Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:47 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Thread beginning with comment 491461
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Misleading article title - GL
by JAlexoid on Fri 30th Sep 2011 18:30
in reply to "RE[6]: Misleading article title - GL"
RE[8]: Misleading article title - GL
by jabbotts on Fri 30th Sep 2011 20:04
in reply to "RE[7]: Misleading article title - GL"
"cared about it enough" may still do it injustice though.
I may remember my history wrong but it seemd that the issue had more to do with the GL owning company driving away the game developers who did indeed care in the beginning. The owning company cared about GL but also about controlling it. The game developers cared about it but where driven off and eventually had DX instead. The third party developers cared also but couldn't do anything due to the GL license at the time. When OpenGL became available, DX was already established with game developers and through MS distribution channels.
Sadly, OpenGL will have to be three times better than DX to get any consideration. The folks that care now have a heck of a challenge.




Member since:
2007-09-06
Wasn't the issue with GL that it started under proprietary development stagnated by it's parent company allowing DirectX to replace it and dominate game development?