DirectX 11 Coming To Browser Games 200
arcticstoat writes "Forget Farmville, Flash puzzlers and 8-bit home computer emulators. The next generation of browser games will be able to take advantage of DirectX 11 effects, not to mention multi-core processing and both Havok and PhysX physics effects. A new browser plug-in called WebVision will be available for Trinergy's new game engine, Vision Engine 8. This will enable game developers to port all the advanced effects from the game engine over to all the common browsers. Of course, any budding 3D-browser-game dev will face the problem that not every PC has a decent graphics card that can handle advanced graphics effects. Not only that, but limited bandwidth will also limit what effects a developer can realistically implement into a browser game. Nevertheless, this is an interesting development that could result in some tight 3D programming, as well as some much more interesting browser games."
Slashvertisment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it work on Linux?
I'm pretty sure there's been 3D plugins before. One from Adobe springs to mind - it even had Havok physics engine....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what I was thinking as well.
It will be like the "old" days before firefox where site after site asked you to upgrade to IE 6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that Windows users will actually install this plugin.
Will there be a Mac version?
Will games that actually make use of this be small enough to reload every times your browser cache gets cleared?
Very, very few browser plugins have become common.
Re: (Score:2)
dear god, you're right. it'll be horrible. Not to mention windows only.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just "Windows only" but "Windows 7/Windows Vista only".
Exclude 70 to 80 percent of your market via a pointless API choice (DX11)? Brilliant!!
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood why people feel the need to address the lowest common denominator.
I mean, if you are blind or retarded or whatever, I am truly sorry. That sucks. But don't ask me to walk around for the rest of my life with a blind fold on. That's stupid. Sight is *awesome*. It let's me do a ton of really nice things. I'm sorry you can't do that; but me not doing it also isn't going to help you much.
I guess misery loves company?
Technology is advancing and we're getting to a point where we don't *
I guess "breaking the web" means (Score:2)
not supporting every possible scenario 3rd parties would like to do. It's not your shit, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're seriously looking into using Unity where I work. We still get asked to do browser-based 3D stuff and are forced to use Shockwave.
There's O3D, the Google browser plugin (Windows and Mac OSX only, no Linux AFAIK) which works quite well, but suffers from being controlled by Javascript and thus is slower in everything that's not Chrome (funny that)
There are some serious steps in the right direction though. The sooner we have Canvas 3D contexts though the better
Another pointless plugin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother when we have WebGL [wikipedia.org] (the 3D canvas API) that doesn't require any plugins at all?
Really, the whole browser plugin idea is a grand, failed experiment. Instead of a fecund atmosphere of competing web extensions, the plugin mechanism has just resulted in one or two players achieving dominance and vendor lock-in.
Browsers themselves implementing experimental, then standardized functionality is a much more viable approach. It's given us all the real improvements to the web to date.
How long will it be until we can kill the plugin mechanism entirely?
Re:Another pointless plugin? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, sorta.
Browser-plugins for supporting media-formats have indeed been precisely what you say, a disaster. Java Applet here, Flash-thingie there (version such-and-such required) ActiveX-shit up left, and Shockwave there. Every one of which attempts to do, more or less, the same thing.
Security-holes abound, as do incompatibilities and performance-problems. (hands up everyone who's experienced multi-second browser-freeze, even on modern hardware, because some website is loading some ad that happens to be a flash or java-applet!)
On the other hand, browser-extensions for non-standard behaviour seem to work fine. Stuff like Xmarks, Adblock, various tab-tweaks etc. But these are extensions that are there because the USER has selected to install them, not because the website-developer has decided that you need SpecialPlugin version 7.0.321.9 to seee this page.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Maybe I'm too used to Firefox terminology, but what I'd call a "plugin" presents a new API (of one sort or another) to web content. An "extension" is solely a convenience for the user, and web content shouldn't be able to detect or rely upon it.
The former is bad, and the latter is of course wonderful --- because it's optional. Plugins have a way of either fading into oblivion or becoming practically mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
With the latest version of Java (u18), the browser freeze has been eliminated (as well as a vm crash taking out your whole browser).
Snoracle have put a ton of effort into making Java plugins more usable.... finally.
Actually, the browser idea is a grand fail. (Score:2)
The idea of a browser is a grand, failed experiment, not only the plugins. Slowly but steadily the browser is turned into a software distribution platform, which is the thing that should have existed first. The document browser is just one application of the software distribution platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another pointless plugin? (Score:5, Insightful)
What features in D3D doesn't OpenGL support? OpenGL has a history of supporting MORE features than D3D via vendor extensions. And I doubt OpenGL is not suited to fast game-style graphics rendering, because GAMES ON OSes OTHER THAN WINDOWS EXIST. See Halo on Mac, Everything Blizzard on the Mac, Quake 4, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
What features in D3D doesn't OpenGL support?
That's easy to answer: Microsoft's Marketing Department
Just consider, many people actually believe the FUD the GP wrote.
The real problem with WebGL is that all of your client-side logic has to be distributed in Javascript. This means that you're forced to release your source (even the code produced by the Javascript compressors is legible enough for determined people). That's something most game developers most likely don't like.
What's the alternative? (Score:2)
Download a native.dll file with the game logic in it? That'll work out well...
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm you'd probably have to put it into some kind of sandbox [sun.com] that doesn't allow stuff like local file access...
But still, you'd need support for 3D graphics [lwjgl.org]. If only such a thing would exist [jmonkeyengine.com]...
Too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, at some point these efforts begin to look like a bad attempt at replicating JNLP.
Re: (Score:2)
Bug free and unexploitable native code sandbox on Windows?
I'm not sure you've thought your cunning plan all the way through...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It wasn't FUD, it was a genuine question. But it seems unwelcome questions just get modded as Flamebait and Troll around here. Besides which, I said DirectX, not D3D. DirectX has a lot of features that OpenGL doesn't as I understand it. Are you saying this is not the case? Sorry - that's another question which probably means I deserve more Flamebait and Troll mods. Clearly only absolute certainty suits the Slashdot mods.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you said "more suited to fast, game-style graphics rendering" using the phrase "which I understand". I don't see any question there.
It's true that DirectX includes some libraries besides Direct3D, but the only non-deprecated one is DirectInput, which works fine alongside OpenGL as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think people would take the opportunity to actually answer this rather than misrepresent what I said (D3D rather than DirectX) and then heap negative mods of Troll and Flamebait on me. Thank you for an actual factual answ
Re: (Score:2)
a) OpenGL can render anything Direct3D can.
b) OpenGL is as fast as Direct3D.
This can be seen by the fact that graphics cards have their own 3D API and both Direct3D and OpenGL function calls are mapped to it.
Graphics cards are basically just vertex buffers, texture bindings and shader programs these days...if your graphics API has these (and both D3D and OpenGL do) then you can take full advantage of the card.
Re: (Score:2)
a) Perhaps, but often not as efficiently or as quickly.
b) Almost always not. OpenGL implementations often (or did) just make a few changes and then make calls DirectX, just adding another layer before actual rendering.
For the past 8 years or so OpenGL has been lagging behind DirectX in features and performance in some cases 3+ years or more. That's quite a huge difference in some cases.
Here's one of the better write ups on the subject that goes into much more detail than I can afford to in this thread:
htt [tomshardware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
DirectX took shortcuts and was more geared toward fast output. Is this not the case?
No. However, it is true that Direct3D is a bit faster on some drivers, because of more tuning by the driver developers.
There's a nice article about this on gamasutra [gamasutra.com].
So you're saying that OpenGL has parity with DirectX 11 in terms of functionality, then?
Yes and no. OpenGL 3.1 is on par with DirectX 10, nothing more. All other things are exposed through OpenCL (a separate standard, which allows close interaction with OpenGL) and some extensions.
Besides that, the latest-and-greatest features of the graphics cards are not that important for game developers anyways, since only the top 1% of the cu
Re: (Score:2)
Any code out there is legible to those determined enough. This doesn't expose yourself any more than distributing an executable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While all that's true, the comment you've replied to said that WebGL can't use DirectX, not D3D. DX most definitely does supply many features that OGL does not.
Whether any of those are relevant to this discussion is another matter of course.
Re:Another pointless plugin? (Score:4, Informative)
So... you're advocating having to write two code paths (one for AMD and one for nVidia) for each new graphics feature in an application until one of the two, or worse some amalgamation of the two, is accepted into the OpenGL standard? Again, for each feature.
Please tell me that you don't work in the game industry,
Re: (Score:2)
Not just for AMD/Nvidia, but individual cards under the same brand differ too. A 2 year old card or a new $50 card from Nvidia will have different features from a brand new flagship $400 card.
Re: (Score:2)
And I doubt OpenGL is not suited to fast game-style graphics rendering, because GAMES ON OSes OTHER THAN WINDOWS EXIST. See Halo on Mac, Everything Blizzard on the Mac, Quake 4, etc.
And yet you weren't able to give an example of something released less than 4-5 years or more ago. 5 years in games is an eternity.
That doesn't exactly make a strong statement on the graphical needs of modern games.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesselation.
(Better) Texture Compression (BC6/BC7).
Larger texture sizes.
Early Z-occulsion.
Better multithreading rendering support.
Ubershader logic.
etc
Re: (Score:2)
What features in D3D doesn't OpenGL support?
There's actually quite a few. I won't post the list, since someone else already has. But good attempt, Anonymous Coward.
OpenGL has a history of supporting MORE features than D3D via vendor extensions.
That's exactly the problem.
Compare that to the DirectX situation where Microsoft basically says, "your card WILL support this feature" to ensure that every card of the same generation supports (basically) the same featureset. (Thus advertising DX10 cards, or DX9 cards
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL has a history of lagging behind Direct3D when it comes to official extension
I thought the official extensions were normally a vendor extensions before, later granted the official status?
but it will not be able to use this feature on NVIDIA hardware when it comes out.
Not an OpenGL specialist, but I have seen before nVidia OpenGL implementation reporting support for ATI/Matrox extensions and vice versa.
Unless of course nVidia decides to break the tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there's nothing in OpenGL that prevents you from making fast, game-style graphics. Heck I'm about as amature as you can get and I can push out a half decent 3d tile based game without speed issues, that runs just fine on a 3 year old, low end Macbook with Intel graphics.
As a better example of what OpenGL can do, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't WoW have (or had?) an OpenGL mode? DX11 is a fine beast, but completely inappropriate in this context as it's not cross platform. Forget about Windows
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WOW is a bad example.
It has an OpenGL mode for Mac OS X, but it runs much slower than the Windows version on equivalent hardware.
It also doesn't help that WOW's game engine is like 5 years old, and even when the game came out it *looked* 3 years old. It's simply not an impressive engine visually. Even when it came out, Everquest 2 (which came out within a month) looked leaps and bounds better. So even if its OpenGL support was on-par, I wouldn't use it as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want something that works everywhere now, you're out of luck. JOGL probably works in the most places, but I've not seen many things use it. WebGL has a lot of potential. When I visited Google a couple of weeks ago, one of the guys there showed me a port of Quake 2 to WebGL. It was pretty impressive; the game is quite old now, but it was running in Chrome on a Mac without needing any extra plugins. All of the resources were loaded on demand, which produced some interesting effects (the walls were
I pretty much switched off (Score:2, Informative)
after reading DirectX in the title. Why oh why do people insist on using single platform technologies for the web when the web in general is moving in the direction of open technologies?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you're suggesting instead that users want a bloated mish-mash of closed technologies forever chasing an impossible equilibrium?
Bandwidth is a killer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't textures be cached? What if my OS comes with 200MB of standard texture files? What if I can get a debian package of them and just keep it updated? I don't actually know how large texture files are so I'm genuinely open to persuasion on this. However, if people are willing to accept "you must download Silverlight / Flash / Codec X to play this movie", I can well see them installing a textures file. Even 500MB is insignificant for a lot of users as a one-time download or differential updates. And hard
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. I'm not a gamer so I wondered if there could be a common ground of textures that can be shared between different browser-based games. You're implying that the overwhelming bulk of a game is textures and that having a common pool of textures is "complete
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Latency is not an issue for single player games if you're precaching everything.
If your issue is with latency in multiplayer, then you will have the same issues no matter what platform you are using for your gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
We're just talking about browser based games - that does not automatically imply online multiplayer. And like I said - latency is really not an issue with browser games, it is a connection issue which you'd have no matter what method you are using to play your games.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Italians have a fixed-width accent.
Not convinced (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it'll be like a normal game, only take ages to load, have terrible performance and be full of interstitial adverts? Though I realise with a lot of games these days those terms are relative.
Re:Not convinced (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it'll be like a normal game, only take ages to load, have terrible performance and be full of interstitial adverts?
Don't be ridiculous.
It will be a massive security hole too.
Spyware on my GPU (Score:5, Interesting)
Graphics cards don't have any privilege ring security like x86s do. They simply trust that whatever shader that is sent to run on them is as trusted as the application running on the CPU that sends them the shader.
With this plan your browser will be sending your graphics card shaders to run from whatever website you visit.
Either they are going to have to prune the API down a lot before it is safe (without shaders you may as well be using an earlier version of DirectX), or they are going to have a security nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never written any shaders before. Basically, they take a fixed set of inputs and output a fixed set of outputs, there are no system calls, no filesystem access, and no network access. The most malicious thing you could do would be to write an infinite loop in your shader, which wouldn't actually be infinite, because the video card will terminate that shader after not particularly long.
The actual gaping security hole here is that the plugin will thunk to DirectX, which means it's basically j
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if your application is running as an administrator. This is the reason that programs that use this feature (Vent, Logitech Profiler, etc) need to be run as admin in order to function correctly. If you are running your browser as admin... You deserve what you get.
Yeah sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, C++ programs that run on your machine and render HTML+CSS (and some even SVG) exist. They're called Web Browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's from a company called Mazolla.
Re: (Score:2)
That's seriously what my mom calls it. She's been using Firefox for years and still says "Motzilla Fox Fire"
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine HTML+CSS+SVG running as a local C++ program? Beauty and power in one sleek package. If anyone knows more about things like this, let me know. I'm sure I'm not the first to speculate in this direction.
HTML is interpreted and that's going to slow things down compared to having a compiled local application. You're going to basically need the equivalent resources of a webserver and web browser running on your machine. Besides, your browser is probably already written in C++! So why would you need a separate HTML renderer/framework for doing things.
I think technologies such as Java are a much better (and far more powerful) way of developing cross platform local apps of the form that you are imagining. I say
Re: (Score:2)
HTML is interpreted
HTML isn't interpreted, it isn't even executed. It's not a programming language, it's a markup language which describes how to lay out some elements. If you use a GNOME application, then the UI layout is described using a different XML format. On OS X, every UI is stored in a nib file, which contains a serialisation of the objects used to create it. All of these are rendered in roughly the same way; something reads the file, parses it, and then creates a set of objects from the description the file cont
Re: (Score:2)
That really depends on your definition of interpret. A browser takes a HTML page and renders it into a different information format, which in my book is interpreting it. It's even analogous to language interpretation since different browsers interpret the HTML slightly differently.
Executing is a level above interpreting. You can interpret programming instructions or any form of instructions (written/verbal language) from one format to another without actually having to execute them.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the differences between that and a local application, yes you will still have to read in the layout for any application window, although for local apps the format is usually a lot more flexible than HTML (and I'd say is much more likely to be WYSIWYG than anything that is going to be viewed on multiple browsers). I should have also mentioned that JavaScript is interpreted (even by your definition), and that even now the DOM is slow, messy and underpowered compared to what you can do with most local g
Not all browser games are ugly and slow. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.interstellarmarines.com/ [interstellarmarines.com]
Browser games have enormous potential (with the exception of Flash based games).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Browser games will have the enormous potential to not run fullscreen and to be able to accidentally click the mouse outside the game area during a crucial moment.
"Gaming" is about more than just having a 3D renderer.
http://xkcd.com/484/ [xkcd.com]
Typing this while waiting for that interstellarmarines game to finish loading level 1. Had time to find the XKCD comic and everything....and am now sat twiddling my thumbs.
Re: right click - "Go To Fullscreen". Voilà. (Score:2)
Yep, that works...until the mouse accidentally strays onto the second monitor and you click there...ooops!
Re: (Score:2)
Not a 'bug', I think it's part of the browser functionality. All flash programs do the same thing (you can't watch flash video fullscreen on second monitor - as soon as you use the mouse on the primary monitor it drops out of fullscreen mode).
Maybe it could be fixed... but at this point you might as well not be using a web browser (which is the real point being made here - the browser only limits you and gets in the way).
.
DirectX 11? DOA already I think (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is already the predominant gaming OS for PCs; those who get a Mac or Linux implicitly acknowledge from the beginning that very few games are released for their platform and a lot of Windows games won't ever really work, or get ported. As for the WDDM requirement (NT6 or higher), while it's true that there are still a lot of outdated Windows systems out there, Win7 adoption is picking up speed. By the time this capability is available, there will be a lot more DX11-capable boxes than there are now, a
Re: (Score:2)
Acknowledgement and acceptance are who wholly separate things. Although I acknolwedge that few games (not "very few" but relatively few, certainly enough to keep me entertained) are released for Linux, I do not accept this. I just don't like Windows, and I don't want
Re: (Score:2)
I don't implicitly approve of the on going vendor lock in. I don't accept the notion that because windows is "already the predominant gaming OS" that it should be forever that way. Of course Linux and Mac users should express their disapproval for this non-portable technology.
And haven't we learned that putting a non-portable proprietary technology in a browser is a slap in the face to all? After all this work to rid the world of broken IE only pages you want to hand the lock-in back to that wonderful ve
Unity anyone.. (Score:2, Informative)
I thought Unity was going to be the One True Plugin for all platforms, and that games shops would focus there. I'm so naive.
A lot of engines are going down this road (Score:2, Interesting)
The Panda 3d engine has a BSD license, and you use python to develop the games. They recently released a browser plugin too [panda3d.org]. Their runtime works in Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, and of course the iPhone.
This is the way to go, to get the most platforms covered as possible. Everyone is drooling about their new iPhone/iPad or Android phone or whatever. Mobile is not the next big thing, it's the big thing right now. With a Direct X 11 browser plugin you're achieving very little, what's the use? Halo, the Internet E
OpenGL (Score:5, Insightful)
What made someone who made a browser plugin for the web even THINK about DirectX 11? How is that possible? How can someone create something for the web and choose a Windows-only technology instead of OpenGL?
Re: (Score:2)
How can someone create something for the web and choose a Windows-only technology instead of OpenGL?
Because Windows is the dominant PC gaming platform? Because the move to Win 7 is already well-advanced? Windows usage on Steam [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey [steampowered.com]
I see your dubious statistics and replace them with the *updated* statistics which are referenced in the article you posted itself (i.e. the Jan 2010 steam hardware survey). As of this minute, it paints a slightly different picture, but pretty much the same (i.e Windows 7 is still losing out to XP - a nine-year-old OS - despite being force-bundled with every machine sold in the last six months... and Vista didn't get that much of a shoe in the door even with its three-
Re: (Score:2)
I would say what he said was dead on. Steam is the largest digital distributor in the world, and their surveys are likely to be a very good indicator of what is out there. If you use any software that doesn't "only officially runs on Windows", you are most likely looking at a company that highly embraces alternative OS's more so than is typical in the marketplace, and attracts like minded people -- much more likely to be negatively biased than steam would be biased in favor of a windows-only centric view.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How could anybody possibly think of using Flash?? It doesn't run everywhere!
Oh wait, the web is *full* of flash pages - we even have extensions to block it because we're sick to the teeth of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash doesn't run everywhere, but it runs on a lot of devices. My mobile phone, my Mac laptop and my FreeBSD (x86) machine can all run Flash. My SPARC64 machine can't, but that's about it. You're also excluding the iPhone, but only from web delivery (you can package Flash games up as iPhone apps and offer them through the app store).
In contrast, DirectX 11 doesn't run on any mobile devices, any non-Windows platforms, or any versions of Windows older than Vista. Windows XP apparently still has around
Re: (Score:2)
Flash exists because people want to use it .... playing a video before flash was a nightmare, with flash installed it is simple
Now we (finally) have video in the browser in HTML5 maybe flash will finally die .... rather than blocking it for all but the few video site we want to use, we can just uninstall it ...
Since this is the newest DirectX it will only work in later versions of Windows, only work in IE currently .. and be a huge security hole ....all this to run a game in a browser ...
Why not ..... down
Re: (Score:2)
Flash isn't just for playing video. I think there are many people who play more games in Flash than native games.
Flash vs. DX? (Score:2)
Flash basically runs everywhere where it is allowed (not iphone) and feasible to code for, it is just you and others who are so cool to disable it.
DirectX on the other hand, is chosen to run on Windows by its vendor itself. Not just Windows, in case of DirectX 11, it will only run on Windows 7.
There is a technology/plugin which runs on both Windows and Mac (which means 98% of coverage) and can use both OpenGL and DirectX, has professional application support. Shockwave of course. Is Adobe pushing it enough?
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for WildTangent... which turned out to be spyware. They interfaced to Direct3D as well. They were windows-only as well. A lot of people paid them for their technology and used it to make all kinds of crappy 3d games in a browser. When that turned out to be profitless people stopped and as far as I know it's been relegated to making crapware games packaged by Gateway and others with new PC installs... just one more piece of spyware in their crapflood. There's no particular reason to believe that th
Meet next generation, same as previous generation (Score:2)
Forget Farmville, Flash puzzlers and 8-bit home computer emulators. The next generation of browser games will be able to take advantage of DirectX 11 effects, not to mention multi-core processing and both Havok and PhysX physics effects.
Why does this sound familiar. Maybe because it reminds me of Macromedia Shockwave, the browser plugin from the 90-s. With OpenGL, Direct3D support and Havok for physics effects. Yet today we still play Farmville and Flash puzzlers, some of which make millions of dollars per month for their makers.
Every year another naive startup announces the next generation of gaming on the web. History is full of 3D plugins that failed to gain much traction beyond a small niche of devoted users.
The fact is browser experie
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that Macromedia Shockwave Flash (now Adobe Flash) was what "killed" Macromedia Shockwave (now Adobe Shockwave). Victim of their own success and all that.
Incidentally, the former name is why Flash file
Uh... excuse me? (Score:2)
Why does OP claim this? Remember: browsers can also work with local resources. So maybe it could be used like other engines, such as in Everquest II. Sure, you are interacting online... but most of your graphic object definitions are local; there is no "bandwidth limitation" there. Same with some FPS games. Almost all the graphic resources are local, and the only "bandwidth" issue is the amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Hint:
"Browser Game" implies a game that is started by visiting a web page.
No local installation existing before.
Otherwise it would be pointless.... if you already have it installed locally, why not just run an executable?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point of my post. Especially with DirectX11 supported in the browsers, there is no longer any reason for a "browser game" to be something you play on a remote website. In fact, that would be the worst possible utilization of hardware, software, and bandwidth. The paradigm will change. Sure... you might START a game by visiting a website (but even that would be redundant), but usually there would be no need.
"Otherwise it would be pointless.... if you already have it inst
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong. That could have been done already with OpenGL.
Re: (Score:2)
"Browser Game" implies a game that is started by visiting a web page.
No local installation existing before.
True, but even Flash objects are cached by browsers (assuming you don't disable the caching). I don't see any reason why this wouldn't load and cache resources on demand (or slightly ahead of demand); there would be a start-up hit, but that's pretty-much inevitable anyway.
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Is it as secure as other Microsoft Products? (Score:2)
Unity (Score:2)
And the news is what, exactly?
Unity 3D [unity3d.com] has had a browser plugin for its engine for several years now. (PC and Mac)
There are one or two others as well.
So the news is what, again?
You can already (Score:2)
3D games in a web browser? (Score:2)
3D games in a web browser? Been there, done that. [unity3d.com]
Also, Trinergy appears to be a Windows-only technology wheras Unity works on MacOS too (and additionally supports native building for iPhone & Wii)
Completely new! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And require a pretty beefy server with lots of bandwidth. In other words, it's expensive.
...is an employee of the company (Score:2)
I'm going for the latter.
Plenty of 3D plugins have come and gone over the years. There's obviously no real demand, DX11 or otherwise.
PS: Why would DX11 be more compelling than (eg.) DX9?
Re: (Score:2)
I want Flash, ergo your argument is wrong. Buh-Bye.
And no, I'm not a Flash developer. The only time I've even attempted to write something in Flash was back when Flash 5 was new.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash is a dying technology. The only ones who can't see that are Flash developers who make their paycheck off of it.
And the people who pay them, one would assume.