Quoting: melkemindAh I see. I just read some of the Windows reviews and how bad the performance is on it too. I think that still raises some questions about the engine though. It's a "last gen" engine that developers are trying to mix with "next gen" graphical features. It seems to repeatedly end badly (like the Arkham Knight fiasco). They should have aimed for Unreal Engine 4, even if it delayed the release date a little.

From an article explaining why the game had to be PC exlusive:

XCOM 2 runs on a heavily modified version of Unreal Engine 3.5 (Firaxis’ customizations are too extensive to easily move to Unreal 4), which in some ways has been rewritten to the point of being “unrecognizable,” and it’s much simpler to make that work on one platform than three or more at once.

So their engine is not the same engine that Arkham Knight, etc. are using.

(Arkham Knight was a really bad port, and if the engine was the problem, then they probably used a modified one)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I did a google search, and i found more info about the game [External Link]:

From driving to shooting to scene-searching, Kôna combines the atmosphere and immersion of a modern survival title with the deep storytelling and puzzle-solving aspects of a traditional adventure game. By blending and wrapping several gameplay mechanics around its scenario, the game aims to blur the lines that define today’s genres.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: runeIt's the developers that decide what API they will use, and also everything else when it comes to developing. If they for some reason write code that perform better on NVIDIA, that doesn't mean that Vulkan itself has failed.

There is no reason at all to reject Vulkan. OpenGL isn't going to change, and Vulkan is of course the only way forward.

That's exactly what it could mean, how are you getting that logic? If a "standard" favors one vendor over another when it's supposed to be vendor-agnostic, it's either a) that vendor is doing it "right" and other vendors need to adapt to the standard, or b) the standard is a bad one.

The Vulkan API itself has to be vendor-agnostic, it doesn't make sense if it isn't. But obviously it's possible to write code that 'works' on a certain architecture (the good way), and then it's possible to write code that fully takes advantage of that architecture (the best way).

Hopefully all or most of the games being released will fully take advantage of all architectures.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TobiSGD

Quoting: runeThis is from the blog:

In the morning, NVIDIA engineers gave a series of lectures about the best ways to use Vulkan with NVIDIA hardware.

The developers will probably focus on NVIDIA. If so, it's business as usual. :(

Of course they will give lectures about best ways to use Vulkan with Nvidia hardware. What did you expect, that Nvidia hosts an event to tell people how to program for AMD or Intel? Seriously, I don't get this whole conspiracy stuff, of course Nvidia, which has already told us that there will day 1 support for Vulkan from them, teaches developers how to use Vulkan with their hardware. Concluding from that that Vulkan has already failed is somewhat weird, putting it nicely.

It's the developers that decide what API they will use, and also everything else when it comes to developing. If they for some reason write code that perform better on NVIDIA, that doesn't mean that Vulkan itself has failed.

There is no reason at all to reject Vulkan. OpenGL isn't going to change, and Vulkan is of course the only way forward.

Quoting: TobiSGDAnd, sorry if I have to say that, rejecting Vulkan based on that conclusion is outright moronic and would spell the end for Linux gaming.

When it comes to the future of Linux gaming, the only thing that matters is the number of games available. Lots of indies, and very few AAA games, is not what attract people to our platform.

The problem is that a lot of companies are not interested in porting AAA games due to market share. A new API doesn't really make a difference.

Today AAA games are mostly ported by Feral, Aspyr and VP. Then there's sometimes in-house ports released (like Dying Light, and Deep Silver games). With 1% market share, that will probably not change.

I don't know if it's that easy to make a translation layer for DirectX 12 to Vulkan, so maybe VP will not be able to release Vulkan games.

There are indie developers who did not port games because of OpenGL. They will hopefully start porting games when Vulkan is available.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: NyamiouI would be very surprised and disappointed if some game developers still choose DirectX 12 over Vulkan, but we'll see.

They totally will, and they even will use it as a PR subject.
Game X - making use of incredible DirectX 12 feature Y and Z!

They will not choose Vulkan or DirectX because it's 'better'. Both are low level, so I don't think it's going to be that much of a difference. However, if they intend to port games, then using Vulkan is the only choice that makes sense.

Windows only games will probably still use DirectX 12. It's already out, and the various engines that companies use definitely support it. They make games for consoles, and Xbox One has the DirectX 12 API.

There are engines that will support Vulkan (Frostbite), even though they are not going to develop games for Linux. Seems like they (EA) will make smartphone and tablet games using that backend, there is no need for it otherwise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I do worry at times that Vulkan will end up in a similar situation to OpenGL with developers using special Nvidia extensions and performance stuff which Intel and AMD may not have. I hope I am wrong about this, as I would like to see a level playing field, but all the GPU people will be wanting to find a way to get people to use their chips and so I imagine we will see some form of it.

This is from the blog:

In the morning, NVIDIA engineers gave a series of lectures about the best ways to use Vulkan with NVIDIA hardware.

The developers will probably focus on NVIDIA. If so, it's business as usual. :(

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheBossI am of course excited about the possibility of Vulkan, as OpenGL has shown many times it just isn't comparable with DirectX for the heavier games we are now getting.

If the game is rather demanding in the first place, then you will definitely notice a difference (if it's a DirectX game). Rewriting an engine, and optimizing the code takes time, and time is money. I guess that they (Feral, Aspyr, etc.) can not afford to spend that much time optimizing the code.

Unless you have optimized code, you can not compare DirectX to OpenGL. I don't believe that the games we're getting now are 100% optimized, not even close.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: rune

For some developers it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of time and money into porting something, when the income gained from it may not come close to their expenses, and we should be okay with that. As I’ve stated before, many times, we are still a tiny platform.

I have a bad feeling. Unless we get good quality ports, and not just a few, that is not going to change.
Windows users are not going to install linux or buy a Steam box if they get sub-par performance compared to windows. They will probably make their own windows based 'steam box' instead.

Well, that's the idea, we need to get the ball rolling. But we gotta start from somewhere.
For the moment they have their eyes on Linux, and that's a good start.

This year we get some big AAA titles ported to linux (Batman: Arkahm Knight, Project Cars, ..). If they manage to put some real effort into this and make something that is on-par with the windows version, that's definetely a good start. Batman is using the Unreal engine, so that helps.
I wish more games used Unreal, CryEngine, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For some developers it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of time and money into porting something, when the income gained from it may not come close to their expenses, and we should be okay with that. As I’ve stated before, many times, we are still a tiny platform.

I have a bad feeling. Unless we get good quality ports, and not just a few, that is not going to change.
Windows users are not going to install linux or buy a Steam box if they get sub-par performance compared to windows. They will probably make their own windows based 'steam box' instead.

View this comment - View article - View full comments