<quote>
At one point, Sony was asking developers whether they would be interested in having PSGL conform to the OpenGL ES 2.0 specs (link here). This has unfortunately never happened however, as developers seem to have mostly preferred to go with libGCM as their main graphics API of choice on PS3. This has meant that the development environment has started becoming more libGCM-centric over the years with PSGL eventually becoming a second-class citizen – in fact, new features like 3D stereo mode is not even possible unless you are using libGCM directly.
</quote>
> There is no valid reason why OpenGL can't be made to perform well on consoles except the lock-in mentality which plagues consoles market.
Game studios culture doesn't care about FOSS.
What matters is making the best game on the platforms the publishers are paying in advance for.
The "major studios" are mentioned here probably because most developers simply don't target PS. I.e. indie developers aren't interested in it that much. So I wouldn't take that as an indicator that developers at large don't care about cross platform APIs. If Sony would offer an open platform without barriers to enter, those answers would be very different.
Most developers don't care about the platforms with the most reach and most invested gamers. Sure. Must be why every indie developer I know would sell their eyeteeth to get even a mid level promo package on PSN.
You're taking your ideology and trying to retrofit the world to accomodate it. Doesn't work that way. In the world of what is, rather than the world of what one might like it to be, nobody really cares. Tough.
You are talking about Apple's spin of Metal (which is lock-in ideology). In practice it's easier for developers to use one toolkit instead of using 20 locked-in incompatible APIs.
If developers use ready engines it becomes easier for them, but that burden is shifted to engine developers then. Someone will have to deal with that major mess. There is clear pragmatic benefit in cross platform APIs for gaming, and claiming that it's just ideology is nonsense.
Here it's the case of "worse because it wasn't made better", not because it can't be better. That's my point. So difference in approaches with this subject like between AMD and Apple shows who cares about making it better and who cares about locking developers into their platform.
So, your "point", in everything that I have read from you thus far, is that, if the world only worked the way you think it should work, then OpenGL would reign supreme as king. We can just ignore the many ways in which it sucks because, hey, you're talking hypotheticals!
Right. Of course, the real world works nothing like the world that you have described, but ok, good luck with that.
Nobody's advocating lock-in. What is being advocated is using the right tool for the job. What has been brought up--by you--is the completely laughable notion that "abstractions don't fail" when the overwhelming majority of people involved with high-performance graphics are pretty sure that the abstractions have failed. Which is why they're going exactly the other way from your ideological wishcasting and building libraries and frameworks that are tailored to the hardware rather than using a driver to overcome the impedance mismatch at the cost of performance.
You don't know what you don't know but it isn't stopping you from talking shit. Stop.
> when the overwhelming majority of people involved with high-performance graphics are pretty sure that the abstractions have failed.
Poor abstractions. I'm not convinced that there can't be a well designed cross platform graphics API that is sufficient for the majority of cases. Prove that it's impossible or stop, because otherwise your claim that you don't advocate lock-in doesn't sound sincere.
Anything more useful to say than trolling comments? The commenter above claimed that cross platform graphics APIs aren't the way to go because they failed. I see no proof that it's not a possibility. They didn't even fail - they were quite useful in many cases but with their current downsides they didn't live up to real potential. So that can be improved by making better cross platform APIs instead of claiming that one has to run to hardware specific APIs right away and there are no other options.
I'm not trolling; I'm pointing out the fault(s) in your logic. Perhaps it is a "possibility", but it doesn't exist today, and better options are available, so why would I use an inferior implementation? Because it more closely coincides with my world view?
No, I need to get software written that runs well. Now, if my requirement is to run on N different platforms (where N > 1) then I will have to look at OpenGL. If it's not a requirement then I won't waste my time. You're comments reek of ideology and completely lack practicality. You make assumptions about a complex subject which smarter people than you or I have spent years working on and come to different conclusions.
Indie means studios independent of major publishers, i.e. self publishing ones. Out of the recent games the majority I'm actually interested in are from indie developers and they are true work of art. The rest are mass market junk.
That's beside the point. What you are interested in and what the majority of people are interested in do not align. And where there are more consumers, there are more developers.
http://sandstormgames.ca/blog/tag/libgcm/
<quote> At one point, Sony was asking developers whether they would be interested in having PSGL conform to the OpenGL ES 2.0 specs (link here). This has unfortunately never happened however, as developers seem to have mostly preferred to go with libGCM as their main graphics API of choice on PS3. This has meant that the development environment has started becoming more libGCM-centric over the years with PSGL eventually becoming a second-class citizen – in fact, new features like 3D stereo mode is not even possible unless you are using libGCM directly. </quote>
> There is no valid reason why OpenGL can't be made to perform well on consoles except the lock-in mentality which plagues consoles market.
Game studios culture doesn't care about FOSS.
What matters is making the best game on the platforms the publishers are paying in advance for.