Mozilla Labs To Promote Open Web Gaming

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Labs To Promote Open Web Gaming

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 7, 2010 @03:09PM from the good-idea-oh-lord dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla Labs has started an initiative to promote and develop gaming based on Open Web technologies. They write, 'We are excited to present to you the latest initiative from Mozilla Labs: Gaming. Mozilla Labs Gaming is all about games built, delivered and played on the Open Web and the browser. We want to explore the wider set of technologies which make immersive gaming on the Open Web possible. We invite the wider community to play with cool, new tech and aim to help establish the Open Web as the platform for gaming across all your Internet connected devices.' To that end Mozilla Labs will launch Game On 2010, a game development competition, at the end of September."

95 of 127 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Maybe... by wampus · 2010-09-07 15:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe they should focus less on evangelization and more on making a browser that people want to use. Chrome is eating their lunch and they are content to push agendas instead of pushing code.
1. Re:Maybe... by odies · 2010-09-07 15:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly. The battle against H.264 will end up costing them even more market share too.
  But what always seems weird to me in discussions about web games in here is the dissing of Facebook games. People complain how they are apparently timewasters, stupid and how people should be playing real games instead. Why? They are entertainment just as any other "real" game and people think they're fun to play. They might be more tailored towards casual people, but in fact in the 1990's and 2000's I remember reading discussions about how to get more non-hardcore players and especially girls to play games. It seems web games, especially social ones like on Facebook is an answer to that. Why do so many people have an axe to grind if someone plays and enjoys Facebook games?
  Also, web games really aren't there to completely replace "real" games, there's place for both. Especially with the current technology and the sizes that "real" games require when installed. Internet and computer usage is completely different now than in 1995 and there's room for both type of games.
  However where Mozilla probably fails here is that they want to strictly promote games using open technologies.
  There are three problems to that; First of all, any of those technologies don't support games as good as Flash, and don't have a universal way for websites to embed them. Usually you also end up having to give out your full code, which just isn't going to work for companies and some people.
  Secondly, Flash has awesome authoring tools for coders and artists. There's none such for the mentioned technologies - you usually just write it in JavaScript.
  Thirdly but not least, the state of open source games is not good. Lack of artists, only copying of commercially successful games like Civilization and SimCity and similar just makes things worse. Projects also usually die quickly, just like those projects you worked with as a teenager. You had great interest in them at first, but then it just died and you moved on to something else. Commercial games overcome that problem by paying their developers, but that is not possible in open source world.
2. Re:Maybe... by arose · 2010-09-07 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should focuson what you want less and what Mozilla has always been doing. Not to mention that Chrome's "agenda" is very similar.
  Mozilla's agenda is "to open the web". Chrome's agenda is to "advance the web".
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
3. Re:Maybe... by tepples · 2010-09-07 15:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and don't have a universal way for websites to embed them.
  There was iframe before there was iPod.
  
  Usually you also end up having to give out your full code
  To a greater extent than you end up giving your code to anyone with an SWF decompiler?
4. Re:Maybe... by BZ · 2010-09-07 15:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) Mozilla's goal is an open web, not "making a browser". Making a browser is a means to an end.
  2) I'm curious about your use of "instead" instead of "in addition to".
5. Re:Maybe... by JackieBrown · 2010-09-07 15:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Chrome agenda is both. They are trying to "advance the web" by pushing "to open the web."
  There is a reason that they almost exclusively chose open protocols and standards for their products and browsers.
  They are large supporters of HTML 5, they pushed an open codec to give a viable alternative to h.264, they support imap and pop for gmail even though it allows you to bypass their adds, and they use jabber for their IM protocol instead of coming up with something new and closed like Mypsace, MS, Yahoo, Facebook, and Skype did.
6. Re:Maybe... by wampus · 2010-09-07 15:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And here I thought Mozilla was after producing a quality web browser first and foremost. If I wanted to run something substandard that gives me an unwarranted sense of superiority because it is more open, there are Linux distros specifically for that.
7. Re:Maybe... by musicalmicah · 2010-09-07 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  This looks like the effort of 1 FTE, tops. For all we know, it may even be a volunteer project. And remember, open source evangelism is one of the reasons Mozilla got its edge and re-opened the web after the onslaught of IE.
8. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · 2010-09-07 15:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can not for the life of me understand how anyone thinks that Firefox is a substandard browser. It does everything I want it to do and more, while allowing me to tweak anything in almost any way I please.
  
  --
  "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
9. Re:Maybe... by wampus · 2010-09-07 16:02 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Substandard is a strong word, but Firefox seems like it has lost its focus. If they keep it up, you could be downloading Firefox Communicator with 3D blink tag support while the rest of the players pull the market in another direction.
10. Re:Maybe... by gman003 · 2010-09-07 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would use Firefox exclusively, except I keep experiencing a weird lag problem, sometimes bogging down to about 1 frame every ten seconds. With FF as the only program running, on a dual-core gaming laptop. So now I dual-wield browsers: Chrome for normal surfing, Firefox to read the scores of RSS feeds I follow. If Chrome had something on par with Live Bookmarks, I'd use it, but until then, two browsers works fine. Except for that one issue, FF is a superior browser to Chrome, in my opinion. Better UI, better extensions, better browsing experience in general.
11. Re:Maybe... by Phopojijo · 2010-09-07 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  If your company spends its time and capital developing all their new features open... it doesn't need to spend its time and capital defeating other standards. Betamax was technically superior to VHS.
12. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-07 16:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Exactly. The battle against H.264 will end up costing them even more market share too.
  What battle? Open video is here to stay and it's usage is growing every day. Look:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPPlRDOZx0
  You can watch that video in WebM natively in your browser with no plugins. Firefox will not only be just fine but will, in fact, be better than ever. So will Blackberry with the embrace of open audio on the Blackberry Torch 9800 and Curve 9300.
13. Re:Maybe... by wampus · 2010-09-07 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  And? The Webkit/KHTML browsers are open. IE is open but not free. Using "open" as a selling point isn't very convincing when everyone is open and supports the same standards. Mozilla had a lot to do with progressing things to where they are now, but they run the risk of becoming irrelevant if they don't have a compelling product.
14. Re:Maybe... by BZ · 2010-09-07 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  > Christian missionaries do that, too
  Sure. So does everyone.
  For example, no one currently making a browser actually wants to make a browser per se. They all have an agenda they would like to push, using their browser as leverage.
  > Long standing problems that may or may not be fixed in the 4.0 branch
  You mean long-standing problems like not being able to print preview in Chrome? Or long-standing problems like broken CSS selector matching in Chrome (and other Webkit browsers)?
  Complex software tends to have some long-standing problems. A number of such got fixed in Firefox 4.0; not all of them did. That doesn't equate to no work happening.
  I also disagree with your characterization of the video tag situation, but only time will tell which of us is right.
15. Re:Maybe... by Moridineas · 2010-09-07 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  1) Christian missionaries do that, too. Feeding starving people is a means to an end.
  That is really so not true, for so many missionaries...
16. Re:Maybe... by mr_mischief · 2010-09-07 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Just, wow. They have four browsers open on one PC at the same time, using a benchmark written by Microsoft, and they expect a valid benchmark result? WTF?
17. Re:Maybe... by mr_mischief · 2010-09-07 17:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not just open protocols and open standards, but open source to implement them. That's a big deal, too. Everyone should see the benefits of open standards and open protocols. Open source is a subtler and less commonly chosen solution.
18. Re:Maybe... by Toonol · 2010-09-07 17:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, Firefox is still my browser of choice, but I'm no longer as evangelical as I used to be. Ever since the Awesomebar debacle... they've seemed to have an agenda that was distinct from simply making a good, open, browser. They've gotten all 'marketing' on us, trying to move us in certain directions, rather than helping us go where we want.
19. Re:Maybe... by internettoughguy · 2010-09-07 17:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  How the fuck is this modded troll? The GP seems closer to a troll.
  Of course Mozilla, as a member of the floss community is going to promote floss and open standards, as does Google, and even Apple to an extent.
20. Re:Maybe... by dangitman · 2010-09-07 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  I can not for the life of me understand how anyone thinks that Firefox is a substandard browser.
  It's slow and has a clunky interface. Not to mention the "automatic updates" bullshit that seems a lot like Windows automatic updating. Have you actually tried using other browsers?
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
21. Re:Maybe... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-07 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Mozilla ain't got shit to worry about. sure some geeks may go play with chrome for awhile, but Mozilla has an ace in the hole I haven't seen any of the other touch yet...their kick ass extension framework, which appeals to what I call the "non geek" factor. My GF barely knows more than "clicky clicky" on a PC, my mom and dad are even more clueless, yet they all have custom browsers. Did I do that? Nope, Firefox extensions. Once they learned of Firefox extensions they were customizing like crazy, and frankly I have yet to see any of the other browsers give me the kind of fine grained control over the web like Adblock Plus and Noscript give me.
  So if any Mozilla developers are reading this? Listen to your old pal Hairyfeet: Embed a video on your first run site that shows a simple tutorial on how easy extensions are to install and use, and I would add something like "Have you tried extensions to make the web YOUR way? want us to show you how with an easy video?" on the screen they see after an update. Extensions are THE "killer app" you have over everyone else, and the lock in potential is off the chart, as everyone I know who have tried extensions, including myself, simply won't go back to using the web without it.
  Hell even my 67 year old clueless dad will call me if he has to use a relative's PC that doesn't have Firefox complaining that "Their web is busted, all they have is that lousy blue E thing!" and I have to walk him through getting Firefox so he can have IMGZoom and Adblock Plus. So push extensions Mozilla, push them hard.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
22. Re:Maybe... by dangitman · 2010-09-07 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  That is really so not true, for so many missionaries...
  OK, so if that's not true, why don't they just go over there to feed the starving people, rather than going to feed the starving people and promote Christianity?
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
23. Re:Maybe... by oljanx · 2010-09-07 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  I have a suspicion that assuming "real" games cannot be delivered to a browser is a lot like saying 64k ought to be enough for anyone.
24. Re:Maybe... by peppepz · 2010-09-07 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  Are you trolling or what?
  Firefox 4 gets 97/100 on the Acid3 test and 574 out of 574 in the CSS3.info selectors test.
  Unlike webkit-based browsers, it supports MathML (and has for ages). It also directly targeted WebGL support, whereas other vendors tried to sneak in proprietary standards before giving up.
  Say that it is slow, but not that firefox doesn't support open standards.
25. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-07 18:46 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  http://arewefastyet.com/
  I'll just leave this here...
26. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-07 19:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Of course Mozilla supports open standards. My point was that they are SLOW to implement them. There is still no WebM support in stable releases of Firefox. I understand that they have limited resources but the point is that they seem to have a strange set of priorities (such as constantly fidgeting with Firefox's UI) when they do not yet completely support stuff that is YEARS old. Things like WebM are already a day late and dollar short when it comes to market penetration. The last thing we need is for projects such as Firefox dragging their feet supporting open standards--especially ones that are going to be of vital importance like which video codec is going to be strewn all over the web in the next 5-10 years.
27. Re:Maybe... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-07 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  A couple of points:
  1) You are able to connect to the Internet on your PC (whatever OS it runs) because of open standards - i.e. TCP/IP.
  2) You are able to read & post on Slashdot now because of open standards like HTTP.
  3) NVIDIA and ATI create Linux graphics drivers which are closed sourced & therefore closed standards. Likewise Adobe with Flash and a few others. In other words, just because someone runs Linux, it does not mean everything run on it is based on open standards.
  4) You're deluding yourself if you believe most Linux users give a damn about what you run. Linux exists as an alternative to, and despite of, proprietary Microsoft OSes and most people use it because of its capabilities. An OS is nothing more than a computer toolkit & you choose the what tools you consider to be right for the job.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
28. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-07 20:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because the church will pay for it.
29. Re:Maybe... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-07 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself by evangelising Chrome.
  Besides which, who gives a shit? Both browsers are free to use, there are enough add-ons about to sync bookmarks and settings between the two, and hard disks are not small these days. Therefore I personally give both of them a spin and "let nature take its course"; if I end up only using one of them in the future then so be it.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
30. Re:Maybe... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-07 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Thirdly but not least, the state of open source games is not good.
  So how many Open Source games have you actually played then?
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
31. Re:Maybe... by Khyber · 2010-09-07 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's enough for the guys that do demoscene stuff all day long.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
32. Re:Maybe... by Richard_at_work · 2010-09-07 20:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because of stupid ass stunts like foisting the 'Awesome Bar' on us with no option to completely revert back to the old behaviour (no, setting maxRichResults to 0 DOES NOT WORK before someone chimes up with it - it gimps the AB somewhat but it does not revert it to pre-AB behaviour).
  
  Because of stupid ass stunts like turning on silent automatic updates by default when we bitched and shouted at Microsoft for doing exactly the same thing.
  
  Because of the way activity in one tab can still block the entire browser, such as showing an authentication prompt (no way to switch to another tab while that there box is showing).
33. Re:Maybe... by Inda · 2010-09-07 21:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
  
  My father-in-law said "Firefox is shit because it is as slow as shit" or words similar. He wasn't on about the slow rendering and JS people on Slashdot complain about. He was talking about the 50+ extensions he'd installed. He'd gone through all the extensions installing each one that looked cute. FF took 3 or 4 minutes to start. You can imagine the rest.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
34. Re:Maybe... by maxume · 2010-09-07 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  People always say Betamax was better than VHS. Apparently it has better video quality, but it is ridiculous to pretend that recording time is not technically a feature (and VHS units had better recording times earlier).
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
35. Re:Maybe... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-07 22:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well just because you have a family member that does the classic "ur doin it wrong" doesn't make what I said any less true. Working PC repair I get to see many "Joe Normal" Firefox installs, and I'd say the average is 3-6 extensions, with 4 usually being the sweet spot. Rarely do I see any like mine where they have nearly a dozen, and those are usually what would be called a "power user", since it really doesn't take much to change you web experience completely. Take my dad for example, he is color blind and wears thick glasses, so the pictures on many websites would be just a gray blob. Thanks to IMGZoom he can simply hold the right mouse button and make any pic as big or as small as he needs, which makes it a "must have" for him.
  The other "killer app" Mozilla has is Personas. We geeks laughed at it but the Joe Normals seem to really love them. I've seen everything from monster trucks to boy bands starting Firefox lately everyone seems to be changing the look. Hell even in my own family everyone has changed personas without me even pointing that feature out. My mom has flowers (they just make everything cheerful) my oldest has a gothic looking one, the youngest anime, and last I looked dad had a classic car.
  Everyone likes to be different, everyone has different tastes and different wants. The nice thing about Mozilla Firefox is it doesn't take any real PC knowledge to have a completely custom browser. If Mozilla is smart they will heavily push extensions and personas, as those really set it apart from the pack IMHO.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
36. Re:Maybe... by westlake · 2010-09-07 22:25 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  What battle? Open video is here to stay and it's usage is growing every day. Look.You can watch that video in WebM natively in your browser with no plugins.
  That video wasn't recorded or edited in WebM.
  It was trancoded by YouTube - and it will play just fine in your H.264 enabled browser.
37. Re:Maybe... by pr0nbot · 2010-09-07 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Browser development is not Google's core business (advertising is). When push comes to shove, they will choose their business interests over your browser experience.
  Look at iTunes. It's just a media player. But Apple has no interest in making it the best possible media player - if they did, it would (to take a random example) allow syncing to as many portable players as possible, rather than just iPods. iTunes serves Apple's core business interests. I'd be really surprised if Chrome didn't go the same way.
  Browser development is Mozilla's core business. Pushing for an open internet directly supports this.
38. Re:Maybe... by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  You can decompile anything - and since adobe released the full spec for swf, it's hard to say it's less open
  However, that's not the point - the point is that html5 games are crappy in terms of performance compared to flash. It's the same as the current "manipulate the dom" model - a stupid hack that wouldn't have gone anywhere in a sane world.
39. Re:Maybe... by whitehaint · 2010-09-07 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  RE: Facebook games. It's because of Zynga, the company that keeps pushing you to blow your money on stupid crap, is a cause of much wasted space on peoples wall and in general are slightly unethical wankers.
40. Re:Maybe... by cabraverde · 2010-09-07 23:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The battle against H.264 will end up costing them even more market share too
  Don't be ridiculous. There are sound legal (not idealogical) reasons why Mozilla cannot implement H.264. Patent law, basically. For you to portray that as Mozilla fighting a 'battle' is downright disingenuous.
41. Re:Maybe... by sourcerror · 2010-09-08 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  There are lot of knock offs in commercial gaming: just look at the zillion FPSes.
  However I found some really brave and innovative opensource games, like Tremolous and Globulation.
42. Re:Maybe... by sourcerror · 2010-09-08 00:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Another use of personas: you're able to the tell the difference between different Firefox accounts (I have several, 1 for developing tools, 1 regular).
43. Re:Maybe... by Exitar · 2010-09-08 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because it has still awful memory leaks.
  I use FF to play an "html only" MMO (mostly due to some helpful greasemonkey scripts not working on chrome) and after 1 hour of play it is using 1 Gb (and when it doesn't reach that limit it's because it crashed before)...
44. Re:Maybe... by nschubach · 2010-09-08 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, any of those technologies don't support games as good as Flash, and don't have a universal way for websites to embed them. Usually you also end up having to give out your full code, which just isn't going to work for companies and some people.
  I'm pretty sure that's how DirectX initially got started. I remember digging through bulk masses of Microsoft "free" code to find out how to do stuff early on. Little did I know then that most people probably just took and copy/pasted that code into their own game... but apparently that's how you "win" the game. You just have to write the program for some people and play ignorant when it comes to copyright.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
45. Re:Maybe... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-09-08 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike webkit-based browsers, it supports MathML...
  Actually, MathML was merged to the trunk of Webkit the middle of last month. So if you're running the latest, it's working, although when it will be in a particular browser depends upon the release schedule for that browser.
  
  It also directly targeted WebGL support, whereas other vendors tried to sneak in proprietary standards before giving up.
  I'm not sure what you're referring to. Chrome and Safari both have extensive WebGL support at this point. They also support some additional functionality, like Apple's 3D CSS transforms, but calling them proprietary is misleading. The Firefox team has actually implemented some of them. "Proprietary" doesn't mean the same thing as "hard to implement on OS's that don't have most of the graphics work done for you". It's a published open standard.
46. Re:Maybe... by nschubach · 2010-09-08 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  You may think it has a "clunky interface", but I personally like it much more than Chrome. Though, I end up using Chrome more often because of synchronized bookmarks and I use multiple machines. That doesn't mean I like the interface. I just find that it has one killer feature I would rather not live without.
  As far as interfaces: Firefox > Chrome > IE8 (I have not used Safari or Opera, but I imagine they are Chrome-like in going for form over function.) I do however combine all the Firefox toolbars into one nice thin bar at the top:
  http://i.imgur.com/cDQqW.png
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
47. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 01:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  1] Edit->Preferences->Privacy->Location Bar->When using the Location Bar, suggest: Nothing
  2] Edit->Preferences->Advanced->Update tab->uncheck automatic update boxes
  3] you have a minor point; I'd suggest dealing with the authentication box first
  Now get back to work, Dick.
48. Re:Maybe... by Surt · 2010-09-08 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's depressing if true. The performance of flash is truly atrocious. At least with an open source stack you have the hope that a competent performance engineer will have a look at some point, with flash there's no hope, because such a person would have to agree to work for adobe.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
49. Re:Maybe... by Richard_at_work · 2010-09-08 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  1. Let me repeat this slowly - I do not want a gimped Awesome Bar, I want the pre-Awesome Bar functionality. That suggestion does not give me that. Currently no suggestions put forward in any of the times I have mentioned this on any of the forums I have discussed it in has reverted the behaviour, its just broken the AB in some way or other.
  
  2. That should be unticked by default - that is my entire point. Having the option to untick it does not negate the fact that it shouldnt be ticked in the first place.
  
  3. And what if I am copying something from another tab to do just that? Ooops, I can't - I must dismiss the dialog, go to the other tab, get the information, return, refresh the page to get the dialog back and then deal with it. Stupid and unnecessary.
50. Re:Maybe... by tomhudson · 2010-09-08 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  You're free to improve on Adobe's implementation. They published the spec, they made the latest Flex source open-source so you can download it and bang away on it, you already have access to a complete reference implementation and there's nothing preventing you or anyone else from releasing a different player if you think you can do better.
  That's a lot better than html5, which is a work in progress and much fought over.
51. Re:Maybe... by Moridineas · 2010-09-08 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so if that's not true, why don't they just go over there to feed the starving people, rather than going to feed the starving people and promote Christianity?
  That's EXACTLY what very many missionaries do due! Not all strands of Christianity believe in the same kind of missionary work. Sure, you've got Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, etc who are more in your face about conversion, but many (esp. protestant) missions are focused on helping people, not on conversion.
  I'm an atheist but my grandparents were missionaries, andConversion was the last thing they were worried about. A friend of mine is a Christian missionary who spends several months each year in Central Asia doing charity dentistry work. The vast majority of people he helps have no idea he is Christian.
  It just really makes you seem like an ass when you paint a broad swath of people with the same brush, especially when it's obvious you're essentially ignorant of the subject you're talking about.
52. Re:Maybe... by Surt · 2010-09-08 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeahhh ... right. I'll invest my time writing a complete player implementation when I could contribute to open standards like html5. Let me know when they open-source the code to their flash player.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
53. Re:Maybe... by PitaBred · 2010-09-08 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Betamax was superior in many areas to VHS, but not in the one that counted. And that was tape length. I'll take driving a Chevy POS with 150HP over driving a Lexus with 20HP any day.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
54. Re:Maybe... by icebraining · 2010-09-08 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Whose "we"? All the people who wanted Firefox to support ActiveX and proprietary IE tags a few years back?
  Mozilla always steered in this direction. The difference is you agreed with it back then, and now you don't. You changed, not them.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
55. Re:Maybe... by icebraining · 2010-09-08 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  "Clunky interface"? Really? The browser is completely configurable. You can make it look like Chrome, IE, etc. Mine just has the tab bar, a black status bar and a white "command bar", skinned by Vimperator.
  Clunky default interface, possibly, but who cares?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
56. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 09:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because of stupid ass stunts like foisting the 'Awesome Bar' on us with no option to completely revert back to the old behaviour (no, setting maxRichResults to 0 DOES NOT WORK before someone chimes up with it - it gimps the AB somewhat but it does not revert it to pre-AB behaviour).
  The Awesome Bar works well. It's striking how poorly the URL suggestion systems work in the location bars of other browsers. Do you have any specific examples of how the Awesome Bar is a "stupid ass stunt"?
  
  Because of stupid ass stunts like turning on silent automatic updates by default when we bitched and shouted at Microsoft for doing exactly the same thing.
  Turn it off in the options. Saying "it should be off by default" is pretty silly when it's so trivial to change the behaviour.
  
  Because of the way activity in one tab can still block the entire browser, such as showing an authentication prompt (no way to switch to another tab while that there box is showing).
  Firefox 4 is moving to a tab modal model. Your nerd rage seems to be a bit misdirected. Maybe it would be more productive to participate in the Firefox project rather than complaining about it on Slashdot.
57. Re:Maybe... by dangitman · 2010-09-08 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Clunky interface"? Really? The browser is completely configurable. You can make it look like Chrome [mozilla.org], IE [mozilla.org], etc. Mine just has the tab bar, a black status bar and a white "command bar", skinned by Vimperator [vimperator.org].
  That's exactly how you get clunky interfaces. By not designing something simple and elegant, but by making it "skinnable." Skinning is the antithesis of good interface design. You give it away when you say it is about what it looks like, rather than how it functions. Interface design is more than skin-deep.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
58. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · 2010-09-08 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I am sorry, having to opt into updates is a security hazard in and of itself.
  
  --
  "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
59. Re:Maybe... by kelltic · 2010-09-08 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Google's "Chrome agenda" is to analyze and monetize your every move, to target users with adware. Their commitment to "open" is a tactic to lure the idealist tech mob into their corner (aka shut'em up by blinding them with feigned altruism), and lo and behold it's working. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world that de didn't exist" -Keyser Söze
60. Re:Maybe... by Richard_at_work · 2010-09-08 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I do find it interesting how the acceptance of automated actions here on slashdot changes from moment to moment - so opt-in automated updates is a security hazard, but opt-out automated updates are not a violation of privacy *and* a security hazard (you are allowing the automated update server install whatever it wishes on your system)?
  
  At the very very least, Firefox should give you the option to opt-in or out on first start up - it doesn't, and that imho is poor.
61. Re:Maybe... by arose · 2010-09-09 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  You were wrong.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
62. Re:Maybe... by arose · 2010-09-09 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  They are trying to "advance the web" by pushing "to open the web."
  Right, their agenda doesn't exclude opening the web by any means, but it is not their agenda as such. The relative importance of the open web subgoal is currently unknown, as there haven't been many (any?) instances where they had to make a choice.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
63. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · 2010-09-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can agree with having the option on install or first start up. It doesn't exceptionally bother me, though, as you've probably already noticed. The track record of the security of Mozilla's (or anyone's, for that matter) automated update servers versus the track record of browser security in general makes it a kinda moot point for me. As for a violation of privacy, I have no idea where that idea comes from and I wonder what information you'd be transferring to Mozilla besides what version of their software you're using using automated updates.
  
  --
  "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
64. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · 2010-09-09 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to be under the mantle of "it works for me", but I have never seen firefox running over 500MB of memory, and I have to push it to get that high. I don't know what platform you're running on, I don't know if you have Microsoft's Silverlight plugin, I don't know what you're doing right or wrong, if anything, but I have never had any memory leak problems with firefox.
  
  --
  "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
When I want to read the article, it isn't there by CrazyJim1 · 2010-09-07 15:50 · Score: 1

There isn't much information on this.
If my game isn't open source, do I still get to participate?
I'm working in Flash.

--
God spoke to me.
1. Re:When I want to read the article, it isn't there by DamienRBlack · 2010-09-07 16:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think it matters if you game is open source, just the tools you are using. I think using flash goes against their goal. There are plenty of flash games, they are trying to show games that use open platforms.
2. Re:When I want to read the article, it isn't there by mr_mischief · 2010-09-07 17:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Flash (the authoring tool) can now produce HTML 5 Canvas + JavaScript. Flash Player (the runtime) was produced for years because there was no other viable option for running the output of Flash.
  The output right now pretty much sucks, but they're working on it. The Flash IDE is pretty nice, so if people who have invested time in learning it can eventually put the output onto a standard web page without requiring a plugin on the client, I'm sure that's what most people will be smart enough to do.
  Also, Adobe has done a lot of work on standardizing the SWF format and even the save format used by the Flash IDE. Macromedia's versions used to just dump a memory image to disk to save a Flash project. Now you can save it as an XML file that can be worked on with a node editor, text editor, XSLT, or whatever. The SWF format targeted at the Flash Player is even published so that other players can be written to the exact spec, although HTML 5 + JavaScript will hopefully be the dominant output from the IDE soon.
  Now, I don't see the multi-hundred dollar Flash development system itself becoming open source any time soon. Adobe does have some tools they've put in the open realm, though. The quality of clones both open and closed of the IDE is improving. There are scores open source tools that output to SWF now that could also output to HTML 5. One programming language I've worked in (haXe even targets SWF, JavaScript+HTML DOM, or the Neko VM selectably (but with different libraries and some differences in capability for each).
3. Re:When I want to read the article, it isn't there by Yvanhoe · 2010-09-08 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  I also wonder if there is something to win in their competition.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I hope the first game is Strategic Conquest by cryfreedomlove · 2010-09-07 16:10 · Score: 1

Did any of you ever enjoy Strat Con? It did not use much horse power and should work fine if ported to javascript/html5.
1. Re:I hope the first game is Strategic Conquest by Spliffster · 2010-09-07 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  You might be Interested in an HTML5/SVG Version of freeciv: http://freeciv.net/ It's still in development but it is playable already. Best results in in Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
2. Re:I hope the first game is Strategic Conquest by Khelder · 2010-09-10 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  I had StratCon for my Apple IIGS. Played it every evening between dinner and bedtime for months. Great game for its time.
Some people! by symbolset · 2010-09-07 16:57 · Score: 1

Some people would bitch if you hung 'em with a new rope.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:Some people! by mr_mischief · 2010-09-07 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'd bitch about that whole "you hanging me" part. I don't really care about the rope, unless it's old enough to break. Then I'd care if you wanted to update it.
Flash? by gaspyy · 2010-09-07 17:25 · Score: 1

There are no rules or at least guidelines for now. I'm curious whether or not Flash will be allowed. I guess not, since if they do, all the winners will be flash-based.
Love it or hate it, Flash is the best way of writing a game for web (and in some cases mobiles), and with frameworks like AIR or tools like ZINC they can become standalone apps for Win/Mac/Linux - effectively meeting the promise made by Java 15 years ago.
Two years ago a wrote a little chess game. I initially considered Java and then Silverlight but I ended up writing it in Actionscript 3 simply because of its broad reach and ability to easily have nice graphics. Despite the fact that it's not nearly as powerful as a chess game written in C, it's been surprisingly successful.
I've been thinking about porting it to HTML5, but I see no practical advantages to doing so and I'd only lose 60% of the viewers and I'd have to put up with browsers inconsistencies, rendering bugs, javascript's prototype-based class model...
1. Re:Flash? by gaspyy · 2010-09-07 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Just speaking of inconsistencies, the text links at the top of http://www.mozillalabs.com/gaming/ (which use a web font - Museo Sans) look different in Firefox and Chrome, while on https://gaming.mozillalabs.com/ the red circles with "Read blog", "Follow" are rendered incorrectly by Chrome (latest DEV build). What's not to love?
2. Re:Flash? by peppepz · 2010-09-07 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's great that you can now inspect multimedia-rich web pages and see that all the elements that compose them (including scripts, fonts, sounds) are now first-class citizens, not distinguished from hyperlinks and images, instead of alien entities sealed in a square box in the middle of the page. You can now learn how they work by looking at the code, and even rip the resources you like, as you have always been able to do with text and images. I think HTML5 is a long overdue update to HTML that, in the long run, has a clear potential to finally put an end to the reign of fear of browser plugins, with their security vulnerabilities, performance issues, integration issues, portability issues, compatibility issues, maintenance issues.
  About inconsistencies: it would also be interesting to look at how flash content looks like when run outside the canonical windows/unix/mac desktop plugin developed by Adobe. For instance, in Android devices, Nokia devices, on the PS3, or any non-x86 architecture which is served by a different plugin than the Adobe one. There, I'm used to see plenty of inconsistency, transparency issues, animations which just get stuck, sluggish performance, "please update your flash player" messages (of course updating the flash player on a cell phone is usually out of question).
  I agree with you that Flash is *the* best way, currently, to run multimedia content that the largest number of desktop users will be able to access. But the availability of high-quality open source html5 engines and the rise in importance of non-x86 portable devices will probably change that in the near future. I think even Adobe is keeping the back-end of their tools open to alternative solutions to Flash, just in case.
3. Re:Flash? by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Flash is still the way to go - and contrary to the fud being spread here, the flash standard is completely open - anyone is free tom implement it.
  You also get cross-platform from one codebase for free. Windows, Linux, BSD, even the Wii! And since smartphones will increasingly be able to run flash, why bother with anything else (especially slow non-portable html5 games).
4. Re:Flash? by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Flash runs great on the Wii - without the need to write specifically to the Wii platform. Same app, same appearance.
5. Re:Flash? by tomhudson · 2010-09-08 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The FUD is all over, and I'm sick of it. Obviously I hit a sore point - the only reason there are no good open-source implementations is not because the spec is closed, but because of all the people doing the complaining (wrongfully) that it is closed-source are too lazy to get off their rear ends and supply a second implementation. They don't believe it's possible "because it's proprietary" - a complete load of hogwash.
  So why didn't firefox try to implement it instead of using a plugin? It's because they can't. They don't have the skills, just like they don't have the skills to do a proper threading client. Instead, they waste time and effort on this stupid - very stupid - game contest. All it will do is highlight that html5 is not supported uniformly across all browsers, and that browsers still make lousy app platforms, and the "browser as platform" model deserves to die. The DOM is crap that was bolted on and then extended for all the wrong reasons, and we're wasted more than a decade with it. Move on, already.
  The future will be multiple runtime platforms for custom apps (same as we already have for java, and flash, and php, and perl, and python), not browsers.
FOSS games are just as good as Facebook games by Acetylane_Rain · 2010-09-07 18:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I see a double standard in the way you praise Facebook gaming while "dissing" open source games. First, you say that we should consider Facebook games as just as good as "real" games. On the other hand, you also say that "the state of open source games is not good." But for every popular Facebook game (e.g. Farmville, Mafia Wars), I can download dozens of FOSS games that are just as good or even better. So okay, maybe these FOSS games are just knockoffs of some commercial game. But aren't those Facebook games that you say are "fun to play" also knockoffs of, let's say, Sim City? Oh well, I'm logging off now and playing another round of Megaglest and Sauerbraten.
Re:Bill gates Internet Tidal wave hits... by dangitman · 2010-09-07 18:17 · Score: 1

In 1995 Bill Gates wrote a panic email to his top execs titled, "Internet Tidal Wave"... why did he write this? Because, he knew that one day the browser could go full screen and become the operating system capable of playing games and complex software.
I doubt very much he "knew this" as such. I think he had only a vague idea of what was going on. Certainly, the way Microsoft reacted (trying to create a proprietary web) didn't really indicate that he understood the problem.
To be fair, nobody really knew in 1995 what was going to happen. It was all USENET and CD-ROM.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Need open web browser fart apps! by leftie · 2010-09-07 18:33 · Score: 1

There's clearly an unfulfilled need for online browser fart aps!
Re:Bill gates Internet Tidal wave hits... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-07 19:55 · Score: 1

It was all USENET and CD-ROM.
Ssssh. The first rule of Usenet Club is you do not talk about Usenet Club.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
SWF is an open format by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:27 · Score: 1

NVIDIA and ATI create Linux graphics drivers which are closed sourced & therefore closed standards. Likewise Adobe with Flash

Please stop spreading lies.

SWF File Format Specification (Version 10)
The SWF file format is available as an open specification to create products and technology that implement the specification. SWF 9 introduced the ActionScript(TM) 3.0 language and virtual machine. The SWF 10 specification expands text capabilities with support for bidirectional text and complex scripts with the new DefineFont4 tag. The DefineBitsJPEG4 tag allows embedding JPEG images that have an alpha channel for opacity and also a smoothing filter. SWF 10 also adds support for the free and open-source Speex voice codec and for higher frequencies in the existing Nellymoser codec.
Download the SWF file format specification (PDF, 940K)
Adobe seriously considers all feedback to the SWF file format specification. E-mail any unclear or potentially erroneous information within the specification to Adobe at flashformat@adobe.com.

Same as pdf, same as a lot of other stuff
They also have an swf sdk that you can download if you want to implement your own flash development environment. They "get it." They know that the best way to stay #1 is to constantly challenge themselves by encouraging competition.
1. Re:SWF is an open format by jonescb · 2010-09-08 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm haven't looked at the spec myself, but I remember hearing that the main Gnash developer didn't find anything in the spec particularly useful. They had everything in the released spec figured out before it was released, and Gnash still doesn't fully support SWF 9 and 10. So I'm led to believe that Adobe's documentation is pretty sparse.
2. Re:SWF is an open format by tomhudson · 2010-09-08 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you've already reverse-engineered the spec, you're not going to find much useful in it - except confirmation that you got it right. Unlike, say, Java, where you can only get the conformance test tools if you pay beaucoup buck$ and sign an NDA - hardly open source.
  They make plenty of other stuff available as well - you can download the Flex SDK source
  
  The Flex SDK is one of several open-source projects in a Subversion repository hosted by Adobe. Subversion is an open-source revision control system used for many open-source projects. If you haven't used it before, please see the official documentation. For a high-level overview of source control concepts, see A Visual Guide to Version Control.
  
  If you don't feel like downloading anything, you can browse the source tree. going through it, I picked a lib at random, and I see it's licensed under the Apache license - that's pretty much a F/LOSS license in most people's books.
What's so wrong with flash? by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:38 · Score: 1

It's a completely open spec that adobe has made available to anyone who implement it

SWF File Format Specification (Version 10)
The SWF file format is available as an open specification to create products and technology that implement the specification.

You can also download their flash and flex SDKs, and other stuff.
The problem isn't flash - it's single-threaded browsers that sh*t all over themselves when a badly-written page (doesn't matter the content) ends up pegging your cpu, eating all your memory, and making you wonder if they ever heard of threads.
Stop with the FUD by tomhudson · 2010-09-07 23:44 · Score: 1

I don't think it matters if you game is open source, just the tools you are using. I think using flash goes against their goal. There are plenty of flash games, they are trying to show games that use open platforms.

Flash is an open platform.

SWF File Format Specification (Version 10)
The SWF file format is available as an open specification to create products and technology that implement the specification. SWF 9 introduced the ActionScript(TM) 3.0 language and virtual machine. The SWF 10 specification expands text capabilities with support for bidirectional text and complex scripts with the new DefineFont4 tag. The DefineBitsJPEG4 tag allows embedding JPEG images that have an alpha channel for opacity and also a smoothing filter. SWF 10 also adds support for the free and open-source Speex voice codec and for higher frequencies in the existing Nellymoser codec.
Download the SWF file format specification (PDF, 940K)

Other Adobe Open Source Stuff
You can also download their SDKs, etc. There's nothing stopping anyone from implementing flash and/or flex - the specs are all out in the open, as are the tools.
1. Re:Stop with the FUD by tomhudson · 2010-09-08 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  s/Flash/Java/gi;
  Your argument also applies even more to Java. The standard is licensed by ONE company. It's even more of a fat, resource hogging pig. It's (a lot) less portable than flash - ask any of the licensees who paid to license JavaME. (Java Mobile Edition - the completely non-free (as in pay me a license to use it and a fee for every phone solde) and non-portable (as in apps have to be tweaked for every phone).
  There's only one company that controls dalvik. And dalvik is closed.
  So, to quote you, quit being stupid.
  Flash works. html5 doesn't. Pick one to develop your next game. I'm sticking with flash for the foreseeable future - it's much more cross-platform than html5.
Re:Dear Mozilla Foundation by tomhudson · 2010-09-08 00:04 · Score: 1

Get a half-decent content model - not the DOM. And not HTML. In other words, apply that age-old truth - "Different tools for different jobs." Otherwise, you'll always be behind implementations that do this (think swf, which is an open specification free for anyone to implement).
In other words - why didn't moz implement native support for the swf spec instead? The spec is out there, you can also freely download the SDK directly from Adobe, as well ss Flex, etc. They even invite people to do this:

The SWF file format is available as an open specification to create products and technology that implement the specification.

Or maybe they could fix their browser so that badly-written pages don't grab 175% cpu and all available memory on multi-core machines.
Re:Dear Mozilla Foundation by Yvanhoe · 2010-09-08 01:26 · Score: 1

I abandoned javascript 12 years ago, frustrated by the inconsistencies amongst browsers and frustrating unexplainable errors. I tried it again last year and was surprised by its evolution : easy to code, many helpful libs, good integration with HTML through DOM, etc... If your feelings toward javascript are a bit old, maybe you should try it again.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Dear Mozilla Foundation by VGPowerlord · 2010-09-08 01:46 · Score: 1

I abandoned javascript 12 years ago, frustrated by the inconsistencies amongst browsers and frustrating unexplainable errors. I tried it again last year and was surprised by its evolution : easy to code, many helpful libs, good integration with HTML through DOM, etc... If your feelings toward javascript are a bit old, maybe you should try it again.
I'm going to make a wild guess and say you found it easy to code... using the aforementioned helpful libraries.
Raw JS is still as much of a PITA now as it was 12 years ago. Worse now, since you have to take into account quirks across 4-5* JS engines instead of just 2.
*4 if you ignore Opera, 5 if you include it.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Hmmm (Re:Maybe...) by EXTomar · 2010-09-08 02:14 · Score: 1

It seems to me that people like to play lots and lots and lots of games through web browsers. It would seem to me that promoting building web games in an open way goes along with "making a browser that people want to use".
Gnash by tepples · 2010-09-08 23:18 · Score: 1

I'll invest my time writing a complete player implementation when I could contribute to
...Gnash, the GNU SWF player.