27 Sep, 2011, Ludwig wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
HEy! hey…

what about…

html5?

You could probably make a simple telnet mud client in html5, right? I mean it doesn't require plugins anymore. So you could just contain an entire mud in a browser tab.
27 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ludwig said:
HEy! hey…

what about…

html5?

You could probably make a simple telnet mud client in html5, right? I mean it doesn't require plugins anymore. So you could just contain an entire mud in a browser tab.


No. I mean, you can implement telnet over websockets. But this isn't backwards compatible with connecting to normal muds. So this isn't really what I would consider a simple mud client. The client would need to embed a plugin that's capable of connecting like muds do. So like flash or java. Or the mud could use a web technology like web sockets to connect to a proxy to a mud.

The interesting option here is using flash for the connection, but pure html for the client. This isn't anything new to html5, though, and could have been made 10 years ago. Its just that with clients becoming more standards compliant it's far easier to write cross platform html/css/js.
28 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
the interesting option here is using flash for the connection, but pure html for the client. This isn't anything new to html5, though, and could have been made 10 years ago. Its just that with clients becoming more standards compliant it's far easier to write cross platform html/css/js.

If you are ok with a plugin, I think it is simpler to enhance a java client,at least you know it will work even as a stand alone client and on any platform with a lot less work than a (flash/navigator/js framework combo). We use one on our webpage as an example.
28 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
the interesting option here is using flash for the connection, but pure html for the client. This isn't anything new to html5, though, and could have been made 10 years ago. Its just that with clients becoming more standards compliant it's far easier to write cross platform html/css/js.

If you are ok with a plugin, I think it is simpler to enhance a java client,at least you know it will work even as a stand alone client and on any platform with a lot less work than a (flash/navigator/js framework combo). We use one on our webpage as an example.


I don't agree. It's not a lot less work, and using flash over a java applet is way more supported out of the box with no plugin required to be installed. For example, chrome and many browsers ship with flash no plugin required. Furthermore, the very reason I wouldn't do it in flash itself is that plugins that breakout of the html/css/js world for the reason alone of being cross platform are a naive choice when compared to frameworks within html/css/js that are made to bridge the differences. I.e. jquery, modernizer, etc etc.
28 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
For example, chrome and many browsers ship with flash no plugin required.

Ok there is Chrome…any other having more than 1% user share?
And btw check where your 25% comes from…
28 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
For example, chrome and many browsers ship with flash no plugin required.

Ok there is Chrome…any other having more than 1% user share?


Actually, they have a 24% market share as of september 1st. You're just off by 2,400%. Is that within your acceptable margin of error?

And my point wasn't that it has to be built in and shipped with the web browser. You'll find that most internet using people already have flash installed. A great deal more people have flash already installed than the java binary. Furthermore, a great number of device browsers do not and have no intention of supporting java binaries, where they universally froth at the mouth over flash support. So much that they usually put it in their sales pitch in commercials.
28 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0
Any OTHER than Chrome I said… You said many has it shipped per default, that is just plain wrong, only one that has more than 1% marketshare and it is chrome…

People install flash plugin when they are asked to, the would install the java plugin just as easily. Only reason they dont have it installed is they usually dont need it at all.

'Furthermore, a great number of device browsers do not and have no intention of supporting java binaries, '
yeah android does not exist in your world I guess
28 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, so you only arbitrarily accept browsers that have more than 1% marketshare? So 1.1% market share is fine? Well, chrome represents 24 1% market share browsers and growing. And among tech savvy people, it represents almost half.

So what we have here is nonsense. Chrome AND most device browsers come with flash already installed. And many simply can't use any java binary. So that would be another reason they don't have it installed. So, you're "just plain wrong".

Since apparently all things are equal, I guess people just use some fringe plugin like silverlight or unity. Since we don't really care about the facts of which *do* already come preinstalled, and which *are* already installed on a majority of users computers right now.
28 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
Well stay in your imaginary world where flash is not a plugin for the vast majority of people…if it pleases you.
28 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Well stay in your imaginary world where flash is not a plugin for the vast majority of people…if it pleases you.


.. And java isn't?
28 Sep, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
Who the f**k cares if it's a plug-in or not? NOBODY.

What you should be asking is, how many people already have working installations via flash, java, or HTML5. THAT's what matters. The only people I know who don't have flash working in their browser are weirdo paranoid security nuts who turn everything OFF anyways. A somewhat larger share don't have the JRE installed. I know relatively few people who have an HTML5 compatible browser. Some of those that do, won't realize or care that they do.

Your argument is pointless. Nobody in the real world cares about plug-in vs. hooks vs. built-in. Let me give you an example of why it doesn't matter. Point an older browser at youtube or something else that uses flash. What happens? It says "OH, you need a new version of flash installed…. HERE'S A LINK YOU CAN USE TO FIX IT WITH ONE CLICK!" End of story. I'd guess 90% of people will just click the link, reboot their machine, and never thing about it again…. ever.

So, instead of making pointless arguments, figure out which technology you can use that will let you install whatever it requires in any browser with the minimal effort required to not lose their attention before they get to your product?
28 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
I guess my overall point is I wouldn't like flash for anything if flash were not already installed on a vast majority of internet users. I think the difference between having to install anything and not having to install anything once you reach the webpage is a great distinction to be made.

http://www.adobe.com/products/player_cen...

I suspect these statistics may be a little off, but they claim 99% adoption of current internet browsing users. As opposed to 17 times less adoption of JRE by the same research. I know personally when I hit a page and it tells me to install something to use their webpage that I'm unfamiliar with, I just go to a different page. I suspect a lot of internet users are the same way. Many people just don't like to install, or download software. And in the mudding population you can be sure there's more users with slow connections than say, in the MMO gaming population. This is a factor when asking people to download relatively large binaries to run your browser based software.
29 Sep, 2011, bw1024 wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
I agree. I know I'm coming in late to the discussion, but I think it's been possible to build a good quality mud in HTML4 for a long time now. You just need to adapt your game mechanics a little to fit the medium.
29 Sep, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
It seems to me that Flash, Java and Silverlight are all quite viable for browser games.
If I was to develop a game in the plugin environment right now, I'd probably use Silverlight.
29 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah… using a deprecated plugin like Silverlight is a great idea for new development!

As for caring about plugins: it's quite simple really: it's that much more of a barrier for those who don't have it already, although admittedly most people have Flash etc. – but what about new browsers that are getting rid of Flash? MS has announced that IE won't support it going forward, and iOS devices have already tossed it out the window.

Quix, your argument is based on a whole ton of assumptions. Let me give you another assumption/question: if somebody's looking for casual gameplay and they have the choice between game A that just works and game B that requires a reboot, what do you think they'll do?
29 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
I think having to install a new plugin is indeed a considerable barrier. For many different reasons I believe a significant number of users will decline when they see they need to download and install something. Whether or not it's logical by our standards as tech savvy computer users, I don't think that actually goes into the equation when someone is on a dialup connection and would rather continue browsing than install your plugin. And that's just one of the reasons people would have. Others include users who don't have privileges to install new plugins on this computer, and those who simply don't trust you enough.
29 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
Heck, even as a tech savvy computer user and developer and all that, it ticks me off to have to do extra stuff and if I have a choice I'll avoid it. And unless I really want something, I'm not going to install some custom browser plugin that you, some random game, want to give me – especially if you're going to ask me to change browsers or whatever.

And, yes, the admin privileges issue is a very real problem.
29 Sep, 2011, kiasyn wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Yeah… using a deprecated plugin like Silverlight is a great idea for new development!


Ha, I hadn't heard that silverlight was deprecated. Thats quite funny.
29 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 99th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
David Haley said:
Yeah… using a deprecated plugin like Silverlight is a great idea for new development!


Ha, I hadn't heard that silverlight was deprecated. Thats quite funny.




A lot of, er, gems(lawls) in there. And I think that's where the buzz about it being depreciated came from.

About 2:00 in is the silverlight question to the CEO of microsoft.
29 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 100th comment:
Votes: 0
There's any number of sources for it, just google for "silverlight deprecated". They're moving to HTML5 instead. (They're keeping Silverlight for Windows Phone 7 – for now…)

Here's another article on it…
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/30/rip-sil...
80.0/128