Hi El Muerte. It sure simplifies installation and for all intents and purposes LOOKS like a browser game. What's the downside from your perspective?
instantgames.com or quake live are not really more accessible than for example Steam, GameTap, (good old MPlayer.com,) or other "dedicated game launchers".
There are quite some technical issues related to running games from within a browser. Mostly memory and performance related. It works for small games or good systems. But it works much less for older systems. But there is also a usability issue, you could say there is no good separation of concerns. I use a webbrowser to browse the web, why would I need to start a webbrowser to play a game, couldn't I just start the game right away?
There are really a lot of points of failure to play a game through the webbrowser:
- the webbrowser has to start
- a network connection has to be established
- launch page has to be loaded
- game launcher needs to be started
- which runs the game which was already cached on the user's system
For a stand alone game you'd either have 1 or 2 points of failure (2 for online games).
Also the browser game is subject to the stability and security of the browser (besides it's own). In Vista I can change the volume per application, but not for browser games.
If the whole purpose is to start a game from a browser, this could easily be established by delegation. For example through the use of a special url. Then you can start a game from a webbrowser, but also by other means.
I just don't see the whole point of getting my browser involved when I want to play a game. Specially not in case of games with a significant magnitude.
That's not a fair comparison, of course.
If we consider the gaming landscape at the time, it would be more like Epic suddenly not developing games for PCs (whether it being DOS or Win95) anymore, but directing all their attention towards the brand new Playstation2. Telling people that this new console is the way to go.
[...]
Don't try to act as if we are being unreasonable for being upset about this clear change of course of the company we've come to love so much. It's not like moving from DOS to Win95. It's like moving from Internet to Television. Moving from interactive community-based fun, to passive mass-produced entertaiment. It's big.
I wasn't aware this thread required fairness. Windows 95 was released in 1995, the PS2 was released in 2000. Playstation 1 would be more suitable.
There is a major difference between the PS1 and normal PCs. There is a much smaller difference between a current PC and PS3. The PS1 couldn't do much except boot a game or play an audio CD. The PS2 could even play movies. The PS3 can do much much more, in fact, you don't even boot games, you simply start games. A PS1 is more like the personal computers from the early 80s. I think the next generation of consoles (PS4, XBox720) will replace even more functions of PCs (or at least, if sony and microsoft are smart enough), things like IM, email, following news, ... will probably move to the "consoles". and the PC will become the business machine again. And it's not just up to the console manufacturers to move into that direction. Various consumer electronics companies are also looking into that (just not with a powerful gaming console backing it). PCs are going embedded. There are actually quite some people walking around with mobile phones more powerful than the PC I was Duke3D on.
erm... I think I'm going a bit off topic.
Moving from interactive community-based fun, to passive mass-produced entertaiment.
Erm... PS3 allows mods, the PS3 game LittleBigPlanet has interactive community-based fun, etc.
A lot of PC games don't allow mods, not a lot of PC games have interactive community-based fun.
However... clear change of course... afaik GoW was initially XBox360 exclusive. And the PC port could be considered as a fluke. It's not like GoW was the first console exclusive from Epic.