Printable View
DirectX actually helps operate the game does it not? Rather than simply sit there, say "hello" and then do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
DirectX as a platform to help games be written consistently regardless of device manufacturer makes sense. It provides an active and uniform standard so it doesn't matter if you're using nVidia or AMD or Intel or ...
And Steam makes it much easier for developers to push out updates, including patches, DLC and free updates. Just as DirectX is basically a premade platform for all the graphics stuff, Steam is a premade platform for digital distribution.
Obviously, it's nowhere near as handy as DirectX, but if you've got some arbitrary, ridiculous principle about never playing games which rely on a piece of third party software, I don't really think you can then draw the line between something that's incredibly useful and something merely somewhat useful. Or, rather, you can, but in the process of examining where this line should be you should suddenly be struck with how arbitrary and pointless you're actually being.
Didn't microsoft, since Vista, force alternative modeling methods, like OpenGL, to be layer ontop of Direct3D, thus DirectX?
Forcing you into DirectX even if you specifically programmed around not wanting to use it...
Uh, no. You always could and still can use individual parts of DirectX (like Direct3D, DirectInput or DirectSound) and choose your own implementation (OpenGL, OpenAL...) for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
DirectX is only a framework. You can always go around a framework if you want to.
None of which I'm interested in. I don't like the reduced user control over patching, the only part of that's ever affected one of my games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
What. You like having to hunt down the latest patch, downloading it and installing it? Besides, you can disable automatic patching.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I associate some sense of nostalgia in hunting down patches, and have had some very unfortunate experiences with high-price software upgrades eating up boot sectors or similar. So, there's some arguments to be made here. Although Valve is very anal about what they let into their update pipeline, so there's that.
been awhile, had to hunt for what I was recalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...weakens-opengl
Well, that one is obviously false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I like being able to isolate and scan anything coming onto my computer before it executes. I don't care how anal anyone else is, the only thing I can even attempt to control is how anal I am and I don't appreciate that being taken out of my hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
What was the last game you actually hunted down a patch for? Every game for the last decade or so has provided the option to download patches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Last game I recall hunting for a patch for was DOS-based Conquest of the New World (1996).
I've got a shit ton of games that the websites they point to don't exist anymore, much less even have the option to download the patch, much less having the option to download the patch and inspect it before it executes (as noted above).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Even for newer games, the servers are shortlived. Last time I tried to update NWN2 it failed on every atari address until it found a good connection at a different location. Aside from NWN2 and DragonAge (neither of these download files in an easy to find labeled location), I'm having a hard time remembering a title that patches in game without using a 3rd party service like Impulse, Steam, or GFWL.
Good point.