Bioshock Dev: DX10 Offers Nothing To Gameplay

Martin Slater, lead programmer at 2K Australia which worked on the PC version of Bioshock, has been speaking about DirectX 10 and how it "offers your gameplay nothing". Reported on Kotaku, Slater spoke about DX10 while conducting a post-mortem of Bioshock at the recent GameConnect 07. "DirectX 10," he said, "probably for the next three, four, five years is not important to you. Microsoft are going to tell you everything under the sun differently. Everybody under the sun is going to tell you differently."

Slater's comment reminds us of Mark Rein's thoughts on DirectX 10, when the Epic boss told us earlier in the year he reckons we won't see it fully utilised in PC games until the next console generation. "Consoles will pretty much define what the next five years of games look like on the PC", Rein said in July. However, on a more positive note, Slater went on to call DirectX 10 a beautiful place "for all your game programmers".

News source: ComputerandVideogames.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

PlayStation Phone "Definitely Plausible" Says Sony

Next Story

British Government Apologizes for Data Mishap

22 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Right now you could say DX10 is a waste of time, but thats how every new technology starts out. Just like DX9 was. Later next year it won't be so much of a waste of time.

I was big into vista, and now with crysis DX10 being pretty useless and far to hyped up. From a gaming stand-point XP would be nice. But I do more then just game and I can't stand using XP as a every day OS for stuff.

Gabe3 said,
Right now you could say DX10 is a waste of time, but thats how every new technology starts out. Just like DX9 was. Later next year it won't be so much of a waste of time.

When OpenGL 3.0 is released in a few months (through ATI and Nvidia's drivers), DX10 hardware effects will be available on any platform. Game developers will be able to make one version of a game instead of separate DX9, DX10, and OpenGL versions for OS X and Linux. It's not a big deal to port shaders or use multiple render paths anymore anyway, but this makes it practically effortless.

Microsoft painted themselves into a corner with DX10, they should have released it for XP. Game devs will switch to OpenGL 3.0 instead of limiting themselves to Vista for "next gen" graphics.

Let's just hope they will be wise enough to switch.
Remember that OpenGL is not supported by the Vista built-in drivers,
and that is a big drawback for some of them.

toadeater said,

When OpenGL 3.0 is released in a few months (through ATI and Nvidia's drivers), DX10 hardware effects will be available on any platform. Game developers will be able to make one version of a game instead of separate DX9, DX10, and OpenGL versions for OS X and Linux. It's not a big deal to port shaders or use multiple render paths anymore anyway, but this makes it practically effortless.

Microsoft painted themselves into a corner with DX10, they should have released it for XP. Game devs will switch to OpenGL 3.0 instead of limiting themselves to Vista for "next gen" graphics.


You underestimate developers. They'll write for DirectX because it's easier to write for, and so easy to port between the 360 and the PC. Also it offers easy implementation of sound, control and networking - OpenGL wont kill off DirectX 10.

mrmckeb said,

You underestimate developers. They'll write for DirectX because it's easier to write for, and so easy to port between the 360 and the PC. Also it offers easy implementation of sound, control and networking - OpenGL wont kill off DirectX 10.

This is true, you only have to look at how OpenGL 1, 1.1 and 2.0 fared against Direct3D. Back in the days of D3D7, they were pretty evenly matched, then D3D8 added shaders while the OpenGL committee people sat around arguing the spec. Then D3D9 came out and ripped it apart, with OpenGL 2.0 being too little too late.

Raa said,
I think it's (dx10) a waste of time. Just a push for getting Vista - and one we dont need.

Sure, let's all just stay in 2001!

Cyplex said,

Sure, let's all just stay in 2001! :blink:


Agreed. I really think that for the industry to progress, we need XP to stay around forever. It's the obvious solution. I'm being sarcastic.

From what I have seen of nVidia's DX10 demos (I can't find the link right now), DX 10 definitely has the potential to change gameplay - I saw amazing cloth simulation (all done on the GPU), geometry creation, and other elements that could potentially affect gameplay in a significant way. The issue is that a minority of gamers use DX 10, so developers can't utilize any game-changing properties of DX 10. We still haven't seen a full DX 10 game yet.

Tell Microsoft to port DX10 to Windows XP and you'll see Vista sales totally frozen, and every company would like to make their games in DX10

Azmodan said,
Tell Microsoft to port DX10 to Windows XP and you'll see Vista sales totally frozen, and every company would like to make their games in DX10 :D

Yeah because all Vista has going for it is DirectX 10 right?

I wonder why whenever they talk about DX10, Vista and sales comes into the picture? But whatever. DX10 isn't just about better more real graphics. It has core changes tied into the new driver model that helps performence, stability (a game can't crash your whole system), lower development costs are also in there.

The key thing is that with DX10, the game developers have more time to work on the gameplay and not worry about the game engine having to suppor the different way nVidia and ATi decide to do something in their GPU. The API, from what I remember, makes games more GPU independant so to say. What I mean is that games like say Doom3 which is coded mostly for Geforce cards but runs slower on Radeons. Like wise with Half-life 2 running better on Radeon and slower on Geforce cards etc. Sure there is money in there so that a game will run better on one card and not another, but with DX10 both nVidia and ATi GPUs will do each effect/operation the same, so the dev doesn't have to worry about such things.

GP007 said,
What I mean is that games like say Doom3 which is coded mostly for Geforce cards but runs slower on Radeons. Like wise with Half-life 2 running better on Radeon and slower on Geforce cards etc. Sure there is money in there so that a game will run better on one card and not another, but with DX10 both nVidia and ATi GPUs will do each effect/operation the same, so the dev doesn't have to worry about such things.

If you think that this is going to change then all I have to say is that you are rather Naive.. the games industry is firmly rooted in this kind of thing. These deals are worth millions and aren't going to come to an end just because of some marketing blurb to sell Vista, and who's so called increased performance and reliablility hasn't been bourne out by the fact that it has all been shown to be rubbish.. increased crashing and lower performance.. a DX10 game shouldn't be given the complete drubbing that it has been getting by a DX9 XP game.. afterall that was THE WHOLE POINT of changing to DX10.. and don't give me any snash about about it not being utilised properly yet or it not being very mature... because a DX10 coded game is a DX10 coded game..Crysis proves this without a doubt.. it's not a DX9 with bits added...

DX10 is to sell Vista, anyone with a brain knows that.. there isn't anything that DX10 can do that DX9 can't be made to.. and OpenGL3 is even better.

The Walker said,

If you think that this is going to change then all I have to say is that you are rather Naive.. the games industry is firmly rooted in this kind of thing. These deals are worth millions and aren't going to come to an end just because of some marketing blurb to sell Vista, and who's so called increased performance and reliablility hasn't been bourne out by the fact that it has all been shown to be rubbish.. increased crashing and lower performance.. a DX10 game shouldn't be given the complete drubbing that it has been getting by a DX9 XP game.. afterall that was THE WHOLE POINT of changing to DX10.. and don't give me any snash about about it not being utilised properly yet or it not being very mature... because a DX10 coded game is a DX10 coded game..Crysis proves this without a doubt.. it's not a DX9 with bits added...

DX10 is to sell Vista, anyone with a brain knows that.. there isn't anything that DX10 can do that DX9 can't be made to.. and OpenGL3 is even better.

^^This is coming from someone who has never looked at nVidia's DX10 demos. Check them out and get back to me. I would like to see an efficient cloth simulator written in DX9 without a significant performance hit. It is impossible.

The Walker said,

If you think that this is going to change then all I have to say is that you are rather Naive.. the games industry is firmly rooted in this kind of thing. These deals are worth millions and aren't going to come to an end just because of some marketing blurb to sell Vista, and who's so called increased performance and reliablility hasn't been bourne out by the fact that it has all been shown to be rubbish.. increased crashing and lower performance.. a DX10 game shouldn't be given the complete drubbing that it has been getting by a DX9 XP game.. afterall that was THE WHOLE POINT of changing to DX10.. and don't give me any snash about about it not being utilised properly yet or it not being very mature... because a DX10 coded game is a DX10 coded game..Crysis proves this without a doubt.. it's not a DX9 with bits added...

DX10 is to sell Vista, anyone with a brain knows that.. there isn't anything that DX10 can do that DX9 can't be made to.. and OpenGL3 is even better.

The DX10 spec is made and controlled by MS to work the same on both nVidia and ATi or any sorta GPU out there. You can't use specific hacks like with DX9 and older to get the same effects.

When you run a older DX game on different cards, it might look the same to you, but the coders have to spend time to make sure it looks the same on the different GPUs from nVidia or ATi. It's like going to the same place but taking two different routs to get there. You need different directions for each. Now that MS has stopped this, game devs don't have to worry about their code running fine on a Radeon but having graphics glitches on a Geforce card. It's like looking at the difference between the way Firefox and IE render the same page. As many know quite a few websites have to use IE specific "hacks" to make the pages look the same in both. It's been the case for graphics cards and games until now.

And Crysis is both DX9 and DX10, the DX10 version just adds better lighting and shadows to make the environments look better. So it is still a "DX9 with bits added". There still isn't a DX10 only game out.

The Walker said,

If you think that this is going to change then all I have to say is that you are rather Naive.. the games industry is firmly rooted in this kind of thing. These deals are worth millions and aren't going to come to an end just because of some marketing blurb to sell Vista, and who's so called increased performance and reliablility hasn't been bourne out by the fact that it has all been shown to be rubbish.. increased crashing and lower performance.. a DX10 game shouldn't be given the complete drubbing that it has been getting by a DX9 XP game.. afterall that was THE WHOLE POINT of changing to DX10.. and don't give me any snash about about it not being utilised properly yet or it not being very mature... because a DX10 coded game is a DX10 coded game..Crysis proves this without a doubt.. it's not a DX9 with bits added...

DX10 is to sell Vista, anyone with a brain knows that.. there isn't anything that DX10 can do that DX9 can't be made to.. and OpenGL3 is even better.


Well ok so I guess we should just stop at dx9 and call it a day. Forget that lets go back to dx1 why the need to go up in generations. Idiot.

virtorio said,
Seeing as how DirectX is a graphics library I wouldn't expect it to add much to the game play.

Actually DirectX is a whole bunch of libraries that handle sound, input, networking, etc.. Direct3D is the graphics library.