OpenGL & Xbox

a few points

  1. Everything is crackable it just takes time.

  2. The person who cracks it wont care if Microsoft loses money.

C&C RA: “Time will tell”

Point 3: Talking about a <dirty>X powered console on an OpenGL board doesn’t seem really ontopic… :expressionless:

And by the sky, when you can finally play XBOX games on your pc you can already play games featuring nvRealistic ™ or REALSMOOTH ™ accelerated graphics and you won’t even look at those dull per-pixel-bumpmap-shaded XBOX games anymore.

(oh and if someone uses one of those trademarked + patented names in the near future I’m going to sue them and get lots of $$$! har! har!)




i couldn’t say it better :wink:

Ehem, sorry for that.
It has always been part of MS’ business strategy to bind developers to their platform with proprietary stuff (MFC, COM, <dirty>X, JavaScript, DHTML …). Get them hooked and never let them go. I don’t see how they would stop this trend now with the XBox.

100% right !! even if microsoft release an opengl (wrapper) driver i’m sure the directx driver will always surpass it…

I keep hearing how advanced the xbox is.I don’t care if it has a zillion tris/sec throughput it’s still a crappy(yet optimized) x86 wintel architecture.Please don’t compare them with MIPS engines(which surprisingly only need to run at 294Mhz and propably don’t need a cooler bigger than godzilla).On the other hand IIRC the PIII is just a Ppro core with an ISSE instruction set(more or less) not to mention it’s CISC whereas MIPS is RISC etc,etc.Yet I still don’t see how all this fits in an OpenGl forum…sorry I just had post that.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but the money is made in selling the games and other merchandise, not selling the toolkit used to make the game or 3D graphics application. So I don’t understand why M$ is hell bent on competing with OpenGL. There are exponetially more gamers than there are 3D grahpics developers/engineers. From a business perspective, it seems like a waste of time and effort to push M$'s 3D Graphics API. Another way to look at it is “Why re-invent the wheel when the wheel has proven itself (OpenGL) many times over?”

Seems like a personal possession thing to me.

Just my two cents.


[This message has been edited by lobstah (edited 03-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by lobstah (edited 03-14-2002).]

What the hell is the X-Box ???

Can I go back to MGS2 now ?


P.S.: what was it we were saying the other day about OT ???

posted by lobstah:
From a business perspective, it seems like a waste of time and effort to push M$'s 3D Graphics API. Another way to look at it is "Why re- invent the wheel when the wheel has proven itself (OpenGL) many times over?

Believe it or not, games are what a platform needs to become the ‘hot thing’. Good productivity apps (which obviously excludees MS Office) are available just about everywhere, Linux, Mac, you name it. The remaining viability factor for Windows is its vast selection of games and the neverending stream of new releases that never get ported because they are developed without cross-platform considerations (read: OpenGL) in mind. <dirty>X is just about the only thing that makes having Windows useful for the somewhat proficient home user. And it’s just about the only thing that limits developers’ porting capabilities.

There’s an MSWindows xbox sdk, isn’t there?
Microsoft follow the path of least resistance, am I not right?
It would be totally out of character for them to put in any more r&d than is absolutely neccessary for the product…they have plenty of experience debugging Windows2000, so they wouldn’t do anything to potentially introduce new bugs.
It’ll be the same principles, probably the same bleeding implementation…we’ll just have to wait for one of the games to crash, will it be a blue screen or a retry/debug dialog box, I wonder?
Anyone know if there’s an agp slot under some flap of plastic on the xbox? I wouldn’t be surprised - for a future add-on gpu.

Anyway, you guys should be learning direct3d too, you know - it comes in useful sometimes.
Getting a job in the games industry, for one - which presumably a lot of people on this board want to do? I’ve seen enough questions formed in the context of a game environment…(except for the people who simply enjoy experimenting with new extensions or program professional simulators/visualisation tools - of course).

Then blame the dev houses that say from the start “We target Direct3D. Or else, you’re fired.”. There’s just no reason to do that. These are the sheep that make Windows a necessity.

Originally posted by knackered:
There’s an MSWindows xbox sdk, isn’t there?

AFAIK, the dev kit consists of a souped up XBox (twice the memory), a PC based SDK and some kind of link. You code and compile on the PC but you run and debug it (via the PC link) on the XBox.

Who cares about the XBOX ?
it’s too expensive, everybody’s waiting for the price to drop (XBox = 480 euros, PS2 = 300 euros, GameCube = 250 euros)

The XBox launches today in Europe, but in one of the biggest shops in Paris, they sold only 5 XBox this morning (at 11H30)

[This message has been edited by opla (edited 03-14-2002).]

Yeah, who cares about the XBox (and any other newer console)?

I have a C64 at home, and it has LOTS of awesome games. Todays games are just interactive eye candy anyways. Most of them totally lacks the feeling and gameplay.

There is a reason to insist their employees know both API’s. OpenGL has support on the major PC cards (nvidia, ati, 3dfx, and kyro’s), but there are older cards that do not have gl support - there are also a fair number of consoles that don’t have support for either gl or d3d. If someone is unwilling or unable to learn more than one api, then they’re not much use to a games company, I would have thought (and will have a very narrow view of realtime graphics programming).
I don’t understand why there’s so much anti-any-other-api-but-opengl feelings on this forum - yes the discussion should focus on opengl, but without referencing other api’s, it’s difficult to have open discussion - every time I’ve mentioned d3d in relation to opengl, I’ve recieved “my spectrums better than your c64” comments…it’s just too weird. (btw, the spectrum was best ).
Have you read any of the documents on vector units on the ps2? D3D looks positively elegant in comparison.

Anyway, how do my comments relate to the Xbox in the context of opengl? I’ve forgotten…

Anyway dont fit in here but…

Who the Heck owns the PS2 Logo???

I know IBM use to for there Personel System 2’s but did sony pay loads of money for it from IBM or are they going behind peoples backs?

Well that’s cerainly killed the conversation!

For the person who wanted to know why M$ created DX (you should know this stuff already):

#1 MS wanted people to make games for Windows. They wanted to kill off DOS.

#2 They needed to create something that allowed Devs to “program to te metal”-> Direct access to hardware.

#3 The OpenGL license costs money for M$. OpenGL is licensed to make WinNT an alternative to Unix systems + OpenGL workstations (CAD + CAM)

#4 Licensing DX to big corporations means big bucks for M$. Finally, M$ decides that OpenGL was a mistake to bring on Windows. Games using DX make Windows the ideal choice for gaming for years to come.

Maybe there are some points I’m missing here, but the ones above are essentially the story.


You know, I sometimes wonder how D3D could have made it this far. Up to and including #6 it was just pathetic, #7 looked a lot like OpenGL 1.2 and I actually believe D3D8 is a powerful tool. I just can’t understand why everyone used it while it still was in its crappy infant stages.

Because there was no proper opengl support in hardware for a long while with consumer cards…I remember having to play quake2 at work during my lunch-hour using id’s software renderer for a good while, on one of the old ati cards…rage something-or-other…it accelerated d3d games perfectly, though.
That is why d3d was adopted by developers - opengl was reserved for high-end cards/workstations (this is only about 4 years ago).