3 ms·
Meh, the first thing about the browser games is the load time. It's not like downloading a native game and reliably storing it. The second thing were the CPU/m
by de_watcher 7y ago
Meh, the first thing about the browser games is the load time. It's not like downloading a native game and reliably storing it.
The second thing were the CPU/memory problems because all the code was in js.
- vardump 7y agoOk, I'm very much pro-native for intensive applications, but... > Meh, the first thing about the browser games is the load time. It's not like downloading a native game and reliably storing it. What's the difference between native game on an SSD vs browser game on an SSD (web local storage)? (Ok, other than time taken compiling that js monster, unless webassembly is used.) > The second thing were the CPU/memory problems because all the code was in js. First of all, you can also use webassembly. Secondly, you can program js in ways that don't cause much memory bloat. Native arrays, etc. Especially when compiled from C/C++/Rust etc. Of course browser games have significant handicap. But I don't see any reason for them not to eventually reach at least 50% performance compared to native. Maybe even more. For a lot of applications, that's more than enough.