3 ms·
I think the issue (as touched on in the article) is that devs don't want to make "browser games" so much as they want to make games. The main advantage of being
by jiggy2011 14y ago
I think the issue (as touched on in the article) is that devs don't want to make "browser games" so much as they want to make games. The main advantage of being able to render within a browser window would be to provide a quick playable demo.
When you play an imersive game you want the whole screen because it is taking your full attention.
When it comes to games I'd prefer just to manage everything within Steam or via desktop shortcuts, whether it is written in C++ , C# or JS is an irrelevant implementation detail for the player.
Of course by providing an installer for popular OSs that just fires up chrome in fullscreen mode could easily solve this problem.
Another (possible) issue is that most game devs like to keep their source private and include DRM. JS doesn't lend itself so well to that type of approach.
- debacle 14y agoIt's very easy to create a game that runs on the JVM, and because of the library maturity, after a very early point it becomes easier to continue in the JVM.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI would guess that JS runs on more platforms than the JVM, especially including WinRT and iOS.
- debacle 14y agoWell, yes. It's very likely that my TV's menu system is some variant of JavaScript. But the important things support the JVM.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI don't think you have support for the JVM on ipads , Xbox360 or Windows RT (so surface etc). JS in theory at least should be supported on anything with a relatively modern browser.
- daredevildave 14y agoI think it is easy to under-estimate how much difference it makes when your game is on a URL and is running with now download and install.