Dear all and especially dear Mr. John Riccitiello, who I’m sure will actually be reading this
I sincerely hope Unity is contemplating the launch of a distribution platform for WebGL games! Why?
(1) The WebGL preview in Unity 5 may still have some problems, but by and large, it absolutely rocks. Performance is better than I expected, builds look good enough, and my external .NET assemblies were integrated without a hiccup. And this is the BETA of a PREVIEW.
(2) WebGL will only be commercially viable if there are a very small number of very large distribution platforms, just like with mobile platforms. The reason? Users have to be motivated to enter payment information so that low-friction IAPs are possible. No frictionless transactions, no revenue, no high-quality games, no market. Case closed.
(3) Unity always say they are about democratizing game development and (since 2-3 years back) developer success. I believe you! But: The mobile app stores are the most undemocratic places imaginable. At the same time, iOS and Android are set to support WebGL. You might say that Apple and Google are begging for disruption
(4) Existing Web-based distribution platforms suck. The homepage of Kongregate looks like it was designed in 2005. Too many platforms focus heavily on low-quality cow-clickers or on free hobbyist projects.
(5) Epic is contemplating doing the same thing. Got you there, didn’t I!
I know I will never love the way WebGL will be distributed, given that it probably ends up being a winner-takes-all market like PC games. But if there’s any big player who I’d entrust my game to, and who is likely to have the goodwill of many other devs like me who are interested in quality, it’s Unity.
Doesn’t Google already have such a platform? What special would UT bring to the table, besides a (completely understandable) bias for just one web gaming technology?
If you’re targeting mobile, with Unity, and want IAPs, then using WebGL seems crazy. Build native, get far better performance and battery life!
If you’re using WebGL to be free from App Stores, you don’t really want a new web-based ‘App Store’, do you?
Anyway, if Apple start to see any significant number of WebGL games bypassing their 30% App Store ‘taxation’ of their platform - I suspect that they’ll be quick to take action to protect their revenue - maybe by limiting WebGL functionality on the platform…
Google already has the Play Store: I certainly wouldn’t want it to hold yet another monopoly! Furthermore, Google and Apple don’t “get” games, certainly not in the way Valve/Steam does. They have shown time and again that discoverability of mobile games doesn’t interest them. And so Candy Crush and Clash of Clans continue to reign, and many mobile devs turn back to PC.
Current-gen mobile phones are already more powerful than most games require, so I’m sure that performance of WebGL based games won’t be an issue in 1-2 years (assuming something like a 50% performance cost, as hinted by Unity sometime before).
And my point is not that I want to avoid mobile app stores. App stores are absolutely necessary because they provide crucial services: app discovery, app security (viruses), low-friction payments. So yes, I do want a WebGL ‘Game Store’, and I want it to be run by a company that “gets” games the way Valve does.
Unity is in the Game Engine and the Game Services business. Also, see any of David Helgason’s keynotes over the last 2 years or so. Also, why do you think John Riccitiello was recruited as CEO? Unity already owns 50% of the game engine market, no growth potential there. In services, on the other hand…
At the same time Apple has introduced their Metal API, increasing the performance delta between WebGL and native even further.
So yeah, if you want best performance/most efficient battery usage, native is the only way to go (by far).
I don’t see any points you make that suggest this call should be answered by Unity. If you think existing distribution services suck, then start your own. Unless you can think of something that Unity can do with it that you can’t, why would Unity go to the trouble?
I thought that part was obvious, sorry. Firstly, Unity has the technical know-how because they already build the WebGL target. Second, they already announced that the engine’s new network features will interface with new network services provided by the company, another ingredient for a WebGL platform. Third, Unity IS already a games publisher!
Ps: there are no large and popular WebGL distribution sites yet because the tech is so new. It’s a blue ocean, but not for long.
Plenty of people have the technical know-how to insert some HTML code into a website.
The engine’s network features are unrelated to WebGL support.
There are lots of game publishers already.
So, no, there is no reason for Unity to do this. Write an open letter to Kongregate instead - they at least already have the infrastructure and the user base. If you have beefs with their website, tell them that; I happen to think their website is more than sufficient, though they could be trendier by making a superflat UI facelift. (FWIW, I have little doubt that once U5 is out publicly, Kongregate will have WebGL support before long.)
StarManta, unless you start looking at this from a business perspective, we’ll continue to talk past each other. It’s not a question of whether somebody else could also do this, but whether its in Unity’s interest to do this. And whether its in the interest of Unity’s users. I’ve tried to argue yes on both points, but neither you nor I can tell them what to do. So the point of this thread was really just to let them know that at least some Unity users want them to enter the platform business.
One shouldn’t underestimate the importance and the economic potential of distribution platforms - not after Steam. If WebGL works, and works across platforms, it might disrupt several other plaforms, including some mobile ones (Apple excluded, as someone mentioned above).
Just to clarify the Metal API like AMD’s Mantle only improves the graphical performance by taking advantage of lower level features on modern GPU’s something OpenGL/WebGL and the DirectX graphics API’s are all in the process of adopting in the near future.
So I imagine that the graphical performance advantage of native apps will be mitigated in a few months.
I think the reason we are talking past each other is because you’re either missing or ignoring my main point. Unity has no expertise or access that helps them do this better than anyone else. It’s not like some of Unity’s services where it profited someone else $10 but it profits UT $12 because they already have some resources or expertise that make the thing better or run more efficiently. Unity would profit the same $10 from this as anyone else. There’s no synergy here. The reason I recommended writing to Kongregate is that Kongregate would profit $15 on it.
The main challenge with WebGL isn’t the hosting, but charging users. I am a game developer, and if I can’t charge people for playing a WebGL game (upfront or F2P) then I simply can’t afford WebGL. I’m not a hobbyist.
People won’t let you charge them unless they trust your site. So ideally, your site is big and offers more than one game. Thats where distribution platforms enter. Also, IAPs are almost impossible if users haven’t already entered payment information. That’s why you can’t host F2P games on individual sites (well, unless your already big and famous). And thats why I believe that WebGL will end up as a market with a small number of very large players. I’d like one of those players to be a company I already trust to be commited to the concerns of small-studio game development.
Personally, I think this is an interesting idea. And – i think helping developers reach an audience and help monetize their games is an important part of what “democratizing game development” means. I don’t have a plan yet, but i like the general concept. John
I’m pretty sure Kongregate or other established Browser Game Portal sites are already in the planning stages of making sure they are the top distributors of WebGL Games… they carry Unity Games, it’s only but a matter of time before WebGL is stable enough and all the Unity Dev’s Publish their games again as WebGL. Although I do think Unity does have an opportunity to become a top WebGL Game Distributor for sure…
I don’t think they’re the only way to go, I sure hope there will be room for both F2P and P2P in WebGL. But IAPs are harder to administer than upfront payments, so they would profit more from a good hosting infrastructure. Not just for payments, but also conditional content unlocking, persistence etc.
