Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnyanmac | Hacker News Reader

It functioned (barely, but still functioned), had a lot of support, and had a lot of answers around the inevitable jank. For a game engine, these put it above 90% of other engines.

Having console support alone puts it in the top 1%.

View on HN

Dragon Ruby, Haxe (Heaps, OpenFL, ...), Game Maker and I am sure thousands of other smaller engines most never heard of have native console support. The first 2 examples even without huge extra costs.

>native console support

that's a lot narrower than you think, I wouldn't even put it in the dozens. Maybe a few dozen if we include all the in-house proprietary engines. Being easy to port to console =/= native console support.

But yes, a few dozen out of hundreds of engines is the 99th percentile.

Yes, but that list becomes much shorter when you're making 3D games.

native console support does not just mean compiling to console architectures

Also plenty of tutorials and introductions to the various features.

Unfortunately, Unity tends to break things often, so many of these tutorials are obsolete. But yes, it's a lot of tutorials and it's always possible to find the one you need.

For most indie games I feel like three.js + css + JavaScript would be so much better for both developer and user (no steam install just go to a website)

Steam install is valuable way to monetize/promote.

If they only care about 2011 (WebGL) or 2015 (WebGPU) hardware, sure.

Still waiting to see a WebGL game that matches Infinity Blade, released in 2011 alongside iPhone 3G and iPhone 4.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvPIhCd8N4

Meaning, those graphic API are able to deliver at least PS 3 graphics, yet due to browser support, specially the way browsers blacklist drivers, download sizes, and lack of tooling on par with native, very few professional developers bother, hence streaming.

I am talking about things like puzzle games, board games, etc. There was one digital board game I used to play with my friends, it was such a simple game I probably could have built it in 2 days in JavaScript, but they developed it in unity…one ~60 minute game would heat up my laptop like I had put it in the microwave and completely drain the battery from 100%. For a board game with no fancy graphics. My friends all had the same problem. If someone were traveling, we couldn’t play because that person wouldn’t want to drain their whole battery for it. I have no idea if that was specific to the developer of that one game but my friend who plays a lot more games than I do said it’s just the unity engine doing that.

That is a very tiny fraction of the game market.

It is such a better developer experience. My unfinished Three.js game[0] was on Unity a few years ago, but that became unbearable. The modern web platform is too new, it hasn't proven itself to big money, so it's going to be indie games first.

To answer sibling comments: Graphics aren't a limiting factor for indie games. And a Three.js game can be put onto Steam, I'm pretty sure.

0: earth.suncapped.com

It is a ton easier to make a game in unity than in these (having done both multiple times). And a lot easier to get artists and designers to work inside unity than with three.js.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com