first off rare left nitendo.they were not sold.second there games have a average of the 80s on metacritic.third valve likes to be independent.fourth since they r restructuring it means they r not being shutdown.

  I'll give the top 5 reasons open GL is vastly superior (not in any order of importance)

  1) it is universal.  Open GL 3.0 can be used on mac, linux, PC, PS3 and Wii.  It could very easily be used on whatever console MS wanted to make too if MS wasn't into forcing Direct X.  Contrastingly the similar direct X 10 can only be used on Vista which less then 20% of the computer buying public uses (less then 20% US only, WAY less then 20% if you include worldwide computers).  Direct X 10 is a not so subtle attempt to force gamers into using a OS most people don't like.  They could easily code it for XP as well (which MANY people prefer) but they are trying to use it as a vehicle to enforce planned obselescnece.  That direct X gives MS that power to limit compatibility and funnel gamers is a decided negative.

   2) Open GL is compatable with just about any programing language with the right bindings.  It can use code from Pascal, C#, Perl, Java, C and many more.  This allows for both greater flexability and a much greater selection of libraries and choices for coding.  Contrastingly direct X is dependent on handful of mainly propriatary languages including C++ and visual basic .net.  This is both restrictive in terms of coding methods AND makes it more difficult to move developed projects to other platforms without doing a recode from scratch.  Open GL allows for easy use of some of the same code on everything from the Wii to the PS3 to the PC to the iphone. 

   3) Open GL's IHV drivers have much better support for whats known as marshalling due to their user-mode components (components direct X does not have).  This increases efficiency by allowing for stored commands to be efficiently exchanged all at once when the GPU's command buffer is close to being empty.  This means the manual queres are eliminated and commands can be fed quickly and efficiently to the GPU after being prepared in advance.  The performance gain from this is noticable.

   4)Only Microsoft approved API's are allowed with direct X which limits the implementation of new more efficient API's from other vendors.  For example when pixel shader support was added to graphics cards MS released a single Pixel Shader 1.1 extention that covered all graphics cards above a certain performance level making no differentiation between a low end and high end card while with Open GL Nvidia and other companies can make custom shaders to allow optimization both for their cards and for the performance of the card in question.  This from the top standard being put forth by Microsoft (instead of the makers of GPUs) again reduces the efficency of the systems in question.

   5) Open GL has great utility beyond gaming and is far more prevelant in professional graphics production (computer animation, scientific visualization ect.).  Direct X is very limited to gaming, while Open GL is useful across a wide variety of tasks due to its better performance and compatibility (most super computers aren't exactly running Windows Vista).  There is a much greater bredth of features in the Open GL API that allows for new ideas and non standard implementations that just aren't possible under Direct X.

   So yah, its open source, has more utility, is free from MS monopoly pressures, allows for more efficient communication with the GPU, and can be used on every modern gaming platfrom except the 360 (by design).  There is not a single way in which Direct X is superior.  It's the Java to MS's equally awful .net.

Hmm.  Most of your arguments seem to be against M$ having control of the API.  You bring up the early days of Pixel Shaders.  OpenGL's attempts during that time were very different than M$'s but had severe disadvantages as well.  Each vender would provide a different pixel shader extension for OpenGL.  How in the hell was this a good thing for a developer?  The developer would have to code differently for each extension implementation.  There should have been a single standard(aka what M$ did).  Now a days, this is an unimportant point because there are unified standards for OpenGL, much like M$'s.  Also, DirectX is directly tied to hardware accelleration.  It expects it.  OpenGL is for rendering things and maybe there is hardware there to accellerate the process.  Software rendering in both cases is much slower than hardware rendering. 

Unified API's are a VERY good thing for developers.  Nothing like having to search the user's computer and see what is available and run completely different systems based on which vendor provided them the APIs.  Development nightmare.  Which is why OpenGL has gotten away from this for the most part. 

Number 3 is available in DirectX10.  Also, geometry shaders and hardware tesselation is a VERY VERY big plus for DirectX10 and forward.  And no looking for extensions, as they are, guess what, STANDARD.

If using multiple languages is a problem, Managed DirectX runs with any .Net language.  And any and all languages can be compiled to the CLR.  Thus any language ever made can use Managed DirectX.  And Managed DirectX is 99% as fast as un-managed DirectX.  But if performance was key, you would use C or C++ in any case. 

#5 has nothing to do with my statement, as my statement was in direct regards to game development.  DirectX was made specifically for game development as can be seen by the APIs included for audio, input, networking, etc.  Of which OpenGL has none.

Also, C# provides much more powerful tools than Java.  And comparing .Net to Java is dumb as well, since the scope of the CLI is infinitely larger than the JVM.  The CLI should be the greatest achievement in programming history.  Write in any language, run on any platform.  The ONLY downside anyone should see in this is that M$ controls the specification.

Rare axes artist and engineer positions
Banjo and Viva Piñata studio Rare has already axed a number of positions in its art and engineering teams, GamesIndustry.biz understands.

Around 12 positions have gone in both departments, and the company is also reducing the number of project leads, asking employees to reapply for positions elsewhere within the company.

Microsoft Game Studios announced on Tuesday that it intends to restructure the highly-regarded team, in order to simplify development.

By adopting new business and development processes, Rare hopes to be more reactive to the wider changes hitting the Microsoft Corporation, which has led to the company shedding 5000 employees.

However, despite the changes, Rare is currently at work on four different projects and continues to be a flagship studio for Microsoft Game Studios. Earlier this month, Microsoft's Chris Lewis told GamesIndustry.biz that original IP would not be sacrificed by MGS in favour of working on popular franchises.

"If you batten down the hatches and simply work where you know you're already strong, that doesn't give you the future growth that we're all hungry for," he said.

A spokesperson for Rare declined to offer any official comment.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/rare-axes-artist-and-engineer-positions

Hopefully we get games quicker this way.