What Adobe’s new pricing for Flash means for social game developers | Hacker News Reader

What Adobe’s new pricing for Flash means for social game developers

brianrue.wordpress.com

61 pointsbrianr59 comments

We recently started using the Unity3D plugin in addition to Flash. We considered packaging Unity in Flash, but there are some missing features so we went straight for the plugin.

Our site is for 8-12 year old kids, so it's not the most technical audience. The Unity plugin installs in a few seconds without requiring admin rights--even most computers under corporate lockdown can install it. We've had a total of one customer service complaint, which was resolved with a little explanation.

In conclusion, just for 3D content just forget flash and go straight to the Unity plugin.

"The Unity Web Player is not currently compatible with the operating system that you appear to be using."

Linux (Mint 12 / Ubuntu 11.10)

Frankly, even if the plugin is available, IMO the GPU drivers are so unreliable that it would be a hell to support and work around all the different bugs for such a limited audience, and I'm writing that on OpenSUSE 12.1 developing in gVim and experiencing random Gnome Shell crashes every 30-60 minutes (shell just shows background image then comes up in 2-3 secs) on ATI drivers. Opensource drivers are stable but have terrible performance with 3D. So even if it runs I don't expect it to be usable on my PC.

That's been my experience with the ATI drivers myself. Nvidia is far far better, but you can't exactly change a laptop graphics chip. I'm using the open source ones just so that I've got a usable system.

Unity does have an experimental plugin for Linux systems, running on NaCl. It's fairly functional, provided your graphics drivers play nice. I definitely wouldn't recommend it for Facebook games, but for teenaged kids it may well suffice.

As far as I know there's no way for anything written in ActionScript to use ApplicationDomain.domainMemory, so this really does only apply to C/C++/Unity games targeting the Flash runtime (something that's not even possible yet). It wouldn't affect any game currently on Kongregate as far as I know.

Still not a good sign though. If you've got great developer tools, then charge for the tools!

The funny thing is that Adobe does charge for the tools. Flash Professional retails for $700!

https://www.adobe.com/products/flex.html <- free. All the other tools can be found for free too, specific swf packaging, etc. But now it is down to sprite sheets so...

Very true. The SDK is free, but it's not like you're getting XCode or Visual Studio with that download. Their IDE (based on Eclipse, right?) is $500.

The flex IDE is based on Eclipse and it's awful to use

FlashDevelop and Flex work out fine for some people. Let us not allow one IDE to spoil all the fun out of something.

There's also FlashDevelop which is free/opensource, and then there's commercial, cheaper alternatives like FDT.

I think the last time I was this angry about a software pricing scheme it was when movable type started charging — that really pushed a generation of folks into the wordpress camp for good. my bet is that we could be watching the decline of adobe. and not for nothing for you folks looking to start a business the entire adobe product line is waiting to be disrupted — the time may be right for a Photoshop or an InDesign killer. The entire CS line is bloatware at this point...

Why do we need a Photoshop or InDesign killer? I have never heard any designers complain about Photoshop, or any of the top Adobe products (Illustrator, InDesign, Fireworks) for that matter. Flash is definitely on it's way out, but Adobe isn't going anywhere.

As a graphic designer with many designer colleagues & friends, I can tell you that we complain bitterly about Adobe software.

Since they purchased Macromedia, their tools have stagnated in features and yet somehow managed to get slower. That, plus their high price is reason enough to hope for a viable competitor.

It'll matter in a few years when Photoshop is only available as part of the Creative Suite subscription plan.

How would that even work? How would they charge a share of revenue for the use of the runtime? From both technical and legal sides?

I actually think it would be a huge hassle for development; it would cost more than those 9%: increased cost of development, less skilled developers, disasters when the complicated scheme doesn't work, sales ping-pong expensive in both time and money.

I think would especially hurt overseas developers (think Asia).

Over the net, any process that requires approval from both sides (a contract perhaps) goes hundred times slower than process that doesn't (the current distribution of flash player and tooling doesn't). Increasing the distance, in form of borders, cultural difference and raw miles, slows it down even more. And certainly Adobe would hurt their potential partners by understanding their business poorly and trying to apply the same set of expectations worldwide.

It seriously would not fly. Bye bye flash.

Also it seriously would not work: Take google street view. It obviously does want the advanced 3D rendering. But what do they have to pay Adobe? Street view itself displays no ads (does it?) but it boosts the Maps which do generate revenue, but they also boost Search which generates a lot of money. What would that 9% be calculated from? Would there be a long ping pong session between Adobe sales and the customer? How long before the customer (google in this case) decides SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME?

Now, imagine it's not google but some local player (think DAUM) Adobe would naturally react to their queries as if they were some indigenous people calling. They would for no second care what's they up to. They'll cite some entirely unrealistic demands and then lose their mail; it would not end up good.

No, they would only have to pay if they used 3D rendering AND "domainMemory". I don't even think domainMemory is available for access in regular AS3 unless Adobe recently opened that up (I know Alchemy C++ and Haxe can use it). For something like Street View using domainMemory would likely give no appreciable performance gain, since StreetView would use just a few unchanging textures and vertices which would already be handled efficiently by stage3D.

The fact that they are charging only if 3D is used in conjunction with domainMemory really limits the kinds of apps that would be subject to this revenue sharing--although it's true that memory intensive games would likely want both of these features.

Thanks for clarification; I've missed "both".

I'm not sure 3D graphics is a key for social games. And more serious games like MMORPG usually have no trouble making players install a dedicated client program.

It's just me or they are targetting a pretty narrow market here?

IE 10 touch and iOS won't work with Flash anyway, so I would hope social game developers are at least looking at HTML5 for their next projects.

I sometimes wonder why their isn't a cross platform "game browser"? It seems one of the cross platform game engines could do a much better job than flash. Adoption is a problem, but people seem to be able to download a lot of apps these days.

A big reason that Flash still wins for game development is that audio support sucks in HTML5 and silent games are no fun. An example - Mobile Safari only lets you play sound on one channel.

Unity had better audio support than Flash (3D positioned audio right out of the box).

HTML5 may get there someday, but Unity is already there now.

Flash is also anywhere from 2 to 3 times faster then html5+javascript for high performance games.

I'll take that as a given, but that isn't the whole story anymore. A PS/3 has better performance than Flash, but it is harder to program for, harder to distribute on, and has a much smaller market share. Flash has been losing market share for a while, and now the cost of distribution is going to be an issue. The likely successor is HTML5 (at least for browser market share). It is not as performant and the tools are not as good, but its what we got unless someone does something interesting and radical.

Flash isn't harder to program for or distribute on. It's so easy to build in kids make games, and it's so easy to distribute since they're a single self-contained file that those kids can make games that get country-sized volumes of traffic playing them.

I said programming & distribution on the PS/3 are harder than Flash.

You cannot possibly put HTML5, mostly three.js at this time (thank you Mr Doob, you rock Sir), at the same level as what Flash is able to do on a browser or what Flex is able to do on mobile. It is also not supported in some present browsers. Neither targets "social gaming" at all. Adobe is doing HD specs at 60 fps, full GPU render support. What other cross plat does this in the browser at this point and what other cross plat that does this aims at social game developers even? HTML 5 does a better job at what ? 8 bit looking socket based casual games and full 3D are not the same thing. IE 10 is lining up to miss on browser level AAA looking games and iOS prefers to determine the "future" where it is able to vote, none of this brings hardcore gamers in no matter how anyone may want to present it. Look at the triple A titles that sell, look at what Abode is doing, then look at what three.js does, does it look like social gaming to you ? Let's be realistic and not just play along to a party line. In the process lets also not build up casual gaming to be something that it is not, some sort of made up standard for what gaming should be just because it is of interest to push for specific tech at a specific point in time. It is getting old already.

I actually do not think HTML5 is a replacement for Flash (thus my second paragraph). Regardless of the utility and capability of Flash, it is no longer a universal platform. Since it is losing market share (browser with flash / browsers without), I would assume people in the social gaming area are starting to look at other platforms with HTML5 having the largest market share.

"...it is no longer a universal platform." Was it ever ? Media diffusion is not something anyone should disregard depending on brand. Present penetration numbers are still impressive unless you have other data. That creates a blind spot in the rear view mirror for someone wanting to isolate social gaming in a area where only one technology is enough, sometimes even the only one that is "acceptable".

Let us see how people like Mr Doob push javascript and the progress that comes in adopting easier render pipelines, it is promissing at this point. maybe everyone is going to want to have the next V8. Maybe webkit, html5 and canvas3D are going to have to get along in the end because social gaming is not part of a area but it exists in a place with some irregular border lines. Maybe some big engine comes and saves the day.

"...it is no longer a universal platform." Was it ever ?

When the PC had 99%+ of the web browsing traffic, it pretty much was as close as anyone has got to a universal platform.

>What other cross plat does this in the browser

Unity, and it does a far better job at it.

You do post from Unity to Flash now and starting a game with Flash and making the Unity plugin a must download for the rest of the game is the sort of thing that Adobe wants to secure a profit in. Unity posts to Flash. Sure, why not. Unity is a great tool but Flash is better at end file size, user penetration and web site integration.

I'm an Adobe Flash fanboy, but even I'm starting to become pro HTML5 for rich media. I can't understand why Adobe is making these decisions when they're competing with an upcoming technology that has a such large & growing fanbase.

This 9% completely changes the distribution model. Previously when you made a swf, it's yours to keep and do as you want. You paid for the tools to make it, in the same way you pay for a hammer. Now you're being charged for running the swf in certain ways, which will make policing it hard, scare off new developers and cause pointless lawsuits.

"I can't understand why Adobe is making these decisions when they're competing with an upcoming technology that has a such large & growing fanbase."

I think Adobe is currently a divided company. Part of it want to remain with Flash and view HTML5 as a competitior, while the other part is into HTML5 and see it as the future. Adobe makes their money from development tools, after all. The technology used to present the content is less important as long as people use their tools, even if Flash player gave them a sort-of monopoly on it's creation.

I don't see a division between Flash & HTML. I see it as a division between their legacy as a creative platform vs. their focus on enterprise SaaS.

I see it as a bunch of MBAs hearing of Facebook's user base, Zynga's Flash games, and Apple's app store revenue and being driven mad with jealousy and using the term "uncaptured revenue" to convince themselves that this course of action is right.

Of course that's silly and I'm revealing my biases here a little, but sometimes this degree of cynicism turns out to be right.

A lot of times.

>I can't understand why Adobe is making these decisions when they're competing with an upcoming technology that has a such large & growing fanbase.

Milking it while there's still something to milk?

Adobe just figured out a new scheme to make themselves even less appealing. Bravo.

I wonder how long Oracle is going to be able to hold themselves back from doing the same to Java?

Get your first 10 JPanel()'s free!

The author does point this out, but it might not be clear to everyone...

"Games and applications using either hardware accelerated Stage3D or domain memory individually do NOT require a premium features license."

So if you're just using Stage3D you're fine.

Also...

"Net revenue is calculated as revenue after taxes, payment processing fees, and social network platform fees are subtracted."

Personally I don't think taking a percentage of sales is a bad thing considering the R&D that Adobe have continued to invest in Flash. Having said that I think 9% is a ridiculously high percentage.

Flash is getting less and less useful for web-browser development. Javascript + HTML5 is so much better.

I think that was always the natural order for it. Only some special commercial/marketing projects called for Flash. You ended up with menus made in Flash at some point for no other reason than an actionscript coder got the job... it happens. Web-browsing and rich content got mixed back there... let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Before we start another huge chain of people saying this is the death of Flash because all the developers will leave the platform due to revenue sharing, please read what the requirements actually are. This will only apply to very specific apps and developers. Unless you are planning to use Unity or UnrealEngine in Flash, this will most likely not apply to you.

Right now it applies to very specific apps and developers. Tomorrow, if this model shakes out favorably to Adobe, it may not. The frog boils slowly.

This is not particularly enlightening. Any number of things are possible. It was possible for Adobe to institute unreasonable pricing terms before this announcement too.

EDIT: Uh-oh, somebody downvoted this. Quite worrisome, because right now it only applies to my comment, but tomorrow, it may not. Right? Because apparently one data point constitutes a trend.

well, now there's less doubt about it for one thing.

Exactly. They could ask for all tech to be covered, not just the two in question.

They could have done it five years ago too. And you could shoot your grandmother tomorrow. We can play the "So-and-so could potentially do X" game forever. There is an almost infinite range of possibilities in the universe. Pointing out mere possibility is uninteresting at best and deceptive at worst.

Pointing this out in thread gets upvotes, in another thread it gets downvotes.

Downvotes for pointing out the facts of the issue at hand. Classy.

while this move by Adobe looks bizarre, I'm worried about the random numbers thrown up in the paragraph about revenue. He's claiming it takes $2.50 to acquire a user, leaving $0.50 for everything else (development, support, hosting, etc).

Am I missing something, or does he really spend 5/6ths of his income on marketing his product?

How else could a software developer like Zynga with record revenue (up 59% to $311M) take a loss?

http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/14/zynga-earnings/

Reading statements like this

"And average daily bookings per average DAU increased from $0.055 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to $0.061 in the fourth quarter of 2011, up 11%

makes the new 9% of net demanded by Adobe sound absolutely outrageous.

Your link says the loss includes "$510 million of stock-based compensation expense for restricted stock units issued to employees" - that's not marketing.

Good point, that must be it. It seemed consistent with something I remember reading last year where they had made some implausibly small profit. For example, the article says:

Non-GAAP EPS was $0.05 for the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to $0.09 for the fourth quarter of 2010.

I think what this really proves is that I don't understand GAAP or SEC accounting and things look especially mysterious to me around the time of an IPO.

Thanks for pointing that out.

As I don't speak much in the way of financespeak, that was about all I could understand from the link anyway :) "Non-GAAP EPS" doesn't ring any bells to me... it just reminds me of whatever acronym-of-the-year my last company would use to 'prove' we weren't making a loss.

From what I understand at this point, Adobe’s decision seems to want to nail Unity by confusing its developers when it comes to the new licensing scheme. It is very important for Unity to (over)explain the terms.

The cases where the new terms will apply seem to apply primarily to paid flash-based games. The problem is: who does pay for flash games? These games are not on mobile devices and on my browser I have never felt the need to purchase a Flash-based game.

So, to me, it looks more like a scare tactic aimed at Unity’s developers. This will protect the development tools that Adobe is selling. Let’s be frank: you either provide the tools for free and charge for the distribution (the Apple way)or you charge for the tools and provide the runtime/distribution for free (the Adobe way). It might be a generalization, but the gist is there. Is Adobe planning to give the tools for free? I am sure as hell they’re not. So, we should start complaiing that Adobe is not open and that they are imposing unfair controls on developers. (Does it ring a bell? – Adobe vs Apple)

People using the likes of Unity or UDK to create Flash games would not need the Flash tools. Adobe's Flash division simply does not sell tools to create the kind of content that requires 'advanced 3D' features. It therefore makes sense to expand their business model to include their most successful product (the Flash runtime).

I think it's absolutely fine for them to try that, but going for royalties rather than a fixed fee may just blow up in their face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com