Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Labs To Promote Open Web Gaming

Posted by timothy on 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."

22 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe... by wampus · · 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 · · 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 tepples · · 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?

    3. Re:Maybe... by BZ · · 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".

    4. Re:Maybe... by JackieBrown · · 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.

    5. Re:Maybe... by wampus · · 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.

    6. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · · 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"
    7. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:Maybe... by mr_mischief · · 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.

    9. Re:Maybe... by Toonol · · 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.

    10. Re:Maybe... by internettoughguy · · 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.

    11. Re:Maybe... by hairyfeet · · 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.
    12. Re:Maybe... by Richard_at_work · · 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).

    13. Re:Maybe... by Inda · · 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.
    14. Re:Maybe... by hairyfeet · · 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.
    15. Re:Maybe... by whitehaint · · 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.

    16. Re:Maybe... by cabraverde · · 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.

    17. Re:Maybe... by sourcerror · · 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).

    18. Re:Maybe... by Zixaphir · · 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"
  2. Re:When I want to read the article, it isn't there by DamienRBlack · · 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.

  3. Re:When I want to read the article, it isn't there by mr_mischief · · 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).

  4. FOSS games are just as good as Facebook games by Acetylane_Rain · · 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.