Web Deployment...is it working yet?

#41 "However, we have no plans to support Google's Native Client or O3D." I wouldn't say that exactly Matt ;) It's not in our immediate future nor is it in anyone else's plans despite what might be said or shown publicly. Native client just isn't ready for prime time yet. I like the idea behind Native Client and I'm a huge Google fan.

On the topic of Web Streaming. We will clarify the language. As you guys noticed, we did a big pass on the language of the site in February to take out as many of the statements that confused people. I personally have no desire to "trick" anyone or to make a quick buck with deception. It's anti-everything that I ever loved about this company ( as you guys know I started out as a community member ).

As for the web-distribution issue. It's tricky. And the answer of IA tech is not something that I can publicly comment on at this time. It's obviously a huge feature to have robust web-delivery. And we are, as a company, pioneering it in another division for AAA studios; it would be crazy for us not to utilize it for Torque in some larger volume market offering.

One major challenge is security and a full source engine; they are mutually exclusive for the most part. If we share a plug-in across all products ( say the plug-in we use for InstantAction ) we risk getting flagged by a security vendor and killing the plug-in for everyone if someone ships a malicious game. We have done some R&D work regarding the security issue, but it's not something I can share. Sorry.

So albeit not glamorous, our existing deployment is suitable for a full source engine. And it's what we have until another solution arrives ( NaCL is one our IA tech may fall under this category ).

The only other solution is to do what Unity does and go binary-only, and restrict any custom executable code that opens up the potential for exploit. That's quite a limitation given all of the great indie third party products out there.

#42 "Personally i find it insulting GG expect T3D users to be excited about this, and when one hear/see/read web deployment they are NOT thinking Render in a web browser from the clients computer just as if it had opened its very own window!"

BTW...this is how all non-thin client solutions ( OnLive & GaiKai ) work. The trick is running the game in the browser with good performance and ensuring that if the game crashes the browser doesn't.

#43 OK, i guess the information what is missing is, what is the advantage of using T3D's Web Deployment? If T3D Web Deployment is nothing more then T3D rending from the browser, then what is the point? How/why is this helpful and useful?

I just do not get it. I have some logical theory's about T3D Web Deployment, but they all end as perfect evidence of GG being deceitful with purpose and premeditated intent. (Yes, I feel more and more like i have been scammed/cheated/lied to, in so many different ways with this T3D.)

Of all the features that have been dropped from the old 'hype' list, why not one that actually seems rather pointless?

Give me some scenario where this feature is a golden nugget of useful goodness.

#44 I can give you a real world, shipped product reason.

An audience with low spec hardware and slow net connections.

The last thing I did before leaving the sim industry was ship a web based training program for FEMA using T3D's stock web deployment. Most government employees have extremely low spec computers, honestly if you saw the specs I did you would just cry. Coupled with that they are very often in places with a limited internet connection and are usually behind very restrictive firewalls, this is doubly so for anything military.

Focus testing I did with this audience showed they were far more receptive to downloading a single installer once than having to wait to stream in the content for each and every section of the training. Reducing the constant repeated wait time to a single, typically shorter, front-loaded wait time made the students more receptive to the training they were doing. This reduced the chances of them zoning out due to repeated moments of "hurry up and wait".

The same mindset applies to gaming as well, especially in the Indie space. A considerable chunk of the money made by Indies is from that casual, low spec, slower connection audience. The longer it takes a user to get into your game the more time they have to reconsider doing so.

#45 @Caylo - I don't believe the web deployment was ever intended to be a high end content delivery system. That is the sort of capability of the InstantAction tech, but it's not commercialized for wide distribution and requires a lot of integration and collaboration which makes it not ready for retail.

The Instant Action Technology page at the top of this site was put up pre-maturely. It will be going down as early as next week to reduce any confusion about it being ready for the indie market.

It does exist though...if you haven't seen it in action you can check out the integration we did with Lucas Arts. Secret of Monkey Island. We didn't hype it on our site because I didn't want to get anyone's hopes up about it being ready for wide developer use.

#46 Scott, your example do not cover any actual reason to use T3D's Web Deployment (over the old fashion download/install way), just some opinions about how T3D's Web Deployment is better then the more common understood definition of what Web Deployment is.

How is the downloading/installing method different then T3D's Web Deployment system? Why have T3D's Web Deployment if it is essentially the same thing as download/install method?

Quote:Focus testing I did with this audience showed they were far more receptive to downloading a single installer once

So here it sounds like (once more) there is no actual difference between the two 'download/install' vrs T3D's Web Deployment methods.

Whats so darn spectacular about rendering from the web browser?

#47 Eric, I still do not see the point, less the GG bragging rights, and perhaps the purposely misleading advertising...

I have already asked the questions that bother me on this topic, and also already stated the most logical conclusion i can come up with.

So, without some REAL information about T3D's Web Deployment design and name/wording decisions, my previous assumptions must be correct.

#48 @Caylo - There are lot's of things you can do with browser deployment. You can use HTML around the game such as advertising, forums, etc.

You can monetize your game with video pre-roll, which is one of the highest paying forms of advertising you can get. Advertisers require you follow IAB standards and a downloaded client won't get you that.

Conversion rates are very sensitive to every step. Many people are less likely to install a traditional installer over a plug-in ( not the case with high end web users who realize that plug-in and downloading is for all purposes the same ).

like all of our features, it's up to you to find a new an interesting way to use the tech. We sell pick axes, not gold.

#49

Quote:We sell pick axes, not gold.

My pick axe have a Styrofoam handle, and the rest is carved out of soap!

T3D Web Deployment allows me to use HTML inside the T3D game environment? I see you use the word 'around', "You can use HTML around the game such as"; are these HTML aroundthe game objects T3D controllable?

And i dont understand the "You can monetize your game with video pre-roll" part, could you elaborate?

It seems from your example a much more powerful way to do the exact same thing would be HTML interact-able with Torques GUI.

Most people i know do not like the idea of installing some odd browser plug-in THEN downloading the game. Most people i know are quite picky about installing browser plug-ins.

Anyhow, i get the feeling im talking to a salesman who is cleverly sidestepping all my questions. Somehow being able to render T3D from a browser window is a good thing, and somehow T3D's current Web Deployment system is so much better then all of us who foolishly misunderstood what GG meant with Web Deployment had thought it was going to be.
I must be too dense to understand how launching T3D from a web-browser can be defined as Web Deployment, but so are all the other people i work with; perhaps it is some type of topographical mental limitation...
And actually i never bought T3D for its Web Deployment ability, i could care less (surprisingly I DO care even less after all this conversation).

What i do care about is when someone is putting mud on my cake and trying to call it frosting(or in this case selling me counterfeit pick axes).

#50 "As you guys noticed, we did a big pass on the language of the site in February to take out as many of the statements that confused people."

.."confused people". heh. :p

//..it's clear that both sides of the fence are to blame.

#51 @Eb - fair enough. Some of it was confusing. Some of it was wrong. Either way, we don't want it there now.

@Caylo - maybe this link is more your style? Perhaps it adds a little edge to your axe. WebKit Integration

Pre-roll video plays a video before your game starts. They pay around $10 to $15 dollars per 1000 views of your page. Typically, you need to display the video and a 250x300 square ad.

I'm not a sales man...this is a T3D private thread and everyone here has already purchased. A sales man wouldn't waste their time here.

#52 If that WebKit was what T3D defined as 'Web Deployment', im sure very few people would feel as cheated as they do when they learn T3D's Web Deployment is nothing more then rendering from a web-browser, and the WebKit is closer in word definition meaning of 'Web Deployment' then is rendering from a web-browser.

The salesman bit was more a simile. You are acting the place of a salesman in that you are defending your product, and no GG official have yet said, "Yes, T3D's Web Deployment is nothing more then rendering the T3D from a web-browser.", because saying such would validate arguments that T3D's Web Deployment feature is not technically "Web Deployment"; this is how a salesman would be cleverly sidestepping such lines of inquiry.

I am still just as ignorant as to the value of T3D's current version of Web Deployment, because it seems every single example used could be accomplished without this feature, and with just about the same amount of developer work/ user hassle. And i would truly enjoy ridding myself of this dirty feeling that T3D's Web Deployment feature was nothing more then a slimy marketing trick.

#53 I know it won't address your concerns Caylo but I would also point out that the Torque 3D plugin does expose a Javascript-to-TorqueScript bridge that could allow you to do some interesting things (like building editor controls in DHTML or embedding your game/3d viewer inside an DHTML content store or online portfolio).

I know that likely isn't the amazing whiz bang feature that you might be looking for to distinguish it from running as a stand-alone game window (i.e. content streaming) but there are some interesting possibilities there.

#54 Actually that information is satisfactory for first question asked in post #46. Its good to hear that T3D's Web Deployment is a bit more then just how T3D is displayed on the screen.

I am anticipating some day soon being able to read all about how to use this Javascript-to-TorqueScript bridge from T3D's documentation.


For everyone following this thread, here is Unity's idea of Web Deployment.
www.cordythegame.com/

#55 Heh. cool game although it crashed my browser.

I agree using the term "Web Deployment" is definitely misleading and could be considered false advertising. This technology sounds very useful, but this feature should be called something different such as "auto-installation" or "browser rendering". most people would interpret "Web Deployment" to mean the technology uses flash or some other light-weight browser plugin. after hearing about torque3d's web deployment feature, I always assumed it would be a plugin.

The problem isn't with the tech, it's with the misleading product description.

#56 I wouldn't knock binary Only like Unity. If the engine is designed properly then you should need to have source access. Another thing, quite frankly by focusing on a single engine Unity has come a Lot further than Torque has in a majority of areas, and with being in business only about half the amount of time.

Garage Games Started in 2001 If memory serves. But he engine was developed at Dynamix. so all if all Torque is prolly closer to 15 years in Development. Unity has been around for 5.

In hind sight there is something to be said for starting from scratch.

#57

Quote:Web Publishing

Deploy any Torque 3D project from the World Editor to a web browser in seconds with our web publishing option. Torque 3D supports all major browsers and operating systems, including IE7, FF3, OS X and Chrome. Games perform at 100% native speed with no performance cost, completely in your browser.*

this is still wrong, There is no WEB in what you have. Simply browser. It is like I said before, just because something can run in Java doesn't make it Cell Phone compatible.

Please tell me that I am wrong in thinking all this web kit is is being able to put a browser in game! This may sound kewl but it has so very little uses. Sure you can think of a million right now but only about 3 of those will be ever be used in game.

Here is the funniest part to me. You have Josh, the guy who created the greatest MMOKIT to date, a kit that mixed with T3D could knock the world of indie MMOs on its head and you have him working on a in-game web browser!!! WTF! Do you realize Hero and Big World just started selling indie versions because of the amount of people wanting to build a MMORPG. Who cares if it is practical, it sells! Heck Xerves has brought you guys more business with him doing all the work on the TMMOKIT than this in-game browser thing ever will! You guys have the ability to bring a kit to thousands of wannabe MMORPG creators and you have the original guy who created it and you let it sit stale!!!
I know this is off topic but this is a bit silly. People are paying 5K for Hero Indie and $300 a year for Big World, and heck $100 for that crappy Realm Crafter. Several thousand people. You don't think having Josh finish out the TMMOKIT in T3D would be worth selling a few thousand copies of the binary at $100? You are crazy to think you wouldn't sell it.

" Garage Games now announces the T3D TMMOKIT! Build your own MMORPG with ease on the proven torque engine and on the proven MMOKIT. WE have worked out all the bugs and have brought you the best MMO option for the price. For $100 you get the binary version OF T3D and the KIT which allows you to build your world anyway you want and make it original with Python Scripting. NO need to touch the source. You can host thousands of players and the engine is feature rich with things like (list all the T3D shaders)"
throw in some screens,
and BAM!! thousands of sells. This is elementary. Josh is famous for his work on the kit and now he works on in game web browser?

Hey Tesla can build me a Ham sandwich? (yes I compared Josh to Tesla, both are my idols)

Okay back on topic. I know you guys know exactly what we are talking about. I am not mad at Garage games or bashing you or anything else. I am like the rest in saying your advertising is wrong and I was mislead. You know it and have admitted it but I see no fix. I hope that you take all this seriously for you guys are seriously missing the boat. Yeah I know what does some random dude know about marketing and what we should be doing right? I have spent the last 4 years working with MMOs and browser based games, going through engines, forums, Wikis, communities, and basically learning everything I can along the way. The community for this is huge! The ability to deploy your game to the web is a huge seller but a quarter of what being able to build a MMO is. You have tech and the programmer that many engines would kill for and you sit on it. Makes no sense. YOu have the ability to make T3D deploy to the web yet you side step it....makes no sense

#58 @Halls - Josh hasn't been an employee since 2009. He did the work under an existing contract but currently isn't under contract. Don't take this to say that Josh isn't extreemly talented, he is. He is currently doing other Torque ( and other I'm sure ) work, but not for us. Just an FYI.

#59 understood and sorry to go so far off topic and thank you for helping clearing up or rather understanding this web deployment issue. I still stand by my thoughts that the web deployment and mmokit are two HUGE selling points that are being ignored whilst other engines and companies are jumping all over it.

Regardless of what Josh may or may not be doing you have the resources to make things like this happen and with the response to this thread you can see web deployment is a popular feature. :)

#60 This thread is a few months old but I would like to mention I am making a facebook game using the web deployment. The system works just fine, it can exchange information AND FUNCTIONS back and forth between my hosting servers and exchange info between facebook and the game client. If you have problems understanding how to do this just check out the npplugin code, cinterface.cpp, webcommon.cpp and the sample html, it works right out of the box (although you have to comment out some WebCommon::MessageBox's unless you like getting popups every time you do this);