4 ms·

You don't have to use JavaScript. (See emscripten, binaryen etc.) The Web is basically just a runtime you don't have to host your files on a server if you don'

You don't have to use JavaScript. (See emscripten, binaryen etc.) The Web is basically just a runtime you don't have to host your files on a server if you don't want. You can distribute them via CDs if you prefer. Also you can use Service Workers now. That said monetisation all depends on the product not the medium. Just look at Minecraft. It didn't use ads or microtransactions and yet it was run from a Java applet in a browser.

BoysenberryPi 10y ago
Distribution via CDs is not even realistic. That might work for Linux distributions who want to sell CDs to the 10 people who want to buy them but for games when most sells are made via Steam that isn't even a serious idea. Minecraft also notoriously performs terrible. Given what Minecraft is sure that might work for Minecraft. It wouldn't work for an AAA game.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  OK use what ever distribution and monetisation strategy you want. The point was that you are not restricted to serving your files from a online server or making money via ads/microtransactions just because you are using the Web.
andrewmcwatters 10y ago
Yeah, but many of us game developers don't want to use any of that either. At the end of the day, those tools don't ensure that we obtain the same level of quality out the other end. Framerates aren't the same, memory usage isn't the same, and you can't easily tweak these things once they've come out the other end. The web _isn't_ just a runtime. It's abstracted like that, but browsers are glorified HTML renders with JavaScript bindings, event handling, and sound and video playback to game developers. HN has a subset of the community constantly raving about these things for game developers, but where are the game developers actually praising these things? I don't know of any, personally. We're all too busy with desktop games.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  I don't think I'm understanding you. What tools ensure you get the same level of quality on the user's setup? Things are always different on the user's hardware/system.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    I assume they mean same quality in the browser versus on the desktop. The difference is noticeable. Yes, there's differences between machines, but if you're offering only the browser version, the people with the least powerful machines could get a bad experience.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Myself, I'm currently working on a game that targets both the web and the desktop. I like the accessibility of the former (just go to the site and play, nearly frictionless), but the latter has better FPS by an order of magnitude[0] for the same C codebase, so I'd rather keep my options open. [0] Mind you, said order of magnitude applies to uncapped framerate.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    *Sorry, it's quite a bit smaller than an order of magnitude. It's a non-trivial difference though.

BoysenberryPi 10y ago

Distribution via CDs is not even realistic. That might work for Linux distributions who want to sell CDs to the 10 people who want to buy them but for games when most sells are made via Steam that isn't even a serious idea. Minecraft also notoriously performs terrible. Given what Minecraft is sure that might work for Minecraft. It wouldn't work for an AAA game.

bobajeff 10y ago
OK use what ever distribution and monetisation strategy you want. The point was that you are not restricted to serving your files from a online server or making money via ads/microtransactions just because you are using the Web.

andrewmcwatters 10y ago

Yeah, but many of us game developers don't want to use any of that either. At the end of the day, those tools don't ensure that we obtain the same level of quality out the other end. Framerates aren't the same, memory usage isn't the same, and you can't easily tweak these things once they've come out the other end. The web _isn't_ just a runtime. It's abstracted like that, but browsers are glorified HTML renders with JavaScript bindings, event handling, and sound and video playback to game developers. HN has a subset of the community constantly raving about these things for game developers, but where are the game developers actually praising these things? I don't know of any, personally. We're all too busy with desktop games.

bobajeff 10y ago
I don't think I'm understanding you. What tools ensure you get the same level of quality on the user's setup? Things are always different on the user's hardware/system.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  I assume they mean same quality in the browser versus on the desktop. The difference is noticeable. Yes, there's differences between machines, but if you're offering only the browser version, the people with the least powerful machines could get a bad experience.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Myself, I'm currently working on a game that targets both the web and the desktop. I like the accessibility of the former (just go to the site and play, nearly frictionless), but the latter has better FPS by an order of magnitude[0] for the same C codebase, so I'd rather keep my options open. [0] Mind you, said order of magnitude applies to uncapped framerate.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  *Sorry, it's quite a bit smaller than an order of magnitude. It's a non-trivial difference though.