Retrocompatibility is not so software (API) dependent nowadays, given that there's s enough horsepower to emulate the different layers of software. If the developers have enough incentive to do so, literally everything is possible if the hardware is strong enough.
That has nothing to do with Directx.
What I'm asking is, had the PSVR used some sort of API, Direct X or Vulcan or whatever, Would that have allowed them to use different hardware (headsets) with the older software?
Thats why I'm asking, If API has nothing to do with VR then maybe it should.
They should, they could but they won't. I thought they would do it, but I was wrong. The games already run on PS5, and nothing stops them from allowing you play them in PSVR2 but lots of those games are coded to Move control scheme and that's one reason why I think they don't want to put in the effort to. They want a clean break from PSVR 1.
I used to think this until I got my Steam Deck, Now I have to research all this stuff and make sure I have the best version of Proton for a game.
I used to spend a lot of time researching this stuff as well, would engage in console warring, etc --- but I don't know, in the end it doesn't make a big difference to me. I just want to play videogames and have fun.
Not, it wouldn't. To answer your own question, just look a the number of classic games (DirectX compilant) that refuses to work on newer versions of Windows. And you don't need to look at very old games, games launched on previous versions sometimes fail to launch on recently launched Windows versions. DirectX itself is not an guarantee to infinite (or even longer) retrocompatibility.
Actually I think Microsoft would be happy for Sony to use it. You would have thought the same thing that Microsoft wouldn't want to help Sony by letting them use Azure servers for the streaming service, yet here they are.
Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. Have you considered that Directx for the most part is a suite of proprietary APIs that runs on proprietary windows kernel. Consider that Microsoft would also have to provide all that proprietary information to Sony for their windows kernel, drivers etc. Unless in your head you imagine Microsoft, who has not created a Linux version would create a DX fork for Free BSD.
That much is clear. DX is their graphics API for windows, Microsoft makes money off windows OS.
I guess there is a lot of confusion out there in terms of just what an API is and what it does, because people seem to think that the existence of the DirectX API solves all these problems in terms of compatibility and going forward. When in reality, the API solves these problems because MS chooses to use the API to solve them. It's not magic. MS intentionally says, "we are going to keep compatibility so we need to engineer the API to keep compatibility." If they don't, stuff breaks. We've started to see more breakage over the years as MS has moved away somewhat from their previously ironclad focus on compatibility, because in the end that focus on compatibility is not cost-free. Which is why other companies like Apple don't focus on it in the same way and as such break stuff with new releases constantly.
Yes, MS would be happy to see Sony using it for PS but Sony first would always prefer their own stuff without the extra overhead that DirectX adds from the other versions, and also being Sony's stuff don't depend on somebody else to do stuff, and also saves them from having to share certain critical stuff in terms of security with an external company -and this case their direct competitor- like MS.
So, DX12 on Xbox is not as low level as Sony's API?
