after being excited about Vulkan i've read that they want to simplify the initiation- and binding-process, defining vertices, buffers (etc..) so you can get much easier to your fluffy stuff like GLSL.

on the other side this seems to requires much more codeblocks to set up everything, which you can then use for various projects and in different environments.

so after some hype i'm actually more like meh and i just see an "improvement" of commands and shit, because we all love to browse through another terabyte of PDFs full of reformed commands because someone says it is better (hi@open source).

am i wrong?

Vulkan is not intended to be a substitute for OpenGL. OGL will continue to exist and to be supported. It's just a "thinner" lower level library designed to support modern computing features like multi-core, better host/GPU memory management, etc. Of course, it implies that developers will need to write more code to use it because it won't have any of the state and memory management that OGL has.

Google supporting Vulcan means that a competition of MS/DirectX will be stronger. Stronger competition == better for the users.

Actually, Microsoft is part of the Vulkan group. They'll probably build the next DX on top of it, or create some kind of Windows library for it.

Interesting, since they have competing products in development. I knew that Microsoft joined the Kronos group last year, but that was for WebGL, but did not hear about Vulcan involvement (besides the Mantle related news). Could you link a source please?

Actually, I could be wrong. MS is included in the Vulkan overview PDF (but not within the "Board of Promoters" group) and I probably over-read it as they being somehow involved in its development (which they might not be).

now tell me AAA-game titles on OpenGL in last 10 years....

Its a combination of ogl being a mess to work with and deliberately poor implementation of ogl in windows

Nicol Bolas's answer explains why it happened.

There were a few. For example, Valve games run on SteamOS and use OpenGL (L4D, Portal, etc). See my answer to Meph1stoo, there is a link above.

Those games are made for directX and are later given a DX 2 OGL translation layer

L4D/2 is faster on Linux. ToGL isn't just some external wrapper, it's a binary level implementation. If you don't accept that as OpenGL, then Quake and all the other OpenGL titles must be excluded as well, since those were also running on miniGL drivers which were wrappers to proprietary APIs (like Glide for example).

idtech5-6 are also OpenGL and the new Wolfenstein games were AAA titles and quite popular too. I understand that these are rare exceptions, but still... more competition is better for the users.

I'm not arguing that d3d is better than ogl. I'm just saging that they use a translation layer, no matter how low level it is. Those games were developed for d3d originally. I'm definitely not not advocating for d3d as I don't have windows on any of my devices

I understand. The weird thing is that afaik Source is native OpenGL on OSX and PS3, wonder why didn't they use that codebase on Linux (perhaps it's only OpenGL 2?)

Most likely