So who the heck is IAC?

#101 IAC is a "web" focused company in almost every way. The prospects of adding a gaming website that provides a service for gamer's that sooner or later will be inter-woven into his other services in a complimentary way I'm sure made their eyes pop. I think IAC would be far more interested in the service itself rather than the dev side of things, and they certainly have the power and clout to advance it in almost any way imaginable. They also have the finances to fund.. pretty much anything if they so choose. Realistically, I'm sure their primary focus will be geared to IA.com, but the question is, though I personally believe they (the GG guys) have all but directly told us the answer, where TGEA fit's into the grand scheme of things.

My concerns will be eleviated once more info is released in reference to TGEA, which, as the GG guys have said now numerious times.. is forthcoming.

#102 From what I've read over the years in their blogs and forum posts, I really don't think the people at GG would sell out to a company they didn't feel would support their goals. That said.. Here is my 2 cents.

I personally don't think adweb games are "the future". Also Macromedia is giving Flash a big game-performance related overhaul. It will soon be capable of more than just "toy games". How can Torque compete against a (well documented) vector based graphics engine, which was designed for web content from the beginning? Maybe GarageGames should focus on what Flash is weak at, what we know will always be around...standalone, cross platform games. I feel that this new venture is competing directly against Flash, on their own turf, and it will spell DOOM ( in all caps!). From what I can tell the only advantage of this "console, without the hardware" is the integrated network and chat, which I'm sure Flash is equally capable of.

I really like GarageGames, their products and the community... but it could be changing for the worst. As a long time TGB user it's hard for me not to be concerned. At the end of the day, I just want a reliable engine to make my future games with. It seems like ever since this deal occurred (a few months ago?) TGB has received less attention than ever. Should those not interested in adweb games jump ship? I'm deeply questioning whether I should begin porting my project (a single player CRPG) to another engine such as BlitzMax. In any case, I do have another "dream" game I want to make, that could work in a browser. So I'll wait to see what happens here.

The burning question for me is.. why would I want to put a web game on this proverbial "console" when I can just make a regular online game, outside of this "instant action" deal? What could possibly be the benefit of this new "platform" compared to the browser games of today? Of course, I don't expect an answer because GG obviously won't discuss specifics yet.

Last but not least.. to me, "InstantAction" sounds very much like a porn site.

#103 Linux, that's all I want to know.
Are we going to get some InstantAction on linux?

#104 @Joe

Howdy, I am one of the dev of InstantAction, and a long time flash developer, both games and applications. Obviously, I am constrained on what I can say about the deal or InstantAction, but I would like address a couple of things with regards to Flash.

Adobe just released Flash 9 (CS3). And while AS3 is a boost for game devs, it is very clear from Adobe's marketing and product information, they are heavily targeting multimedia delivery. In fact you are hard pressed to find almost anything about game development in the Flash docs/information. I haven't heard anything about a 'game-related' overhaul. But, even if that is the case, they just shipped a major version release... "soon" is probably a couple of years at least. The promise of better performance out of Flash has been on the table for a long time. And while it has gotten better, it is still really is limited in terms of serious action games.

I would also like to point out that TGB 1.5 was worked on and released after the deal with IAC.

Again, I cannot say any more than has already been said, but InstantAction is not Flash games. Once the beta gets rolling and people see what it is the difference will be very clear. Sure, I am biased, but it really is pretty awesome on many levels.

Also, check this interview with Josh at GameDaily, it touches on some of the things you addressed:
biz.gamedaily.com/industry/interview/?id=17475&page=1

#105 Scott,

I don't think he was saying that IA was Flash based games. He was pointing out that it was kinda like Flash based games as far as content delivery is concerned. Pretty much along the same lines as what I was saying earlier about why we need - yet another - browser based gaming portal when fares like WildTangent, Real etc have pretty much locked up that particular market.

A good idea always looks good on paper. And even if a dev thinks its not viable, when you have bills to pay, its kinda hard to be the bearer of bad news. Plus, when it comes to gaming and gaming technologies, it is _very_ unlikely that there is _anything_ left that is going to wow anyone.

I have spoken (and emailed) with quite a few people these past few days, and let me tell you, nobody thus far is convinced that this GG/IAC thing _especially_ as it relates to browser based games is a good thing.
The general consensus seems to be ...another one bites the dust and we've had a string of those of late.

I, sight unseen, think it [browser based gaming] will, regardless of how awesome it is, fail. Spectacularly. And we'll have left are these forum posts.

I've been a developer for longer than I care to remember, written various types (graphics, AI, input etc) of engines from the ground up, evaluated quite a few of them etc and all I keep seeing (as I read between the lines) is that this browser based initiative is just there because it works in with IAC's core business. When you consider what the GG suite of engines are, what they were designed to do, the community games that were developed with them, its kinda hard to see how _any_ of this makes _any_ sense whatsoever to the person on the outside looking in.

Then, if browser based games are the IAC initiative, whats stopping them from requiring that games they fund and/or publish for the IA portal, conform to that browser based game paradigm.

Even hugely successful gaming portals like GameTap, ShowTime's portal etc are all streaming games to the client and running them [encrypted] client side. Thats, yet another competition right there. And they have all kinds of games. You name it, they've got it. Old ones, new ones, upcoming ones, exclusive ones etc. Then there's that 4m subscriber number (the reported GameTap subscriber base). Oh, yeah, lets not forget about XBLA and Microsoft's impending new focus push to, literally, flood that with all manner of gaming goodness.

This [browser based gaming] is bad on so many levels that I simply can't see how anyone can - with a straight face - buy into all this ...its going to be fine, really spinning. Seriously.

The fact is, if things go sideways, GG is going to die. Pure and simple. When corps like MS, Yahoo! and their ilk buy smaller companies for their technologies and whatnot, eventually they lose their identity. This is an everyday commonplace event and should come as no surprise to anyone.

I'm sure that all the Torque die-hards are hoping that the engines don't fall by the wayside and that, at the very least, that this browser based gaming initiative is kept as a separate entity. Then, nobody will care and it will just die a sudden death, leaving what was (the original GG initiative) intact.

I can't wait for the other shoe to drop. Its only a matter of time.

#106 Hmmm, that post by Russell Carrol on his blog is pretty insightful, he makes some good points. I'm starting to be a feel a bit more positive about this. :D

If GG can pull this off it will be pretty awesome. Also, a pretty unique product in the marketplace. I know personally, as a "hard core" gamer, I've never bothered with portals. I just mentally associate them with casual games, bubble poppers and the like. Never gone looking at their game roster. A portal with primarily 3D offerings, in genres like FPS, RTS and the like would do a good deal to distinguish itself from the pack.

And as a dev I've not been that interested in the portals because it sounds like they are becoming closer and closer to the traditional publishers anyway.

#107 @Gareth, got link?

#108 vgbm.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-does-selling-of-garagegames-mean.html

#109 I'll try one last time: everyone (and I do mean everyone) is doing an incredible amount of speculating on some very low amounts of information. I seriously suggest hanging tight, working on your projects (because seriously--what's actually changed for you technology wise? All the engines still do exactly what they did on friday), and glancing up from time to time to see what new information has come out.

And hey, if you happen to have a really good demo going but can't make the push to get your game finished due to financial constraints, contact GG and see if you qualify for development funding!

#110

Quote:I'll try one last time: everyone (and I do mean everyone) is doing an incredible amount of speculating on some very low amounts of information.

But isn't that the fun part? *G*

Quote:I seriously suggest hanging tight, working on your projects (because seriously--what's actually changed for you technology wise? All the engines still do exactly what they did on friday), and glancing up from time to time to see what new information has come out.

Very good point. But thats not the gist of it, is it? I don't think anyone is concerned about the _current_ state of the engines. From what I can tell, its all been about the future. Hence the wanton speculation.

Quote:And hey, if you happen to have a really good demo going but can't make the push to get your game finished due to financial constraints, contact GG and see if you qualify for development funding!

....would that mean the game has to - at some point - be playable via this browser based gaming initiative?

#111 So hows this going to affect the privacy policy? Am I going to start getting mass spam and junk mail from Home Shopping Network, Ticketmaster, Match.com, LendingTree... etc?

#112 @ Gareth

Thanks for the link. Its pretty concise and he wraps it up nicely.

Until indies (who have the slightest interest in _any_ of this) get more information, my guess is exactly what that blog is alluding to: untested waters (aka option 4). Which, like all the other missed opportunities, is destined to the same fate.

From what I can tell, the GG funding of games is supposed to handle one of the missed opportunities. But lets face it, good - not to mention innovative - games, are few and far between. And those that are worth making, are either locked up (as in signed), being closed looked at or just don't fit whatever model GG may have in mind.

e.g. how many shooters can you possibly make? And where on Earth does _any_ indie stand a chance against juggernauts such as the up coming crop which have pretty much raised the ante in terms of technology and gameplay.

And if you're going to cater to the semi-casual gaming populace, why would _any_ gamer in his right mind, want to buy a sub-par shooter when there are so many better games to choose from?

This is a very unforgiving industry. LOTS of innovative games (anyone remember Psychonauts) from great minds, fall by the wayside. Those devs either disappear or go work for someone else. The industry is busy recycling games and innovation because thats what sells. Even if GG/IAC were to pick up that ball, in all liklihood, they will stumble because building a portal, funding games and preaching the gospel doesn't sell games. Gamers sell games. If they don't come, its all over.

There are LOTS of indie games out there and most are casual games mostly from guys with a regular day job because there is no way those derivative sales could pay anyone's bills. That in fact, is the #1 indie problem.

Then you have the whole credibility issue.

(1) If GG is in fact going to fund games - and not just saying it - and it funds non-Torque developed games, rather than pushing Torque to the limit, thats the first strike in the impending death knell

(2) You need names. Big names. Funny thing about gamers, sometimes they care about who make their games, be it a brand, a person or company. Its the difference between buying an iD game and buying John Doe's game. With a no-name, no-brand, newbie indie dev, the first uphill battle is promotion. And if you can't get past the point of wooing gamers with a mind blowing demo, you're done.

[mod snipped]


Then we come right back to square one: Who is an indie game developer? For some, this amounts to nothing more than some person wanting to learn how to develop games.

On the other hand, you have those who do have the experience to develop games but can't because they have to take on other (usually non-game related) jobs to pay their bills. But those are the devs who, with the proper backing and support, do great things.


[mod snipped]

When you're going to fund games, unless you're looking to flood the market with rubbish (like we don't have enough of those already!), you need _serious_ people. This whole indie incubation bullshit is just that. Bullshit. It didn't work then. It won't work now. Its NEVER going to work. Why? Because the business of game development is just that: a business.

/me thinking I _really_ need to get my blog going so that my posts stop being moderated

[mod note: at least you knew it was coming!]

#113 Another quick note on moderation: As many are aware, we're very careful about what we moderate--we've never been fans of censorship, and we don't feel that anyone's opinions aren't worthy of being spoken.

Unfortunately, with this particular thread, it's a primary information release point, and therefore extremely at risk regarding both loss of topic and personal conflict, so we are maintaining active control of the thread itself.

If anyone feels their statements or opinions are being excessively moderated, you are more than welcome to post those opinions/statements in other (new) threads--I just want to maintain this one to it's original purpose.

#114 Agreed. Makes sense. But as you know, developers are passionate. When passion runs while, screw the rules. :D

Anyway, this will be my final comment because I don't think anything else needs to be said. My final post is in my GG blog, assuming it passes moderation (so much for that!). If not, well, thats why I have my own blog at www.dereksmart.org

#115 I do want to say that your opinions are valued, just like everyone else's. In fact, while I can't comment specifically on individual points right now, I was pretty careful to try to leave your on point statements intact, even if we personally feel they may be too early for you, or anyone else, to be convinced to support.

#116 Understood. No worries m8.

#117 @Stephen:

Quote:I'll try one last time: everyone (and I do mean everyone) is doing an incredible amount of speculating on some very low amounts of information. I seriously suggest hanging tight, working on your projects (because seriously--what's actually changed for you technology wise? All the engines still do exactly what they did on friday), and glancing up from time to time to see what new information has come out.

What's changed technology wise is that we are now left wondering exactly what will happen to TGE and TGEA because that is the technology we are basing our games on. If GG/IAC decides to drop these products, where does that leave me with my indie license??? I've just started, so I have a choice to make right now whether to stick with Torque (and possibly waste a huge amount of time and effort) or use something else. Perhaps buying a commercial license would provide some protection. One could argue that the situation hasn't really changed that much, since GG could have gone out of business at any time before the deal; but things seemed more stable before.

Plus, I purchased the license after the deal was done but wasn't told anything about it until have I have spent a lot of time and effort learning Torque. That pisses me off.

#118 All I can say is that additional information will be forthcoming. We do recognize and understand concerns regarding existing technology, licensing, and a host of other questions regarding existing customers.

#119 I'm concerned as well, but I really don't think it's a stretch to imagine TGE/TGB/TGEA or whatever being updated to include the ability to run within a browser. People can then continue to develop on their engine of choice without a particular concern about the browser-based game thing. At least that's what I suspect; we'll see at IGC.

Besides, it's not such a stretch, given that engines like Unity have been running within broswers for some time now.

#120

Quote:I'm concerned as well, but I really don't think it's a stretch to imagine TGE/TGB/TGEA or whatever being updated to include the ability to run within a browser.

But it's the mother of all stretches to imagine it working on platforms other than internet explorer/activex.

The concern is that there still aren't any good technologies for making C++ code run in more than one browser on more than one platform.

GG focussing on in-browser experiences, if TGE/TGB/TGEA are the tools they're using, just sounds like a deathspiral of platform incompatability. I think it's best to reserve judgement and wait to see what GG actually do, but if TGEA running in a browser is the goal, I don't forsee a happy ending.

Gary (-;