Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games) Software Games Technology

Game Devs Predict Death of Flash, Installed Games 295

Posted by Soulskill
from the remember-when-browsers-just-browsed dept.
New submitter rescendent writes "In an interview with Massively, Illyriad Games developers Ben Adams and James Niesewand predict the death of Flash, the rise of HTML5, and a long-term shift away from installed games. Quoting: 'The major advantages that boxed set or download games have had over browser-based games are local storage and direct access to the graphics and audio engines. Those barriers are being smashed apart by HTML5. ... Especially for MMO game developers, I personally don't believe that developers have any real long-term choice about embarking on this path or not. Ultimately, I believe it's either browser-based or obsolescence. If you don't do it, your competitors will, and they'll be making games that work identically on more device platforms, on more browsers, on more operating systems. It's going to take a very long time to get there, though, but this change has begun now, and we firmly believe that HTML5 is the future.' With Microsoft joining the ranks of Apple and not supporting Flash in Windows 8, there's definitely a risk to Flash. But will browser-based games really replace installed games?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Devs Predict Death of Flash, Installed Games

Comments Filter:
  • Windows 8 (Score:5, Informative)

    by woodsbury (1581559) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:09AM (#37477842)
    Microsoft has said that Windows 8 will support Flash, it will just be disabled if you view a page in the Metro UI. I can't imagine many people doing that beyond on a tablet like it is intended for.
    • by tepples (727027)

      Windows 8 will support Flash, it will just be disabled if you view a page in the Metro UI. I can't imagine many people doing that beyond on a tablet like it is intended for.

      Windows 8 tablets can't run the Flash plug-in at all. The only way they run Flash is as a dedicated Metro style app built with an AIR container.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, specifically IE10 on Windows 8 tablets won't run plug-ins. You can install another browser that does support plug-ins to view Flash.

        The article linked from the previous /. article is talking exclusively about IE10.

        • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday September 22, 2011 @07:10AM (#37478238) Homepage Journal

          You can install another browser that does support plug-ins

          No, Microsoft can install another browser on your device through the Metro app store and has every right to decline to do so, just as Apple has declined to approve browsers that run on an iOS device other than its own Safari. Did you miss the recent story that all Metro style applications must be digitally signed by Microsoft [slashdot.org]?

          • I was able to download and install Firefox in the DP without any issue.

            Why would this be an issue for the final version?

            • by tepples (727027)

              I was able to download and install Firefox in the DP without any issue.

              Desktop apps need not be signed. Metro apps must be signed by Microsoft. Tablets cannot run desktop apps.

              Why would this be an issue for the final version?

              Because Microsoft has in the past changed whether signing is mandatory. Microsoft introduced kernel mode code signing in a developer preview of Windows Vista and made it mandatory in x86-64 builds versions before the release.

          • by bkaul01 (619795)
            Given that developer-unlocking a Windows Phone to allow sideloading of non-Marketplace apps consists of editing a registry key, I really doubt it'll be too difficult to accomplish that feat in Windows 8, which includes a non-metro UI, full root access for the user, and a built-in registry editor.
    • With Microsoft joining the ranks of Apple and not supporting Flash in Windows 8

      I know what the OP is trying to say here... but he's saying it awkwardly and incorrectly. Was Apple ever expected to support Flash in Windows 8? By all accounts, Apple supports Flash in Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, even if Adobe drops the ball here and there.

      With Windows 8 for tablets joining the ranks of iOS and not supporting Flash...

      FTFY

      • by am 2k (217885)

        Was Apple ever expected to support Flash in Windows 8?

        Uh, what? :)

        • Was Apple ever expected to support Flash in Windows 8?

          Uh, what? :)

          No, but I expect Adobe will.

  • by zaibazu (976612) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:10AM (#37477844)
    Internet on the customer side needs to be several magnitutes faster to accomodate the same graphic fidelity
    • by jandrese (485)
      Except of course by the time it is fast enough to handle today's games, the games of the day will be much more complex.

      Really, this smells an awful lot like a Facebook game developer going "Why would you do anything else?", unaware of the numerous technical hurdles that keep Facebook games limited today are not going to magically disappear with HTML5. Oh the future of gaming, where everything is Mafia Wars. :P
    • by sycodon (149926)

      Wait...I thought we didn't need a faster internet. [slashdot.org]

  • Portal 3 will run in my browser, or will be obsolete?

    • I think that's a long enough time frame, by then we'll all have wireless internet everywhere at speeds a hundred times as fast as your best wired connection now.
      • Its intended for windows 8, so 1-1.5 years...

        Dont see myself getting multi megabit internet (even wired) by then

        • Where did you get that information? Apart from a teasing remark at a gamers conference (some feature would have to wait for Portal 3), Valve never actually gave any kind of time frame or other information about Portal 3, did they? Did I miss it?
          • I was refering to the death of installed games.. The summary makes me feel that they are referring to Windows 8.
            Portal 3 was just an example, I assumed it should come out in a year or 2 considering that both 1 and 2 were massive hits

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:56AM (#37478158)

        This idea that somehow there'll be a magical technology that will allow for super fast wireless everywhere has no real foundation in reality. The reason is that pesky thing, Shannon's law: C = B * log2 (1+ S/N). What the means is the total bits per second you are going to get C, is dependent on the bandwidth in hertz, B, of the channel and it's signal-to-noise ratio, S/N. To get more data you have to either increase SNR or increase bandwidth.

        Well, in a wired world, this isn't that hard to do. Just increase the frequency. Ultimately going optical does a great job. When you are talking light waves which are in the hundreds of terahertz, well getting a channel that is a THz wide is perfectly possible. Even SNR can be improved to an extent, if needed, with better shielding, more power, and so on. What's more, every wire (or fiber) is its own, dedicated, channel. So a wire going to you and one going to me share nothing. We each get all the bandwidth.

        Not so in the world of wireless. There are hard limits on SNR because of ambient noise, and limits on transmission power and that whole inverse square law. You can't very well have mobile devices with 1000 watt transmitters, not if you want things on battery, never mind the other problems.

        Bandwidth is perhaps even a bigger problem. The thing is, different frequency ranges have different properties. Something like 60GHz might sound great for having a wide channel, but it gets attenuated by air, never mind walls. The low frequencies punch through better, but you end up with a more narrow channel. If you are operating in the 700MHz range you aren't having a 1GHz channel.

        Then of course everyone in a given area has to share the bandwidth. Whatever you have available on a channel, everyone using it shares it. 100mbps doesn't sound so impressive if 50 people are all sharing it.

        These things are why the latest and greatest Wireless N struggles to push 200mbps effective data rate, single duplex, under the best conditions yet gigabit ethernet is cheap as hell and has been available for around 2 decades.

        Whatever we can do with wires, wireless will always be much slower. As a practical matter, long(ish) range wireless like LTE and so on are never going to be all that blazingly fast, particularly when everyone is using them heavily. Building out networks and cutting down segment size helps, as do new technologies, but you aren't going to see wireless in the same arena as wired.

        • by dzfoo (772245)

          Great post!

          And now for the second bit of the argument; the idea that a generic, one-size-fits-all, mostly distributed, designed by committee or industry consensus, common denominator platform that by definition depends upon layers of abstraction from the underlying medium; will ever be able to provide the exact same facilities and experience of code written specifically for, and optimized to run on the local bare-metal.

          Right-o.

                    -dZ.

        • by saider (177166)

          What's more, every wire (or fiber) is its own, dedicated, channel. So a wire going to you and one going to me share nothing. We each get all the bandwidth.

          Until they get to the telco concentrator where you and your neighbors share the link back to the central office. There your neighborhood and other nearby neighborhoods share the connection to the local exchange.

          Wired will still have bandwidth issues because the Internet is not point-to-point, and most of the segments that your data travels along are not d

  • But for html5 replacing flash in these parts we do need DOM-Bindings for Bytecode now more than ever. It would be so great to write code in a language of my choice and compile it to Browser-Bytecode with DOM-Bindings. This would make it possible to deliver more proprietary code without making browser-plugins or something similar.
    • Most code being delivered to browsers nowadays is proprietary. Being able to see the code doesn't make it non-proprietary.

    • This approach is already possible via:
      https://github.com/kripken/emscripten [github.com]
      The overhead of implementing the bytecode and its interpreter in JS may seem ridiculous, but the actual results are amazing.
      Chrome's NaCl may give this a performance boost, but I expect JS will continue its reign of just-good-enough.

  • by BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:18AM (#37477886)

    Especially for MMO game developers

    About that part, yeah fair enough. And Flash games can't die soon enough. But that is one thing and another thing is to predict the death of "Installed Games". Look at the HTML5 version of Quake II - on an Atom netbook you get something like, 6fps? While the native runs smoothly on a 100 Mhz machine.

    • The whole idea of any kind of decent performing game running on a browser is just braindead... The problem the author seems to want to solve aren't actually problems, e.g. scripting for compatibility across platforms isn't the way to go. You want to have game platforms that allow for easy cross-compilation and distribution, and the install size really should be solved by just-in-time download of media-assets.

      E.g. EVE Online will soon be replacing the current limited selection of backgrounds with pre-rend
    • About that part, yeah fair enough.

      I actually doubt it will do that even for MMOs, unless those MMOs are really, REALLY light both graphically and geographically. I mean, take for example WoW and Rift: even just the map data itself takes closer to one gigabyte of space, not to mention textures and all the data and textures needed by all the models in the world. Not to mention all the OTHER data an MMO these days takes. If the game ran in the browser and just dynamically downloaded all the data it needs from the game servers it would be total

      • by dzfoo (772245)

        Basically, yes, crappy-looking, light-weight Flash-like games sure will run with a combination of HTML5 and JS and without Flash, but then again, they're still crappy-looking, light-weight Flash-like games.

        You are right, but I think TFA refers to a much sinister future. When every single game produced is a Bejewel or Tetris clone, the end of "installed games" will come to pass.

                  -dZ.

        • by am 2k (217885)

          The hard truth is that your "sinister future" is exactly where we're heading. Casual games like Farmville and Doodle Jump are much easier (read: cheaper, lower risk) to produce than AAA titles, but the target market is several orders of magnitude larger (b/c the games are played by more than only the 15-35 years-old male demography), and so the income isn't any worse.

          I think the AAA titles will stay where they are now, but the casual games market has a huge growth potential. In the end, "computer game" will

          • by Belial6 (794905)
            I remember the last time this happened. When the FPS demographic started to overshadow us old school gamers. It was a sad time as we watched fewer and fewer good games come out, and more and more of the me too FPS arrive on the scene. I don't play many FPS's so maybe they have improved more than I thought, but I don't think we will ever see a games that are the likes of Ultima 4-6 ever again.
        • Because there's money to be made in other kinds of games. In many cases, a lot of money. As an example Call of Duty Black Ops sold more than a billion dollars worth. Publishers are not going to run away from those kind of sales.

          So long as people want to buy things other than Bejewled and Tetris, which they appear to still do to the tune of billions of dollars, developers will make other kinds of games. The casual market hasn't hurt the AAA market at all. Heck if anything it has helped it because some people

      • by am 2k (217885)

        I mean, take for example WoW and Rift: even just the map data itself takes closer to one gigabyte of space, not to mention textures and all the data and textures needed by all the models in the world.

        You don't need them all at once. Just stream in the background.

        I think you missed the "long-term" part of the statement. If you have a computer that's 1000x as fast as the current top of the line and a 10GBit/s-connection to the internet, it's definitely possible.

        Back in my youth, games came on 1.44MB floppy disks, and I'm not even that old (I know that there are some here where the games fit into 32kB of memory). Nowadays, I could stream such a game without any issues and play in my browser. Oh wait, I act [naclbox.com]

        • You don't need them all at once. Just stream in the background.

          The whole game itself weighs in at about 25 gigabytes, you still load about 2 gigabytes of stuff at once. That's way, way too much for even the fastest connections still.

          I think you missed the "long-term" part of the statement. If you have a computer that's 1000x as fast as the current top of the line and a 10GBit/s-connection to the internet, it's definitely possible.

          Sure, in about 10-15 years. But it won't be HTML5/JS then, and the claim here is all about HTML5/JS, ie. right now.

          • by am 2k (217885)

            The whole game itself weighs in at about 25 gigabytes, you still load about 2 gigabytes of stuff at once. That's way, way too much for even the fastest connections still.

            Yes, right now. When I started using the Internet at home, 10MB of data was an unimaginable amount that would have taken days to download.

            Sure, in about 10-15 years.

            Yes, that's what I understand under the term "long-term".

            But it won't be HTML5/JS then, and the claim here is all about HTML5/JS, ie. right now.

            Why not? HTML5 is claimed to be the last HTML version ever (since it will be updated piecewise instead of an all-encompassing version). Even so, HTML4 was released in 1997, and it's still widely in use.

        • by Duradin (1261418)

          "You don't need them all at once. Just stream in the background."

          That behavior won't cause any problems when more than a tiny minority of users start doing it. Nope not at all. Look at all that unused grass in the commons!

          • by am 2k (217885)

            That behavior won't cause any problems when more than a tiny minority of users start doing it.

            That's what I thought when I heard about youtube for the first time. Video streaming via the Internet for everybody, for free? How the hell are they able to afford the bandwidth for it?

        • by smelch (1988698) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @08:45AM (#37479172)
          Wow, you're right, in a distant future games of today will be streamable. But what about games of the distant future?
          • by am 2k (217885)

            Casual games and MMOs were never about pushing the limits, their requirements probably won't grow with the hardware. WoW is still going strong, with graphics competing with Quake 3 Arena.

            Of course, what is now known as AAA games have to be native code by definition, since they're all about getting as much technology into a game as possible on the given hardware.

    • by Shadow99_1 (86250)

      From my experience it doesn't even work well for MMO RPG's. I've beta tested two major league 'browser based' MMO RPG's recently and the very very first thing they all lack is the ability to run at a resolution of your choice. I run a very high desktop monitor resolution and the game are near unplayable because you can't see what is on them. "Is that another player or a mob?" Is not a good question to need to ask.

      The UI's need a considerable amount of work (another resolution issue in their two as you can b

  • by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:23AM (#37477918)

    The barriers aren't being 'smashed apart'. They're being lowered, gradually. There's still a massive difference between games written in Javascript/WebGL and C++/OpenGL. It isn't even comparable yet.

  • ...have people already forgotten that they have pretty much NEVER led the development of anything in terms of web browsers?

    So IE8 won't support flash. So? That's like saying 'Disney won't support (random new movie format)'. Sounds impressive, unless you actually know that they've never led tech development...ever.

    In the history of web clients, MS has constantly dragged their feet and been a reluctant clumsy participant, adopting technology and systems well after everyone else has done so, and then doing

    • Disney actually pioneered quite a few movie-related techniques. Maybe not video formats, but Bambi alone involved the pioneering use of slow-motion video capture (for the rain drops), multi-layered panning (trees moving at different rates) and a few others I can't remember (something about deer anatomy). I'm usually the last person to defend Disney, but one thing they DID do was innovate.
    • by smelch (1988698)
      Well this post is almost 100% ignorant. IE8 does support Flash, you're confusing IE with Windows, or 8 with 10. I'm not sure which. Further, Microsoft did a good job with IE6 until they left it alone for a decade while everything else evolved around it. So no, they weren't always dragging their feet. IE6 led browser innovation in the beginning and actually worked.
  • by Tridus (79566) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:24AM (#37477922) Homepage

    Sorry, but you're not going to be able to replicate World of Warcraft in Javascript. It's not happening. Ever. The language just isn't built to do something that huge without collapsing under its own poor design decisions... not to mention minor details like needing to stream and locally cache several GB of textures and audio files.

    This only flies if you believe the future of "gaming" is what Flash games currently are: small, simple time wasters. For anything that's currently considered an AAA game, the idea that this stuff will replace it is a joke.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22, 2011 @07:31AM (#37478468)

      IAAPGD (I am a professional game developer), and I'd like to answer without the Slashdot-typical hate-spewing like in your example.

      There is a simple fact that will never change:

      A game written in compiled machine code, running on a big box, will always be able to offer more than (multi-)interpreted platforms. Let alone limited mobile ones.
      So those games will always be able to offer more bling, physics, enemy smartness, etc.
      But those are only two (aesthetics and technology) of the four parts that every game consists of. And they are factors. (They are multiplied with each other.)

      The other two are story of and gameplay (the essence of games).
      Which can mostly be done perfectly well even with a sheet of paper, a pencil and a couple of rocks. (But without the aesthetics and all the technology, immersion will be much harder to achieve.)

      And currently we have the situation, that big "game" companies have concentrated so much on the bling, that their output barely qualifies as games at all. While small independent developers rise up and do beautiful things with gameplay and story in the most limited environments. (Yes, like Flash.)
      This obligatory XKCD hits the nail on the head (but doesn't know the above reasons): http://xkcd.com/484/ [xkcd.com]

      So actually, Flash will simply be replaced by XHTML5 with JS, WebGL, web sockets, SVG, etc. Because it offers more features (like real 3D, and standardized open formats/interfaces). And as a result, small independents without big budgets will use it.

      That's why think big companies abandoning the PC was the best thing that ever happened to the game "industry". May they go down with their locked-down consoles and Christmas tree ball games (shiny paper-thin outside, and hollow inside). While we fill the PCs with games that actually resonate with people and make them feel something again. (Tell me how you feel when you finished "The Company Of Myself", or when you are about to enter the water after having been to Saturn in "Dolphin Olympics". Or just when hearing an audio log in good old System Shock. :)

      Oh, and the only reason they don't want installed games, is because they are part of the organized crime that invented the lie of "intellectual property" for their protection racket. We independents are not part of this. In fact we found out that we make more money and gain more respect, by staying in reality (software, by the laws of physics, is not a product and can not be sold, owned or stolen. Software development is a service.) and being nice to our clients.

      Who would have thought? ^^

      • While small independent developers rise up and do beautiful things with gameplay and story in the most limited environments.

        I unfortunately have yet to see a single such indie game.

    • I cringe when I realize I have the Wowhead model viewer set to Java instead of flash. I can't imagine what all of WoW would do.

      This just seems to be the perennial cry of home computers are too difficult, turn them into fancy TVs that has everything hand delivered.

    • by mgiuca (1040724)

      Five years ago, I remember being stunned when I saw Tetris -- Tetris written entirely in JavaScript. I had to right-click on the page to see that it wasn't just a Flash box. Nowadays I pretty much take it for granted that if I see an interactive website or game, there's about a 50% chance it's Flash, and 50% it's JavaScript, and I'm even getting used to seeing 3D graphics running in the browser.

      Web technologies are coming a long way in a very short space of time. Now I'm no fan of JavaScript the language, a

  • Stop the presses! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bieeanda (961632) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:27AM (#37477942)
    Two guys that you have never heard of, with an axe to grind and a desperate need for publicity, say something trollish-- er, provocative.

    Seriously. This isn't news, it's a repost of someone else's slow news day.

  • ... the nuclear bombs have become obsolete. Wars will be solved in flyswatter duels in a matter of minutes, with minimal costs!

  • ... it's highly likely the bandwidth will be the constraining factor. Not only that but much of the world doesn't have a lot of bandwidth. These predictions keep forgetting about billions of middle class and poor in other countries besides the west.

  • by Dutch Gun (899105) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:30AM (#37477964)

    Maybe I'm a little prejudiced, (I'm a game dev working on a more traditional MMO right now), but our customers still seem to be interested high-fidelity worlds, complete with rich graphics and audio. People have been shouting about how the thin client is the future for a decade or more now, and it simply never happens. There's still something to be said for the ability to create high-performance applications that can be run directly on the user's machine, in native code. We do incredibly demanding things, and the fact of the matter is that until we literally have more performance than we know what to do with, native binaries will always have a huge advantage when it comes to manipulating and displaying high-fidelity virtual worlds.

    Naturally, there are plenty of opportunities in more specialized, smaller, niche markets, but to say everything is going that direction is a bit far-fetched. Granted, we're not oblivious to this direction, as we have a small team working on a lot of web-based and mobile integration initiatives, but I really hate when people are so quick to come to some sort of "all or nothing" conclusion about any new emerging market or technology.

    Will HTML5 eventually kill Flash? Probably, if there is really good tool support. It it going to be the be-all and end-all for future MMOs? Yes and no... there will certainly be a move there, especially among games with lighter requirements, but big-budget native clients are going to be with us for quite a while still.

  • So, what, he expects to load gigabytes of resources like sounds and textues and video in realtime from the internet? If he doesn't, and he expects that to reside on disk in some HTML5 based storage, how is that not installation? What a fucking idiot...
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:39AM (#37478022)

    Seriously, I've never heard of these guys. Looking in to it, they've created an HTML 5 game. Ok, wonderful, but two things about that:

    1) Making one game does not make you an expert. They've managed to make a single (presumably successful) game. Ok, fine. I can point to thousands of successful non-HTML 5 games. If EA was saying this, I'd maybe give it some credit, but these guys have shown that you can make a game in HTML 5 (which we already knew) not that everything is going that way.

    2) They may have some bias, given that their one and only game is HTML 5. They think they've found the One True Way(tm) and perhaps are a little blinded by that.

    Personally I think they are dead wrong. Installed games are going to remain popular in part because people might like to be able to play a game when the Internet goes out or is unavailable, and let's please not pretend like that never happens. Also there is an issue of game resources. I happen to like games with cool graphics and sound. However those games often seem to need 5-20GB to pull that off. You propose to do that in HTML 5?

    This is all ignoring the performance issue.

    I'm sure we'll continue to see plenty of web games. We saw them back before HTML 5, it'll only help things. However I don't think everything will move that way. You might notice that no game technology has killed off the old ones. Handhelds didn't kill consoles, phones didn't kill handhelds, casual games didn't kill involved ones, and so on. Different games for different markets.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:39AM (#37478024) Homepage Journal

    predict the death of Flash, the rise of HTML5, and a long-term shift away from installed games

    Death of Flash, and rise of HTML5? Flash was already an order of magnitude faster than HTML5 in some cases, and they claim it's more than another order of magnitude faster now. Flash is a single platform, HTML5 is a whole bunch of browsers, each of which is free to render differently. Flash runs places where you'd have trouble running Firefox (you can run a stand alone player.) Need I go on?

    and a long-term shift away from installed games

    How long-term? We don't have the bandwidth for everyone to use OnLive all the time, and even if we did, it's an inferior experience. Or do you just mean games that don't require install? That's not happening until games are distributed on solid state media.

    Did not RTFA. Will not.

  • ...and why the fuck do their predictions matter in the least?

    Secondly: javascript has nowhere near the performance needed for anything but games with simple mechanics. You simply cannot afford the overhead of js when dealing with thousands of entities with AI at 60 frames per second. Either stuttering or excessive battery draining will happen.

    As always, variety is good, and it is obvious that HTML5/js will be a good fit for many games. Many others will still require *at least* flash, silverlight (silverligh

    • by tepples (727027)

      You simply cannot afford the overhead of js when dealing with thousands of entities

      A PlayStation 1 game on a 36 MHz CPU can deal with thousands of entities. Or is JIT compiled JavaScript on a modern device even slower than that?

      with AI at 60 frames per second.

      AI need not run at 60 frames per second. If you have, say, 2000 critters in your game, you can get away with running the AI for about 100 of them every frame and using dead reckoning to fill in the gaps.

      why does a new technology always seems to imply that alternatives will automatically shrink?

      If A is better than B, and the vast majority of developers flock to A, marketplace support for B will wither. For example, video game consoles proved more convenien

      • Ok, not AI but physics and game logic run at 60 fps.

        Still, js is not a viable platform for many (not all) games, and will never replace other traditional means of development. It will certainly gain lots of support, and it *may* kill some alternatives, but there are loads of shades of gray in this field...

  • The major advantage of an installed game that is not defective by design is that you can play it without a fucking internet connection.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday September 22, 2011 @06:44AM (#37478070) Homepage Journal

    So, an HTML5 developer that nobody's ever heard of thinks HTML5 is the way to go and not Flash and certainly not the installed games that are making Steam so successful because everybody just loves those "free to play" games and is flocking to them and abandoning games you have to pay for. Do I have that about right?

    This is big news.

  • Does HTML5 use OpenGL? or does it have it's own graphics language that talks to the underlying stuff in the OS like OpenGL and DirectX?

    IF OpenGL is being used directly within the browser this could be a BIG thing. Most developers use Direct3D and I would imagine Microsoft might be pushing silverlight because they don't want to undermine something they've worked very hard to standardize and control.

  • Human desire is to collect and save the things we treasure or enjoy. For gamers who enjoyed 'whatever' back in the Windows 3.x/95/98 days, they may not be able to play those again but they still keep their old disks somewhere. People like to have the things they buy in their hands.

    For publishers, this means they can't easily make people pay for the same thing over and over and over again which is, of course, their goal in all of this. I think the practice should simply be illegal as the meaning and purpo

  • I've been doing Rich Client Development for the last 11 years, been in the front line of Flash Development and the development with other rich client solutions including the newest Ajax + HTML5 + CSS3 fray and have worked on and with some of the most ambitions Browsergame Projects on the Planet. And I agree, Rich Client has a lot going for it these days, especially with all the mobile and tablet stuff and them 10 bazillion plattforms all over the place like it's the 80ies all over again.

    But predicting the e

  • Quoting: 'The major advantages that boxed set or download games have had over browser-based games are local storage and direct access to the graphics and audio engines. Those barriers are being smashed apart by HTML5. ... Especially for MMO game developers

    I agree with the comment on the advantages, and think those advantages aren't going to go away until really fast internet is available cheaply. Until then, doing everything in the cloud and pushing reams of data over wire is a serious limitation to broader acceptance.

    What I do see is a shift in how games are played - which is moving to a very different way of developing the gaming experience. Gaming initially was a solitary experience - everything you needed was contained in a box and you played when and w

  • I predict that future gaming will be all based on posting comments to /. since it gives the perfect mix of casual and hardcore, without the hardware requirements that most can no longer afford. Please submit my learned prediction as a story to a rubbish news site.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @07:38AM (#37478524)
    Game Devs Predict Death of Flash, Installed Games, meanwhile ISPs introduce bandwidth caps, usage limits, per-MB pricing dashing the game devs hopes.

    Yea, you're going to run streaming video @ 1920x1080 and up, with surround sound and 0 latency for an MMO that addicts are going to play for 12hrs+ per day and the ISPs are just going to roll over and take it... I think not.
  • A local app will always be faster than anything running in the browser.

    Go ahead, do something along the lines of RAGE in a browser.

  • Even before the vastly overhyped Network Computer, there has been this argument that "local storage is going away" to be replaced by some centrally-managed system over infinitely-fast network connections. The "cloud" metaphor is simply the latest incarnation of this unbelievably pollyanna-ish view of the future of computing platforms and all the applications built on them.

    It is only people who have no clue about how "the rest of the platform" works who keep hyping this stupidity.

  • I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that. Nothing is more frustrating than being in the middle of a game which needs online connectivity and everything freezes because your connection sagged/server overheated/too many people online or the service you're connecting too just puked. No thanks.

    I'll take HTML5 over flash anyday but if there's an installable version of your game, I'm buying that before I'll ever pay for some crappy cloud-based flavor.

  • In other news, AJH16 predicts the death of Illyriad Games for failing to understand user trends and targeting a platform that won't be competitive with installs for some time [my money is on never] (at least outside the market currently filled by flash, which didn't require installation of individual games either.) I'm not sure how someone with any kind of understanding of the industry can make the harebrained claim that HTML5 will replace installed games unless the expect the death of complex video games

  • It isn't "will they?" but "should they?" This would mean more or less the death of modding. Plus, I can already see the DRM-ists rubbing their hands together in glee, since most players will have no access to the games they are playing, which can be shut down at any time (I'm looking at you, EA, and your multiplayer-server track record). I see this as a way to make things easy for the developer but to take freedom away from the player and modder.
  • by jythie (914043) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @09:43AM (#37479850)
    I think by the time we have some type of unified platform that all games will be developed for regardless of OS or hardware.. HTML5 will have already been relegated to the dustbin of history as an obsolete standard. I am not saying this to knock HTML5, but to highlight just how far off such a unification probably is.

    Personally, this interview, to me reads like developers who see only their own domain and are forgetting to take into account all the other domains within gaming... ones where writing to the specific hardware is important, where multiplayer and network access are not important at all, etc etc.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...