Slashdot Mirror


In Blocking Autoplay Videos, Chrome Is Breaking Many Web-Based Games (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: An update Google rolled out for its popular Chrome browser this weekend helps prevent those annoying auto-playing video ads on many websites from disturbing your day with unwanted sound as well. But that update is causing consternation for many Web-based game developers who are finding that the change completely breaks the audio in their online work. The technical details behind the problem involve the way Chrome handles WebAudio objects, which are now automatically paused when a webpage starts up, stymying auto-playing ads. To get around this, Web-based games now have to actively restart that pre-loaded audio object when the player makes an action to start the game, even if that audio wasn't autoplaying beforehand. "The standard doesn't require you to do this, so no one would have thought to do this before today," developer Andi McClure told Ars Technica. "With Chrome's new autoplay policies, developers shouldn't assume that audio can be played before a user gesture," Google told The Daily Dot in a statement. "With gaming in Chrome, this may affect Web Audio. We have shared details on what developers can do to address this, and the design for the policy was published last year."

77 comments

  1. No big deal... by xfade551 · · Score: 2

    ...Nothing of value was lost.

    1. Re: No big deal... by technosaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except bandwidth, it sounds like they just mute it. I vote for no autoplay anything without user permission. Same for popups, new tabs, redirects and control overrides.

    2. Re:No big deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I came to say.

      +1

    3. Re: No big deal... by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I vote for no autoplay anything without user permission.

      CNN. Goddammitt, if I'm reading the news I'm probably listening to music. I don't like having a newscaster jabbering over Echoes. If I want to watch the story about the article I'm reading, I'll ask for it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re: No big deal... by Gollent · · Score: 1

      I used to use a lower spec laptop and it definitely struggles with the autoplay ads.

    5. Re: No big deal... by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      It's blocking audio on websites whose sole purpose is to play an audio file, and there is no way to turn it off. So it's without user permission, but in a different way.

  2. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's writing video games in HTML anyway? Why would you write a game in HTML?

    Flash and Java applets provides a method of writing games you could play in web browsers, and no one particularly cared when those technologies went away, because web games are universally terrible anyway.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Who's writing video games in HTML anyway? Why would you write a game in HTML?

      Flash and Java applets provides a method of writing games you could play in web browsers, and no one particularly cared when those technologies went away, because web games are universally terrible anyway.

      Gemcraft was the king of Tower Defence games. Even that game is a proper game now and not some Flash monstrosity. Overall I agree though, web is a terrible way to write a game. There are much better ways.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well because it makes sense to make a game on the web. You get immediate multiplayer, access to a global consumer audience, you do not have to worry about what the condition of the OS is that the game is playing on, you do not have to worry about what OS the game is playing on. You do not have to worry about a distribution channel or other overhead as 100% of revenue directly goes to the controller or owner of the site and most likely directly to the developers who had a hand in creating the site/game.

      It actually makes more sense to make a web based game than it does a compiled game that is specific to an operating system, then a version of an operating system, then a version of an operating system that has particular patches installed, then a particular version of an operating system with particular patches installed and a sense of other applications installed which could cause interference. You then have to also worry about a distribution channel which comes with its own set of hangups and headaches (I'm thinking about the way EA treats developers like garbage).

      In fact I'm really not sure why anyone makes binary games anymore at all. If you take a look at three.js you can see that xbox level graphics are available from within the browser and it works like liquid gold.

    3. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost forgot about the update cycle. With a web based game you alter 1 copy of the game and everyone gets the upgrade. With a binary game you have to download and install patches using a mish-mash of various techniques some which work well and others which fail miserably and could hose your operating system or the game.

      Overall, the question is not why people would make a game run in a browser, it is why would they make anything else?

    4. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about king, I'd say that title went to Zone Defense HD from Art of Bytes. Sadly they went under, but man the game was down right amazing.

    5. Re:Who cares? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

      because web games are universally terrible anyway.

      Pretty much this. Web games are essentially digital drugs. They're addictive by design and their entire goal is to try to get you frustrated enough to pay up for boosters and items. Nothing of value was lost.

    6. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because browser games suck ass.
      And most programmers get tired of having to issue updates several times a month when the browser security patches break everything.

    7. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do suck ass, I agree whole heartedly. What I'm saying is that this is not because of technology but rather a lack of investment on the part of developers. Browser games could be absolutely face meltingly awesome with graphics on par with your favorite consoles.

      I know you do not believe that because you have never seen a game like this before, but if you check out three.js you can immediately see that it is not a physics, processor, ram, or graphical limitation. We can have amazing graphics and awesomely complex games within a browser.

      Btw, browser patches wouldn't affect this in the least, no idea why you brought that up. If anything binary games suffer from this with regularity and that doesn't seem to stop anyone, browser games suffer from this not at all and yet you hold it up as a point of contention? That makes no sense.

      Also I think this autoplay stuff is more or less affecting java/flash games which no one should have created in the first place. Binary technology has no place on a healthy open web ecosystem. Binary games should be for consoles and installed into operating systems. There is no need for it on the web, we already have all of the technology to create, the fact that no one is particularly utilizing this power is gob stopping, however the power is sitting around right there just waiting for anyone to pick it up and run with it.

    8. Re: Who cares? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Btw, browser patches wouldn't affect this in the least, no idea why you brought that up.

      The article you commented on is literally about a browser update messing up web-based games. Could you even conceivably be more of an idiot?

    9. Re:Who cares? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Overall I agree though, web is a terrible way to write a game. There are much better ways.

      What are these "better ways" that don't require certifying and pushing out six separate binaries, one each for Windows UWP, Windows 7/8/10 desktop, X11/Linux, Android, macOS, and iOS? Web is the only JIT allowed on iOS, for example.

    10. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      know you do not believe that because you have never seen a game like this before, but if you check out three.js you can immediately see that it is not a physics, processor, ram, or graphical limitation. We can have amazing graphics and awesomely complex games within a browser.

      checked it out their was certainly nothing amazing on their or any indications it can come close to matching even consoles. but then why the fuck would it, how can you expect to compete with something running against bare metal as opposed to a bloated browser ontop of a general purpose OS. The fact you think it can just means you are deluded.

    11. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If you take a look at three.js you can see that xbox level graphics are available from within the browser

      So fucking what? I don't play C64 games these days, why would I want xbox graphics?

      I want games that look like theHunter:Call of the Wild, that run as smoothly, that do so at high resolution with a modest graphics card. Has anybody done anything remotely like that with three.js?

  3. Should be per site blocking option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they worked it like blocking notifications then you would have more options.

  4. Broke my Captivate tutorials as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It broke all of my Captivate tutorials that use autoplay feature as well. Chrome is really making it difficult for me to recommend it lately.

    1. Re:Broke my Captivate tutorials as well by gravewax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It broke all of my Captivate tutorials that use autoplay feature as well. Chrome is really making it difficult for me to recommend it lately.

      I wouldn't recommend Chrome anyway, BUT this is a positive rather than negative. What broke Captivate was Captivate with its assumption it has rights and access to autoplay.

    2. Re:Broke my Captivate tutorials as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It broke all of my Captivate tutorials that use autoplay feature as well. Chrome is really making it difficult for me to recommend it lately.

      Your tutorials having autoplay have made them hard for me to recommend too, but not just lately.

  5. Not my problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck web based "games'. I'm supposed to be subjected to unwanted videos because some retard wants to play "games"? Fuck that shit.

  6. This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't this a solved problem at this point? It seems like all the Chrome users are suddenly rediscovering all the features that have been in Firefox for decades.

    Back around Y2K, you got this feature by installing the Flashblock extension. I stopped installing it when Firefox made it so that you had to click to start any plug-in. Now it is available as "media.autoplay.enabled" setting in about:config. I guess I am in shock that anybody *doesn't* set their computer this way. I think there is even an option in Firefox to say "it's okay to let *this* site autoplay stuff."

    1. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mozilla owns neither an ad network nor a massive video site.

    2. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... about that... be prepared for ads to come to Firefox in the next version.

    3. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So has "media.autoplay.enabled" been updated to include all HTML5 autoplay video now? last time I checked it hadn't, it only blocked some. But that is firefox for you, lots of great features, all of them half arsed.

    4. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few things are wrong with your post (I like how it got a 5).

      1. Browser extensions are not a browser (duh?)
      2. You've been able to disable flash for a lot longer than 15 years in any browser I can think of, this article is about DEFAULTS, not available options.
      3. Try telling your grandma to go to about:config, find the setting and toggle it. Point being browser's aren't just used by techies.

      Lastly, the browser game developer's having to maintain their code is a trivial price to pay for some site loading a video at full volume in the middle of the night.

    5. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "media.autoplay.enabled" DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY. It breaks most video sites including Youtube.

    6. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously you don't use "media.autoplay.enabled" as if you did you would know it doesn't work properly for HTML5 autoplay.

    7. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, stupid developers looking for income. Make the browser exactly as I want it. Also, do it for free.

    8. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      It's been working for me since forever. Currently on Firefox 59.0.3 (64-bit). I just tested it and it seems to be working.

    9. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Just tested. Youtube is fine but it does break Vimeo. The play button just sits there. I have to turn off the setting and reload the page.

    10. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might want to try a few more sites. still broken as far as I can see, works on some not on others or completely breaks some sites.

    11. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Well hopefully those sites will fix it soon, since it is causing trouble for Chrome users too. I see that YouTube works fine but Vimeo doesn't.

    12. Re:This has been in Firefox for like 15 years by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      To clarify: It blocks html5 audio & video autoplay on both sites, but Vimeo's play button never actually plays the video.

  7. autoplay on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it also block autoplay on youtube?

    That kind of annoyed me.

    1. Re:autoplay on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because that would be dumb.

    2. Re:autoplay on youtube? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Not really. Have you ever browsed/searched Youtube? You get a single screenshot and a cut off title. I can figure out if it's the video I want without playing it, but not without clicking the link. Access to the full description and comments without playing the video is helpful.

    3. Re:autoplay on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because youtube is owned by google, and they've got ads they want you to see.

      Pretty evil, if you ask me. Break everyone's websites, all around the world, universally, with no workaround other than changing the code. But make sure youtube still works.

    4. Re:autoplay on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not, just as Chrome will not stop autoplay from the advertisements sold via Google. This is not a act of good, just a way to limit competition and force more advertisement sales to Alphabet.

    5. Re:autoplay on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The suggested videos on the right also lack the date of publication - you can only find a video's date after following the link. This is a problem when viewing current events or politics and some videos from 2012 or six months ago are suggested. In other contexts it's still an annoyance. Full title can be read with mouse over. Description would be useful but date would suffice for me most times. (including cases where I do want to watch some video from 2007 or 2009)

  8. AI by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should use AI technology to determine if the user wants the audio to start automatically or not. Can't AI do that?

    1. Re:AI by reg · · Score: 1

      chrome://media-engagement/

    2. Re:AI by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They should use AI technology to determine if the user wants the audio to start automatically or not. Can't AI do that?

      No, only poorly. And don't give them any ideas.

      Google has already added technology to track the collective user-interaction with a site, to authorize some feature automatically if it thinks you are interacting enough with the site. Once that goes out of experimental, everything will become non-deterministic, and full of security holes.

    3. Re:AI by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They should use AI technology to determine if the user wants the audio to start automatically or not. Can't AI do that?

      The did. They fed the users into the AI and the AI answered "no". So that's what they are programming into Chrome.

    4. Re:AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can AI be used to feed your fat ass more Cheetos?

  9. Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Modern app appers know that only apps can app apps, and the appiest apps are apped using Apps on Appdows 10 S! The LUDDITES at LUDDITE Google broke LUDDITE Chrome so it can't run appy app apps anymore!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, mate, this schtick is getting old.

    2. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! This is still funny and will be funny for the next 100000000 years.

  10. IE6 by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    It's the modern day IE6, they can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean they should, or that they'll always be able to, but it seems likely they'll continue to do so until it starts to hurt their wallet. Or they lose interest in it.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:IE6 by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      It's the modern day IE6, they can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean they should, or that they'll always be able to, but it seems likely they'll continue to do so until it starts to hurt their wallet. Or they lose interest in it.

      In this case- blocking autoplay videos IS the right thing to do though.

        I suspect Google has learned the lesson from IE6 too. They know it is easy for a new browser to knock them off their perch if they misbehave too badly.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case- blocking autoplay videos IS the right thing to do though.

      They're blocking only autoplay audio. Not autoplay ads, or content that pops over articles, or webGL, or high-cpu background processing. Just. Audio.

      Fuck. Them. It's my computer, and if I fucking want audio to fucking autoplay, then that's my fucking call google, not yours.

      Fuckers.

  11. Spoiled aint we. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant even imagine using devices that autoplay 'crap' anymore.

  12. Yes, it can. And yes, they are / will by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Automated systems can make a pretty darn good guess whether a particular user wants to play a particular piece of media, and Google's comments seem to indicate they are headed in that direction.

    Another person who posted mentioned the current behavior causes problems for online courses created with a tool called Captivate. If you are taking online courses, from an institution that uses Captivate, it's not hard for Chrome to notice "this week, this guy has loaded fourteen other Captivate pages, and every time he's clocked the play button. Apparently he wants Captivate courses to play.'

  13. Good by TypoNAM · · Score: 2

    It took Google Chrome doing this to have websites like Netflix fix their broken video player when you have autoplay disabled (in firefox my case).
    Vimeo is still broken though, even after countless bug reports to them over the years about it.

    Wonder when Google will fix YouTube where you have to press play twice in order for it to start playing a video with autoplay disabled.

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  14. Found the newfag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Netcraft confirms it: Apps are dying!

  15. Chrome is already breaking web games by Sigma+7 · · Score: 2

    They're in the process of disabling flash. In the version I'm running, Flash is technically supposed to ask to play, but Chrome doesn't actually display a prompt and treats it as if the plugin isn't present at all. You have to enable it for specific sites, which means you're doing an all-or-nothing approach.

    In my case specifically, I disabled the option "Use hardware acceleration when available" because it was a troubleshooting step in the past (Youtube was somehow misbehaving under Chrome.) The result is some Flash/WebGL games are unplayable because they don't show critical images, such as the phasing bloons that don't show in Bloons Super Monkey 2.

    Basically, those playing web games need to use Internet Explorer (version 8/9 that still supports plugins), Pale Moon, or Vivaldi. Sticking with Chrome/Firefox/Edge means those web games will die.

  16. There are other solutions by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    Developers should be used to changing rules, as annoying as they are. Maybe Google could have found another way, but if it was too easy to work around then the ads would do so?

    In this case the issue appears to stem from preloading behaviour. Maybe the alternative here is if Chrome asked for permission, on behalf of the site, just like the location API does?

    The main solution here seems to be to delay resource loading until there is user interaction.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:There are other solutions by brantondaveperson · · Score: 2

      The main solution here seems to be to delay resource loading until there is user interaction.

      Define "user interaction". Clicking? Scrolling? Touching? What? And then, once your user 'interacts', now the website is suddenly free to play/popup/advertise/ whatever?

      No, the correct solution was to, (a) forsee exactly where all this HTML5+javascript+canvas+openGL was going, which was OBVIOUSLY to lead to a world that was WORSE than flash, and (b) not change the supposedly standard APIs on people.

    2. Re:There are other solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is Chrome deciding to unilaterly force changes on web sites. The Web Specifications don't forbid this, and it has a nasty habit of breaking crap for end users. A problem chrome has in general. Granted "monopoly", but they won't be keeping it if the solution is always "Use a competitor."

  17. And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, auto-play any-kind-of-crap and you've pissed me off. If Google defeats that, rejoicing will abound.

  18. This is about open web standards by jgordon510 · · Score: 2

    Hey everybody. I make stuff (educational games mostly) and put it on the Internet and I don't charge anything for that stuff. I don't run ads on my websites. I use HTML5 to make my games, because I believe in open web standards, and I want my games to keep working forever.
    Two of my games broke.
    I can't add the click callback fix, because both games don't even use the mouse (keyboard only), and load with the game in a centered div. Neither game is fixable, unless I tell my users to click, for no reason, other than Google is stupid.
    I don't like ads either, but I think everybody should follow the rules.

    1. Re:This is about open web standards by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      I'm glad somebody here gets it.

      --
      +0 Meh
    2. Re:This is about open web standards by gravewax · · Score: 2

      Neither game is fixable, unless I tell my users to click, for no reason,
      other than Google is stupid. I don't like ads either, but I think everybody should follow the rules.

      I despise google and avoid them wherever possible. But the fault here isn't googles it is every fucking site that abuses auto play, the feature is fundamentally broken due to it being in the control of the website instead of the user and every arsehole website, news site and ad company abuses it by autoplaying content. this isn't just a problem with ads. yes you are an unfortunate victim, but the standard is broken and heavily abused. What needs happening here is modification of the standard.

    3. Re:This is about open web standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this unfixable? why can't you have a "start" or "play" button for the content. how is that hard. I understand you are affected by the changes but if you don't want to be affected by an evolving environment then publishing your game as a web based content is the wrong place for you. The only thing you can guarantee on the web is that things will change it is both one of its greatest strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully all browsers will eventually implement this (maybe even firefox will fix its busted arse implementation), this is a change that is coming so you are going to need to adapt as users are sick of the abuse of autoplay.

    4. Re:This is about open web standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he and you don't get it. the web is not a fixed standard, it is a constantly evolving standard. Expecting it to stay at a fixed position is not reasonable, especially when that fixed position is a BROKEN one. it can't stay broken just because the standard says so and we can't wait for HTML6 to fix it as then we would have to live with a broken standard for a decade or more. If you want a fixed position to develop to then don't fucking develop for an in browser environment.

    5. Re:This is about open web standards by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      It's not that things change, it's that Google, with 60% of the browser market, was too cavalier with this change. They didn't appear to think about how to implement this change at all, breaking thousands of web applications, including many of their own, in non-trivial ways. The immediate knock-on effect to livelihoods of creatives who are already struggling is very real.

      --
      +0 Meh
    6. Re:This is about open web standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cavalier? I am more than happy to knock google. But Firefox have already done this (with similar effect) and there really isn't a nice way to do this. honestly I find it hard to find sympathy for any group that is supposedly struggling yet ties their livelihood to a browser environment not changes, that is the definition of stupidity. If it wasn't this change then something else would invariably break them in the short or long term. web sites and web apps are living things and part of having one is understanding they will require ongoing maintenance and changes.

  19. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No web content should make assumptions about the access it has to the browser side controls.

  20. wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The audio should be muted by default, not blocked. User simply unmutes for the game.

  21. worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not news. This is not a bug its a feature.

  22. Is Enter on a button a "user gesture"? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Load the page with an autofocused <button> element, and instruct users to press the Enter key. Chrome should be treating activations of that button as user gestures.

    1. Re:Is Enter on a button a "user gesture"? by jgordon510 · · Score: 1

      Good idea. I'll try it.

  23. It goes against the spirit of the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to go to a link... you click on it. It's your choice. I didn't click a video, I don't want to see a video, why are you forcing it on me?

  24. So there's a legitimate fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then use it and quit complaining. The problem Google is trying to solve is far worse than the one people are complaining about.

  25. Auto-Play Anything via WWW is Bad by Design by JBrow · · Score: 1

    Talk about a sense of entitlement... people discover autoplay and rely on it. *cough*game programmers*cough* My preference is to have ALL dynamic browser objects disabled by default. Allow users to enable it. I'm with Tim Berners-Lee in the belief that "The Web" is fundamentally broken and this is just another example of it.

    --
    --- You are in a little twisty maze of comments, all different.