Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Direct X 11 Should be Discontinued

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Games
  • Directx
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 13, 2011 11:36:15 AM

Hi everyone,

I know this must sound like im crazy, don't you think DirectX 11 should be discontinued?

As we all know DX9 is stable in regards to how smooth games run, but now its become crazy. I mean i see on other sites people begging and pleading for DX11 just to see a stone bumped ground or a much clearer shadow, The clothing material etc.

Yes this is advanced compared to DX9 standard and would be disrespectful to our PC's to lose this but shouldn't they just rid us of this unstable build and take there time and make another DX version more stable and better on performance.

Or DX9 with all the enhancements as we have seen in newer games such as crysis 2, Crysis 2 we all have to admit looks really good despite being in DX9 compared to older games.

Lets hear some views or idea's.

Thank you

More about : direct discontinued

May 13, 2011 1:16:44 PM

I don't even have DX11 capability yet, so I can't really say yay or nay, but the response to DX11 hasn't been overwhelming, has it? Most of the comparative screenshots have left me with a distinct "Meh" feeling.

Having said that, Nvidia are pushing tessellation really hard, and AMD have responded with the 6xxx cards, so I can't see DX going back to the way things were.
May 13, 2011 1:22:13 PM

Well it doesn't really have to go back as such just maybe enhance features of our most stable DX version, Due to demand people want DX 11 added but its creating delays all round and less production.

Where you get a DX 9 game and it is on a conveyer belt, im not saying do without advancement trust me i care about detail its just stability is a priority, BFBC 2 is the only game that has been stable besides the odd bug.

Look at Avp 2010 the worst game in dx11 i ever saw the sky is all messed up
Related resources
May 13, 2011 1:38:17 PM

no way, dx11 brings enhancements to dx9, crysis 2 looked good but it could have looked so much better the lighting is harsh the beasties looked cartoonish as did the soldiers...
dx11 would have given a much more subtle feel with much better lighting effects deeper shadows. more realistic surface textures. over all it would have put the game on a higher level and in real terms would probably have been less strenuous on the gpu. and thats not even adding tessellation. nah dx9 is what it needs to be. dx11 is what will be...
the real problem is that at the moment the games companies aren't integrating it into the game engines, games like bf3 and deus ex will change that. when toughs games arrive you will see the real benefits in gfx. not only will they look better they will require less overall resources to get dx9 details because they will already be optimized with dx11 then render in dx9, i know that sounds odd. but dx9 and 10 take relatively less gpu power on a dx11 card than they do on a dx9 or 10 card.
a point born out of benchmarking dx10 games with dx11 hardware that were in the same performance bracket.
a dx10 card with 128 shaders gets pummeled by a dx11 card with 128 shaders often by as much as 10-15 percent. even when matched clock for clock.
May 13, 2011 1:42:51 PM

Most games being console ports is probably the largest reason for no DX11. Most games designed for PC feature DX11. Even WoW has it now.
May 13, 2011 1:51:37 PM

aguerrrero84 said:
Most games being console ports is probably the largest reason for no DX11. Most games designed for PC feature DX11. Even WoW has it now.


Remember ports are easy to cross platform as its already coded and built, Im not promoting ports i have never owned a console nor shall i ever get one, There so few DX11 games but i doubt the reason for that is ports, I believe it takes a tremendous amount of to time to create a game like that.

Problem is there is more demand that production and when the dev's take long we complain, they push the game out fast DX 9 only we complain so why don't they just enhance a stable version that gives the feel of tesselation and just correct DX11 and then intergrate it.

Im also starting to believe they waiting for the next gen consoles to come out before they create the leaps in graphical enhanced software.

Its so funny how i believed getting a DX11 card would land me in a sweet spot for the upcoming DX 11 games now you look at the ratio its as if we not demanding it.
May 13, 2011 1:56:50 PM

Also with regards to the ported games dilemma, I believe its just in place to shut us up while they take there time to make the 5 odd good ones, look at any gaming site that shows you up coming games, 3 / 10 will be DX11 or atleast PC based am i wrong or am i right in that theroy
May 13, 2011 1:58:39 PM

Jonathern said:
Im also starting to believe they waiting for the next gen consoles to come out before they create the leaps in graphical enhanced software.


Yes - which by then consoles will have more capable DX11 hardware. Most games are designed for consoles. Developers aren't going to take the time and money to add DX11 effects when they can easily port it over.

The games designed primarily for PC almost always feature DX10 or DX11. Bioshock had it 4 years ago.
May 13, 2011 2:01:12 PM

aguerrrero84 said:
Yes - which by then consoles will have more capable DX11 hardware. Most games are designed for consoles. Developers aren't going to take the time and money to add DX11 effects when they can easily port it over.

The games designed primarily for PC almost always feature DX10 or DX11. Bioshock had it 4 years ago.


Ok but then why fool us PC gamers into upgrading our hardware and software for DX 11 applications only to slap us across the face with console ports it should be equal all round
May 13, 2011 2:05:55 PM

Because that's the way businesses work. I agree it sucks and I miss the days when games like HL, HL2, Unreal were all PC based and couldn't even be ported to consoles. But now consoles have taken over the gaming market.
May 13, 2011 2:07:16 PM

When the next generation of xbox is born, be very surprised if the gpu isn't DX11, as it no doubt will be an ATI part based on atleast 6xxx series if not the next generation and M$ change the DVD format for higher capacities, a lot will be taken up by HD graphcs/video which will ned DX11 horsepower.
May 13, 2011 2:29:33 PM

I think the console vs PC debate is a very valid one. Why are developers not pushing as hard as they used to when it comes to keeping their games on the cutting edge? Probably because it's easier to make money out of the console market, dare I say with less effort and innovation required. Really top-notch, A-list PC titles that could make full use of the DX11 capabilities are very scarce, and I'm not optimistic that things will improve in the near future.
May 13, 2011 6:50:40 PM

yes, let's take a 5 year step back from DX 11 to DX9 and forget about multi-core optimizations, tessellation, and any number of various improvements that the latest version brings to the table. While DX10 was definitely not a ground-breaking advance in graphics API, there's a lot to love in DX11 (hell, WoW players notice significant fps increases under the DX11 api).

Why don't we just go back to open GL 1.0? Shader models are for children.

May 13, 2011 8:00:58 PM

But Crysis 2 is only DX9 and it has the best graphics ever! What is wrong with you PC gamers, why can't you see that? The human eye can't see more than 30 fps, so console graphics @ 30 fps is L337. Don't you guys know how to use the interwebs to find information?!?!?!

Why do we need DX11, you can barely notice the bumps on the ropes and rocks on the Heaven demo anyway. And who really needs better looking textures and lighting in Crysis 2, because it is already so L337, its on the consoles so it is already at the pinnacle of 2005 technology. Don't you guys have the same cell phone, TV, MP3 player, clothes, shoes, and PC from 2005? Why would we need to ever have anything newer and more advanced than something from 2005?
May 13, 2011 8:19:36 PM

Trialsking said:
But Crysis 2 is only DX9 and it has the best graphics ever! What is wrong with you PC gamers, why can't you see that? The human eye can't see more than 30 fps, so console graphics @ 30 fps is L337. Don't you guys know how to use the interwebs to find information?!?!?!

Why do we need DX11, you can barely notice the bumps on the ropes and rocks on the Heaven demo anyway. And who really needs better looking textures and lighting in Crysis 2, because it is already so L337, its on the consoles so it is already at the pinnacle of 2005 technology. Don't you guys have the same cell phone, TV, MP3 player, clothes, shoes, and PC from 2005? Why would we need to ever have anything newer and more advanced than something from 2005?

You're eyes might not be able see more than 30fps but mine can.
May 13, 2011 9:52:47 PM

Mousemonkey said:
You're eyes might not be able see more than 30fps but mine can.



I guess you didn't get my sarcasm from my entire post.
May 13, 2011 9:57:42 PM

Trialsking said:
I guess you didn't get my sarcasm from my entire post.

No not really.
May 16, 2011 5:27:31 AM

If you take a look at PC's current advancement and then the delay in games that should be utilising it, well you have to ask yourself what was the mass upgrades for if with stuck with majority console DX9 ports and one out of three promised DX11 games which probably would just be a port.

Most don't care about attention to detail just the gameplay, but people that have jacked up their machines did so under the assumption we would see next gen software.

Now its as if we waiting for the consoles to catch up which is not fair when we as PC gamers already have the technology, So if they don't want to make the games with the advanced hardware and live in 2005 then just get DX 11 out of the picture so we all can go back to how things were.

Benefits of DX 9 as we all know the delay in game development is lowered and releases more frequent DX 11 months before release.
May 31, 2011 3:26:56 AM

It doesnt need to be discontinued. It can still run DX9 stuff and it is there when game developers stop being too lazy to code for dx11.
May 31, 2011 4:27:00 AM

IMO, DX10 is quite bad, than DX11. DX11 is good, but DX10 was a mistake. The graphics don't seem that good.
May 31, 2011 5:48:31 AM

As amazing as DX11 is visually and performance friendly, its just taking to long game wise or maybe they to focused on consoles that we last on the list, something has to give, i cant blame piracy anymore its something more than that.

This weekend i went to the mall to find a specific game and its worse than before literally no games and said to my girlfriend i guess this is it " The END of PC Gaming " She said this is all BS, So if anyone else can give valid reasoning i would love to hear because its never been like this
May 31, 2011 7:24:53 AM

If my wife knew it was the end of PC gaming she would rejoice!
May 31, 2011 7:28:05 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
If my wife knew it was the end of PC gaming she would rejoice!


Yeah my girlfriend would also but same time she knows i love gaming so the thought of struggling to find a good game is apparent my side hopefully things will change
May 31, 2011 8:48:11 AM

Crysis 2 has very poor gaming quality in general (note that the base was consoles that run in dx9 only).
If you want to see dx11 real changes, you should have to see Uniengine or metro 2033. So far no other company has used tesselation to its full extent.
This is "normal". Games that came out 1 year ago, mostly were started 4 years ago (the good ones), so implementing dx11 features to them would be a pain in the ass (you would have to rewrite the code for every unique texture in the game that can benefit from it).

For the games in the end of this year we might start seeing real dx11, till then, i doubt it.
May 31, 2011 8:51:24 AM

as far as i can tell BF3 is the only other ( Good game ) DX11 coming out the end of the year
May 31, 2011 7:55:18 PM

I find it funny DX9 is considered stable; I seem to recall an API that took almost FOREVER to replace DX7 in the marketplace...

Just saying, it takes a lot of time for enough of the population to have the prequisite hardware to convince the studios to take the effort to drop support for the earlier standard.

[Then again, most people on this forum were expecting devs to jump on the DX11 bandwagon; some even predicted every title would be DX11 by now. Not me though :D  ]
May 31, 2011 7:59:44 PM

gamerk316 said:
[Then again, most people on this forum were expecting devs to jump on the DX11 bandwagon; some even predicted every title would be DX11 by now. Not me though :D  ]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to recall a few of those. [:mousemonkey]
May 31, 2011 10:45:02 PM

Hmmm... The only game that I've bought which offered anything beyond DX9 was Crysis. But it doesn't matter anyway since I still use Win XP.

I don't play too many games. The games I've bought after playing Crysis only use DX9. They are as follows:

Mass Effects 1 & 2
Fallout 3 & Fallout New Vegas
King's Bounty: Armor Princess
The Witcher
Crysis 2

Anywaste, I'll be upgrading to Win 7 soon enough...
June 1, 2011 7:35:15 AM

gamerk316 said:
I find it funny DX9 is considered stable; I seem to recall an API that took almost FOREVER to replace DX7 in the marketplace...

Just saying, it takes a lot of time for enough of the population to have the prequisite hardware to convince the studios to take the effort to drop support for the earlier standard.

[Then again, most people on this forum were expecting devs to jump on the DX11 bandwagon; some even predicted every title would be DX11 by now. Not me though :D  ]


Well to ensure consumer satisfaction why don't they take their time with DX11 if its so difficult and stick to what works eg. DX9 in the mean time as its pointless everyone ploughing into one group to make one game, it never used to be this bad i know, i remember walking into a store with arrays of games but ever since console and the ever so unstable DX 11 pitched well nothing like a reed in the wind,lol
June 1, 2011 9:41:05 AM

jaguarskx said:
Hmmm... The only game that I've bought which offered anything beyond DX9 was Crysis. But it doesn't matter anyway since I still use Win XP.

I don't play too many games. The games I've bought after playing Crysis only use DX9. They are as follows:

Mass Effects 1 & 2
Fallout 3 & Fallout New Vegas
King's Bounty: Armor Princess
The Witcher
Crysis 2

Anywaste, I'll be upgrading to Win 7 soon enough...


Your not missing much, yes windows 7 will be a great addition to your PC performance wise and enhanced, DX11 ah i may be mistaken BF2 was the most stable DX11 game i have ever played.
June 1, 2011 4:55:04 PM

DX9 launched it 2002 and it wasn't until late 2006 that DX10 came around. So it's had many, many years of work put into it to ensure stability. There were even 3 revisions of it.

DX11 is still pretty new (1.5 years) so it still has issues to smooth out.
June 1, 2011 5:40:18 PM

Jonathern said:
DX11 ah i may be mistaken BF2 was the most stable DX11 game i have ever played.



BF2 had DX11?!??!

Looked pretty DX9 to me. it did come out on 2005.

June 1, 2011 6:00:22 PM

Trialsking said:
BF2 had DX11?!??!

Looked pretty DX9 to me. it did come out on 2005.

I think he meant BFBC2.
June 1, 2011 6:08:05 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one to recall a few of those. [:mousemonkey]


My arguments are exactly the same now as they were then: DX11 basically killed off DX10. Meanwhile, you have a glut of DX9/10 capable hardware on the market. Considering the differences between DX9 and DX10+ are significant, it makes far more economic sense to use DX9 as the "base" DX Engine, then add other features only as necessary to make your product more attractive to teh end user [as in, making a sale, not "pretty"].

Hence, why only Stormfront is DX10 and above, soon to be joined by BF3 [which may be a mistake, due to the fact XP still is hanging at ~50% share, but thats another debate I refuse to re-ignite :D ]

Simply put:
1) DX11 has killed DX10/10.1
2) Few people have DX11 hardware/almost all have DX9 hardware
3) Significant differences in API's between DX9 and DX10

Conclusion:
DX9 remains API of choice for selling maximum number of games; DX11 features added in as needed to sell more copies only when economically feasable.
June 1, 2011 6:49:59 PM

Most of the replies here are from average gammers :p  or from those who don't want or can't afford to upgrade graphic cards. You all should take it like this ... if you compare Dx9 with Dx10 and Dx11 ...just put it on an excel table and check advatages and disadvatages. Any normal brained person will see Dx11 > Dx10 > Dx9.
Now the 2nd part .... and the most crucial part is DirectX in games and this is directly related with the developers. Ill give you 2 examples both with dx11 that will state all. The new incoming Deus Ex game is (will be) directx 11 and it's graphics totally sux, its like GTA - San Andreas :| but Dirt 2 had very good looking graphics. So it's not only what DirectX are they implementing into the game.... its how the do it . Thats why Crysis 2 on dx9 looks awsome ..and others in dx11 looks bad.
And as end of the story if the developers are capable enough to squizz dx11 trust me ...you will be very impressed and most of all pleased, if not ...games will suck even in dx893748945 and noobs will cry on forums.
June 2, 2011 5:36:29 AM

Trialsking said:
BF2 had DX11?!??!

Looked pretty DX9 to me. it did come out on 2005.


Sorry meant BFBC2 didn't realise people remember games that far back,lol
June 2, 2011 5:42:02 AM

Don't get me wrong i have a DX11 GPU, But all the hype from the start about how amazing it will be with next gen cards, Where is that awsome amazing benefit or was it a marketing gimmic to sell it, If you gonna make something for a specific purpose then make sure that purpose is available and not a theory, We keep noticing the hardware being upgraded and new and improved here and there but there is next to nothing to enjoy it or is there?
June 2, 2011 6:58:28 AM

Jonathern said:
Sorry meant BFBC2 didn't realise people remember games that far back,lol


2005?! Some of us remember games back to the early 90's...

(This post is cleverly disguised bait for all the old-timers to crawl out and say "Hold up their, Sonny! You think gaming in the 90's was old-school? Why, back in MY day..")
June 2, 2011 7:11:59 AM

Herr_Koos said:
2005?! Some of us remember games back to the early 90's...

(This post is cleverly disguised bait for all the old-timers to crawl out and say "Hold up their, Sonny! You think gaming in the 90's was old-school? Why, back in MY day..")


I apologise no one here is regarded as an old timer, I to have enjoyed the games from the past BF2 was an error made by me in this thread as i meant BFBC2, The problem is the thread is not about 2005 games its about the fact we have all this machinery packed for action but we going no where, Yes performance and the satisfaction of a non sluggish system is amazing but with current games i expect a vast turn out of games which are optimized for current hardware systems instead there is next to nothing.

All this DX11 propaganda that flurished last year and wow maybe 7 - 10 games that were made, I would of made sure not to make something so complicated and time consuming for a market thats impaitient in todays times.

We buy and upgrade hardware faster than we enjoy the software, and isn't all this upgrading specifically for the software?

Software is like 5 years behind hardware thats how i see it
June 2, 2011 7:17:47 AM

I was referring to MY post as old-timer bait, not yours. And I would be proud, not offended, to be referred to as gaming old-timer. Thing is, I'm probably not old enough for that, hence my comment. :-)
June 2, 2011 7:22:33 AM

Herr_Koos said:
I was referring to MY post as old-timer bait, not yours. And I would be proud, not offended, to be referred to as gaming old-timer. Thing is, I'm probably not old enough for that, hence my comment. :-)


Oh ok cool, Yeah not old enough myself,lol,But subject wise does anyone believe waiting for a game a year with dx11 actually worth it?
June 2, 2011 4:58:01 PM

Jonathern said:
Sorry meant BFBC2 didn't realise people remember games that far back,lol


Herr_Koos said:
2005?! Some of us remember games back to the early 90's...

(This post is cleverly disguised bait for all the old-timers to crawl out and say "Hold up their, Sonny! You think gaming in the 90's was old-school? Why, back in MY day..")


Oooh, bait! I remember when the only decent games were coin-op's and that was still before something called 'Space Invaders' had arrived.
June 2, 2011 5:54:07 PM

Jonathern said:
Sorry meant BFBC2 didn't realise people remember games that far back,lol



Yeah I figured thats what you meant, I was just teasing.

Talk about old, I remember loading games from cassette tapes in the early 80's. It actually took a few minutes for them to load and having to fast forward to the right counter number to load the right game. Now I am so spoiled with CF 5870's, DX11, 25" monitor, and being able to max any game without even thinking about.

June 2, 2011 9:35:01 PM

I just want to now why they made Witcher 2 in DX 10? Its a new game for the PC and it does look amazing but wouldent you see better performance if it was DX 11?
June 2, 2011 9:38:05 PM

cburke82 said:
I just want to now why they made Witcher 2 in DX 10? Its a new game for the PC and it does look amazing but wouldent you see better performance if it was DX 11?

Was DX11 available to the devs when they first started working on the game?
June 2, 2011 10:11:05 PM

cburke82 said:
I just want to now why they made Witcher 2 in DX 10? Its a new game for the PC and it does look amazing but wouldent you see better performance if it was DX 11?


The Witch 2 was apparently being developed before Windows 7 was released. There was a leaked video showing that game before the game itself was officially announced on Sep. 16, 2009. That obviously meant CD Projekt RED had already started developing the game and they publicly announced the game two days later.

Could CD Projekt RED incorporated DX11? Sure but that would have meant a delayed release date and additional development expenses.
June 3, 2011 1:41:42 AM

I takes two to three years for a PC title to go from "Idea stage" to store shelves. When you see the first "announcement" its already been in development for a year, even if that development was nothing more then notebook pages full of drawings, lists and concepts. Sometimes developers can retro fit software their working on with some newer feature, often its just not worth it and they press forward as their on a tight release timeline. Add it in a future patch / expansion pack.
June 3, 2011 2:23:18 AM

palladin9479 said:
I takes two to three years for a PC title to go from "Idea stage" to store shelves.


Duke Nukem Forever is a prime example of an exception to the above statement.
June 3, 2011 3:05:15 AM

jaguarskx said:
Duke Nukem Forever is a prime example of an exception to the above statement.



Haha, well I'm talking the usual scenario. There is always development hell!
June 3, 2011 5:23:37 AM

Although a game is planned years before, there should be no excuse when comes to DX11 as its pretty clear DX 9 is a breeze, Either use it or lose i say because everyone gets super excited and for what.

It just seems to me that they should keep things the way they are if its to much for them to push out DX11 games as they know the public wants something new and when the new doesn't work well anger sets in.

Im just saying get DX11 sorted that its as easy to make a DX 9 game or just leave it and start pumping games out like you do with those consoles
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!