Game Develop as a WebApp : give us your feedback!


Game Develop is about to be adapted as a web app: the goal is to provide an application usable from any browser to create games, from small prototype to full and complete games.

This web version is an opportunity for designing a new user interface and features to create an application that meet your expectations. I need you to give me your feedback about what is the most important features in Game Develop that must be available in the web app in the first versions.
Technically, the web app will be based on the Game Develop codebase so there will be a 100% compatibility between the web app and the desktop one. :slight_smile: The first versions will be developed by a team of 3 persons including myself so as to have a first working application as soon as possible.

You can visit the page announcing the web app here :
Please do not hesitate to let your email address and some feedback so that we will let you know when something new will be available :slight_smile:

You can also retweet

I don’t think this is good idea. There are various security mechanisms built into browser that may make certain things impossible or not working on every browser. Such thing like copying/pasting, opening pop-up windows (which may be blocked either by ad blocking software or by browser itself if it can block pop-ups).

Also no one made game making software that works in browser and isn’t POS. There are few that try hard and almost got it right, but there’s always some little detail that prevents them from being (even moderate) success. I’m not saying it is not possible, (just look at my sig), it’s just that no one was able to pull it off properly.

Finally, I don’t think many developers are comfortable with storing all their code on some external server (that isn’t source control or backup) or having to store it in HTML5 cache that can be cleared accidentally when doing cleaning system with tools like CCleaner.

Because of all of those points, I seriously think it’s a waste of resources that could be put into developing desktop version or making HTML5 engine more useful. Also making Android/Mac port.

I have to agree. I never liked web apps for development. I just cant take them seriously.

The only advantage of it being on the web really is the updating/installing.
Also it will remove the need for you to compile it to different platforms.

There are far too many disadvantages. I dont want my work to be stored at some server.
I dont want my tools to be stored on a server either. I need to be able to work offline.

Every time I hear a web app, I think of somebody trying to tie me to their unpredictable market model. Forcing unwanted changes and updates down my throat.

When you are developing a game, tool updates can cause severe problems.

If you release the web app as some online service, you can count me out. I will not use it to make anything serious. It will be just a cool tool to try and abandon.

It’s one of the reasons I like open source software. I feel like I own the tools. Than makes me want to fund them or buy them.
If they are on a server, i dont own them. Just rent them, until their server one day dies.
On the topic of developing games on a clunky ipad touch display - just horrible :smiley: I want to make games for the thing, not make games on the thing.

I don’t know about Web Apps, so excuse me if the question is very s****d… Would be possible to make a GD version that you can download, but runs in browsers, instead this version that requires internet?. This version would be immediately “multiplatform”, and everybody shouldn’t find it dangerous for their (and their projects) privacity :neutral_face:

No need to open popup, all web app works without using them :slight_smile:

It’s quite simple to check if “Ctrl+C” or “Ctrl+V” (and contextual menu can be displayed, just make a right click in Google Maps). And support for the clipboard is coming in browser thanks to the W3C efforts (

There are more than one way of storing data “on the cloud” today: Recent web app now allow to either save the document on the server, download the project file, or even store it to an external service like Dropbox or Google Drive, allowing to easily share it in a team for example.

I wasn’t a big fan of Web App as you guys, but they are becoming more present and have lots of advantages:
-No installation, just open the website.
-Automatic upgrade, no need to wait for a bug fix.
-Same things for new features: Any new feature could be added without an upgrade.
-Works everywhere including new devices and new OS coming in the next years.
-Packaging, distributing and marketing a web app is easier than an “old fashioned” application.
-Some applications that you may be using on your desktop are “web app” packaged as desktop applications.
-With a HTML5 application it’s easy to integrate feature like sharing piece of events, scenes, objects… between users. This could create a nice emulation between people (just like in that enable collaborative creation)

Again, I understand the drawbacks that you presented concerning the required internet connexion or privacy concerns.
But for example, in the last week I used Google Doc (webapp) to create document with other people, Gliffy (webapp) to create diagrams online, Intel XDK (which use node.js) to export HTML5 app to android, another web app to create online diagram (that can be stored on my Google Drive or downloaded). Lots of people prefer using a web app for their email, and there are even text editors for programmers that are being developed using HTML5 (See for example). And just now I can see a friend of mine using a web app to write a report using More and more people listen music only by using web applications like Grooveshark.

Basically no. The current interface is created using wxWidgets which is exclusively for interfaces for windows/linux/macos. The WebApp will have a brand new interface created using HTML5 and Javascript.

Again, I understand you are worried because you guys are intensive users of the current desktop version of Game Develop and you do not want it to be abandoned. But remember that the new web app is based on GD codebase so any new feature will be added to both versions.
Having a web app doesn’t necessarily mean that privacy is broken or that you need internet connexion: lots of efforts are made by browsers implementors and committees like the W3C to enable HTML5 apps to be used anywhere with files opened directly from the user hard drive.

When the HTML5 app will be as powerful as the desktop one, it could even be packaged as a native application so that it can be downloaded and used without internet connexion.

Again, think of this web app as a HTML5 app: the kind of application that will surely be present everywhere in a few years (even Windows 8 promote the use of their Javascript API to create applications). There is a technological shift and I cannot miss it.

The current desktop version of Game Develop is nice but not popular enough alas so I can live with it. So I cannot miss the opportunity of creating a HTML5 version of it, with all the feature coming from what the user ask me and nothing more. It’s an interesting technical challenge and a way to center this new version of GD on what is really important for users (more objects, more automatisms, API to send scores to twitter/facebook/kongregate…) thanks to a fast development cycle. Typically, we can imagine adding a new feature each week based on the users feedback and how the app is used! :slight_smile:

Personally I’m not a big fan of web tools, simply because of the storage (size, security, price) and the fact, internet connection is required to use them and also, I feel limited the ones I have tried before simply because of the browser.
At the moment I’m not interested to make games or any app in my browser, you should ask the Chromium OS community I guess.

Only a question.
Why you don’t implement all the missing features and improve the existing ones instead of port the whole thing to the web and make something we already have only in a different environment? You should perfect the one you already have especially if you have already a team to work on GD.

There is tons of things you should fix, improve and implement before you start to move on such a project.
For example, pathfinding. I’m crying because of pathfinding since I’m using GD. The new version even worst than the old version because it not accurately bypass the obstacles. I suggested to you to remake the pathfinding example using the new system and find the bugs that way. And what have you done??? Removed all the obstacles from the example instead of fix the problem LOL! :laughing: :angry:
And now you want to port the whole thing to the web. :confused:
And you want to add new feature each week :smiling_imp:

Are you sure about that you CAN do it right with the web version, you CAN improve it if needed, you CAN maintain it, and you can support BOTH the native and the web version and not going to be waste of time and resources by the end of the day?
There is already some promising web game maker tools, even programming tools on the web, you should make something really special and polished. Do you think GD on the web would be special? I would say yes if I would be happy with all the features of the native version but I’m not.

Some of as (including me) asked for categories and directories in the object editor very long time ago, that would make a lot more sense to be implement finally instead of making a web version of the whole thing especially when you have a team of 2 devs to work on GD and improve it all the way. Or the other 2 dev would work on the Web version mainly because they expect some money from premium storage, maybe one of them would be the host of the storage? It would not be surprising :imp:

Otherwise I’m agree, web development and deployment (can be) the future with all the advantages you have listed, but I’m not sure if it the right time for you and GD to jump in to the pool, mainly because there is no high demand for such a tool at the moment, but there are some nice tools already. I’m afraid a web version would only immersed in the huge empty pool, and when a real demand arrives, the pool start to be populated, something more professional will take the spotlight away. Except you can make something real unique and polished. Can you?
An event based game development tool on the web would be unique to leave a mark?
I’m not sure, sounds good, but you really need to be dedicated to delivery a polished and professional experience on the web (each week :smiling_imp: ).

Yeah, that is what I was talking about. If it is possible nobody would have negative comments :slight_smile:

Remember that both of these issues could be addressed as local storage API are being developed from browser and some kind of offline version could be packaged (using technologies like webkit-nodejs).

I’ve done my best to implement missing features and improve the existing ones for 6 years.

I do not understand :confused: The pathfinding is working when I test it, the tank is avoiding the obstacle as planned. And I didn’t removed the obstacles! Again, please open the Pathfinding example from the latest version and let me know if it does not work… Be sure that you’re testing the pathfinding on the example file bundled with the latest version because with the new pathfinding automatism, obstacles have to be marked as such using a new automatism.
So please do not judge me too hard about this pathfinding problem, I’m sure it works, maybe there is something missing in the file you’re testing.

A web app can be updated more frequently than a traditional app: Bug fixes can be brought to you in a matter of hours, and any time a new extension is available it can be used directly.
The first version won’t obviously be as complete as the current desktop application, but more and more features will be added to address the most urgent needs of users.
It won’t be huge features each week but it’s better than waiting months.

Others developers are student like me for now. We’re thinking about launching a startup if the web app is successful enough.
If it does not work, I’ll go back to maintaining GD as I do for now.

That’s why I setup this page to see if there are people interesting in the web app and what are their needs.

Note that the same exact sentence could be used as an argument for the desktop version: :slight_smile:
An event based game development tool on Windows or Linux would be unique to leave a mark?
I’m not sure, sounds good, but you really need to be dedicated to delivery a polished and professional experience on these platforms (each week :smiling_imp: ).

I understand, but you speak from your point of view. Are there more people willing to download and install a software to create games (with categories and directories in the object editor) as now or are there more people willing to just go on a website and start in a few second editing a game, and possibly sharing it and browsing other people games in one click, and even collaborate on the same game?

Game Develop is a nice piece of software currently but it does not have the recognition it should have. According to the indiegogo campaign, it seems that even current users of GD are reluctant to give a few dollars to support the development of the current version.
What should I do? Continue to develop a software that didn’t get enough support (in my view) even after 6 years of development? I will continue to develop GD, that’s not the issue of this thread. But I must try something new, and a web application offer new perspective : easy sharing of objects/events/scenes, organizing “Game jams” directly inside the application, maybe integrating the forum inside the application, encouraging people to read and contribute to the wiki.
The web application would be a way to build a community around Game Develop which is larger than the current one.

If something more professional will take the spotlight one day, then why should I wait? I should better hurry up so that a nice polished piece of web app is available before anyone else provide an alternative and before everybody get tired of the old fashioned native desktop application that only work on Windows.

I’m sure that next year there will be a nice game creation application available on the web, everybody will be using it to prototype or create complete games that will be then shared on Kongregate and Facebook, with a store asset and a nice interface. And I want this application to be Game Develop, not another (new or existing) tool. :slight_smile:

By the way, could you send me links to web game maker or things like that so that I can see how it looks? :slight_smile:

Exactly my thoughts. And no,

is not a proper answer. You could assign those two friends of you to add features to GD. And updating it every week is sick idea. Maybe it is good for games, but for app like this too many things would change, too fast. Solid release every month is best idea IMO.

Remember that most recognized game making tools are desktop apps.

Game maker? Desktop app
Construct (both classic and 2)? Desktop app.
Stencyl? Well, it’s Java, but for desktop, not applet.
Clickteam’s products? Desktop apps.

As for recognition issue, sorry for saying this, I already regret it because I don’t want to make you sad or angry, but you dropped ball here. Here’s list of mistakes you made

  • “optional” GD credit. You should require people to acknowledge game was made with GD, at least in beginning phase. When tool would be recognized, you could easily make giving credit optional
  • Lack of social media presence. GD has Twitter for how long? 3 months? You should do that much, much earlier.
  • Lack of availability on third-party software sites, like CNET, Tucows, etc.
  • Lack of marketing to game magazines/software magazines that have DVD included with each issue. Especially international ones such as PC World. GD should be making rounds on CDs/DVDs included with those magazines long time ago.

If you wouldn’t make above mistakes, GD would have recognition it deserves by now, I can guarantee it as you made solid program that can safely compete with Construct, Stencyl and similar software.

Not sure it would have been so useful, Construct 2 do not impose it on its users. And admit it, you would have hated me for forcing you to do so. :slight_smile:

Note that Game Develop is on CNET: … 79705.html

Sure, I agree.

Take it easy, it was more an example than a fixed schedule, but the fact is that we can deliver releases earlier and often.

I know, and that’s also why it is so interesting to make a web app, because no competitors offer a lightweight but rock solid web application, and such a web application could bring new features that are never present in desktop applications (as I said before, sharing part of a game, collaboration between users…).
(Also, remember that when Construct 2 was started, most recognized game making tools were producing native games and not HTML5 games. Now HTML5 games can be exported and used from anywhere and they made without any doubt the right choice.)

Maybe. Remember that I developed GD for fun these last years and so I didn’t spent my time doing much marketing because I thought community will do it by itself. Anyway I want to continue to have fun when developing GD, but I can’t if I do not find a way to make GD more successful.
Any idea to do so? :slight_smile: Note that adding feature may seems a good idea but I’ve kept doing this since GD was born and I’m sure that even a version of GD with a lot less features could be more successful than the current version. (Remember the first versions of Construct)

Creating a web app that is based on the same codebase as Game Develop allow to start a new product with a rock solid foundation that could be marketed better.
Even photo editors are going web app now! (
Even Microsoft is going web app with its Office suite because they realize that Google Doc or Prezi ( are becoming dangerous threat for them, even if Office is more complete and a looooooot more powerful.

How about this. Go on with this completely new and different web app model that everyone here is disliking, however completely open source the current native one- similarily to how construct made the shift to construct2. This will allow you to try two strategies at once. Right now you are putting all of your eggs into one basket. The basket that alienates a big group of game developers.

I am not kidding when saying that making this a web service will have me completely abandon it. :smiley:
I know about many other web services like the one you are going for and their content lock with the service is the reason I am not using them.
I have never heard of a commercially successful indie game ever gotten made with any of them. This should make you wonder why.

If you look at the majority of really popular indie game engines being used currently- none of them is a web service. Unity, Multimedia fusion, game maker and Construct 2 all have a huge following and are being used for making actual games that sell on steam,kickstarter and desura.

Gamedevelop is currently not being used seriously, because it is not yet capable of competing with them. It has poorer documentation, less stability and less features.

If you allow us to store our files locally and even download the webapp to use offline- then maybe I would be interested in it as a whole. I understand the advantages, but am not buying into the need to get the disadvantages for us too.

Until you make it a competitive product, I will continue to use the others. Going for a complete rewrite of the interface will set you back a few years, while your competition continues to invest resources into improving their engines and grow in number of capable users.

Your strategy is terrible looking at it from a marketing point of view. It’s not what the users need or want. It’s what would make your life easier in the long term. But the fact stands- you are only one guy with a dream and some following. Not enough people are picking it up or make commercial games with it.

I tried it, it still has a lot of bugs.

Make it a web app, not a web service. Even google docs has an offline mode.
I may not want to back up my files at your server or pay you a fee if there are other backup providers that offer a better hosting. I hate subscriptions and if I am paying for a license, you better start deploying huge useful updates like the ones scirra devs are regularly adding with each release.

Who will pay for your bandwidth? This will make construct 2 a better bargain however you look at it. You buy the license cheaply there, and get free regular updates and new features.

Could you give me the links to them please? :slight_smile:

What people are picking up for so? Always more features?

Remember that I never spoke about a web service, but always about a web app. Or a HTML5 app.
So yes, if it is done it will be similar to google doc: An application that runs in the browser with collaborative features.

Construct2 did so (complete rewrite) and yet they are now more advanced than any other comparable product.
(But again, the web app is not a complete rewrite. All the core is based on GD being compiled to Javascript).
EDIT: And so the desktop app won’t be abandoned until the web app is powerful enough to replace it (and if it sucessful enough)

I’m already paying for the bandwidth of the website. The web app will need more bandwidth but remember it’s a web app so most of the work is done locally. :slight_smile:

so if your content is local, but it has collaborative features, why not look into making it a p2p app.

Open source Peer to peer technology is being used as we speak for setting up local services similar to dropbox: … fundraiser … opensource

it is being used for improving video streaming. It is being used for much more than file sharing.

apps I am talking about?

and plenty more - all crap among crap I wouldnt touch with a stick :unamused: … 1&ie=UTF-8

So please, dont be like them. Make your html5 app local- stored on the hard drive, but with (optional) invincible updates in the background- like chrome web browser.

Even steam client has offline mode.

When you call it a web app, people always expect a certain number of negative qualities associated with web apps. I would call it htm5 software instead.

I think the most important things missing from GD at the moment are:

Web platform: sfx support, music support, common api support, some physics is missing.

Overall: Lack of tutorials, some features missing.

I also think having more templates for other gametypes, e.g. Tower defence might be good. Can we make good templates and then you add them into the game releases?

Lack of tutorials: My internet is totally rubbish for a while, but when I’m in some place bigger with good internet, I will put up some more video tutorials (I travel each week with my work (circus) to many small places with bad internet).

Wat? I can play sfx/music in my HTML5 games quite well. Are you sure you are using actual browser and not browser that xplodes Internet?

Nope, I second this. I encounter the same sfx/music issues.
If you play one song all along, it works. But dribble with several bgm and sfx on multiple channels and all you get is a mess.
In my project, it feels like the sound buffer waits to be filled with sfx before accepting to read them. Meaning I get no sfx for a while and suddently all of them play in one go.

On the bgm side, the global sound volume is ignored (music plays at the same level, while sfx can be mute or increased). It also seems to suffer from the same buffer oddities from sfx: when I ask to mute a channel and increase another, to get a smooth fade-in/fade-out, I get nothing… until a few minutes later when I finally notice the change.

And it also seems that looping musics make it play in double: the same music replay itself but also play another version of itself, with slight delay (turning the whole into an incredible auditive mess after a few minutes).

Notice that all those issues don’t pop in the windows version, which works as intended.
Couldn’t test it in linux, since the export gives me an incomplete game directory (maybe half of the pictures are missing), preventing the game to generate any visual (black window with nothing in it).

The problem is that, there are many game engines and tools out there which already contain
all the features that GD can ever offer plus have huge community with many tutorials and examples.
I think, with pure features can’t make GD more popular at this point as there are already plenty nice features implemented in GD for free. Regarding features, the only thing could help if you can implement a feature that is make GD really unique at some point. How about 3D? At the moment there is no such 3D game engine that is using events. There are some that using logick bricks and such, but none of them using events the way as GD, GS, Construct, Clickteam. In my opinion an event based 2D, 3D game making tool would be very interesting. I don’t tell you here to implement a UDK or Unity quality 3D engine (at least not yet) and don’t even to make your own, in my opinion a 3D engine with basic features would do to start with, and there are some free 3D engines out there Directx, OpenGL, WebGL, also 3D physics engines. In my opinion 3D is something to worth to consider even if you port GD to the web, especially if you port GD to the web. A tool to make 2D and 3D games in your browser using events no coding required, can be very attractive and unique as of now there is no such tool in browser nor on desktop. Even tools that can be used for 2D and 3D is rare, normally they are separated tools under the same name or separated scene editors inside the tool. In GD, 2D and 3D scene editor can be integrated in one through layers. Every scene would be 3D basically, but If you create a 2D layer you can edit the scene on that specified layer only in 2D as is now and you could also use 3D objects but only place them in 2D space similar to boxes now, if you create a 3D layer, you can edit the scene on the specified layer in 3D normally means we can fly around inside a 3D space and place 3D objects…etc. This way we could also use 2D layer on the top of 3D layer (or vice versa) to make UI, map or a game inside a game for example, basically anything. I know, it would be awful lot of work to do, but something like this would be really exciting for me even in browser.

The other thing is the number of tutorials and examples and showcases.
When I was looking for a “way” to make games for the first time in my life, the first thing I was looking at (and sometime still),
is the examples shipped with the tools. The second thing I was looking at is the showcases and the third thing is the number of available tutorials and also the subject of the tutorials. In the first place I was choose which had more and better.
So even if you decide to port GD to the web, need tons of examples for everything you can imagine shipped with GD out of the box. Not only a few that demonstrate the core features of the tool, also need to cover as many subject as possible.
And the same for the tutorials, GD need tutorials not only how to do basic staff to get started, also how to make
certain things and games. If the community is not actively making tutorials and examples and showcase, you should.
With (and this is the key word here) many demonstrative tutorials, examples and showcases could convince people to give GD a try and use it for a bit and hopefully GD and the community can convince some of them to stay, grow the community and make GD more attractive by making even more examples, tutorials and showcases.

Really this is a symbiosis that GD need to achieve. Tutorials, examples, showcases make people interested, features make people to stay.
more people make more examples, tutorials and showcase which makes even more people to be interested and so on until make it
so popular such as Construct, Game Maker and Clickteam Fusion is today.

Also, a tech demo with good quality graphics and sound maybe could help. Not a complete game, but a nicely designed gameplay and level to play.

So whatever you do, implement 3D or not, make GD as webapp or not, you should push examples and tutorials at this point in my opinion.

Regarding the pathfinding what I’m saying is that, if the obstacles are too close to each other the pathfinding can’t find a
way between them even not if there are plenty of space.
If you still don’t understand what I mean, try this game and imagine the enemy tanks are using GD’s pathfinding system.
Battle City. … 44050a55d5

Note that, I don’t mean that to use your pathfinding system to make Battle City, this is only an example for spacing between obstacles.
As you can see, the space between the obstacles just as big as wide the tanks are. The pathfinding system in
GD can’t find a way between the obstacles in such case sometime even not if there are plenty space. If you lower the border, that can make the tank overlapping the obstacles.

gamedevelop should not become a web app/service.

It is currently not successful for a number of reasons:

  1. You are replicating features other software does better and cheaply. Construct2 license is cheap.
    If you wanna compete with them - Really compete - find their weak spots at this moment. For example game develop can do some 3d. They can not at the moment. No visual programing engine that exports to html5 can really do 3d at the moment.
    If you want to get ahead fast, work on webgl features- get static and animated meshes (with armature) to work in gamedevelop. :smiley:
    That would get it noticed by the competition’s user base.
    Work on the transition from a simple 2d game engine to a 3d one that can export a html5 file with webgl.

Blender recently got something similar:
however it does not support blender game engine logic yet.

Also look into the irricht open source 3d game engine:

It can do webgl. Its open source. Adopt it. Its there for the taking, among many others.
Commercial products such as coppercube are already using it btw:

to export html5 3d scenes.

and that is not even the only one. Tons of libraries

so many missed opportunities out there

  1. It’s not battle tested- not one commercial game under its wing. This means that it is full of bugs and flaws- at least that is what experienced indie developers would expect from an engine that doesnt have one complete game under its wing.
    A commercial game on steam or other market place is the best type of advertisement for an engine. Make one.
    This is what made blender successful. The blender foundation’s developers work together with the artists to create short films with it every year.
    This helps the software grow, it promotes it and also gathers funding for it’s development. You are making game demos on your own, they are not complete products. You are not really doing anything like what a foundation can do.

  2. It has only one active developer- you. Please open source it completely. That would get you noticed by a lot of developers. They will pick it up. If they dont, you are not really losing anything. To be honest, its more likely the engine will get ahead faster if you open source it and make a propert bug tracker- not just this forum :unamused: You are more likely to find more skilled partners on this, more likely to evolve the engine faster. I believe part of the success of construct’s developers is in the fact they started it as an open source engine.

Making it another web app service imo is not going to make it more successful. It would instead alienate the current users and take away resources for interface rewrite instead of filling in the blanks.

Nobody develops games on ipads. They develop them FOR ipads :smiley:
Also there already are a shit ton of web app online services already that have zero commercial games or credibility. Why you would want to join them is beyond me. You join them, I’m out :unamused:

PS: If you add the ability to have animated 3d characters in gamedevelop, I am gonna say it right out- I am willing to try and get a serious game going. Something like the old squaresoft games for example:

2d background that is absolutely beautiful, 3d animated characters/meshes on top. Invisible 3d movement plane and collision boxes.
That is all one really needs to create a cinematic experience.

For animated 3d character meshes you would need fbx import though.

I’m actually working on game with GD that would be released for Android (via CocoonJS) and perhaps on Kong as well. On Android it will be supported by ads and some IAP (nothing that throw balance off, ofc), on kong it’ll be probably free except for ad revenue.

Regarding commercial game / tech demo, how about an open community project?

EDIT:// opened a topic about this here: