2DExtremeProductions wrote:
To make money, you need games. To make games, you need developers. To make developers, you need to eliminate the barrier of entry completely. What is BYOND doing to fix it? You mean besides spending almost 20 years making a *free* game development platform? | |
HTML5 will bring more problems.
How will the client work? What more than making GUI's do we need to do? Stephen001 wrote: What is BYOND doing to make developers take into account features BYOND doesn't have (touch-screen interaction)? Is ... that what you're asking? What is BYOND doing to teach its features and how to use them correctly? The official guide is outdated. Ter13 wrote: You mean besides spending almost 20 years making a *free* game development platform? What is BYOND doing to make developers? That is its target, it should be. No devs = no games = no money. | |
The HTML5 client makes the platform A LOT more attractive to new developers.
BYOND currently demonstrates an insular community problem. You don't "make" developers particularly, you attract them, from other places. To attract them, from other places, you need to make an offering that appeals to them. HTML5 is a core part of that offering, /because/ it means the game you develop can be played on mobile devices, on Windows without an install, on Linux, on Mac. And as an Indie developer, maximising your potential market, particularly also while lowering the barrier to trying your game out, is very important! | |
Stephen001, you answered a question I didn't ask.
1- How will the client work? 2- What more than making GUI's do we need to do? 3- What is BYOND doing to teach its features and how to use them correctly? 4- What is BYOND doing to make developers? You can attract and then push them away by how things are currently. Think about it, BYOND gets HTML5 support, and unless you are already in here a few clicks into the site, you don't even know! BYOND markets itself to itself completely, not to its players, not to a random site wanderer, but to the people that are already in the community, in the forums and on this side of those forums. | |
I don't think you are looking for answers to questions.
| |
I'm gonna flip this round, I think, and I'm going to start with a statement:
The core DM language, the bits you need to know, to make a game like DB Zeta, is no more complex now, than it was 10 years ago. Like sure, there's interfaces, and isometric support and animate() and all manner of crap. But ... DB Zeta didn't need it, so ... you don't need to know it, to make DB Zeta. So basically, the core bits to make a certain standard of game, have not changed. And 10 years ago, the DM guide let 14 year old's make DB Zeta. ---- So what gives? Why are we not seeing the same level of new game development, as we did 10 years ago? | |
Ter13, if I ask, I want answers.
People may want to use it, but if they find issues quickly, they wont. | |
Will existing games need to remake their user interface to be compatible with the HTML5 support?
| |
Stephen001 wrote:
I'm gonna flip this round, I think, and I'm going to start with a statement: (Sounds like you went thru some very old posts of mine?) I think that the only thought to answer you is that, if that where true, the Guide would still work. But it didn't, a year ago. And again, month's ago. Why? Because learning is broken. And there is much more competition. And if you can't win in features you better win in ease of use. | |
Mmm ... nope, regarding posts. Just seemed like a good example.
So what I'm getting at, then, is getting you explore these two things you just said: "Because learning is broken" "And there is much more competition" What do you mean, learning is broken? Are we saying that 14 year old's have gotten worse at learning, and this is why BYOND is shrinking? Competition. The competition ... has easier to learn platforms? Has more features? Has more attractive features? | |
2DExtremeProductions wrote:
I think that the only thought to answer you is that, if that where true, the Guide would still work. But it didn't, a year ago. And again, month's ago. The guide works, I believe it's user error. Why? Because learning is broken. And there is much more competition. And if you can't win in features you better win in ease of use. It's easy to pick up, if you have the time and/or intelligence to even begin learning which I don't believe DM takes much of either. | |
Stephen001 wrote:
What do you mean, learning is broken? Are we saying that 14 year old's have gotten worse at learning, and this is why BYOND is shrinking? More impatient, yes. More visual, yes. If the learning is not as simple as promoted and outdated by the own company and the features aren't well presented, they will probably leave quicker and try something else. Stephen001 wrote: Competition. The competition ... has easier to learn platforms? Has more features? Has more attractive features? Don't they? But, I'm referring to the presentation of them. | |
How are these people finding BYOND?
| |
I'd say, like most of us did.
Either by looking for a specific game or by searching for an online game maker type thing. But, if getting into it is not as straight forward, they wont be hooked and go check another thing. | |
Here is another way to look at it. Why does BYOND need to be the one to update the guide? or make new guide material? What puts that responsibility on BYOND?
The fact it's for BYOND? The fact Tom and Lummox run it? The fact BYOND hosts it? None of those reasons seem to put the responsibility on them in my opinion. The host one means that Tom would need to officially support, and apply changes someone else made, but he's shown no unwillingness to do so. Just look at how much people like Forum_Account contributed. If these things are so needed, and so many people want to help BYOND, why aren't people stepping up to do this to help? Why have Tom and Lummox waste time they could spend doing things members of the site can't do by having them do the work? Members can add to, modify, or expand upon the guide. Members can write a new guide, or new tutorials. Members can record videos, or sound based tutorials. Members can do all of it. Address them, not BYOND, in my opinion. If you look at it this way, then the answer to one or more of your questions very well may be that BYOND is focusing on things its developers cannot do for them, and counting on the developers to do their part by learning, teaching, and making games. And in case someone thinks to ask... The only reason I haven't stepped up to try to help with these things personally is because I haven't felt skilled enough to do so yet. Someday, maybe even soon since things can be submitted to other members for review, that'll hopefully change. Technically speaking, many members are better equipped to MAKE games with BYOND, but not work on BYOND its self, so I feel that IF there is any thing that needs to be done about teaching it should be done by members. This calls out no one specific, being skilled does not apply obligation, I'm just saying any member with skill can do it if it needs doing. TL;DR Try looking at it from one of many other perspectives. For example. Why should BYOND spend time and resources writing or recording new or modified guide content when many members on site are just as capable if not more so of doing it, then submitting it to BYOND to have it officially supported? Let the members learn, teach, and develop games. Call them out on the teaching, if it needs work, not BYOND. Let BYOND focus on the software, and site. Call them out if they won't update the site with qualified material submitted to them. That's my opinion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the teaching, or BYOND, just trying to give another perspective to those who might disagree with the way things are taught or handled; like 2DExtreme seems to for example. | |
http://www.cosemindspring.com/Topics/Marketing/ Search%20Engine%20Marketing/ What%20is%20good%20percentage%20of%20new%20visitors%20to%20a %20website%20compared%20to%20returning%20visitors.aspx
BYOND's is: New Visitor: 35.8% Returning Visitor: 64.2% 38% of those new visitors, the biggest segment, are direct traffic. Implying they've bookmarked the site, and are possibly just very infrequent returning visitors, that Google can't correlate. So I suspect for BYOND, we're actually more like: New Visitor: 22% Existing Visitor: 78% So I'd postulate that we could improve the learning resources all we like. No-one's finding us in the first place. | |
Stephen001 wrote:
http://www.cosemindspring.com/Topics/Marketing/ Search%20Engine%20Marketing/ What%20is%20good%20percentage%20of%20new%20visitors%20to%20a %20website%20compared%20to%20returning%20visitors.aspx ... And that's an even better point than mine. Well done. Unfortunate results, but that's exactly what the HTML5 client can help change; so good thing to present. | |
And an HTML5 client will fix that?
Again, not complaining about the client. Still think that easier and better presentation(those two pages) and easier and better "teaching/guide" would help more. Toddab503, BYOND does not give stars for doing things like that, it seems. | |
Will this ever end? Nevermind, I'll just stop following the thread.
| |
You need to look at the platform to understand a multiplayer online games platform naturally wants a browser based client. The issue is you're not installing the game in question, here. You're installing the platform, in order to play a game. Your comparison for BYOND there, is to flash, or to the Java runtime environment.
It's taken flash 15 years and being bundled in browsers to manage their near ubiquitous availability. A ubiquity that's been broken by smartphones, and forced abandonment of flash as a platform for games dev.
Java still only manages ~80% availability on Windows, and it's backed by a company with a $45 billion equity, and it's taken them 10 years to reach that also. And again, has very poor traction for games development, comparatively speaking.
A HTML5 client brings BYOND games to smartphones. So it does what an ARM solution does. But in addition, it does what ARM can't. It removes the install requirement, it works on Macs, it works on Linux, it works on ANY HTML5 compliant browser.
This is the bit, that I don't understand, with the proposal of the ARM solution. You'd need to make 2 implementations. One for Android, one for iOS. Twice the work, for a smaller market than the HTML5 client offers. In what world does that make sense??
What is BYOND doing to make developers take into account features BYOND doesn't have (touch-screen interaction)? Is ... that what you're asking?