.NET I really wouldn't consider for game dev. Especially not on consoles. No game dev wants something tucked between them and the metal like the .NET framework. It's just not the best choice. You want full control on memory and when it's freed and allocd. .NET is too high level in my opinion. Games would be typically coded in C++. If you look most positions advertised for game developers, C/C++ will be required.

As for GL vs DX. This never goes away. I think what people forget is that OpenGL is ONLY a graphics API, where as DX has a lot of utils as part of the SDK that are useful for many aspects of overall game creation. Personally, I like OpenGL for graphics, and use DX on windows for input.

The PS3 running GL certainly means the developers that ignored GL will have to sharpen their tools and break out a bit. Always a good thing. GL is unlikely to disappear off the face of the earth considering the D3D is really only used for gaming.

"OpenGL is ONLY a graphics API"

I did say Direct3D. I agree it is more convenient to use WinAPI/DirectSound/DirectInput when programming specifically for Windows.

And yes, .NET is not optimal for games, especially where extreme optimisation is necessary like on consoles. Same reason that Java and Flash aren't used for console games.

"GL is unlikely to disappear off the face of the earth considering the D3D is really only used for gaming."

Yes, for example Folding@home recently switched over to OpenGL on their GPU client citing performance reasons.

I was under the impression that OpenGL was more popular than DirectX. OpenGL is Used on all of the current generation consoles and handhelds, except Xbox, and several last generation consoles as well.

OpenGL is now supported on Vista by Microsoft, although OpenGL has always worked under windows, it was only supported by the GPU makers previously. OpenGL works for all Unix based Operating systems to include Mac and Linux. Both are used by major animation studios and graphical artists.

OpenGL also is used for many Windows games, including all ID and Blizzard made games, which are very popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D

Gee, DX10 is still pretty new and it's mostly unsupported by hardware. Shocking.

Does anyone remember DX9... DX8... DX7...?

This is what happens when a new DX releases. It takes time for it to grab a foothold in the market. OpenGL is way behind the game and doesn't get updated nearly as often as it needs to keep up with DirectX.

DirectX isn't going anywhere. Even if it does, OpenGL won't be its cause of death.

PS: HUGE LOL at this article bringing up Macs and Linux in a gaming conversation.

They are, if anything, more suited to games (performance and reliability considerations) than Windows. The major obstacle to Mac OS X and Linux becoming gaming platforms is Direct3D. The increased adoption of OpenGL due to the mechanisms in the original post will lead to more games being ported. I fail to see the 'lol'.

"Gee, DX10 is still pretty new and it's mostly unsupported by hardware. Shocking."

The difference this time is DX10 being Vista-exclusive, low Vista adoption rates relative to expectations, and the policy of Nvidia to NEVER adopt DirectX 10.1.

"OpenGL is way behind the game and doesn't get updated nearly as often as it needs to keep up with DirectX."

Officially, yes, but independent extensions (impossible with DirectX) bring OpenGL up to at least DirectX 10.1; certainly all features of DX10 in use in the real world can be done with OpenGL 2 plus extensions. 

Don't toss the word "no" and you will be closer to seeing my perspective.

DirectX has substantially less influence at "10" than it had at "6".

The DirectX console market will probably end up at 20-25% by generations end worldwide,  versus the rest for OpenGL.

And on the PC, other things beyond OpenGL like FLASH and the upcoming 3D web based alternatives are eating away DirectX development usage.

Video card makers aren't going to start adopting OpenGL extensions. If OpenGL ever wants to be taken seriously, it will be a healthy infusion of cash and continual *official* updates. Even then, I doubt it would ever surpass DirectX.

People aren't adopting Vista? Shocking. People didn't adopt XP in its first year either. Gamers were running Win2K for well over a year after XP released. XP was buggy, lacked driver support, and was considered to be bloatware by most hardcore gamers.

Sound familiar?

And yes, I will continue to LOL at the mention of Linux and Macs in a gaming conversation. They populate such a small percentage of the gaming market that it's pointless to even mention them.

 You clearly have a superiority complex. Perhaps Linux does have a very small gaming userbase, but it is a much better gaming platform than Windows currently is, even if it has much fewer games than Windows.

@Soleron AWESOME POST!! Your observation on how all MS technology is ultimately aimed at maintaining a Windows Lock-in is spot on! Ignore RocketPig, he is clearly out of his depth here.

Yes, I have a superiority complex. Which is why I own two Macs.

Try again.

But keep on rockin' those 8 games on Linux... Maybe I can hop online and we can play Super Breakout together some time.