Originally Posted by Karrok
Not too long ago there was some presentation that talked about the "want" of having closer to-the-metal API's available, and while everyone talks about it, the consequences of doing this are most often overlooked. Do you think game developers really want to go back to coding a game and having a completely difference graphics path/pipeline for AMD 9 series, 10 series, one for nvidia 7xx, nvidia 7xx, a couple of extra branches for intell mobile, amd apu's etc etc. Close to metal coding is CRAZY time consuming, and as soon as new hardware comes along everything breaks and needs to be patched.
this is EXACTLY the reason why directx and opengl were created, to dramatically cut down developer time to go into the incredibly low lvl details of 1 specific card/driver, and then do that a dozen times over for other cards. Close-to-metal sounds cool, but the reality is that its time consuming, expensive and requires expertise that comes with a hefty price tag in itself.
edit: correction it was a blog:
I didn't say close, just closer. Any layer you get out of the pipeline is one step forward for performance. There's only a handful of known guys who can code in assembly, and that warrants instant godhood. But just, you know, we've been getting exponentially more powerful hardware since the 90s and all that performance cannot be untapped because there are so many layers. This is not(I think) about programmers getting to code on assembly again and fine tuning for everything out there, this is more(and I hope it catches)like hardware manufacturers developing their own low-level hardware access APIs a la CUDA, but for graphics. Insert into toolsets the ability to use tis or tat renderer(for example)when compiling, and the installation using the correct renderer depending of the hardware used, and voilá. We're working by assumptions that come from the past. What if we think about the future?
Then again, Simon Roth is just ONE GUY, who is making a fairly interesting indie game, Maia. And he's talking about coding "To The Metal" directly, which was not my point. We're in 2013, guys, if something can be automated, it will be automated, and I don't think, given enough work and effort, it's that difficult. Half Life came out in 1998 with Glide/OpenGL/Direct3D. Don't tell me we're doomed with the nextest iterations of DX. Tell me SteamOS is welcoming of any effort from AMD/Intel/Nvidia to low-level access, which it seems by their words.
PS: Just a tought. The Linux enthusiast market hasn't been really exploited. If you're a hardware enthusiast, why get Linux? Many brands have horrid Linux driver support. If you're on Linux, why get the bestest hardware when it will probably be misused due to poor/lacking support? Just get the most hacked most compatible card. SteamOS is just opening the door for low-level, and to entice manufacturers to take their money and get their crap straight(drivers/toolsets/support), Valve is showing them that obscure corner full of rabid and almost forgotten hackers hungry for silicon. And they seem to be doing the job, by Valve's words.Edited by Nonehxc - 9/25/13 at 4:59pm