4 ms·

If you have an HTML5 game that you own and it doesn’t require a server (it runs entirely on the client side) then there is no technical reason it can’t be archi

If you have an HTML5 game that you own and it doesn’t require a server (it runs entirely on the client side) then there is no technical reason it can’t be archived. You can’t run google docs offline because what would that even mean? One of the main features of google docs is the live collaborative editing. It’s a multiplayer game that requires a host server. You can architect your game to be friendly to being archived or you can make it completely impossible by introducing a dependency on the network. This is true for native games and web games.

badsectoracula 9y ago
> If you have an HTML5 game that you own and it doesn’t require a server (it runs entirely on the client side) then there is no technical reason it can’t be archived. If a game is fully available on the client side - it doesn't just need to run on the client side, but have everything available on the client side, data files and all - then yes you can archive it. But this is a very limited case and so far only the most simplistic games can be distributed like that. And TBH considering the DRM craze that games have, if anything i'd expect companies to try and make such archival as difficult as possible. > You can’t run google docs offline because what would that even mean? Having a word processor, spreadsheet, etc available offline. > One of the main features of google docs is the live collaborative editing. It’s a multiplayer game that requires a host server. It is a feature but i'd say that the main feature is being able to edit documents. In terms of games, it is a game with multiplayer features that still requires a host server for its singleplayer part (which is generally something that is frowned upon). > You can architect your game to be friendly to being archived or you can make it completely impossible by introducing a dependency on the network. You are talking from the point of view of the developer, i am talking from the point of view of the user. It should be obvious from when i wrote "How can you preserve a game that you have not full access to its files? Only the developer has that power and developers for the most part have shown over and over that they do not care about the games and applications they make after a couple of years or so". It is the user that suffers from such choices, not the developer. Please try read my posts with the eyes of a user, with the concerns of a user's and try to avoid any developer bias. > This is true for native games and web games. Technically yes, but things aren't black and white - there are "natural" tendencies in each approach with the web approach leaning heavily towards network reliant applications and the native approach avoiding it.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  > is a feature but i'd say that the main feature is being able to edit documents. In terms of games, it is a game with multiplayer features that still requires a host server for its singleplayer part (which is generally something that is frowned upon). Uh, before Google Drive, I'm not sure people were looking for a substitute to Word or other word processors. The "Killer Feature" of Drive is that multiple users can collaborate on the same document, hosted online, in real time. If anything, Google Drive has less features than Word overall. It's having "one true source" instead of emailing around mutliple drafts that is the killer feature for most people. Or having access to that document across all their devices. You could build an offline text editor in the browser, but why would you? (Then again, I use VSCode every day which runs on electron and works totally fine offline). Edit: I just realized, you CAN run google docs offline. https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6388102?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6388102?co=GENIE.Plat... > Technically yes, but things aren't black and white - there are "natural" tendencies in each approach with the web approach leaning heavily towards network reliant applications and the native approach avoiding it. The native approach has it's own "natural tendencies" that are anti-user, but I'll agree that yes, there are a lot of games that are unarchivable. I don't disagree with that. > I'd rather not see (offline) games in the browser, or any other online-based method, personally. This is the statement that you made that motivated me to respond. This is why I tended to ignore what some businesses might do and focus on the developer perspective of "what is possible with these technologies." Because we're already talking about single player offline games. I guess I'm focusing on the developer side because you seem to be focusing on all of the anti-user things that game devs might do, to which I say "aren't they already doing those on native apps?" I just don't see how the web can make the situation worse. Everyone isn't going to want to play every game in the browser. However, there is great potential for multiplayer games, there is great potential for single player games that compete with mobile (which is by far the most anti-user platform of all!). Yes, people will use for other things, but they're already doing that without the web's help anyway. Another Edit: > If a game is fully available on the client side - it doesn't just need to run on the client side, but have everything available on the client side, data files and all - then yes you can archive it. But this is a very limited case and so far only the most simplistic games can be distributed like that. This is increasingly possible with WASM and WebGL.

badsectoracula 9y ago

> If you have an HTML5 game that you own and it doesn’t require a server (it runs entirely on the client side) then there is no technical reason it can’t be archived. If a game is fully available on the client side - it doesn't just need to run on the client side, but have everything available on the client side, data files and all - then yes you can archive it. But this is a very limited case and so far only the most simplistic games can be distributed like that. And TBH considering the DRM craze that games have, if anything i'd expect companies to try and make such archival as difficult as possible. > You can’t run google docs offline because what would that even mean? Having a word processor, spreadsheet, etc available offline. > One of the main features of google docs is the live collaborative editing. It’s a multiplayer game that requires a host server. It is a feature but i'd say that the main feature is being able to edit documents. In terms of games, it is a game with multiplayer features that still requires a host server for its singleplayer part (which is generally something that is frowned upon). > You can architect your game to be friendly to being archived or you can make it completely impossible by introducing a dependency on the network. You are talking from the point of view of the developer, i am talking from the point of view of the user. It should be obvious from when i wrote "How can you preserve a game that you have not full access to its files? Only the developer has that power and developers for the most part have shown over and over that they do not care about the games and applications they make after a couple of years or so". It is the user that suffers from such choices, not the developer. Please try read my posts with the eyes of a user, with the concerns of a user's and try to avoid any developer bias. > This is true for native games and web games. Technically yes, but things aren't black and white - there are "natural" tendencies in each approach with the web approach leaning heavily towards network reliant applications and the native approach avoiding it.

chickenfries 9y ago
> is a feature but i'd say that the main feature is being able to edit documents. In terms of games, it is a game with multiplayer features that still requires a host server for its singleplayer part (which is generally something that is frowned upon). Uh, before Google Drive, I'm not sure people were looking for a substitute to Word or other word processors. The "Killer Feature" of Drive is that multiple users can collaborate on the same document, hosted online, in real time. If anything, Google Drive has less features than Word overall. It's having "one true source" instead of emailing around mutliple drafts that is the killer feature for most people. Or having access to that document across all their devices. You could build an offline text editor in the browser, but why would you? (Then again, I use VSCode every day which runs on electron and works totally fine offline). Edit: I just realized, you CAN run google docs offline. https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6388102?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6388102?co=GENIE.Plat... > Technically yes, but things aren't black and white - there are "natural" tendencies in each approach with the web approach leaning heavily towards network reliant applications and the native approach avoiding it. The native approach has it's own "natural tendencies" that are anti-user, but I'll agree that yes, there are a lot of games that are unarchivable. I don't disagree with that. > I'd rather not see (offline) games in the browser, or any other online-based method, personally. This is the statement that you made that motivated me to respond. This is why I tended to ignore what some businesses might do and focus on the developer perspective of "what is possible with these technologies." Because we're already talking about single player offline games. I guess I'm focusing on the developer side because you seem to be focusing on all of the anti-user things that game devs might do, to which I say "aren't they already doing those on native apps?" I just don't see how the web can make the situation worse. Everyone isn't going to want to play every game in the browser. However, there is great potential for multiplayer games, there is great potential for single player games that compete with mobile (which is by far the most anti-user platform of all!). Yes, people will use for other things, but they're already doing that without the web's help anyway. Another Edit: > If a game is fully available on the client side - it doesn't just need to run on the client side, but have everything available on the client side, data files and all - then yes you can archive it. But this is a very limited case and so far only the most simplistic games can be distributed like that. This is increasingly possible with WASM and WebGL.