Thursday, December 01, 2005

DirectX 10... and so it ends!

Is Microsoft shooting itself in the foot or just pissing off gamers?

Changes for DirectX 10 have been announced and it may annoy some people.
There are troubled times ahead. Through one bold move, Microsoft has decided that it will not support, the already too old DirectX 9, not to mention DirectX 8 or any of the previous versions. But... it appears to be some logic hidden somewhere.

The new DirectX will not be named Windows Graphic Foundation (WGF) as it was planned and will remain at the old name, as in DirectX 10. It will be released with their brand new operating system Vista. This new API will be composed of new and faster dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and will run much faster (so they say).

Microsoft has decided that backward compatibly with DirectX 9,8,7 isn't really necessary as there will probably will be even less compatible with Vista.

If that sounds all to horrible, there is a small consolation...
Even so, dear Microsoft hasn't totally forgotten us. Some sort of compatibility will be available through a software layer (probably some emulation) which will have its price in system resources, as it will run much slower. The good news is that DirectX 10 will relieve some of the burden on the CPU.


Tom said...

Let's be realistic here. How many DirectX 8 games do you play now?


Personally I hardnly get time to play games, and when I do, they are new ones.

When I revisit the older ones the graphics are really actually so poor I can't play for the pain it causes my eyes.

So when Vista ships, there might be some overlap when my Battlefield 2 doesn't work except for an emulator (yuck), but the next big thing will be on the shelves already together with Vista.

Is this a bit more of a console release strategy? Where the developres put out games in time for a new console?

Once a new console ships, you either don't play your old one, or you keep it.

Anyone heard of Dual boot?

I seriously don't think this is a big news item.

Craig said...

"When I revisit the older ones the graphics are really actually so poor I can't play for the pain it causes my eyes.

Tom, are you just a big pussy? Have you fallen into the l33t gamer fantasy land where 1600x1200 isn't enough res to play Q3/BF/CoD/etc in a multiplayer environment? Most FPS games are more than playable at 1024x768 and will run quicker and smoother. Unless you are sniping, of course, where every pixel counts.

Did you ever play arcades or have an 8-bit Atari or Commodore 64 when you were younger? Those were real games. Great gameplay and long life. Today's games with their huge budgets and system requirements still cannot compete with the gameplay and longevity of those old games.

If they can't even get the graphics right so they don't hurt your eyes someone must be pocketing some large amounts of cash cos they aren't spending it on story or gameplay design.