Originally Posted by xxicrimsonixx
You have it exactly right. Developers would have to reinvent the wheel... What would be the point of that? Sure games would look and run better, but think about how much time and money that would waste... Games would take so much longer to develop, it just wouldn't be worth it... Plus, games would have to then cost more as well, as developers wouldn't be able to create as many games, and thus would have to charge more in order to make up for lost revenue and time.
It would be preferential for developers to use OpenGL rather than DirectX, however, DirectX is more prevalent in the market, and there is a stronger basis in it. Plus, due to the fact that DirectX has a primary developer (Microsoft), vs being open source (and thus not having a primary developer), there is stronger support for them to continue to develop with the DirectX platform.
the "Open" in OpenGL, doesn't denote "Open Source", its meant for Open Standard...OpenGL proceeds the Open Source movement by quite a few years...if you want to know more, check out a "OpenGL" history or timeline site...it explains why it is called OpenGL, how it came to be, and why it was even used in game Development at first.
I do agree that all the 3d api's could use a little chlorine
we see the same thing happen in other software and hardware as well. where something wasn't designed or even imagined to be used for 25 years, or even 10 years...you get a lot of bloat, and escalation, the gpu's are more power, with radically different hardware than what was available when 3d api's were original created, instead of wiping the slate clean (which more than likely destroyed any and all backwards compatibility) they just kept adding and adding and adding, eventually you have this immensely powerful piece of hardware, running this extremely bloated software, that runs no faster or better, than what was release 10 years prior (a poor example or exeggerated example, but hey its 3 am
its kinda like arm vs x86 atm...we have 25 years of software base designed and compiled for the x86 instruction set...but arm is faster, more energy efficient and cheaper, where x86 is seriously bloated, slow, and more than likely a complete mess with all the "modernization" done to it over the last what, 30 years?...why hasn't the market switched? it simply can't switch...it would take a lot of money, and time to redesign our software, drivers, OS's and then recompile them for the arm architecture, not only that, it would also be very costly to support to branches, a x86 and a arm version of the same software...i guess it kin to "crappy console port" scenario...one version would suffer...and it wouldn't always be the "better" one either...
One day a brilliant man would come along, and hit the reset button on our entire technology for good...hopefully it will be the day affordable quantum computing is available