I have the solution! C# and XAML! Now you can have write once (-ish), run everywhere for Windows!

[hr]

That aside. Why is WORE not possible or even pushed more? Shouldn't developers have the benefit of having one API and library that reaches every platform? Is making my job easier so less important than bragging or even wanting to code the same app 15 different ways with 24 different languages/api/technologies?

Why is WORE not possible or even pushed more?

Platform creators compete for users based on features and cost. If a new platform comes out, and it has identical features to everyone that came before and isn't cheaper, is there much motivation for users to migrate to the new platform? If a platform is identical but cheaper, existing platforms respond to the threat by lowering their price or by adding features. At some point, you can't lower your price any more and still make a profit, so you're forced to add features or stagnate and slowly fade into obscurity. If we're talking about mobile devices, there is still some room to cut costs. But when we're talking about browsers, they're already free, so the only thing they CAN do is add features.


Constantly adding new features is what causes problems for WORE:

- The existing APIs need to be updated for that feature.
- Some platforms simply don't have anything like the new feature at all. This forces you to have platform-specific code if you want to support a fancy new feature.


TL;DR: Competition undermines WORE.

One only has to look at Heartbleed to show that open-source does not inherently make things more secure. Most developers do not understand how to code securely, much less being able to find security issues in someone else's code. The problem was compounded by people generally not finding security "interesting" and having no external motivation (like money) to ensure OpenSSL is secure.

Say what you will about closed-source software, but the companies generally have monetary incentives to make sure their software actually works. (Last year's releases of incredibly broken AAA games notwithstanding)

On the other hand, look at the principle of "full disclosure", which seems to me to be analogous: when the problem is concealed, whether by the source being closed or by simple non-disclosure, there's arguably less incentive to fix it.

As to incentives, I'm too far removed from security developers to guess at the spread of motivations in that field; it seems possible to me that some are motivated by factors other than money, however. But I don't say that with much authority, so I won't argue the point, I don't think.

But as this thread ably demonstrates, plenty of people still consider Flash the holy grail, and have no intention of abandoning it (and this is a pretty tech-savvy crowd - how do you think the public sees it?).

Did anyone in this thread ever say that Flash is a holy grail, or anything that could possibly imply they like Flash? Withholding dislike does not imply the opposite.

Personally, I hate Flash. But I hate every browser-based alternative even more.

This. I started my career doing casual Flash games. I hate Flash with the fiery passion of a thousand suns but at the moment there is no other platform that can do the same thing. Developers who use Flash with either adapt or die off. That is the nature of software development in general. But one of the easiest routes in to game development (AS3 is a very forgiving language) is about to get closed off. Not everybody has to spend years at school or be a C++ master to make games. Flash is the last generation of programmers Unity.

You would be surprised at the number of people who still make Flash games using Flash CS where a lot of the game is done with timelines and just a bit of code to glue everything together (ie artists who want to make games but don't want to code). Those would be pretty hard to port over to HTML5. And while JavaScript and ActionScript both are based off EMCAScript, ActionScript has went well beyond the standard with a lot of additions. There could be quite a bit of work involved in porting a Flash game to HTML5 depending on what was used. Maybe nearly impossible with out porting a lot of Adobe's standard library.

Did anyone in this thread ever say that Flash is a holy grail?

Sorry, that was a tad facetious on my part.

But yes, many posts in this thread indicate that people consider flash to be the best technology for delivering games on desktop. And that's sort of mind-boggling to someone who hasn't played a flash game since sometime in 2009.

These days we have Steam or the platform-specific app stores on Desktop, and the app stores on mobile. The thought of putting up with an inferior browser-based experience just to avoid installing something... That's distasteful at best.

One only has to look at Heartbleed to show that open-source does not inherently make things more secure. Most developers do not understand how to code securely, much less being able to find security issues in someone else's code. The problem was compounded by people generally not finding security "interesting" and having no external motivation (like money) to ensure OpenSSL is secure.

Say what you will about closed-source software, but the companies generally have monetary incentives to make sure their software actually works. (Last year's releases of incredibly broken AAA games notwithstanding)

On the other hand, look at the principle of "full disclosure", which seems to me to be analogous: when the problem is concealed, whether by the source being closed or by simple non-disclosure, there's arguably less incentive to fix it.

As to incentives, I'm too far removed from security developers to guess at the spread of motivations in that field; it seems possible to me that some are motivated by factors other than money, however. But I don't say that with much authority, so I won't argue the point, I don't think.

Yeah, closed-source has it's own problems, sure. I'm not denying them.

I'm denying the idea that "open-source is more secure" because... what... faries?

The only way you make something more secure is to actually be motivated to make it more secure.

For open source, this generally means interest in the product to be made secure, potentially motivated by monetary incentives provided by individuals or companies with a vested interest.

For closed source, this generally means interest in the product to be made secure by the actual developer (depending on work conditions), and threat of lost revenue or actual lost revenue.

And hey, while we're hating on closed-source crappily-secured software, let's add Java to the mix! Oracle is just as bad, if not worse, then Adobe...

Did anyone in this thread ever say that Flash is a holy grail?

Sorry, that was a tad facetious on my part.

But yes, many posts in this thread indicate that people consider flash to be the best technology for delivering games on desktop. And that's sort of mind-boggling to someone who hasn't played a flash game since sometime in 2009.

These days we have Steam or the platform-specific app stores on Desktop, and the app stores on mobile. The thought of putting up with an inferior browser-based experience just to avoid installing something... That's distasteful at best.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a professional and not a broke indie. You can release a Flash game for 100% free and "right now". Facebook has no approval process to put up a game and the regular portals like Kongregate and Armor Games pretty much only care that the game starts up. iOS costs $99 for the developer license and you have to go through the sometimes draconian approval process. And Steam you have to go through Greenlight. Most of the garbage Flash games out there would get through neither (that could be good or bad depending on your point of view). So inferior experiences are the best a lot of people can hope for to get their game out there.

I don't think that Flash games are the best option for desktop games. But it has pretty much zero barrier to entry and a free way to get your game in front of millions of players for zero cost. Just because you haven't played a Flash game since 2009 doesn't mean they still aren't popular. Our legacy Flash games still make a good chunk of money (easily pays for full time design, art, and programming) and is the reason we haven't sunset them and fully moved to mobile.

I find it odd as a forum centered around getting more people interested in game development that it shuns a platform that probably has the lowest barrier of entry for releasing a game.

For open source, this generally means interest in the product to be made secure, potentially motivated by monetary incentives provided by individuals or companies with a vested interest.

You may be surprised to discover that most people don't volunteer to work on open-source projects for the money. You know, since the money doesn't, for the most part, even exist.

In the case of something like OpenSSL, one might be motivated by, you know, the desire not to have one's own private data smeared across the internet?

Most of the garbage Flash games out there would get through neither (that could be good or bad depending on your point of view). So inferior experiences are the best a lot of people can hope for to get their game out there.

I'm guessing you haven't been to Steam lately... they've got people re-selling Unity asset packs as "games". At least making something in flash would show the developer had put in some effort

For open source, this generally means interest in the product to be made secure, potentially motivated by monetary incentives provided by individuals or companies with a vested interest.

You may be surprised to discover that most people don't volunteer to work on open-source projects for the money. You know, since the money doesn't, for the most part, even exist.

In the case of something like OpenSSL, one might be motivated by, you know, the desire not to have one's own private data smeared across the internet?

That's... kind of why the first reason I mentioned in that sentence you quoted said "interest"? I know that's the main reason people contribute to open source. That's why I listed it first. And why I mentioned money as a "potential" incentive, since most open source products don't have company backers.

What I do not understand is why so many of you seem fixated on browser-based delivery.

...

I think a lot of it has to do with the generation we grew up in. … The very game mechanics that I sit around thinking about revolve around having access to things like a mouse and keyboard. Making a mobile game is a completely different thought process that requires considering touch controls, tiny screens, a type of game design I don't often think about.

This suggests a worrisome insularity to your own consumptive habits, and a disinterest in monitoring larger trends. The iOS App Store launched 7 years ago, and indie gaming hasn't been the same since. For you to just be reckoning with that now should cause you to ask if you're really an indie developer or just a hobbyist with a lot of idle time. Anyone whose primary concern was getting their games in front of an audience should have realized that the casual gaming audience had moved toward iOS and Android well before now.

Not only that, but for me I primarily associate browser-based game as a no-barrier no-entry requirement to playing a game. No exe's/apks to download, nothing to install, just go to this link and play the game. The same friend above then made another statement that me revile in disgust again: "Oh desktop games are much harder to play - a phone game I can download at any time and then play when I get a chance. Desktop games I can't try at work when I have a few minutes waiting for something to compile".

Ugh, what what what? Going to the app store, finding the game, hoping it works on your device and installing it is easier?

Yes. For one thing, you are completely overlooking the task of installing or updating Flash—and even Flash enthusiasts should be able to admit that, in this day and age, you are often confronted with a need to update the plugin when you activate it, particularly if you're an infrequent user.

On top of that, you ignored what I told you earlier about an app that is on your device being easy to launch, without network access, wherever you may be. Since you think in desktop terms, that means you're not even considering gaming on the go, or the various 5- and 10-minute waiting interstitials that fill our days: lines, queues, elevators, transit, waiting rooms. For many adults, without that ability to grab a little gaming here and there, they'd simply never play. Their lives at work and home are so busy.

The world changed while you weren't looking.