WebGL distribution platforms (a letter to the CEO)

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.

Cheers, Wendelin

 

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 business, not the game portal business. I doubt this would happen. But you could always start your own...

 

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...

 

They already have implemented hardcoded constraints: http://codeflow.org/entries/2014/ju...-implementation/#hardcoded-constraints-on-ios

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.

 

None of those things make any difference here.

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.

 

I not understand your point, a webgl game can run in any web hosting service.

 

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.

 

I know it's not what you said, but this suggests to me that you're thinking microtransactions are the only way to go...

 

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...

 

Variety is the ultimate spice of life. Let those flavours loose.

 

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.

 

I think that Unity in general needs to look for new ways to expand since they've effectively dominated their niche in their market.

And distribution sounds like a good start.

Another good idea: a common asset library so that games could have tiny installs and load in browsers almost instantly. Also, more devs could get the assets they need, while artist could get steady work.

 

I'm also hoping for good ol' traditional buy once models.

 

I haven't paid much attention to browser based development, but I thought facebook had a big portal for webgl games? If not the most popular? I realize zynga and others started their own sites, did that kill facebook's platform?

I'm open minded, unity wasn't in the ads business yet they opened an ads platform. And didn't they start some game services that are coming out soon? Like backend scoreboards and crap?

 

Here's EXACTLY what I would do.

Create a distribution company similar to Steam that would provide anti-cheat software, game servers, reviews, and all that mess. But it would offer stand alone launcher, a website with web games, and streaming games.

Then I would create multiple ways for devs to monetize and allow them to chose which ones they use:
-Purchase
-Ads (banner, images, and videos)
-Universal game currency
-Universal Subscription (About $10)
-Universal Premium Subscription (About $10)

Universal game currency would be purchased through the distribution company and redeemed in game. At the same time the company could trinkle out some currency to get people to try it out by giving out a fixed amount with subscriptions or having them earn some coins from earning trophies/achievements. All the while the points should have a set cash value that the devs get in return (something like 1000 points to $1) and allow the devs to chose how many points they sell their items for.

Subscriptions would be divided among developers based on time played: So if a guy pays $10 and plays 3 hours of X Game and 1 hour of Y Game, X Game would get $7.50 and Y Game would get $2.50.

Then premium would need to act seperately from game devs to offer their own features such as turning off all ads, getting premium game severs (such as MMO's or hosted games), early access, and so on.

I would make sure to offer a range of ways to keep the market circulating such as offering a range of catagories to browse like "Top sellers", "Featured", "Top Rated", "Trending", "Newest Games", "Try it first!", and "Random". Oh, and maybe offer trophies for being the first to try a game or trying new games.

And finally I would require a $100 to $500 annual fee per game for gate-keeping (That is, stop the market from flooding) and/or charge by the byte for downloading games.

This is what the video game market needs.

EDIT: Oh, and if it wasn't clear, I was saying that subscriptions would only be required for games that opt to reuire them. And the one subscription would be for all subscription games.

 

Universal game currency - at first sight, this strikes me as a pretty brilliant idea! But I'm not a monetization expert and haven't thought this trough. One potential problem is that a UGC would need to have a fixed conversion rate to real money, which means that games using it have to be specifically balanced towards it. Meaning a certain lock-in for developers, which might require some convincing (I don't know).

Dont have an opinion on your other ideas. Something I'd like to see are the extensive review/recommendation/crossreferencing/community/social engagement features on Steam that are so horribly absent from the App Stores. In my view, the new Steam has basically solved discovery.

 

This would be an interesting project. Would love to work on it. 10years enterprise web coding, but no monetization background.

 

I expect Steam to do it themselves once WebGL becomes popular. Streaming support over networks is already present.

http://store.steampowered.com/streaming/

 

Reading html5 gamedev sites it seems like almost anyone in it making money does it by selling their games to publishers who put them on their own portals. I don't think serious html5 devs are trying to make their money on sites like kongegrate.