Why HTML5, and the future of exporters

  • Yeah i can't wait to see how this EDK will shape up. I have some experience in low level rendering code (OpenGL) so that could be really interesting. The thing to know is how the EDK would work.

  • I read through this and both sides the arguments are valid depending from what side you look at.

    imho the main issue here is the fact that "the competition" seems to be focusing on 1 tool, multiple exporters.

    i.e You develop the game and then with a button press or 2 you can deploy on iOS, Android, HTML5 or Flash, etc.

    If I may be blunt and you guys can delete this if not deemed helpful, it is however a fact.

    Looking at comparative 2D game builders with a visual scripting type programming environment the following are the export options:

    Construct 2 exports -> HTML5

    Gamemaker Studio (Soon to be released) -> HTML5, EXE, iOS, Android

    Stencyl -> Flash, iOS, soon HTML5 and Android

    Multimedia Fusion -> EXE, iOS, Flash, Android, Symbian, Xbox360

    So I think people (myself included to some extent) looks at everything Scirra is doing and they think it's awesome, We love the editor, the company, the awesome speed of updates, the community etc.

    BUT, actually using Construct 2 to make money RIGHT NOW and in the near future it's a bit of a dim prospect trying to get a game on iOs / android getting a game sponsored etc. And this is where other indies are making breakthroughs and make a living from game dev.

    I seriously like construct 2 and share the feelings that, taking everything into consideration it's probably the best editor and tool out there in terms of making a game with visual scripting.

    I don't want to take anything away from Ashly and Tom as Scirra is an awesome little dev company and I can see the challenges here.

    If the gamble pays off Construct 2 might be a bit ahead while other guys where focusing on iOS etc.

  • Havok I agree with you, but I changed my perspective a little in the last few weeks. HTML5 IS the future of gaming bar none and application wise (not gaming) is already becoming the de-facto language for cross platform deployment. That being said right now construct2 is no more than a prototyping tool. The chrome web store is joke, and I'm not only speaking about my game performance (poor, but one can say that my game sucks) but also other developers experience, take a look at these links:

    techcrunch.com/2011/07/11/html5-game-maker-looks-to-transcend-sleepy-chrome-web-store-sales-on-ios

    ttp://techcrunch.com/2011/01/04/sales-have-slowed-to-a-trickle-on-googles-chrome-web-store/

    ttp://www.itworld.com/internet/132535/googles-chrome-web-store-slow-start

    I know some of you may say that these articles are old, but speaking with other dev the situation not only didn't change but worsened. So basically right now construct2 is tied to facebook/kongregate to make money. Personally I had problem with facebook integration and I don't care for kongregate (for now html5 is too limited).

    Also there are issues across browsers, especially with audio and performance is still a little limited. That being said as far as HTML5 construct2 is the best engine, there is no doubt about it, but I mantain that Scirra should start working on other exporters.

    I would love to develop games on construct2 but I'm not in college anymore and I need to put food on my plate and HTML5 currently can't do this.

    Money right now is in the mobile market and in steam/desura, not in facebook apps (unless you are Zynga), but even if you were, programming microtransactions in c2 would be pretty hard.

    I know that Ashley hates me as I'm very vocal about this, but I don't really understand these choices, cc and c2 could be the best tools for indie development just if:

    cc cross platform with openGL instead of directX or at least an implementation of xna + mono.

    c2 cross platform for mobile.

    With a software as easy and as powerful as construct I would easily pay 500$ for cross platform compiling..

  • That being said right now construct2 is no more than a prototyping tool.

    Thats currently how i see it, but its a great prototyping tool.

  • That being said right now construct2 is no more than a prototyping tool.

    Thats currently how i see it, but its a great prototyping tool.

    The best there is!

    What makes me rage is that I can't use for my games, c2 is perfect as it is right now, you can do every kind of game with it, it's the exporter the only issue. I would throw money at scirra to be able to publish game with c2 instead of Corona, but for that I guess we'll have to wait for better support.. I guess in a year mobile phone will have full html5 support, and that will be a happy day!

  • I am going to try to share my point. I prefer apologize for my aproximative english now ^^

    I believed on C2 because I thought that we could be able to export our game in .exe in add of html 5 etc...But it seems when I read this topic and Scirra answers that it's not the plan.

    Html 5 is great and we have with C2 some good performances but if you take my pseudo 3D Starfield example, in HTML 5, if you don't have a great and fast PC, it runs very very slowly.

    This code, I've translated it in a lot of language and "game makers" like AGK, or Game Maker HTML 5 / Studio (b�ta).

    The fact is that in some PC's / laptop (for example) performances are not the same than an executable (offline or online). In exe, this code works on my poor laptop, less faster than my home pc but it's playable. In html5, on my poor laptop it's just unplayable ^^

    And I tried in offline mode too (local) it's the same thing in html 5 on my laptop. But in executable, it's playable.

    If you want to make a game with a lot of effects...I don't know how C2 will react with those.

    But I have to say it, Scirra make a great job with C2 and it works perfectly with html 5 and I love it. But I would like a exe exporter too ^^

  • Construct 2 exports -> HTML5

    Gamemaker Studio (Soon to be released) -> HTML5, EXE, iOS, Android

    Stencyl -> Flash, iOS, soon HTML5 and Android

    Multimedia Fusion -> EXE, iOS, Flash, Android, Symbian, Xbox360

    Seeing that, I realize how important this C2's weakness is.

    C2 is currently good enough to make professional-quality games, it's a really powerful and friendly-user software, but even if you've developed an amazing game, it will be really difficult to make it profitable.

    I'll finish my current game with C2 and I'll have a look at all the tool listed above.

    Construct is clearly a very good software (with an active community!) but the different exporters seem to be considered as "nice to have" features... Seriously, they are not. They are important features, I should say high-priority features considering the current quality of C2. If it wasn't able to make great games, I'd understand but we already can do the 2D games of our dreams with the current C2... Now we need to share them with the maximum audience!

    I could easily pay for social/in-app purchases modules, or iOS/android exporters... Actually, I'd like to!!

  • According to Scirra, the problem lies in man power. They are small and an .exe exporter would take a while and detour their current plans. I'm an .exe supporter all the way, but I doubt that we'll ever see one for C2. Someone else is gonna have to take on the job, but for that we need an EDK, which Scirra also said it's very difficult, so this leads to only one solution, a new tool from scratch like C2 geared only to other exporters.

    I believed on C2 because I thought that we could be able to export our game in .exe in add of html 5 etc...But it seems when I read this topic and Scirra answers that it's not the plan.

    : So did I. ^^

  • In my head, I remember the start of C2 when Scirra said "we want the html 5 exporter to be finished before start other" and today we have a sort of "may be someone will code a wrapper"...Don't know what to think.

    But nobody will be able to extract out of my head (we can say that in english ? lol) the idea that "nothing is better than an executable when a game starts growing or for game that asks a lot of effects".

    onstruct 2 exports -> HTML5

    Gamemaker Studio (Soon to be released) -> HTML5, EXE, iOS, Android

    Stencyl -> Flash, iOS, soon HTML5 and Android

    Multimedia Fusion -> EXE, iOS, Flash, Android, Symbian, Xbox360

    For GameMaker Studio : they change their delphi runner with a c++ runner more faster for this version.

    CrystalNoir: So did I. ^^

    And I continue believing that one day....:)

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • HTML5 with WebGL support is nearly as fast as native EXE games. Poor performance in HTML5 games is caused almost exclusively by no WebGL support, which is usually due to having old drivers which the browser blocks for security reasons. , have you tried updating your drivers?

    Have you seen our EXE wrapper alpha as well? It's based on Awesomium, which is basically the Google Chrome browser engine in a standalone EXE. The feedback has been very promising, and it's not even as fast as it could be right now. I'm hoping we can tweak Awesomium to skip the driver blacklists, then we can forget about all the driver updating: you'd have a standalone EXE that runs a WebGL-powered game at near-native performance, using the same HTML5 code, saving our 2-man team from having to take on the 6+ month job of writing a new exporter. It should also be portable to Mac and Linux desktop. Hopefully that will solve some of the platform headaches.

  • Ashley :

    Yes I already tried to update ma drivers but no change because I have a "poor" graphic cards on my laptop and this is why that I said that performance is better for somes projects in exe than html 5 because it's fully playable on my poor config, but with html 5 if you can't activate the webgl this is "dead" :)

    I did not see your alpha exe wrapper and I'm going to test that.

    Edit: I see it but in fact that is the same thing, that stays html 5 embeded in an exe (html 5 without browser) so the performances stay the same "in fine". To make a summary, if you don't have a good PC performances will be poor because of webgl or some things. With my sample I must say that 250 stars on my laptop is too much, in html 5 and exe but if I put 175 stars, same performances in html 5 but better performance in exe with a native directx application :)

    But don't believe that I want to be boring with these remarks, that was just my feeling. And I understand that you don't have enought hands to develop all features.

  • HTML5 with WebGL support is nearly as fast as native EXE games. Poor performance in HTML5 games is caused almost exclusively by no WebGL support, which is usually due to having old drivers which the browser blocks for security reasons.

    Ashley

    I'm sorry but this is not true at all, in theory maybe, in practice it's not at least currently.

    Without going too far away, I'm converting actRact on cc and even on dx9 the difference in graphics between c2 is huge.

    Also compiled application gets native effects and other neat things like distortion meshes that are almost impossible in html5.

    And even without those I actually took the time to create a benchmark:

    Compare the fps of this Native EXE (HGE)

    To this exact same example in c2

    I don't want to sound like a douche but one thing is believing in html5 (and I believe in it too) another is believing the impossible.. we have to be realists, right now performance is not even in the same league..

  • 0plus1: your observation is true to a certain extent.

    Check this blog article from back in November. It'd be interesting to have a new comparative with the most recent versions of the browsers to see how things have changed.

    Also as noted in the article CC is filed with optimization tricks, making it not the best benchmark anyway.

    On my computer any HTML5 game I play has 60 FPS performances. In theory my PC could execute BF3 in high details 1920X1080.

    HTML5 has more room for performances improvement than DX9.

  • I'm curious as to where people see JavaScript, HTML5, WebGL, and maybe things like Native Client, all fitting into a future possibly full of services like Gaikai and OnLive.

  • 0plus1: distortion meshes and things like that can, in fact, be implemented with WebGL, because in the end it's a calculation over a shader.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)