Slashdot Mirror
Browsers — the Gaming Platform of the Future?
Trip Hawkins, founder of Electronic Arts, spoke at the recent Game Developers Conference about how he expects game platforms to evolve in the future. Hawkins thinks the role of web browsers as a platform will greatly increase as the explosion of mobile device adoption continues.
"For all of the big media companies, this phase of disruption is dramatic and happening fast. Where it's really going to lead is where the function of the browser is going. ... The browser has taken over 2 billion PCs — it's going to be taking over a billion tablets over the next few years, billions of mobile devices. It will end up in my opinion very strong on the television. The browser is the platform of the future."
If everybody in the future plans on selling micro-games with abysmal graphics, then maybe. There's really not that many situations that I can see where developing for a web browser would be more advantageous than developing a game for a native OS architecture, whether it be for a console (xbox, PS3, etc.) or computer (Mac, Windows, etc.). Even for mobile devices, if you design for a browser, what does that leave you with? Native application SDKs exist for android, iOS, and the like, which I'm sure provide better performance capabilities for rendering and whatnot than Flash or something yet-to-be-developed. That leaves ChromeOS, which I assume will use HTML5 or Flash. But, if the day it comes, it would be glorious to see Black Ops playing in a browser tab. Call me skeptical, but I just don't see this really make a dent in the hardcore-gaming market.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Because Firefox doesn't chew enough CPU cycles now.
Yay. More Javascript and Flash.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
You don't need graphics for games. You don't even need flash. There are many persistent multiplayer games that work in real time and you just use your browser to play them. Currently I'm playing Slavehack, a hacking game where you can hack to other peoples computer and public servers, and they might hack into yours (and even steal your money from your bank account if they happen to get the bank ip and account number from the logs before you clean it and hack into it). Your computer remains online even while you're not playing, so you have to be clever. I also used to play games like Ultima Online where you build your own nation with other players and a game called Trukz, where you basically were a truck driver and it worked in real time, meaning you basically logged in few times a day to drive your truck further on its way. They all combine multiplayer in the way of companies, guilds, or player versus player gameplay.
And actually I find them really fun too. They're not going to replace traditional games, but there's room for both!
Why couldn't something else?
If everybody in the future plans on selling micro-games
Micro-games at micro-price keeps gaming interesting, so that you're not doing the same thing over and over for the 50 hours that the $50 game might last. Perhaps my taste just differs.
with abysmal graphics
I didn't think the graphics seen in the video of Tiny Wings that you linked were that abysmal; they're just stylized. Is it that you prefer the "real is brown" art style?
There's really not that many situations that I can see where developing for a web browser would be more advantageous than developing a game for a native OS architecture, whether it be for a console (xbox, PS3, etc.)
I can think of one: a developer may be too new or too small to meet Nintendo's or Sony's requirements for a license. I can provide a citation for such requirements if you wish.
Native application SDKs exist for android, iOS, and the like
Windows Phone 7, the platform that Nokia just bought into big time, doesn't have native apps; it has the .NET Compact Framework with Silverlight or XNA API. What's the big difference between Silverlight in a browser and Silverlight on Windows Phone 7?
> So when will the browser and operating system achieve a seamless integration?
1995.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
The kind of game you can put in a browser is not the kind of game you are used to. Browser games are like Angry Birds; toys, not serious games. You get a few minutes of enjoyment that can be had at any time you want. But if you want a lengthy game with decent graphics, like say, Fallout, or Civilization, or Empire Earth, or Sims, then no, those are not going into a browser. The thing is, nobody is making those kinds of games any more. Fallout 3 was the last one as far as I'm concerned. From now on it's just mindless toys for mindless enjoyment.
Not going to happen as long as the sound and input APIs completely suck.
micro-games with abysmal graphics
Webgl is real and works today in the latest browsers. Go here (with Chrome 9 or FF4 and a real GPU) to see it right now.
developing for a web browser would [not] be more advantageous
In terms of performance, browsers already provide an environment that has parity with the best stand-alone dynamic languages. Both HTML5 canvas and Webgl are sufficient to solve the rendering problem for a broad class of games. These tools are standards based and free. If you've ever earned a living making games you can't miss the potential.
Large investments into browser development are coming from several competing organizations. Don't be surprised if browsers become superior to traditional techniques.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
There's really not that many situations that I can see where developing for a web browser would be more advantageous than developing a game for a native OS architecture, whether it be for a console (xbox, PS3, etc.) or computer (Mac, Windows, etc.). Even for mobile devices, if you design for a browser, what does that leave you with?
The value of video games is 1% technology and 99% game design.
The actual graphics in a game is much like the box art and advertising; it gets people to buy the game, try the game, and discover if it actually is a decent game. They don't improve the gameplay any more than Tony the Tiger makes Frosted Flakes taste better. They do, however, let games compete for shelf space alongside other games with decent graphics.
Successful browser games are the best thing to happen for gamers since games moved from the arcade to the home in the early 80s. They lower the barrier to entry and increase the amount of risk developers can take. We can get new genres, new mechanics, new designs...new everything. Publishers aren't going to take risks with $30 million development pricetags. All the fancy graphics/physics/art/music/voice/etc ever did for us is lock us into seeing the same shit every year.
Imagine taking the entire development budget of EA Sports NFL $year and making a thousand "crappy flash games" instead. You'd end up with a whole lot of shit and a handful of real gems...games that will be played 20 years from now, unlike the nth iteration of the same expensive low-risk crap.
This is far too appropriate: http://xkcd.com/484/
What's abysmal about the graphics in the game you link to?
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Google already ported Quake 2 to WebGL, here's an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSDiBA27Wo0. IMHO that's powerful enough for most casual gamers and that is something that exists and is working *today*. Hawkins was talking about "in the future."
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com