[kllrnohj]

> "I want a graphics API!"

> - "Use this game engine or this old and outdated graphics library instead"

That is the actual answer for when people ask that question, most of the time. Almost nobody is asking for a raw GPU API, which is what Vulkan, DX12, and WebGPU are. Rather they want a graphics API. Something that provides utilities and helpers. Something that can actually load textures, models, and animations. Or has a particle effect system.

But if all you want is a GPU API, as I mentioned far higher up in the thread there's no shortage of those today either (like bgfx, or even Angle). 'native' WebGPU isn't addressing some unserved market here.

Although if you actually do want a GPU API, there's also a good chance you actively don't want to use a middleware like WebGPU since it limits what you can do and gets in the way...

[nchi3]

bgfx is definitely a competitor in that sense. However, it doesn't have the same backing, is not standardized, and would have a hard time building momentum due to that.

I'm mostly thinking of indie game devs who decide to write their games from scratch (which still happens, though it's becoming rare), or up-and-coming game engines such as Bevy. They might not have a team who can spend the time optimizing Vulkan (while also making sure MoltenVK runs it fine, if they want to target MacOS), and might prefer something more modern than OpenGL.

>WebGPU since it limits what you can do and gets in the way

Does it do that more than OpenGL ever did though?