Will OpenGL make a comeback if Rage is successful?

[Anarchist420]

I think it could very well make a comeback, maybe not like it is now, but maybe updated so it's easier to program for.

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft is losing market share, and OpenGL is multiplatform unlike DX.

Also, I'm sure nvidia would like OpenGL to make a comeback, as I would too.

 

[brandonb]

No. OpenGL is next to dead.

 

[exar333]

Good memories of GLQuake.

 

[Veliko]

I wouldn't have thought that the success of Rage will make any difference to use in the future. If developers aren't using it there is presumably a practical reason.

 

[Lonbjerg]

That boat has sailed long ago...

 

[Cogman]

I think it could very well make a comeback, maybe not like it is now, but maybe updated so it's easier to program for.

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft is losing market share, and OpenGL is multiplatform unlike DX.

Also, I'm sure nvidia would like OpenGL to make a comeback, as I would too.

Not going to happen for multiple reasons.

1. PC gaming is a dieing art. Why would a dieing tech for a dieing art make a comeback? DX, on the other hands, is completely dominant where it counts. That is to say, DX is on windows platforms (the number 1 place for pc games) and the XBox360 (The number 1 place for console games, arguably).

2. Opengl is antiquated. DX has constantly evolved over time where as Opengl version 2.0 isn't really all the different from Opengl 3.0. The biggest difference being that Opengl 3.0 forces you to do things the "correct" way (sort of, if you want to use the new 3.0 features you have to do things the 3.0 way).

3. DirectX has the backing of pretty much the entire gaming industry. Almost all major titles are exclusively DX.

4. Linux will never be a gaming platform making the nicest feature of Opengl irrelevant. Lets face it, the good games are proprietary. This isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. For products like games, the Opensource money making model simply does not work. And don't get me wrong. They could make a proprietary game that runs on linux. The problem is that linux users would almost universally snub it because it isn't open source and free. (see richard stallman.)

 

[Lonyo]

I wouldn't have thought that the success of Rage will make any difference to use in the future. If developers aren't using it there is presumably a practical reason.

I presume he meant the engine, although that doesn't guarantee widespread use, since many engines are developed from older Quake engines and are pure DX on PC for the most part.
Most games are Unreal Engine and while that does have an OGL render, everyone uses DX.

However it does pose an interesting question with regard to non-PC gaming. Tablets will basically be OpenGL only, and web browser games (QuakeLive type, not Farmville) are OpenGL as well (or WebGL).
OpenGL for mainstream dedicated PC games has pretty much gone away and I'm not sure Rage will help it, but OpenGL in general is seeing MORE use than ever before.

 

[zokudu]

4. Linux will never be a gaming platform making the nicest feature of Opengl irrelevant. Lets face it, the good games are proprietary. This isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. For products like games, the Opensource money making model simply does not work. And don't get me wrong. They could make a proprietary game that runs on linux. The problem is that linux users would almost universally snub it because it isn't open source and free. (see richard stallman.)

While Richard Stallman is a maniac himself I don't think the Linux community as a whole would shun proprietary products being released for Linux. The major pitfall with making most games run on Linux isn't getting them to run its quality control.

With windows you can be 90% sure someone will have a workable driver to run your software. Same with Macs which is why there has been a resurgence in Mac gaming through Steamplay. If a company puts out a Linux product the current Linux population would most likely embrace it and enjoy it if its a quality product.

The problem would be people who know nothing about Linux would try to jump on board because they heard how wonderful Linux is from Linux people. Lets say they take a distribution that does not include a driver that supports 3D acceleration? Who are the people going to blame when it doesn't work? The developer of course. There's not way to ensure their product will work well. It would jsut end up a massive time sink and more tech support tickets for the developers.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I think it could very well make a comeback, maybe not like it is now, but maybe updated so it's easier to program for.

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft is losing market share, and OpenGL is multiplatform unlike DX.

Also, I'm sure nvidia would like OpenGL to make a comeback, as I would too.

why would they want that? nVidia has lost so much ground in OpenGL that a 6850 matches or beats a GTX470 (an otherwise much more powerful card) in most cases: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22954&page=7

 

[nenforcer]

ID was originally going to try and make IDTech 5 compete with Unreal Engine 3 in the licensing department but then they got bought by ZeniMax Media who decided it was best to use it in house for all ID / Bethesda titles to give them a competitive edge.

It's quite surprising that its still the only leading edge OpenGL title, but when you have the console considerations most developers due even other cutting edge engines (Frostbite, Stalker, Metro2033, CryTek) all have chosen to be DirectX based.

So no, I don't think Rage will have any effect on the popularity of OpenGL based PC Games.

 

[Childs]

IMHO the problem with DX is Microsoft. When they have rev'd it, it seems mainly to push gamers to a new OS (Vista, W7, or xbox). They always required new hardware as well, so pc gamers had to shell out for new video card and OS (and new OS for many means new pc). So people don't upgrade, fragmenting the market. It maybe easier for developers to use, but they also have to support the last few DX versions as well. So then developers say f*ck it and work on the xbox.

OpenGL 3 is OpenGL 3, whether its on XP, Vista, Windows 7, Linux or Mac. If you could get DX 10 (11) on XP, the market would be much stronger than it is. But MS wanted the pc gamers on Xbox anyways, so it worked out for them.

But back on topic, Rage needs to be licensed a lot in order for OGL to make a comeback, but developers have licensed id engines less and less since its height in Q2 (DQMOT). Outside of Raven, I dont think anyone even used D3/Q4 engines.

 

[Cogman]

IMHO the problem with DX is Microsoft. When they have rev'd it, it seems mainly to push gamers to a new OS (Vista, W7, or xbox). They always required new hardware as well, so pc gamers had to shell out for new video card and OS (and new OS for many means new pc). So people don't upgrade, fragmenting the market. It maybe easier for developers to use, but they also have to support the last few DX versions as well. So then developers say f*ck it and work on the xbox.

OpenGL 3 is OpenGL 3, whether its on XP, Vista, Windows 7, Linux or Mac. If you could get DX 10 (11) on XP, the market would be much stronger than it is. But MS wanted the pc gamers on Xbox anyways, so it worked out for them.

But back on topic, Rage needs to be licensed a lot in order for OGL to make a comeback, but developers have licensed id engines less and less since its height in Q2 (DQMOT). Outside of Raven, I dont think anyone even used D3/Q4 engines.

The difference between DX and OpenGL is the fact that Opengl says "Here is the bare minimum that you need to support if you have extras well let them use those too." where as DX says "You WILL support these features and these extra features before you can call yourself DX compliment") And DX has been consistently adding and demanding new features with each and every revision.

Opengl, on the other hand, has almost demanded nothing from one revision to the next. They have shot to be eternally backward and forward compatible. While there are a couple of features in 2.0 that needed some hardware changes, 3.0 pretty much demanded nothing new. (it was all about trying to do things a little differently in Opengl.)

The thing is, Opengl wouldn't survive if they tried the DX way of doing things. They simply do not have the weight to throw around to get graphics card vendors to change anything.

 

[Lonbjerg]

IMHO the problem with DX is Microsoft. When they have rev'd it, it seems mainly to push gamers to a new OS (Vista, W7, or xbox). They always required new hardware as well, so pc gamers had to shell out for new video card and OS (and new OS for many means new pc). So people don't upgrade, fragmenting the market. It maybe easier for developers to use, but they also have to support the last few DX versions as well. So then developers say f*ck it and work on the xbox.

OpenGL 3 is OpenGL 3, whether its on XP, Vista, Windows 7, Linux or Mac. If you could get DX 10 (11) on XP, the market would be much stronger than it is. But MS wanted the pc gamers on Xbox anyways, so it worked out for them.

But back on topic, Rage needs to be licensed a lot in order for OGL to make a comeback, but developers have licensed id engines less and less since its height in Q2 (DQMOT). Outside of Raven, I dont think anyone even used D3/Q4 engines.

Try running an OpenGL 3.0 game on a 6800GT :thumbsdown:
You are talking FUD now.

Oh yeah, read this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/55

 

[aigomorla]

DX killed openGL

 

[SHAQ]

Doom 3 didn't do much for OpenGL and it sold a couple of million copies and had 3 or 4 titles using the engine(RoE,Quake 4,Quake Wars etc.). So I would doubt RAGE will either.

 

[Childs]

The difference between DX and OpenGL is the fact that Opengl says "Here is the bare minimum that you need to support if you have extras well let them use those too." where as DX says "You WILL support these features and these extra features before you can call yourself DX compliment") And DX has been consistently adding and demanding new features with each and every revision.

Opengl, on the other hand, has almost demanded nothing from one revision to the next. They have shot to be eternally backward and forward compatible. While there are a couple of features in 2.0 that needed some hardware changes, 3.0 pretty much demanded nothing new. (it was all about trying to do things a little differently in Opengl.)

The thing is, Opengl wouldn't survive if they tried the DX way of doing things. They simply do not have the weight to throw around to get graphics card vendors to change anything.

Well, there is something to be said for having someone step up and lead the way, but my problem is when the leader has other interests, like selling consoles and OSes (and by extension newer office suites, etc). Open Standards do work, but unfortunately pc gaming is so tied to MS that OGL will never get the momentum it once had.

Try running an OpenGL 3.0 game on a 6800GT :thumbsdown:
You are talking FUD now.

Oh yeah, read this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/55

Not really talking FUD, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. OpenGL 3 on 6800GT maybe slow, but you can simply buy a new video card and you get OpenGL 3. You dont need to upgrade your OS for it.

And the article doesnt really change my point. The decisions MS makes obviously influences the gaming market in the direction MS wants its to go. If DX was an open standard, they wouldn't be able to force the market one way or the other. The article simply reinforced that fact. People who are not affiliated with MS have gotten DX10 working on XP.

 

[wuliheron]

Portable gaming is finally coming into its own which will no doubt keep opengl alive, but it certainly won't seriously compete with Dx on other platforms anytime in the foreseeable future. Rage has awesome graphics, but it uses a very advanced and proprietary engine that ID has decided not to licence to other companies. It's like comparing an experimental jet engine to an economy car and I just don't see too many companies going down that road anytime soon. It could make a real comeback with the next generation IDtech engine which is supposed to be able to provide extreme compression for both textures and geometry, at which point it may end up making Dx look like the ad hoc collection of graphics compromises it is.

 

[Elixer]

Lots of FUD here.

OpenGL is still the *only* choice that works on *all* platforms, and that includes portable devices. That is a huge market that is just begining to show what it can do.

openGL 4.1 is pretty much equal to DX 11 in most areas, and better in other areas.

The main problem is that intel has piss poor drivers, and so does SiS/S3.
Nvidia & AMD are doing a pretty good job with openGL 4.x

 

[happy medium]

That boat has sailed long ago...

:thumbsup:

 

[Lonyo]

Lots of FUD here.

OpenGL is still the *only* choice that works on *all* platforms, and that includes portable devices. That is a huge market that is just begining to show what it can do.

openGL 4.1 is pretty much equal to DX 11 in most areas, and better in other areas.

The main problem is that intel has piss poor drivers, and so does SiS/S3.
Nvidia & AMD are doing a pretty good job with openGL 4.x

Are they really? OpenGL in general isn't so rosy.
The AT preview article for Half Life 2/Source engine on Mac showed crappy performance that could be due to many things, but potentially drivers.
It's already been shown that NV drivers for Windows suck at OpenGL.
AMD drivers on Linux probably still suck.

So AMD has decent Windows OpenGL performance, and NV probably has passable Linux OGL performance, but neither of them is really doing a good job overall.

 

[Cogman]

Lots of FUD here.

OpenGL is still the *only* choice that works on *all* platforms, and that includes portable devices. That is a huge market that is just begining to show what it can do.

openGL 4.1 is pretty much equal to DX 11 in most areas, and better in other areas.

The main problem is that intel has piss poor drivers, and so does SiS/S3.
Nvidia & AMD are doing a pretty good job with openGL 4.x

Does it work on Xbox? hmmm. Nope. Does it work on PS3s? Hmmm.. Nope. Does it work on Wii? hmmmm. Nope.

Wait, didn't you just said that it works on *all* platforms... Seems like there are some very large and very notable platforms that it doesn't work on. (or that it does though some crappy wrappers over the native APIs).

Hell, it isn't even guaranteed to work well on the platforms that it is supposed to work on. Linux? Better hope that the driver is up to snuff (and if it is an opensource driver it is almost guaranteed to be crap).

Heck, even OSes that use only Opengl (Mac OS) STILL haven't fully implemented the 3.0 standard.

Plus the fact that you STILL have to fudge around with the windowing system when working with opengl. That means that opengl code for windows will not be directly compatible with code written for linux. Unless you introduce yet another layer (such as the SDL) and with that layer, more potential bugs and headaches.

Funnily enough, the platform that has the best support for OpenGL just so happens to be the platform that Linux hippies love to trash. Windows. Windows support for Opengl is miles ahead of the support you will find on any other platform.

 

[Childs]

Does it work on Xbox? hmmm. Nope. Does it work on PS3s? Hmmm.. Nope. Does it work on Wii? hmmmm. Nope.

John Carmack on Rage:

It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on.

 

[blanketyblank]

opengl es is the standard for mobile 3d currently.

 

[hawtdawg]

how would it make a "comeback"? Id games have pretty much always been the only ones that use it.

 

[nemesismk2]

OpenGL is dead