Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

Driving Collaboration

OpenMAX is a non-proprietary, royalty-free standard, primarily targeted at middleware developers producing multimedia codecs, games engines and graphics libraries.

[...]

http://www.khronos.org/openmax/index.html

OpenMAX FAQ

[...]

What is the goal of the OpenMAX effort?

OpenMAX was founded to address the need to accelerate the growth of compelling multimedia platforms and hence end-user products. The end result is to standardize a set of open APIs for a variety of multimedia applications, including smartphones, media players, games and graphics, thus reducing the cost and complexity of porting multimedia software to new processors and architectures thereby accelerating application development overall.


What "critical need" is OpenMAX solving?

With the wide range of hardware platforms, a standards-based approach aids in solving the problems associated in porting and optimizing middleware applications such as multimedia codecs, and graphics libraries between these platforms.



What are the benefits of such an open standard to the industry?

In order to create compelling multimedia products such as smartphones, media players and games consoles, developers need optimized low-level code. Currently this code is written mostly in assembly language and has to be rewritten on every different hardware platform. This is expensive and time consuming. With the OpenMAX standard, developers will have this optimized low-level code provided to them with the hardware platform. This allows the developer to focus on creating higher level functionality, getting to market sooner and supporting a broader range of hardware platforms.

How does OpenMAX work with Operating Systems?

It is an important goal of the OpenMAX standard to complement the multimedia frameworks of popular industry Operating Systems. Specifically, OpenMAX co-exists with and is complementary to existing APIs and libraries, including those from the Khronos Group and those provided by OS vendors; it is designed to be used by developers of those libraries and will support a wide range of processor architectures and their tool chains.

[...]

When will the OpenMAX specification be complete?

We anticipate that the first specification for OpenMAX will appear in the fourth quarter of 2004.

Who will define and maintain the OpenMAX specification?

The Khronos Group will retain this responsibility.


[...]

It sounds similar to something else we have heard about before .




Just a reminder:

http://www.khronos.org/members/contributors.html

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) manufacturers, distributes and markets the PlayStation game console and PlayStation2 computer entertainment system that have revolutionized home entertainment by introducing advanced 3D graphic processing. SCEI, along with its subsidiary divisions Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd., and Sony Computer Entertainment Korea Inc. develops, publishes, markets and distributes software, and manages the third party licensing programs for these two platforms in the respective markets worldwide. Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. is an independent business unit of the Sony Group. More information is available at http://www.sony.com.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Indeed Pana, I expect Nintendo's Revolution to have adopted this already. (although perhaps not publicly) Or definitely will, I still contend that coding for the Revolution vs. the PS3 will be much more simplistic. As streamlining the architecture (as they did with the GC for example 8 hw lights w/no computational hit, self-tinting, light variants available with automatic self-shadowing, textures per pass, etc.) & adding customized hw effects seems to be paramount judging by interviews. (an even more developer accessible console) My apologies, I didn't mean to derail your thread, but this will further simplify PS3 to Revolution ports. So much for everyone adopting the "XNA initiative." What potential problems will this cause for Xenon? Seeing as who the market leader will be.

 

[Chopin Trusty Balls]

XNA is mostly targeted at PC developers,where MS is leader,i have allready seen PC only games being demoed with xbox controller(Longest Journeyreamfall,Wraith and unnamed FPS using Far Cry engine)

MS has much more expierence and influence thanks to thier DirectX

 

[jarrod]

Mmm--I'd say MS has, thus far, put forward a far more organized initiative with XNA, and have really sold it to devs, judging by the responses recieved from most of the major players who are already using it. The other, more important aspect (IMO) is that XNA is a set of mature tools that have evolved over the Xbox's (and much of DirectX 9's, if I'm not mistaken) lifespan , giving it one hell of a leg up over whatever neophyte Sony is planning on releasing at this point. In the end, the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak, but all too often Sony tries to create a revolution with a press release, and more often than not, goes no further than that.

Er wouldn't the XNA/Direct X dynamic be comparable to Open MAX/Open GL? I'm not sure it fair to categorize one as a "neophyte" without entending that courtesy...

 

[cybamerc]

This is not really comparable to XNA. OpenMAX seems to be a collection of APIs, not unlike DirectX. XNA otoh is a way to market existing technologies and make people excited about them as if they were something new.

DirectX is a subset of XNA.

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

Someone breaks this down for ignorant people like myself.

What does this mean for game development?
How does it compare to MS' XNA initiative?
And which one will be more beneficial or "better"?

 

[Vennt]

What does this mean for game development?

Better portability / more standardized development for various platforms.

How does it compare to MS' XNA initiative?

A bit like comparing Apples to Oranges, so comparison is pointless.

And which one will be more beneficial or "better"?

Again, it's like comparing Apples to Oranges, neither is 'better' or 'more beneficial'

Both have their own niché & application.

 

[Fafalada]

What does this mean for game development?

This actually extends outside game development, as it's aimed at other multimedia areas too, but either way, it's supposed to define a set of open source standards for lowerlevel multimedia APIs.
To use an analogy, it's like a cross platform version of expanded DirectX.

How does it compare to MS' XNA initiative?
And which one will be more beneficial or "better"?

XNA is a primarily a marketing iniative, so the two don't really compare easily.

Anyway, I guess the objectives are somewhat comparable(helping multiplatform development) -
OpenMAX is crossplatform by design.
XNA, according to Mr.Allard, is eventually intended to create a proprietary software platform that unifies different types of hw (consoles, PC etc.) into one.
The latter aims to achieve the goals by promoting proprietary core technologies, former is opensource.

Dunno, let others decide which is more beneficial

 

[kaching]

The news about this initiative has been very generalized over the past few days. Tech companies attach themselves to initiatives like this all the time where the promised payoff never materializes or is more years removed from the now than expected. Not that this doesn't seem like a reasonable fit for a next gen platform but is this likely to be "Sony's XNA" from the start - i.e. all developers working on PS3 launch titles with this - or is it more likely to materialize as a midstream solution next gen and, as such, cement itself mainly as an alternative rather than THE platform development solution during next gen?

As for XNA itself and its lineage, is there a significant measurable distinction between such a concentrated development environment initiative and "one-off" platform development environments that suggests a real value difference? In terms of real world deliverable - games that make it to retail - DirectX enabled platforms seem no less plagued by delayed software, project cycles of indefinite length, projects simply in limbo and, worst of all, games outright cancelled. Even the Xbox, which manages to eliminate the bugbear of infinitely varied hardware config (well, excluding modders) providing the "closed DirectX box" development experience, appears to have at least as many delayed or cancelled games as any other platform.

I'm just not confident that initiatives like XNA and OpenMax truly make that much of difference since they're not attacking the core issue: disparate, competing hardware architectures that proliferate and are never meant to be compatible with each other in any practical fashion. So, instead of tackling the problem at the source, we get 101 abstracted development solutions all purporting things like, "allows the developer to focus on creating higher level functionality, getting to market sooner and supporting a broader range of hardware platforms"

Not that they don't achieve these ends to some extent but, in relation to each other, the improvements seem minimal (reminder: speaking as a layman observer, here, based on assessment of real world deliverables) and they don't seem like they're really staying ahead or even with the ascending curve of hardware power combined with developer ambition.

 

[Phoenix]

OpenMAX is a good thing because it brings about a standard approach that all companies can follow to develop content for a variety of platforms OpenMAX is in essence an open source based XNA which will be pushed and marketted by the Kronos group. THe only fear is taht the Kronos group is relatively young and while they have garnered considerable support for their efforts, they don't have big backers and pockets flush with money.

Nevertheless I think its a great idea - and having a standard set of APIs is crucial for Sony, Nintendo, etc to compete with Microsoft. The great thing about DirectX is that you can start on next generation content long before the hardware becomes available and you can take your experience with you. With Sony and Nintendo, you're pretty much inventing the wheel on each generation - and that's a waste of investment.

The downside of OpenMAX, which people don't seem to mention much, is that console manus DON'T WANT portability. Developers want it because they can capture more platforms at once, but if I'm Sony I now have to pay you considerably more for an exclusive that you could cross compile and have ready for other platforms at the same time. A long long time ago in a state far far away there was some discussion about building a Java runtime specifically for limited devices (like consoles) and it got some traction until the whole 'why they hell would I want this - this doesn't make sense from a business perspective' thing came up

 

[cybamerc]

OpenMAX is in essence an open source based XNA

No. OpenMAX is comparable to DirectX. DirectX is just a small part of the XNA marketing initiative which also includes a development environment (Visual Studio), Xbox Live and various development tools.

 

[Panajev2001a]

No. OpenMAX is comparable to DirectX. DirectX is just a small part of the XNA marketing initiative which also includes a development environment (Visual Studio), Xbox Live and various development tools.

That is why you add: COLLADA, OpenGL ES, OpenML, the Eclipse IDE (which Sony has been working on with IBM), etc...

 

[Panajev2001a]

OpenMAX is a good thing because it brings about a standard approach that all companies can follow to develop content for a variety of platforms OpenMAX is in essence an open source based XNA which will be pushed and marketted by the Kronos group. THe only fear is taht the Kronos group is relatively young and while they have garnered considerable support for their efforts, they don't have big backers and pockets flush with money.

Nevertheless I think its a great idea - and having a standard set of APIs is crucial for Sony, Nintendo, etc to compete with Microsoft. The great thing about DirectX is that you can start on next generation content long before the hardware becomes available and you can take your experience with you. With Sony and Nintendo, you're pretty much inventing the wheel on each generation - and that's a waste of investment.

The downside of OpenMAX, which people don't seem to mention much, is that console manus DON'T WANT portability. Developers want it because they can capture more platforms at once, but if I'm Sony I now have to pay you considerably more for an exclusive that you could cross compile and have ready for other platforms at the same time. A long long time ago in a state far far away there was some discussion about building a Java runtime specifically for limited devices (like consoles) and it got some traction until the whole 'why they hell would I want this - this doesn't make sense from a business perspective' thing came up

I think that in their list of Promoters and Contributors you will see some cash .

Also, I do think that Sony's biggest fear should not be Nintendo, but Microsoft next-generation.

I am not sure if code developed for OpenGL ES and OpenMAX would be so quickly portable to an XNA based platform.

Still, the risks of going with a complete custom, new, not greatly documented and limited API (steeper learning curve for developers) next-generation are too high IMHO.

 

[Phoenix]

No. OpenMAX is comparable to DirectX. DirectX is just a small part of the XNA marketing initiative which also includes a development environment (Visual Studio), Xbox Live and various development tools.

XNA is Direct X wrapped in a marketing package. XBox live is a single vendor solution which cannot be standardized outside of saying 'we take TCP and UDP and relay them to other people in your gaming session'. Development tools are development tools, there are a ton of development tools that work cleanly and better an Visual Studio for all of the OpenMAX APIs listed. Eclipse is just the best one that is open source (and yeah it still beats up on Visual Studio).

 

[Phoenix]

I think that in their list of Promoters and Contributors you will see some cash .

Sure, but how much of that does the Kronos group have access to? In order to push a standard you've gotta spend some money in marketing, developer training, publications, developer support, etc. Microsoft has this end locked down and in order to compete *realisticly* Kronos is going to have to raise the bar.

Also, I do think that Sony's biggest fear should not be Nintendo, but Microsoft next-generation.

I don't disagree with that - just pointing out that one of the issues that has always come up behind building an API that would allow games to be relatively portable amongst consoles was that you start seeing less 'true' exclusives and you can no longer get a clear lock on that piece of the market. If I know game blah is out for Sony PrayStationWorks and I know is was written using OpenMax but I have a Nintendo WonderPipe - Sony doesn't have any clear advantage. So if the WonderPipe is cheaper or more readily available - I can just wait. What happens in that standardization is that the hardware is even more commoditized as it just becomes a ways to play content at the level of a NVidia Deafener or an ATI DriverMadness. Back in the day the feared losing that level of control with a passion that was almost irrational.

I am not sure if code developed for OpenGL ES and OpenMAX would be so quickly portable to an XNA based platform.

Still, the risks of going with a complete custom, new, not greatly documented and limited API (steeper learning curve for developers) next-generation are too high IMHO.

Quickly portable? Possibly not, but definitely doable just by building wrapper APIs. Both API sets have advanced to the point where they are really doing the same thing now. So its just a matter of finding out where D3DDrawXXXX matches up with glDrawXXXX and making an equivalent function call.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Phoenix, Sony cannot repeat the PlayStation 2 situation, they would just get steamrolled.

This is by far the lesser evil.

nVIDIA and ATI still manage to one-up each other by the sheer speed and quality of their Hardware even if they all run under DirectX .

Back in the day the feared losing that level of control with a passion that was almost irrational.

But now...

It is inevitable .