Artillery's HTML5 Browser Gaming Console Platform

[rich]

 

Sweet looking video. WebGL only of course, but even so.

[triptych]

Shoot, you beat me to the link

 

Here's the article: http://blog.artillery.com/2013/09/project-atlas-and-the-artillery-platform.html

[Travis]

I wish I had known about this ~2 months ago! Damn, I could probably make the jump. Not available until next year. I REALLY want multiplayer in my game. 

[MikeHart]

NICE!!!

[Antylum]

Looks promising! It would be amazing to play starcraft in browser 

[Mike]

Аhh so this was the Day[9] thing. Platform looks fancy.

[tarr_bot]

This looks awesome!

[Phil]

That is pretty! "the browser is the console", Micro Consoles have now gotten that small, they exist virtual memory.

[ben0]

I think Artillery has a huge potential going forward. A lot of naysayers are claiming "this is yet another RTS, built in HTML5", but i believe they'll go one step beyond, and break ground in the native app economy too. Once you're doing well on 1 platform, it just makes sense to reach outwards.

[mwatt]

These guys are pursuing an idea whose time has come - what's more, they appear to be doing a bang-up job of it.  I am very interested in what they are cooking up.

[rich]

Maybe. If this had just been a video of the game/editor with no mention at all of html5 I think most people would have been far less impressed. Don't get me wrong, it DOES look awesome, but it needs to stand-up to and live shoulder to shoulder with mainstream games if its going to have any serious chance of success.

Consumers don't care about the way a game was made, not for a second. It's all about how it plays, nothing more.

[mwatt]

Oh yeah, it's early yet and the proof is in the pudding.  I do expect a surge in WebGL however, now that all major browsers support it.  Does that bode ill for "regular" 2D JavaScript games?  Nah.  Phones won't support WebGL well for quite a while yet, and in any event, there is definitely a sweet spot for 2D HTML5 games on the browser and always will be.

 

I sound like a know-it-all to myself when I read my own words before posting.  It's all just opinion.

[dreta]

I'm skeptical about TCP/IP being used for multiplayer games, especially RTS or FPS, though i hope to be proven wrong.

[mwatt]

UO uses TCP, WoW uses TCP, Camelot uses TCP w/ UDP for movement, AC uses UDP, City of Heroes UDP, EQ TCP w/ UDP.  So there is a mix, but on the basis of WoW alone, I'd say TCP is probably ok.

 

I ought to add that this first sentence was a quote from someone else's post on another site a few years back.  I'll also add that I have seen both proponents of UDP and TCP for such games.  I'll also grant you that UDP is probably inherently the most capable protocol for as close as possible to real-time interaction.

[mwatt]

Adding a link to this great pro and con article entitled "UDP vs. TCP" at gafferongames.com:

 

http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/udp-vs-tcp/

 

The upshot seems to be the TCP is fine for MMOs but not as good as UDP for FPS and in fact may be insufficient for FPS.  On the other hand, to develop some soft of control for UDP is far from trivial and a degree of control beyond what the native protocol allows is necessary.  In the end TCP will work for many sorts of games and will be cheaper to develop.  The nature of the game overrides all.

 

So dreta, for multiplayer games your assertion may not quite hit the mark, but your reticence regarding TCP with FPS appears well-founded.  One would think that RTS requirements would probably be closer to FPS requirements than MMO.  I guess it all depends upon the game play.

[tumira]

Hopefully after this we wont have to use or rely on Windows for gaming anymore. We can use what OS or platform we wants.