So as a n00b to PC gaming, can someone explain how the transition to DX12 may work?

[SuperMarioBro]

Or whatever the next widely adopted DX version may be... I assume that it will be DX12 because I'm guessing that's what the Xbox "720" will use, and that will finally ignite the widespread usage of a new DX version.

But anyways, what I'm specifically wondering is, as new games start being built on a new DX API, do all DX11 cards (even the highest-end cards) become obsolete and incapable of playing new software? Or will it be possible to run these new DX12 games on DX11 cards with some settings disabled or something?

 

[digitaldurandal]

Historically DX has been backwards compatible. In the past DX10 titles could play on DX 7 hardware, but some shaders would downgrade or not run as efficiently.

Now, there is no evidence AFAIK that the next generation MS console will use DX12. It is very likely that some of the cards we see today will power the graphics of the next generation consoles. Probably something similar to a 7770 with modifications.

 

[SuperMarioBro]

Well I just figured MS would want to push their latest and greatest graphics API in their own hardware if they can.

But what you're telling me is a relief. I suppose that means that DX is designed to be both backwards and forwards compatible.

 

[minitron]

MS doesn't have to push DX, it's pretty much the only game in town except OpenGL which is hardly used in games.

Another thing to remember is that the developers make the game, not the API, hence why some DX9 games look better than some DX11 games.

 

[SuperMarioBro]

Another thing to remember is that the developers make the game, not the API, hence why some DX9 games look better than some DX11 games.

I understand that, but my concern was that a DX12 game wouldn't even run on a DX11 card.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Almost no games are released as DX-latest-only games, that cuts into the potential market too much. The only examples I can think of are ones from Microsoft released that way in a desperate attempt to get people to move from XP to Vista.

Games released today generally support DX 9, 10 and 11. Directx 9 was released in late 2002.

So if you buy a DirectX 11 card now, you might only be able to play games released in the next 10 years then you'll need a new card.

 

[BrightCandle]

Even games that are directX 10/11 compatible contain paths for DX9 which has become the defacto baseline. When they release DX 12 they will maintain the old paths as well until the hardware catches up.

 

[Spjut]

Hopefully DX12 will provide backwards compatibility via feature levels. That's what DX11/11.1 does, so games can target both DX9 and DX10/10.1 and not just only DX11.(The DX11 API even gave some benefits to DX9 and DX10/10.1 hardware)

If a game was made only with the DX10 API, DX9 cards weren't able to run them. XP also didn't support DX10/11, so the only way to target Windows XP was to use DX9.

 

[thilanliyan]

There are times where some games refuse to work on older hardware.

I remember I had to get a DX9 card to play Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

I think there are some DX10 only games as well...but that kind of lockout doesn't happen very often...especially now that consoles have taken over.

 

[ViRGE]

Hopefully DX12 will provide backwards compatibility via feature levels. That's what DX11/11.1 does, so games can target both DX9 and DX10/10.1 and not just only DX11.(The DX11 API even gave some benefits to DX9 and DX10/10.1 hardware)

The idea behind Direct3D 1x was to maintain that style of backwards compatibility, so unless Microsoft has some good reason to break it I would certainly expect them to maintain it.

In which case the answer is that it's up to the developers to decide on what the minimum feature set they support will be. It would be highly unusual for developers not to support cards 3 years old and newer, and with Direct3D's backwards compatibility mechanism it would be relatively easy to push that farther. Basically by the time Direct3D 12 is the baseline for new games, I would expect to be on Direct3D 13.

 

[Sable]

I have no doubt they'll make it Windows 8 only to try to force REAL computer users into obtaining their retarded new spaz UI. :/

 

[ShintaiDK]

How many DX10 or higher games is realsed even today?

Even brand new games are almost always DX9 only today.

And who says xbox720 will be DX12?

Xbox360 got a bastard DX that couldnt be compared to PC.

 

[taltamir]

I understand that, but my concern was that a DX12 game wouldn't even run on a DX11 card.

Which is why nobody is going to make a DX12 game without including code to also use older versions of DX.
Only recently did games stop making DX7 versions (it was typically DX7 + DX9). Nowadays game do DX9 + DX10/11.

Also, its highly implausible that DX12 is going to be in the xbox720. DX11 is likely.

 

[BrightCandle]

Consoles are not the leaders in terms of graphics technology. They take the advances on PC GPUs and reduce it down to something affordable to the console manufacturer. Thus its highly unlikely that it will drive a move to DX12, its more likely they will be somewhere around DX11 capabilities. PC will certainly get to the API long before a console is released on it.

 

[HeXen]

So MS has achieved its goal for taking something like an API and marketing it to mean better graphics to all the kiddies out there. Why don't we just go back in time and market consoles for being 256 bit graphics or whatever. lol
for them to make a DX12 would require NV or ATI (lol) to make new hardware specific features. For consoles, there is no need to alleviate CPU duties unless its something that the GPU can do more efficiently, however that still puts a further load on it and a developer would still have to play "tit for tat"
but its just an API, even OpenGL can do all the same things with specific vendor extensions, dx11 is just easier for developers with less time writing code.
there are some things dx11 doesn't support, like dedicated atomic counter hardware but the same functionality is indirectly, similar things like that for OpenGL, but both on par with the number hardware features they expose.
its more marketing than anything. ms wants to keep gamers where their at as its a main focus to keep everyone from going to Linux.

 

[minitron]

Compared to W7, Linux is pretty ghetto. Ease of access is extremely important with an OS; people use computers as a convenience and don't really want to "learn" an OS and why should they when they don't have to?

By all accounts, DX11 is easier to use than OpenGL meaning developers can spend less time doing the same thing. They would be wasting their company's money and reducing their own profits by using OpenGL.

This generation of console gaming is a boon for PC developers since the profit margins on consoles blows away PC gaming. We get many more console ports but the developers actually turn a profit and have incentive to keep making games.

Basically PC gaming is moving towards console ports because PC gamers are super cheap and give no incentive to make the PC the lead platform. Hardware requirements for new games will not increase at the same pace as previous years.

 

[taltamir]

This generation of console gaming is a boon for PC developers since the profit margins on consoles blows away PC gaming. We get many more console ports but the developers actually turn a profit and have incentive to keep making games.

That is simply not true.
Aside from the console maker taking their own pound of beef, and the costs of distribution (PC is pretty much mostly digital distribution today), and the higher second hand market... Console only development makes no sense.

But developers are people and as such they are vulnerable to misinformation. They think piracy is rampant on PCs and non existant on consoles and that piracy equates to lost sales. And also they believe the misinformation about higher sales on consoles... so they make console games.

Lets look at the best selling most profitable games in the world... MMORPG, PC exclusive.

The next three are offline RPGs, strategy games, and FPS.

RPGs are dominated by the PC due to hardware requirements (more "modern" RPGs suck balls and tend to be console ports that don't work properly on anything but a PC).

Strategy games need a mouse, end of story.

FPS games are currently dominated by the consoles despite how bad a controller is for them. This is a bit odd since FPS games typically lack any worthwhile plot and sell entirely on the merit of their graphics and gameplay. And you can't really improve the graphics on a console so they are stuck competing with an ever growing pool of samey shooters.
They are all superior on the PC but are more popular amongst console gamers.

Now, at the low end there are indie games, indie games also often think they should go with consoles but it doesn't work. As developer of indie RPG cthulu saves the world found out when they ported their indie RPG from xbox to PC and in a matter of days sold more then 10x the amount of copies they sold in a year on xbox arcade.

Ultimately the reason so many games are console ports today is because a game released on more platforms might sell more copies. And you cannot port a PC game to a console because the console is too crippled to run it. you must design your game for crippleware in every step of the way, keeping in mind the anemic hardware and horrible input device. Only then you have something that can be ported to other platforms.

The fact you can port a console game to a PC and not vice versa means that for a game to be developed PC only, its superiority needs to be so great that it will sell enough extra units for it to compensate for cutting out tens of millions of potential customers. And that is something that is viewed as too unlikely to worth investing into by soulless gaming corps trying to churn out more copycat games to milk the market. This is why so many current games are multi platform (console ports).

Now, console exclusives exist, and that is because some companies are run by morons.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Basically PC gaming is moving towards console ports because PC gamers are super cheap and give no incentive to make the PC the lead platform. Hardware requirements for new games will not increase at the same pace as previous years.

This is complete tosh. Consoles succeed because they are closed platforms and cheaper to buy for consumers.

 

[poohbear]

well BF3 and any frostbite engine 2.0 game is only DX10/11, which i fully support as its about time to just ditch DX9. It's been 10 years since it was released!!!!!!!!

 

[Obsoleet]

If I were to create/sell a game, I'd focus around DX9 and make the graphics as good as I could there unless focusing on DX11 downgrades automagically for DX9 cards (and did a good job doing it). Otherwise I'd focus on making a good game with decent graphics that runs on the median gaming rig.
I'd probably use an OpenGL engine though. OpenGL is great.
Heroes of Newerth, Torchlight 1/2 are decent games and use crossplatform OGL. All the Valve titles on Mac use it as well as SC2 on Mac.

 

[minitron]

That is simply not true.
Aside from the console maker taking their own pound of beef, and the costs of distribution (PC is pretty much mostly digital distribution today), and the higher second hand market... Console only development makes no sense.

But developers are people and as such they are vulnerable to misinformation. They think piracy is rampant on PCs and non existant on consoles and that piracy equates to lost sales. And also they believe the misinformation about higher sales on consoles... so they make console games.

Lets look at the best selling most profitable games in the world... MMORPG, PC exclusive.

The next three are offline RPGs, strategy games, and FPS.

RPGs are dominated by the PC due to hardware requirements (more "modern" RPGs suck balls and tend to be console ports that don't work properly on anything but a PC).

Strategy games need a mouse, end of story.

FPS games are currently dominated by the consoles despite how bad a controller is for them. This is a bit odd since FPS games typically lack any worthwhile plot and sell entirely on the merit of their graphics and gameplay. And you can't really improve the graphics on a console so they are stuck competing with an ever growing pool of samey shooters.
They are all superior on the PC but are more popular amongst console gamers.

Now, at the low end there are indie games, indie games also often think they should go with consoles but it doesn't work. As developer of indie RPG cthulu saves the world found out when they ported their indie RPG from xbox to PC and in a matter of days sold more then 10x the amount of copies they sold in a year on xbox arcade.

Ultimately the reason so many games are console ports today is because a game released on more platforms might sell more copies. And you cannot port a PC game to a console because the console is too crippled to run it. you must design your game for crippleware in every step of the way, keeping in mind the anemic hardware and horrible input device. Only then you have something that can be ported to other platforms.

The fact you can port a console game to a PC and not vice versa means that for a game to be developed PC only, its superiority needs to be so great that it will sell enough extra units for it to compensate for cutting out tens of millions of potential customers. And that is something that is viewed as too unlikely to worth investing into by soulless gaming corps trying to churn out more copycat games to milk the market. This is why so many current games are multi platform (console ports).

Now, console exclusives exist, and that is because some companies are run by morons.

I didn't say console only development was in the future or that games were better on the console.

I said they make more money on consoles and therefore developers prefer to make console games over PC games, if they're not doing both.

This is complete tosh. Consoles succeed because they are closed platforms and cheaper to buy for consumers.

There's a bigger install base and it's a lot harder to pirate therefore it's more profitable to develop for the console. This was my original point.

Miss that boat huh?

PS: Are we really arguing about the profit margin of console vs PC games? Console games kill PC games in terms of money. Ask EPIC what they think about console vs PC profits.

Just found this:
Times could be changing again, however. According to industry analyst NPD Group, sales of video-game hardware -- a.k.a consoles -- software and even accessories fell for a sixth consecutive month in May, tumbling 28% from a year earlier to $517 million. And with the release of Blizzard's (ATVI) Diablo III, May also saw the first time since July 2010 that the top-selling game was a PC-only title. That boosted PC video games sales up year-over-year to 230% or $80 million.

PC game sales are laughable compared to the console.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Consoles have NEVER been about the latest and greatest.

 

[palladium]

Developers are only holding on to DX9 because of the huge user base of WinXP today, and I think most game developers will continue to release a DX9 code path for their games until sometime around 2014-2015, after extended support for XP ends. As for DX12, if MS decides to backport it to Windows 7, I expect a fast uptake compared to what we have now as there is no longer the XP user base to worry about (EOL product) and Vista is already in extended support phase which means no new features would be added. With the increasingly flexible programming nature of GPUs, it would be trivial to maintain backward compatibility (drivers notwithstanding).

 

[Pottuvoi]

If I were to create/sell a game, I'd focus around DX9 and make the graphics as good as I could there unless focusing on DX11 downgrades automagically for DX9 cards (and did a good job doing it).

It doesn't automagically downgrade to dx9, but it is lot easier to do DX11 title that works on Shader Model 3-5 than game that works on DX9, DX10 and DX11.

Only thing that DX9 offers that DX11 doesn't is the XP compatibility.
DX has matured a lot from DX9 days and it's time to move on.

When DX12 comes it will most likely have at least shader model 6, new compute shader layer CS6? and plenty of other things. (new buffer formats, more freedom.. etc.)
It most likely will have ability to write code for shader models from SM3 upward, just like DX11.

 

[taltamir]

I didn't say console only development was in the future or that games were better on the console.

I said they make more money on consoles and therefore developers prefer to make console games over PC games, if they're not doing both.

And I explained that this is simply not true.
they make more money being cross platform.
If they need to choose only one platform instead of being multi platform then the PC is the most profitable single platform.

There's a bigger install base and it's a lot harder to pirate therefore it's more profitable to develop for the console. This was my original point.

1. There PC has the largest install base by orders of magnitude.
2. Its not a lot harder to pirate for consoles, you crack the console itself once and then all games work. With PC you need to wait a few weeks or more every time a tough new DRM comes out, with consoles that is not an issue as the console itself has been cracked and you can then put any copied disk in.
3. Piracy has no influence on the profitability.
4. The DRM is not designed to combat piracy its designed to combat the second hand market which is a lot bigger on consoles then on PC (and DOES hurt profitability)
5. If developing for a single platform, the PC is the most profitable one. Its only multi-platform development that is more profitable and why we see console ports.