[casual_games] future of shockwave

[BRENT SILBY]

> Personally, if you're looking to offer more than browser-based, dhtml  
> games then I'd recommend flash despite the fact that you may have to  
> rewrite a lot more code.

True, but I'm also looking ahead to the sidebar Gadgets for windows (http://microsoftgadgets.com/default.aspx). They are based on dhtml and offer a very quick small download way to run small applications on the desktop. Whatever I do, I think its in my best interest to continue to offer dhtml versions of the games. Recently I had my "Defense Unit" game converted to a widget for the mac. Widgets are very similar to the Gadgets. It took virtually no extra coding to get it to work since widgets are dhtml. Its quite popular too. It ranks 47th on the widget download list on apple.com :)

Flash is more difficult to port my games because it doesn't handle bitmaps (I know flash 8 does), and it doesn't have javascript compatibility. It would take a lot more work to port to flash for those reasons. Not worth the effort.

So, I think I'll test for shockwave. If the visitor does not have shockwave, I'll load the dhtml version of the game rather than directing them to the shockwave player download. Then again, I may be wasting my time.

Cheers,
Brent.
DEF-LOGIC
VIDEOGAMES
www.def-logic.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duncan Gough" <duncan at 3rdsense.com>
To: "IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List" <casual_games at igda.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [casual_games] future of shockwave


> Hello Brent,
> 
> If shockwave is a quick way for you to convert dhtml games then it is  
> probably worth the time and effort as it fits the criteria you've  
> outlined (browser incosistencies, downloadable versions). However,  
> looking ahead it does seem that flash is being given more attention  
> by Macromedia. The recent Actionscript 3.0 news certainly make it  
> sound that way:
> 
> http://labs.macromedia.com/wiki/index.php/ActionScript_3:overview
> 
> I'd also point you in the direction of the dirGames mailing list,  
> especially the start of a thread about Actionscript 3.0, here:
> 
> http://nuttybar.drama.uga.edu/pipermail/dirgames-l/2005-October/ 
> 036341.html
> 
> Personally, if you're looking to offer more than browser-based, dhtml  
> games then I'd recommend flash despite the fact that you may have to  
> rewrite a lot more code.
> 
> Of course, I can't wait to see what puzzle games you come up.
> 
> Duncan
> 
> --
> http://www.millionsofgames.com/members/suttree/
> 
> On 21 Oct 2005, at 20:12, BRENT SILBY wrote:
> 
>> Good morning,
>> We are converting some of our dhtml games to shockwave. The reason  
>> we chose shockwave is because it can handle javascript, so the  
>> conversion is reasonably straightforward--just requiring a  
>> reworking of image handling code etc.
>>
>> The purpose of the conversion is partly to overcome some browser  
>> consistency issues with dhtml and partly to open up new  
>> opportunities for licensing.
>>
>> My question is this: What is the future of shockwave? I think that  
>> it currently has about a 55% penetration (compared to 97% in  
>> flash). Is this figure predicted to remain static, or will it rise  
>> (or drop) over the coming years.
>>
>> I know its difficult to predict future trends, but if anyone can  
>> make a good guess, I'd be interested to know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brent Silby.
>> DEF-LOGIC
>> VIDEOGAMES
>> www.def-logic.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Casual_Games mailing list
>> Casual_Games at igda.org
>> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20051022/bf19d79b/attachment.html