk). Why would developers who have no option but to do that double work be jerks? It wasn't their decision and they have no control over those who create those walled gardens and lock-in.
Practice of lock-in doesn't go to "industry roots". It goes to those jerks who don't care about the industry and want to make life harder for developers by making tooling useless outside given walled gardens. Their selfish and stupid idea is based on assumption that the harder and more costly it is for anyone to do the work (because of duplication), the less likely they'll do it, thus sticking only to the walled garden they initially focused on. I.e. their usual exclusivity idea. Remember browser lock-in? Same idea here. It has nothing to do with the industry - it's all about jerkiness of those who make the tools and control the market.
How can you use GX on non Nintendo platforms?
So why is NVidia already providing extensions before it even gets out of the door?
Welcome to the multiple code paths that any OpenGL game developer already suffers from.
Everything old is new again.
Or for that matter where are the Vulkan implementations for Sony and Nintendo consoles?
Being a logo on a web site has zero value besides PR, if they don't bring out support to their devices.
So how are they again different from MS?
Who knows. Being part of the working group might mean they are considering it. Or may be not. MS though lets everyone know now that they don't care (by not being part of the group).
> So how are they again different from MS?
They are pretty similar in many (bad) ways, including the issue of lock-in. Apple is probably even worse these days.