Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

AppGameKit Classic Chat / Instead of the dead Meego platform, what about the web?

Author
Message
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Mar 2011 03:00 Edited at: 2nd Mar 2011 03:14
I know that lee and Mike won't do this for launch, but I was thinking for later on this year.

MeeGo is looking less likely to go anywhere for the most part it is dead and it isn't worth spending time in anymore.

Why support a dead format that very few people are going to use?

Instead, why not channel that hard work into a web format instead.
For example Flash or Silverlight? I would like to see output that can be displayed in flash. Both wouldn't be that bad though.

Yes, HTML 5 is nice, but I think it is too limited and slow and flash is better in speed right now.

In the future you could also support WebGL.
I just thought I would just throw that out there.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
RickV
TGC Development Director
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Apr 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Mar 2011 22:52
Hi,

We are watching all the developments across the many different platforms. MeeGo is still strongly supported by Intel and it's not too difficult to support. As things pan out over time it may become clearer if this is one that we should support or maybe drop.

We also want to focus on Mobile devices first. Web will follow in time.

Rick

Financial Director
TGC Team
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Mar 2011 23:56
That is great Rick that there is a future for the web.

I am hoping that WebGL takes hold as a standard across all of the web browsers as that seems the best option.

I have tried playing HTML 5 games and they are too slow and just not very useful right now.

Flash of course is the big 800 pound gorilla in the room and that should be supported as well.

MeeGo just seems like a platform that is only supported by Intel and I don't see a future for it. I wish it did have a future, but Intel alone can't support an OS such as this.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
fallen one
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Aug 2006
Location: My imagination!
Posted: 3rd Mar 2011 00:56 Edited at: 3rd Mar 2011 00:57
support for web is a great idea, you have a lot of options for that.
I have always hopped TGC would bring out more support for their products for the web, even if the products have to be stripped down, personally I find distribution and development time much more important than features by far.


IanM
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 4th Mar 2011 22:03
With WebGL now reaching its 1.0 milestone, and it being supported in the future directly by everyone except MS (and even them if you plug in Googles Chrome Frame plug-in), a web version of AppGameKit would be a darned good direction to head towards.

The only downside is that it uses Javascript (not that Javascript is a bad language - it's a great language - but that the source code is visible, whether you like it or not).

DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 02:46 Edited at: 5th Mar 2011 02:55
Yeah, but I think it is worth the risk of displaying source code.

WebGL will be huge starting this fall and that is when the 2nd
half of AppGameKit will probably come out.

With WebGL using OpenGL ES 2.0 via Javascript and being on all browsers except IE
by this fall (maybe by IE10) and also the addition of the new
platforms by AppGameKit, it is silly in my opinion not to focus on WebGL
1.0 as a standard platform in AGK.


If someone asked me if AppGameKit should support MeeGo (which only Intel
supports now and nobody else) or WebGL, I am going to have to say
webGL every time. This makes AppGameKit very, very, very valuable and
would leave to a lot more sales. It's a no brainer.

Even if we compromise and have WebGL in the second update later
and then at some point in the future add in MeeGo. I would be fine with that.


What about a vote TGC? Maybe a little explanation on both and
see which people choose between MeeGo and WebGL for the second half update for AGK.


Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 07:43
Making AppGameKit work for MeeGo might be a lot easier then making it work for the web.

With the source code visible it would be hard to sell anything you make. You can sell your services in making stuff for the web but it would be terrible for games. I don't think this would be a very profitable market for TGC.

The advantage of mobile units is that millions of people are ready to pay for their games. It's also very easy to do so, both for them and for you. Unless something similar is available for the web I don't think many developers would be interested when they can just as easily develop for mobile devices.

[center]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 09:35 Edited at: 5th Mar 2011 09:40
What if you are more interested in demos and driving traffic to
your website?

For example, I could make a limited game (demo) that people
could play via a web page that allows them to play and get
the feel of it while then going to buy the full game on many
flavors of phones.

This would be outside of any controlling app stores that feel
the need to control their Eco-system.

This not only gives people a free taste of your game on any
platform that exists, but allows them to not only buy the full
thing on lets say an iphone, Xbox 360, Android and also not only
that but drives traffic to your website as well.

I see this as a goldmine and yet another way to market to clients
and get a leg up on the competition.

So, again. I think it is well worth it.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 11:48
I'm not against the web as a platform. But if anyone is going to use it to demo their commercial games, the source cannot be available. That would be the biggest problem with WebGL.

[center]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 21:15 Edited at: 5th Mar 2011 21:34
Well, what is someone going to do with a couple of levels in a
game, they can't really do anything with that. It is far too
limited compared to a real full game.


I understand what you are saying, but what you are saying does not
apply to someone downloading just a demo of your game.


Now, if you want to sell games online using a web browser with
webGL (then you would have to encrypt the javascript output and I
do believe that there are options out there to do that, but they
may not work with WebGL yet). Also you would need some kind of
authentication system as well so that they can't distribute the
javascript file.


I think you have to look at WebGL as a marketing tool to get your
game out there when it's just too hard to get noticed in a
storefront.


How many breakout type games are around at 99 cents at a
storefront? WebGL allows you to be noticed more and stand out
because now I can play a demo of your games online by any platform
and just about any browser and if you want more you buy it at an
online storefront for apps. No installing, no worry, just click on
a link and play anywhere from anywhere.


Also, I don't mind free games as it drives traffic to my website
and it get's people interested in my games and maybe they will
follow me on twitter and I can put them on my Facebook page.


I see this as a great way to get traffic, get noticed, and gets
your games in peoples hands which creates revenue.


Microsoft allows you to play demos of any arcade game on Xbox Live
you can log-in to Xbox Live and go to the Xbox Live Arcade section
and then download game demos all day and night and play them all
day and all night. However, these are demos, they only have a
small amount of content to get you to buy the full game.


This is a great idea, now if you take this even further and put
those games on the web so that anyone on any platform, anywhere
can play those games easily without installing them or knowing
how to do anything can play those games and get the feel of the
quality and you get your games out to a lot more platforms and
people. So they know that they have to download the game on
their iphone, ipad, PC, Mac, whatever that they probably will
do that.

It's really a win here guys. Now, I just upped my traffic by
promoting games on my website and now I get people to also look
at whatever else I have on my website as well.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 22:20
I have an Xbox 360 and I download demos both for it and my iPod Touch. But if the source to these demos where released then anyone can replicate what you have programmed. They may not have access to all your content but they have access to all your code. If you intend to release it open source then that's fine. But I do not see it as a good idea for AppGameKit, which seems to be intended primarily for commercial use.

[center]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 5th Mar 2011 22:50 Edited at: 6th Mar 2011 00:24
AGK does not have to be used for ONLY commercial use.
It's just like DBpro in the sense that you can sell
your games or you can give them away free.

There is nothing that says that you can only put
games out if you sell them.

You can rip the source code for websites, but
not every website is the same.

Someone could rip the javascript source,
but that does not make the game worthless
as a traffic tool and a sales tool to get
you to buy the full game or other games.


There is an entire industry out there
that is dedicated to open source and
open standards and yet they are still
out there.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 6th Mar 2011 00:44
I think between Flash and WebGL we have a winner and it
would be smart for TGC to add both Flash and WebGL into
AGK as platforms.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 6th Mar 2011 11:33
You have to consider the work required to support various platforms. Platforms similar to the ones already supported are easier to include. You are asking for two separate platforms to be supported, both which have their own problems. Flash is too slow and not exactly future proof at the moment.

Mobile devices is the main priority for AGK. I'm sure they will add web support in the future, in some form.

[center]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Mar 2011 05:15 Edited at: 7th Mar 2011 05:19
Here is the problem that I see.

Mobile devices are great, but they have a lot of features
that other platforms have and don't have. So, it is very hard
just to only support mobile features if you plan for the future.

For example, lets say you use XNA for the Xbox, well that uses a
full gamepad that is simply not available on a phone. You can try
to mimic it, but it fails because it's not at all the same type of
thing.

Same with something like supporting Kinect through XNA, there is a
lot more you can do with connect that you cannot do with a mobile
phone.

The moment that MACOS X and Windows were added as well as XNA,
means that AppGameKit is no longer mobile phone devices only.


So, yes it is directed mainly at mobile phone devices, you can do
so much more with it out of the box.

Which means that to make it multiplatform you either have to
get rid of the features that are different from one another or add
in libraries and other platforms to access those features.


I would love to see XNA and then add in a library for XNA that
contains code that focuses on Kinect for example.

IMHO MeeGo seems like a lot of wasted effort that could be used
elsewhere, I am just not convinced that MeeGo is worthy of
support, when there are a lot of other platforms that are
superior.

3DS, NGP, WebGL, and Flash come to mind.


WebGL would be awesome from the fact that there is nothing
to install, you go to a website and you play an advanced game in
2D or 3D that would be as good as some smaller commercial games.

Call me a dreamer if you must, but I believe in supporting the
future of the industry and I believe that this is the future.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Jeku
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 8th Mar 2011 20:49
I too can't see WebGL as being a major platform for gaming, simply because the source is viewable. Even if it's just a few levels for a demo, the entire engine would be viewable by anyone who wants it. Personally I wouldn't use it to make anything.

That being said, for uncommercial purposes it might be an interesting option, but AppGameKit is primarily meant for mobile devices. I don't see the "future of the industry" in WebGL, honestly.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 8th Mar 2011 22:02 Edited at: 8th Mar 2011 22:38
I don't think you are getting my point.

I like webGL because it performs well and has most of the fixed
function junk taken out, but I am not saying that webGL is a
future direction of the industry, I am saying playing games in a
website are.

As HTML5 has the same issues as webGL. The only platform that
you can't get the source for is Flash and Flash is horrible.
However, it is the closest platform that we have that would
work.

Silverlight is the one I personally like the best, but the best
technology isn't going to win so....

We are reaching saturation through ios. Because now anyone can
make a game nobody is going to go through that much junk even
paying 99 cents.

This is why the web is so important because it is outside of
the controlled ecosystem of Apple and where anyone can get to.

Playing your games outside of a controlled ecosystem such as the
apple store and being able to play in a browser without installing
and making it simple so that anyone can play instantly from
anywhere.

This is why FaceBook gaming has taken off. It's on a social
networking website, it is easy to play and there is no set up
or installing, it just works.

Then there is minecraft and we know how many people play that.
There is a trend forming here.

Why does AppGameKit have to miss this trend? Because it's mobile only?
uh, no that is too short sighted.

I don't see this happening. Mobile first along with
Mac and Windows, sure. But not mobile only.

I hope this helps to clear up the misconceptions there.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Jeku
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 8th Mar 2011 23:06
Quote: "The only platform that
you can't get the source for is Flash and Flash is horrible."


Why is Flash horrible? I have produced many games with Flash and find ActionScript 3.0 quite awesome. I would personally prefer AppGameKit export to SWF rather than WebGL. Then again, the source can be pretty easily disassembled from a SWF file unless the author protects it with a third party tool.

I still don't see the "future of gaming" inside a web browser, personally. Personally I enjoy having the media in front of me on my hard drive or on a disc, and the capability to play on my TV with a controller. Casual gaming is great on the web, though.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 8th Mar 2011 23:51
I have a Pentium 4 with 512 Megs of ram and when I watch flash
videos it is horrible and flash can be very slow and silverlight
is much faster and superior than Flash in almost every way.
Flash IMHO has lots of overhead and performance issues on slower
hardware.

However, because flash is so popular nothing else matters.

That said, I actually support AppGameKit for going to flash as it
is one of the most popular formats.

If you read my quote, I said a future direction (in other words
not every game will be played on the web, but that it was a
future trend or direction that the industry is going to.

I just wished Microsoft would have put SilverLight as an open
standard and have it built inside the browser because Silverlight
is the technology that would have been best for the web in my
opinion.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Jeku
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 8th Mar 2011 23:56
Well, you should upgrade your computer then, especially if you expect to play WebGL games with any kind of speed. Also, regular Flash games should work just fine. I can kind of understand why a streaming movie would not run great on a low spec PC, actually

If the AppGameKit team can export for XNA, then they can export for Silverlight. As far as I've heard it's not that difficult to program for Silverlight using C# and XNA. I could be wrong, though.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 9th Mar 2011 00:30 Edited at: 9th Mar 2011 00:33
Well, I have no such issues on speed
with Silverlight.

I can get a nice full screen video and it
streams well and silverlight has always been
faster and less bloated.

However, silverlight isn't going to go anywhere
like Flash is for a standard on the web at least.

Sure a Pentium 4 is old, but even then it still
should be able to run 2D Flash at full speed.

If a Pentium 4 can't run flash properly, how is
a mobile phone going to do for a lot of 2D flash
content?

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Jeku
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 9th Mar 2011 01:01
Quote: "If a Pentium 4 can't run flash properly, how is
a mobile phone going to do for a lot of 2D flash
content?"


For video? Probably not, but then again most mobile phones can run HTML 5 videos. For a 2D flash game? There's surely enough speed on modern mobile devices to handle 2D flash games, but it all comes down to the programmer's efficient programming as well. I've seen Java games chug on mobile devices, and I've even seen XNA games chug on Windows Phone 7 devices. I have an iPad and have seen some games chug. It's not just the device but a programmer who isn't decent at making his game efficient will be the main bottleneck, not the platform he chooses to make his game on.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
Kevin Picone
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 9th Mar 2011 05:39
It's not just the programmer, it's how the back end (of flash or whatever) maps to the host. Operations that might be trivial on some hardware configurations might not be upon others, which can have a dramatic impact upon apps running atop the platform.

Diggsey
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 9th Mar 2011 19:08 Edited at: 9th Mar 2011 19:09
Java should be able to access WebGL right? Why not compile to java bytecode with the option of using WebGL or LWJGL?

[b]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Mar 2011 02:30
Well, WebGL is all about Javascript and OpenGL ES 2.0.

I suppose you could use Java byte code + OpenGL ES 2.0
which would be almost the same thing as WebGL.

The goal is to play games on the web without exposing source
and Java byte code + OpenGL ES 2.0 could do the same thing
I suppose.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
Diggsey
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 10th Mar 2011 19:28
Yes, but if WebGL is used the user doesn't need to download any plugins. Java applets can run javascript code directly, and so can access the WebGL API. No plugins are needed and no source code is exposed.

[b]
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Mar 2011 21:38
Well, I would be fine with that.

That would work for me.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Mar 2011 21:41
Time to learn Java I would love to get into HTML5

[center]
Join the TGC Group!
http://tehcodez.groups.live.com
blueFire
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jan 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posted: 13th Mar 2011 01:26
While I am also in favor of making the web a target platform I think the best way to do it is to release a browser plug-in that would be used by AGK. This is the way many of the 3D game engines are doing it. This way your source code would be hidden.

Also remember that the web is now being flooded with games the same way the app stores are. I own a Browser Game Portal and I currently have over 20,000 games available on it and there are still many more games that I do not have available. These days when you release a new game on the web it had better be superior to everything that is already out there or it will quickly get lost in the crowd. This is one reason I want AppGameKit to target as many different platforms as possible.

I do not want to discard the Meego platform though. As already stated I am hoping for as many different platforms to be targeted as possible (including Meego and Web).

Jason
DMXtra
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Aug 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 13th Mar 2011 05:17
The problem with a browser plugin is that it is a plugin
and it needs to be installed and trusted. A lot of people
won't do this and thus there is your problem. Will this plugin
work with all the browsers out there, etc...

It would be nice to be able to do it with an existing
platform like Java (in which it's installed on most browsers)
or an existing plugin that works already.

I don't mind MeeGo either, but IMHO it seems like it should
not be a priority and more of a thing for 2012.

Dark Basic Pro - The Bedroom Coder's Language of choice for the 21st Century.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-03-01 16:48:47
Your offset time is: 2024-03-01 16:48:47