Long story short: it's based on my own experiences, talking to web developers and having been on the internet since the beginning (back before the browser ate everyone's ram).
And I was on BBSes and
You must be registered to see the links
, plus my first experience with using the Internet was on a
You must be registered to see the links
, where I used
You must be registered to see the links
,
You must be registered to see the links
, and
You must be registered to see the links
.
So what? Being old doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about whether games in browsers can succeed or not. It's a logical fallacy to imply otherwise.
But primarily it comes down to things I personally value,
And this just means that you're giving your entirely subjective opinion.
Again, so what? Anyone can give an opinion. They're worthless when talking about how things are in general.
A discussion about things like this should be based on objective evidence, not logical fallacies and personal opinions.
like the development environment, user experience, reliability and performance. If you're used to clicking on a button and having to wait a second for something to happen then yeah, I guess it's fine.
Wow. There's just so much wrong packed into that.
The development environment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the end product, since it's entirely possible for one of them to be great while the other one sucks.
User experience is mostly a product of the developer, not the programming language (though, the degree to which that's true will vary from one language to another).
Reliability is, again, mostly the product of the developer. (Though, admittedly, there are some buggy game engines out there.)
And performance, well... yeah that's dependent on the execution environment, but as long as the reaction time is under a quarter of a second, humans won't notice in most cases (not all, just most). Also, the need for that performance really depends on the kind of game. Honestly, this is the only point where you have a case in some specific instances, but most games here don't actually need a lot of performance, so this point is mostly irrelevant in this context.
Furthermore, those aren't even all of the measures by which people pick games to play. For example, numerous people like HTML games because they're safe (little or no risk of malware, especially compared to executables) and they can easily play them on their mobile devices through their browsers. Through my time being a moderator over at TFGames.Site and the r/twinegames subreddit over the last few years, I've found that there are a number of users who exclusively play HTML games for just those reasons.
As far as game developers go, the portability of HTML games is quite high and usually quite simple, and that's a
huge plus. Yes, there's some tweaking which may need to be done to make sure that most browsers are supported (believe me, I
know that pain), but for the most part, you make a browser game and then you've supported every OS that has a web browser. That's quite an advantage to a game developer, where they don't have to make different builds, packages, and download links for each OS like you'll find with most other game engines (supposing that those other game engines even support more than one OS, which not all do).
Finally, if you think that you have to wait a second for something to happen after you click a button in a web game, then I'd recommend that you purchase a computer from this century, because otherwise that claim is just so blatantly absurd and untrue that it only serves to further undermine your own argument.
There is value in allowing people to play games in a browser,
"Allowing"?
but the price (in effort, performance & quality) for that convenience is too high for me. I don't mean to rain on your parade. I'm just over here, shaking my head.
Shake your head all you want, but it just sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
Not everyone likes what you like or wants what want. Please stop pretending that they do, it's just self-centered and narcissistic.
Honestly, I don't even know what you mean by the "price in effort" there. Basic Twine CYOA games are extremely easy to both make and play. You can make one without even knowing how to code, you just need to know how to write a branching story and how to distribute an HTML file, and playing one is as simple as clicking links. The hurdle for that is far smaller than in almost all other engines. (And "quality" is a product of the time and effort of the developer here, so that's irrelevant as well.)
Regardless, the simple fact is that there are
plenty of HTML games out there which
are well done and that lots of people
do like. This site currently lists
over 500 HTML games. Only the
Ren'Py (3620),
RPGM (1836), and
Unity (1716) engines boast more games here, with HTML beating out other engines like
Flash (295) and
Unreal (249) by a large margin. Are you honestly going to argue that
none, not one, of those HTML games are popular and well-made and none will
ever be popular? If not, then you admit that the issues aren't inherent to the engine, at least not entirely.
And it's not just here, Itch.io has
You must be registered to see the links
. Hell, some browser games, like
You must be registered to see the links
and
You must be registered to see the links
, are practically famous.
Furthermore, it's estimated that in 2021 alone, browser games have netted about
$25 billion USD (
You must be registered to see the links
), and that number is only continuing to go up (~8%) with each year. That's not chump change, buddy.
The fact that you don't see the popularity or potential of HTML games just tells me how out of touch you are with how things are today. You've apparently let your age blind you to how things have changed.
Look, I'm not going to BS you and pretend that there are
no drawbacks to HTML games, but, depending on the kind of game you're making, those drawbacks can be mild or nonexistent. I agree that some games are totally not practical as browser games currently (mainly those with mid- to high-3D graphic rendering requirements), but the boundaries of what kinds of games
can be supported within browsers is only continuing to grow.
Yeah I wouldn't exactly describe my game as "just text and pictures" but I clearly must've hit a nerve so I'll leave it there.
I'm rolling my eyes so hard right now.
Who cares about
your game? We're speaking in general here.
And yeah, some people don't like lies or the people who tell them, thus lies tend to hit a nerve. Don't pretend that you've "hit a nerve" because you said something true, when all you've really done is ramble on about your personal preferences, with no actual regard for what the real world is like today.
I'd recommend you do some
actual research on the subject, rather than merely blindly opining, because it seems like your distain for browser games has left you woefully uneducated regarding both what's currently possible with browser games and what the current game market looks like.
Believe it or don't, but you can't know the truth if you've got your head in the sand.