Interesting to see this progress, and unlike the myriad of other web based software looks like they've done a pretty good job of making it feel native like in the browser. I don't feel too threatened by Godot's progress here, fortunately our engine occupies a fairly specific niche that doesn't overlap too much with Godot's market and would allow them to co-exist.
It does look a little heavy (12.5mb transferred/77mb resources to load cold) and is slower to load than I would expect. Doesn't appear like HTTP2 is supported which would probably speed things up nicely.
For anyone wondering what's the point of this, browser based software is incredibly beneficial to educational institutes especially in the Covid environment - we for example are getting educational institutes who typically use Unity and other software moving to us because it's far easier to get remote classrooms set up with their wide variety of devices students have at home.
I do think the future of software is in the browser. There are just so many advantages. Not to everyone's liking of course but I do feel it's inevitable. We went web only as it has the huge advantage of one code base to maintain, I would assume a large risk on Godot's part here is having to maintain multiple code bases.
Isn't the future of applications on the browser only possible because the current browser leader (Google) isn't actively fighting cross OS support? Because what's a browser if not a universal front end for widgets. We could have had cross platform widgets but that would have made it too hard to monopolize one platform. Google have simply abstracted the previous platform leader (Microsoft) advantage away from them.
It's interesting, but depressing that we keep letting these greedy humans lock us into things. We keep wasting time fighting them and each other.
I am not sure why you would feel threatened even if there was overlap. Godot is MIT licensed, so if your customers started asking for features from Godot or for compatibility with Godot, you could just copy the code straight from them without any hassle.
Anything that helps the web export progress sounds like a good idea to me, I think there’s a lot of potential in that feature.
Being able to play game demos in the browser before installing the full version if you like it would be nice.
But for developers themselves I think it would be really cool to see the output of the tutorial you’re following before you start. It would be pretty motivating to see what’s coming and I think it could help get across some of the concepts which can be difficult in game dev.
Agreed, there's a lot of potential for Web export across all engines. This was one thing Flash did really well back in the day but now JS + Webgl can surpass that as long as creatives are given a nice tool to create with it.
Unity's WebGL export is a good start too but the bundle size is huge (they did release a leaner, pared down version but it's still got a ways to go in terms of load speed).
Your question is unpopular because everyone here likes the web and want to see it thrive as a platform. So do I, but still, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the web is not a viable platform for games. It had its moment for casual games some years ago, but mobile devices have taken that over. Thats why all the web game portals (the bargain bin bottom of the games space) are languishing, even Facebook Games, with its captive audience, is slowly dwindling away.
To put the actual game editor on the web makes even less sense. It's a cool technical feat, and the author may have thought of it as 'free', as some commenters have alluded to, given that there is already a web export, but anyone with a bit of experience knows that nothing is free, and certainly not a project like this. At the very least it's a months long effort (the author himself stated as much in the blog post), even before factoring in continued maintenance.
I love it as a technical feat, but I'll agree it doesn't make sense from a 'business' perspective (for lack of a better term, given it's an open source project).
One of the targets is webassembly, and the engine is written in the Godot engine. I'm not surprised that they could do this: it's a completely natural outcome from how Godot already works. I doubt it took unusual commitment of resources to do.
1) Allows godot in schools etc where installing binaries can be problematic.
2) Provides more focus on improving the html5 target.
From what I understand the editor is a "game". Both the desktop editor and web editor are created in the engine, so improving the engine will improve the web editor too. The web editor is the html5 export of the editor "game"
Its much easier to have educational content about an engine if you can run tutorials directly in the web browser. Don't underestimate the importance of this for producing accessible educational content about an engine at scale.
There is no one who knows the projects time/financial budgets better than the team. I'm sure their free product is plenty well planned to accommodate for side utilities like this. This might even be from a contributor that has less work than the rest of the team.
I love this! Not sure why you would need this, as the desktop app seems to be a lot more performant, but am a big fan of offering everything as a webapp.
[+] [-] TomGullen|5 years ago|reply
Interesting to see this progress, and unlike the myriad of other web based software looks like they've done a pretty good job of making it feel native like in the browser. I don't feel too threatened by Godot's progress here, fortunately our engine occupies a fairly specific niche that doesn't overlap too much with Godot's market and would allow them to co-exist.
It does look a little heavy (12.5mb transferred/77mb resources to load cold) and is slower to load than I would expect. Doesn't appear like HTTP2 is supported which would probably speed things up nicely.
For anyone wondering what's the point of this, browser based software is incredibly beneficial to educational institutes especially in the Covid environment - we for example are getting educational institutes who typically use Unity and other software moving to us because it's far easier to get remote classrooms set up with their wide variety of devices students have at home.
I do think the future of software is in the browser. There are just so many advantages. Not to everyone's liking of course but I do feel it's inevitable. We went web only as it has the huge advantage of one code base to maintain, I would assume a large risk on Godot's part here is having to maintain multiple code bases.
[+] [-] fartcannon|5 years ago|reply
It's interesting, but depressing that we keep letting these greedy humans lock us into things. We keep wasting time fighting them and each other.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cycloptic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesBaxter|5 years ago|reply
Being able to play game demos in the browser before installing the full version if you like it would be nice.
But for developers themselves I think it would be really cool to see the output of the tutorial you’re following before you start. It would be pretty motivating to see what’s coming and I think it could help get across some of the concepts which can be difficult in game dev.
[+] [-] nacs|5 years ago|reply
Unity's WebGL export is a good start too but the bundle size is huge (they did release a leaner, pared down version but it's still got a ways to go in terms of load speed).
[+] [-] marcodiego|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CharlesW|5 years ago|reply
(Wasn't sure what "prodigal" means in this context. Any chance you means "canonical"?)
[1] http://blog.archive.org/2020/11/22/flash-back-further-though...
[+] [-] Darmody|5 years ago|reply
While I think it's cool shouldn't they spend their resources on the desktop engine?
[+] [-] johnyzee|5 years ago|reply
To put the actual game editor on the web makes even less sense. It's a cool technical feat, and the author may have thought of it as 'free', as some commenters have alluded to, given that there is already a web export, but anyone with a bit of experience knows that nothing is free, and certainly not a project like this. At the very least it's a months long effort (the author himself stated as much in the blog post), even before factoring in continued maintenance.
I love it as a technical feat, but I'll agree it doesn't make sense from a 'business' perspective (for lack of a better term, given it's an open source project).
[+] [-] Applejinx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|5 years ago|reply
1) Allows godot in schools etc where installing binaries can be problematic.
2) Provides more focus on improving the html5 target.
From what I understand the editor is a "game". Both the desktop editor and web editor are created in the engine, so improving the engine will improve the web editor too. The web editor is the html5 export of the editor "game"
[+] [-] Qwertious|5 years ago|reply
Browser-based games are a perfectly legitimate platform, and tend to have fewer clicks than desktop package distributions. Namely, one click.
Hell, there's nothing stopping this from replacing HTML5/flash games.
[+] [-] nixarn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carwyn|5 years ago|reply
Also excellent for ease of adoption with beginners due to zero install overhead.
[+] [-] flohofwoe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheMagicHorsey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nohr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swebs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Carnageous|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isodev|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|5 years ago|reply