Valve's Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista only was a big mistake

[jahrain]

According to an online survey by Valve Software, only one in fifty players who access download service Steam has a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card and Windows Vista installed. In an interview with heise online, Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only and excluding Windows XP. He said this decision affected the whole industry as so far only a very small percentage of players can use DirectX 10.

When developing cross-platform games which are also released for Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, developers look for the smallest common denominator. And since neither Microsoft's nor Sony's new consoles support Shader Model 4.0 for DirectX 10, only few games use it, he said.

In addition, Newell bemoaned the increasing lack of input device diversity in PC gaming culture. He would like to see controllers like the Wiimote or the Guitar Hero guitar, but since DirectX support for devices like these had increasingly been reduced over the last few years, developers didn't dare implement these expensive innovations.

The Half-Life 2 Orange Box, which will be released for PC and Xbox 360 on 12. October, uses DirectX 10 functionality only for accelerating some mimics. Visually, however, it was virtually impossible to differentiate between the versions. The PS3 edition is being developed by an EA studio and is scheduled for release two to three weeks later.

The game will already be available from download service Steam on 10. October. Newell said the later release date for the retail editions was requested by the retailers. Retailers also didn't want different versions, resulting in the release of a complete package containing Half-Life 2, Episode 1, Episode 2, Portal and Team Fortress. Even before the release date, Valve will announce additional bundles for Steam so that existing Half-Life 2 users don't have to buy a second copy of the game.

The source engine was expanded for Episode 2. A special alpha blend mode generates smoother anti-aliasing edges. In addition, the demo version exhibits new distortion effects and soft shadows. The Orange Box console versions will also apply the new engine features, including high dynamic range rendering and multi core support, to the main game. The PC main game was not revised. Half-Life 2 runs at a resolution of 720p (1280 x 720 pixels) on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869

[et_cg]

Man, with all these horrible steps Microsoft is taking, it does affect the industry more in the now... but all we can do is wait and see what trend picks up.

[Tweek]

yep, a new (semi)next-gen game we just started devepopement in, is fully DX9-based, purely because of this stuff.

theres no point in making a dx-10 game, if barely anyone is even able to play it.

[n00b1n8R]

shit guys, games may go over to macs if M$ keeps being M$ :X

[jahrain]

There will be no mass movement to OSX until Apple gets enough sense and decides to make OSX able to run on non apple computers.

However, I do predict that there may be a mass movement of developers to OpenGL as it is capable of doing most of what DX10 can do, and is still growing and still widely supported unlike DX9 which is no longer supported or in growing development. Plus, the movement to OpenGL makes cross platform porting to other OSs such as Mac and Linux, and even the PS3 much more possible as apposed to the "windows vista only lock-in" effect that developing for DX10 has. Right now, spending time and money on developing for DX10 is an extremely high risk at this stage and perhaps within the next 2 years or so, especially if developing for DX10 exclusively, which makes developing on OpenGL or even good ol' DX9 a smarter business decision. However, this is microsoft, who has the money to bribe their way into a desired future if they want to. The trade-offs in dx10 exclusive enhancements in games compared to OpenGL or DX9 is no where worth that risk in my opinion.

[Kornman00]

Right, seeing as how the OS isn't even a year old yet.

Mass movement to OpenGL? You're funny jahrain.

Who needs OSX to run on non apple computers when you can just install windows on a sexy Mac(Book) Pro? Silly :bandwagon:s

[Atty]

What a terrible post Random, I would have guessed you'd have better sense then to post something as ridiculous as that.

[Random]

What a terrible post Random, I would have guessed you'd have better sense then to post something as ridiculous as that.
What? We were talking about the differences between DX9 and DX10 and jahrain brought up opengl so I posted a comparison.

[Atty]

Its the terrible job the comparison does at comparing them that I'm complaining about.

HAY LETS USE PRE-RENDERED, APLHA FOOTAGE, AND VIDEO SCREEN SHOTS TO ACCURATELY SHOW HOW OPENGL AND DX9/10 COMPARE111 hurrrrrrrrrrrr

[Kornman00]

I love you atty. Why won't you marry mez :saddowns:

[Zeph]

:( My post disappeared.

I basically said people thinking that are jumping the gun. The solution has been out for less than a year. It's ridiculous to expect the adoption rate of enthusiast solutions to be in the mainstream market to be higher than what it is. Some people might be willing to dump hundreds of dollars onto new high end video cards, but for the typical gamer who maxes out their computer by running medium settings at 800x600.

Directx 9 wasn't adopted for PC ridiculously fast, DX10 wont either. Some people think that 6100 on the shelf at Wal Mart is a beast.

[Amit]

LOL you can get better integrated graphics. Maybe you're right Zeph.

[legionaire45]

:( My post disappeared.

I basically said people thinking that are jumping the gun. The solution has been out for less than a year. It's ridiculous to expect the adoption rate of enthusiast solutions to be in the mainstream market to be higher than what it is. Some people might be willing to dump hundreds of dollars onto new high end video cards, but for the typical gamer who maxes out their computer by running medium settings at 800x600.

Directx 9 wasn't adopted for PC ridiculously fast, DX10 wont either. Some people think that 6100 on the shelf at Wal Mart is a beast.
Except (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127296) there (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127299) are (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127285) mainstream (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102699) solutions (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125074).

The problem is that not many people want to adopt Vista at the moment, which is slowing the adoption of DX10. Hence why no one is developing for it. As stated, the problem could easily be soothed at least by porting DX10 to XP. Whether that is possible or not, I don't know.

Also, that 7th picture does Crysex no justice D=.

[Zeph]

Mainstream != current generation mid-range cards.

[Phopojijo]

Except (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127296) there (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127299) are (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127285) mainstream (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102699) solutions (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125074).

The problem is that not many people want to adopt Vista at the moment, which is slowing the adoption of DX10. Hence why no one is developing for it. As stated, the problem could easily be soothed at least by porting DX10 to XP. Whether that is possible or not, I don't know.

Also, that 7th picture does Crysex no justice D=.Mainstream cost -- yes. However, that would assume that someone would actually want to get their PC built for them by someone with access to the parts; Dell and Compaq are not supplying those parts yet to "mainstream" computers.

However... I admit I am very unbiased against Gabe Newell... but he said a lot of things.

I honestly believe that the sourcecode that was "destroyed by a hacker (and fan apparently... which makes it even less sensible)" was flagged to be rewritten anyway.

Gabe-oh definitely is not high on my list of trusted game developer sources.

[jahrain]

The problem is that not many people want to adopt Vista at the moment, which is slowing the adoption of DX10. Hence why no one is developing for it. As stated, the problem could easily be soothed at least by porting DX10 to XP. Whether that is possible or not, I don't know.
Actually, now that video memory virtualization (the dx10 feature that would require a massive OS overhaul to get it working on XP) has pretty much been dumped due to causing more problems than it solved, and made optional to dx10 video card manufactures, a XP version of DX10 is more than possible. But just like halo 2, or any other "vista exclusives", I bet microsoft is just using DX10 as a key marketing tool to promote vista. If eventually, DX10 gets a bad name, as well as a continue in the slow adoption rate, like G4WL, they might decide to back port it to XP before it becomes a complete utter failure.


Mass movement to OpenGL? You're funny jahrain.
Actually, OpenGL is used far more than most people think. Although many games require DirectX, allot of them use OpenGL for rendering, and just DirectX for sound, input, etc... OpenGL 3.0 is also soon to perhaps steal away allot of the spotlight DX10 has been getting.

[Kornman00]

Actually, now that video memory virtualization (the dx10 feature that would require a massive OS overhaul to get it working on XP) has pretty much been dumped due to causing more problems than it solved, and made optional to dx10 video card manufactures, a XP version of DX10 is more than possible. But just like halo 2, or any other "vista exclusives", I bet microsoft is just using DX10 as a key marketing tool to promote vista. If eventually, DX10 gets a bad name, as well as a continue in the slow adoption rate, like G4WL, they might decide to back port it to XP before it becomes a complete utter failure.


Actually, OpenGL is used far more than most people think. Although many games require DirectX, allot of them use OpenGL for rendering, and just DirectX for sound, input, etc... OpenGL 3.0 is also soon to perhaps steal away allot of the spotlight DX10 has been getting.
You seem to fail at realizing that it hasn't even been a year since this was all released. Of COURSE its going to have a slow adoption rate, its brand new

Where do you get your statistics? Prove "allot".

[Warsaw]

The only OpenGL game that I can think of on the spot is Doom 3 (which did run buttery smooth, for the record).

[Skiiran]

The only OpenGL game that I can think of on the spot is Doom 3 (which did run buttery smooth, for the record).
Quake 4, too, runs on OpenGL, but that's the same engine, so I'll shut up now. Call of Duty and AA also use/used it.

[Kornman00]

Quake 4, too, runs on OpenGL, but that's the same engine, so I'll shut up now. Call of Duty and AA also use/used it.
CoD is on the xboxes so I know it supports DX and AA used the unreal engine if I remember correctly...

[jahrain]

Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey, Quake Wars all use OpenGL. Also the Unreal Tournament series, and many other Unreal engine games all support OpenGL. Those are just the commercial games I think of. Also any PC game that runs on multiple platforms is most likely to support OpenGL. Just about every console game, except those on the xbox, and 360 run on openGL. Its up to your own opinion whether you consider that "allot" or not.


You seem to fail at realizing that it hasn't even been a year since this was all released. Of COURSE its going to have a slow adoption rate, its brand new Do you honestly think it would be as slow has it been developed and released to be both XP and Vista compatible?

[Zeph]

Do you honestly think it would be as slow has it been developed and released to be both XP and Vista compatible?
Do you honestly understand the poll? The 2% you 'read' was the adoption of a DX10 card and Vista. If that were to be the case, then it's simply a matter of who has the cards.
There are many people who have XP and a DX10 card and there are many who have Vista and dont have a DX10 card. What do you think the difference is between the number of users who just have a DX10 generation card and the subject poll? Do remember that not all people with a DX10 card or Vista use Source. I dont know if you've ever thought of this, but a Source survey is hardly substantial, especially with the hardware and software not even being on the market for a full year.

[Atty]

A Jahrain thread isn't right until Nick has posted, c'mon Nicky, complete the thread. :awesome:

[Kornman00]

I don't, and never plan on using Source or anything related.

I run vista and if they would have had DX10 cards at the time I got my laptop, I would have selected it, and later worked on DX10 specific stuff because I could, but I can't now can I? If I'm not mistaken, didn't the cards postdate the release of Vista?


A Jahrain thread isn't right until Nick has posted, c'mon Nicky, complete the thread. :awesome:
Says its not even worth his time, sorry

[jahrain]

Do you honestly understand the poll? The 2% you 'read' was the adoption of a DX10 card and Vista. If that were to be the case, then it's simply a matter of who has the cards.
There are many people who have XP and a DX10 card and there are many who have Vista and dont have a DX10 card. What do you think the difference is between the number of users who just have a DX10 generation card and the subject poll? Do remember that not all people with a DX10 card or Vista use Source. I dont know if you've ever thought of this, but a Source survey is hardly substantial, especially with the hardware and software not even being on the market for a full year.
Honestly, I think more people would buy DX10 compatible video cards if their current OS supported DX10. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. How many people is going to rush to go buy the latest DX10 graphics card if their OS doesn't support DX10?

Anyways, users of source does represent quite a large portion of PC gamers. It would be far more substantial than a similar poll taken by Games for windows Live users wouldn't it?

I'm not trying to jump to conclusions here about the future of DX10, I'm talking about the present. I may not be correct, but my assumption is that DX10 would be much more widely adopted by this point in time had microsoft not used it as a carrot to lure in vista sales.

[Nick]

I may not be correct, but my assumption is that DX10 would be much more widely adopted by this point in time had microsoft not used it as a carrot to lure in vista sales.You are a twat. A hairy, fishy smelling, wizard sleeve twat.

DirectX 10 is not Vista-only because Microsoft wanted to lure people to Vista with it; hundreds of other new features and improvements in Vista exist to do just that. It comes down to economics, as pointed out to you before and as you have ignored in favor of conspiracy theories before. Is making massive modifications to XP economically worth it to back-port DirectX 10? No. If they did, they would have to charge users for the upgrades anyway and it would take resources away from future advancements being worked on.

http://letskilldave.com/archive/2006/10/17/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP_3F00_--Repeat-after-me_3A00_-No.-No.-No_2E00_.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/02/14/why-dx10-wasnt-created-on-xp-and-why-it-isnt-in-xp.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/28/dx10-on-xp-round-2.aspx

But both of them are biased and lying, right?

Twat.

Nick

[Atty]

Yay!

[jahrain]

Here offers some more information on Valve's survey.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070604-valve-hardware-survey-shows-gamers-yet-to-embrace-vista.html

In terms of operating systems, Windows XP again led the pack with 93 percent. Only 5.27 percent of respondents had upgraded to Windows Vista, with the rest on Windows 2000 or Server 2003. The low uptake of Vista even among high-end gamers will undoubtedly make some developers rethink whether or not to invest heavily in DirectX 10, which is Vista-only. Many gamers reported that they tested Vista but went back to XP for various reasons—when DirectX 10-capable graphics cards become more mainstream and Vista graphics drivers achieve higher levels of maturity, the Vista numbers should increase.
You are a twat. A hairy, fishy smelling, wizard sleeve twat.
I know posting anything in a mildly negative tone against something microsoft related is by far the most personally offense thing anyone can post against you. But honestly, you almost do a good job at trying to defend yourself by posting more personally offensive remarks back.



DirectX 10 is not Vista-only because Microsoft wanted to lure people to Vista with it; hundreds of other new features and improvements in Vista exist to do just that. It comes down to economics, as pointed out to you before and as you have ignored in favor of conspiracy theories before. Is making massive modifications to XP economically worth it to back-port DirectX 10? No. If they did, they would have to charge users for the upgrades anyway and it would take resources away from future advancements being worked on.

http://letskilldave.com/archive/2006/10/17/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP_3F00_--Repeat-after-me_3A00_-No.-No.-No_2E00_.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/02/14/why-dx10-wasnt-created-on-xp-and-why-it-isnt-in-xp.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/28/dx10-on-xp-round-2.aspx

But both of them are biased and lying, right?

Twat.

Nick
Economically speaking, allowing DX10 to run on XP would not be such a good decision on vista's behalf as it would hurt the already slow adoption rate of Vista. But on behalf of DX10 itself and hardware utilizing it, and just about everything and everyone else involved in PC gaming, it was a poor decision. Its no conspiracy theory of the fact that DX10 is used as an artificial promotional tool for vista, just like Halo 2, just like Geometry Wars, just like Shadow run, just like GFWL(was), all with mild little "technical reasons" of why they can't be released for XP.

Instead of being lazy and posting the same old MSDN links you always post on this topic of why MS can't allow XP users to have DX10, maybe you should find one that actually makes a point. Video memory virtualization is among the top most reason why dx10 would require a complete overhaul of XP's driver model to support DX10, but now that useless feature which was previously a requirement of DX10 has been tossed leaving what was once an honest technical reason for why DX10 on XP is not doable in the dust. Now its only a matter of time before game developers and graphics hardware manufactures pressure microsoft enough to correct their mistake like they did with Games for Windows Live, or more game developers are just going to start looking for alternatives to take full advantage of this generation's hardware without DX10 until how ever many years it takes to get Vista up to speed on the majority of PCs.

[Nick]

You can paraphrase all of the bullshit slashdot comments you like, jahrain, but there's more to WDDM than "some crappy feature they cut" and there is more preventing DirectX 10 on XP than WDDM.

I post the same links every time because I hope that one of these threads you'll actually read the god damn posts; I guess I really should know better by now, as facts are just too much for you to handle.

Games for Windows Live always ran on XP as well as Vista. It was initially released for Vista only because testing on Vista took priority, but builds always ran on XP. That is very much unlike DirectX 10, but I wouldn't have to tell you that if you had read the posts I linked.

Just go shove your ignorance up your ass jahrain, for that is probably the only place big enough to hold it all.

Nick

[jahrain]

Nick, you missed the point of my posts completely, and just tried to find ways to make them look ignorant. As soon as you post something debunking my point (that DX10 would be more successful and more widely adopted at this point in time had it been developed to be able to run on XP), I will rest my case. Other than that, you are only derailing the thread.

Regardless of what "facts" microsoft presents with DX10, I still believe that it would have been better off today had it been developed (from the start) to be compatible with XP. Enough with the "oh the facts are too much for you to handle" rhetoric. Yes, the facts are indeed to much to handle for me which is why I complain so much about those "facts"...

[Skyline]

I don't mind spending money on my computer :P. My last computer lasted me 7 years and is still running great. If they are just running games on medium and low then they could get a low end 8 series nvidia gfx card that runs DX10 and it would probly perform better then what they already have.

From what I have seen DX10 is better then OpenGL. I find the xbox360 still has better graphics then the PS3 for some games. I am looking forward to games that run DX10 (Crysis) that outshines any game that is based around OpenGL.

[Tweek]

they're both capable of pretty much the same. the only reason crysis looks hawt, is the fact that its been in production for like what, 5 years? their art is just higher standard. thats why everyone screams "omg hawt need" sure, it's a great engine, but an engine with shit art -> non mad hawt game.

[Lateksi]

This is why Rage is going to Mac.

[Veegie]

Nick, you missed the point of my posts completely, and just tried to find ways to make them look ignorant. As soon as you post something debunking my point (that DX10 would be more successful and more widely adopted at this point in time had it been developed to be able to run on XP)
Irony aside, he did (http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=152890&postcount=26).


Regardless of what "facts" microsoft presents with DX10, I still believe[...]
You might as well just stopped your post there.

[Phopojijo]

From what I have seen DX10 is better then OpenGL. I find the xbox360 still has better graphics then the PS3 for some games. I am looking forward to games that run DX10 (Crysis) that outshines any game that is based around OpenGL.Thats -- er -- sort-of true.

OpenGL is capable of just as fast, if not faster, engines. Every DX revision could be countered by a comparable OpenGL revision to use the same hardware in its own method.

The issue is people who code OpenGL generally want to string from the rafters and swing 'til their vision goes black. And I'm not talking about no kinky stuff.

But that being said -- its entirely possible.