Torque 3D Web Publishing and InstantAction Technology Explained
by Brett Seyler · 01/22/2009 (3:31 pm) · 49 comments
Since we launched the new site, the InstantAction Technology page has gotten a lot of traffic, and that's a good thing. There does seem to be some confusion though, about the distinction between InstantAction Technology and web publishing for Torque 3D. I want to explain that here.
First off, here's what I'm talking about:
On the new GarageGames.com, we have some intra-company navigation that you'll find at the top center. There's GarageGames of course, InstantAction.com, and a new page for InstantAction Technology.
Clicking here...
Takes you here...
So what's this all about and what does IA Tech (my shorthand for now) have to do with Torque 3D Web Publishing? IA Tech is actually very different. It's entirely independent of Torque with a fully API and remote test harness we use with developers creating titles for InstantAction.com. In addition to browser rendering, it also provides a number of features abstracted from Torque (or whatever game technology is chosen). These include:
1. Abstracted networking support for lobbies, matchmaking, NAT traversal, encryption, and lots more.
2. Shareable, one-click URL game session joining.
3. Group lobby system enabling game-to-game switching while preserving the group or "party"
4. Active streaming...we chunk game assets and data and stream them down to the user as they are needed.
5. No download, no install.
6. Web / game hybridization. This means we have three-way communication between front-end web components (in html, ajax, flash, etc.), the game, and back-end web services or "cloud" features. This allows us to render menus and other stuff that has no business being done in a game engine using html. It also lets us record and store stats, enable in-game chat, and produce leaderboards or feeds that can simulcast out to anywhere on the web (player badges, Facebook apps, etc.)
There are literally dozens of these component features that extend the idea of "your game in a browser" well beyond what you can do with Flash, Unity, or any other web publishing technology.
So why the distinction? It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer IA Tech for mass productization / distribution. It's all powered by a super-lightweight plugin (~150kb in FireFox) that uses a signed certificate by InstantAction. That means we're on the hook for whatever happens on a client machine using this plugin tech. The only way we're comfortable doing this is if we know exactly what's going on there. That is, we need to know, for certain, what instructions are being sent to the client's machine and what is being downloaded. If we're operating a managed portfolio of games under our QA and review, we have certain knowledge that everything is above board and operating cleanly on the client machine.
There's no play for plugin ubiquity here. We're not trying to be Flash. With IA Tech, we're enabling partners to build their own "InstantAction-like" games destination with their own game or portfolio of games with their own, branded version of the plugin. This is a perfect solution for casual portals like Big Fish, Real, or Playfish. It also makes a lot of sense for games Like EA's Battlefield Heroes (though they only launch from the browser, rather than play from the browser).
Our goal with this technology was always to take the best of the web and the best of games, and make it a seamless experience. That's not currently possible with Flash or any other technology, so we built our own. The IA Tech options are not priced for mass distribution. They are targeted at developers with a budget specifically for web deployment. The technology is very unique, very expensive, and far past anything else available for web games today.
What about Torque 3D Web Publishing? With Torque 3D, you'll be able to publish your game directly to the web with just one click. This will use a different, but similarly effective web rendering technique that runs your game at native, desktop speeds right inside the browser. The end user for your game will go through a fast, simple install process, very similar to Flash and Unity, only again, we're not going for some kind of plugin ubiquity play. The plugin will reflect whatever brand you choose, whether it be "MyGame" to power a single game, or "MyGames" to operate a full portfolio of games. It will work across all major operating systems and browsers. If you are an indie developer, this is what you are looking for.
Torque 3D's web publishing is very Torque specific and will be very affordable. It may or may not be included in the base price for Torque 3D, that's yet to be determined. However, if you want to publish a rich, sophisticated 3D game to the web at minimal cost, there will be no better solution.
If you have any other questions about how all this stuff works, feel free to post them to this blog.
Thanks for reading!
First off, here's what I'm talking about:
On the new GarageGames.com, we have some intra-company navigation that you'll find at the top center. There's GarageGames of course, InstantAction.com, and a new page for InstantAction Technology.
So what's this all about and what does IA Tech (my shorthand for now) have to do with Torque 3D Web Publishing? IA Tech is actually very different. It's entirely independent of Torque with a fully API and remote test harness we use with developers creating titles for InstantAction.com. In addition to browser rendering, it also provides a number of features abstracted from Torque (or whatever game technology is chosen). These include:
1. Abstracted networking support for lobbies, matchmaking, NAT traversal, encryption, and lots more.
2. Shareable, one-click URL game session joining.
3. Group lobby system enabling game-to-game switching while preserving the group or "party"
4. Active streaming...we chunk game assets and data and stream them down to the user as they are needed.
5. No download, no install.
6. Web / game hybridization. This means we have three-way communication between front-end web components (in html, ajax, flash, etc.), the game, and back-end web services or "cloud" features. This allows us to render menus and other stuff that has no business being done in a game engine using html. It also lets us record and store stats, enable in-game chat, and produce leaderboards or feeds that can simulcast out to anywhere on the web (player badges, Facebook apps, etc.)
There are literally dozens of these component features that extend the idea of "your game in a browser" well beyond what you can do with Flash, Unity, or any other web publishing technology.
So why the distinction? It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer IA Tech for mass productization / distribution. It's all powered by a super-lightweight plugin (~150kb in FireFox) that uses a signed certificate by InstantAction. That means we're on the hook for whatever happens on a client machine using this plugin tech. The only way we're comfortable doing this is if we know exactly what's going on there. That is, we need to know, for certain, what instructions are being sent to the client's machine and what is being downloaded. If we're operating a managed portfolio of games under our QA and review, we have certain knowledge that everything is above board and operating cleanly on the client machine.
There's no play for plugin ubiquity here. We're not trying to be Flash. With IA Tech, we're enabling partners to build their own "InstantAction-like" games destination with their own game or portfolio of games with their own, branded version of the plugin. This is a perfect solution for casual portals like Big Fish, Real, or Playfish. It also makes a lot of sense for games Like EA's Battlefield Heroes (though they only launch from the browser, rather than play from the browser).
Our goal with this technology was always to take the best of the web and the best of games, and make it a seamless experience. That's not currently possible with Flash or any other technology, so we built our own. The IA Tech options are not priced for mass distribution. They are targeted at developers with a budget specifically for web deployment. The technology is very unique, very expensive, and far past anything else available for web games today.
What about Torque 3D Web Publishing? With Torque 3D, you'll be able to publish your game directly to the web with just one click. This will use a different, but similarly effective web rendering technique that runs your game at native, desktop speeds right inside the browser. The end user for your game will go through a fast, simple install process, very similar to Flash and Unity, only again, we're not going for some kind of plugin ubiquity play. The plugin will reflect whatever brand you choose, whether it be "MyGame" to power a single game, or "MyGames" to operate a full portfolio of games. It will work across all major operating systems and browsers. If you are an indie developer, this is what you are looking for.
Torque 3D's web publishing is very Torque specific and will be very affordable. It may or may not be included in the base price for Torque 3D, that's yet to be determined. However, if you want to publish a rich, sophisticated 3D game to the web at minimal cost, there will be no better solution.
If you have any other questions about how all this stuff works, feel free to post them to this blog.
Thanks for reading!
About the author
Since 2007, I've done my best to steer Torque's development and brand toward the best opportunities in games middleware.
#2
If you maximize to the browser window, it looks okay, but creates some input / focus problems. Not that any of these issues are at all unique to our web tech. They're actually shared by just about any technology that embeds an object in the browser. The same is true of Flash and of course the Unity stuff. Flash video going FS is probably the most stable FS implementation, but you'll notice that it just stretches pixels for the most part. If you want actual resolution changes, that's tricker, but not impossible.
My guess is that this is just going to better and better as time passes and the plugin tech improves. FS is a high-demand feature for IA games, so I'd say we're likely to figure out an optimal solution faster than just about anyone. But, for now, whether the plugin will support FS toggling is unknown...it could be just left as an option when you deploy your project.
01/22/2009 (4:23 pm)
@Andy: full-screen works, but there are some tradeoffs depending on how it's done. If you play Legions on InstantAction, you'll see that alt+enter toggles FS on and off, but it's not perfect. On some OS and multi-monitor configurations, it causes issues or even crashes. I'd say it's like 80% stable, but that's about the best that can be done getting FS and FS resolution. If you stretch pixels, it's more stable, but worse looking. If you maximize to the browser window, it looks okay, but creates some input / focus problems. Not that any of these issues are at all unique to our web tech. They're actually shared by just about any technology that embeds an object in the browser. The same is true of Flash and of course the Unity stuff. Flash video going FS is probably the most stable FS implementation, but you'll notice that it just stretches pixels for the most part. If you want actual resolution changes, that's tricker, but not impossible.
My guess is that this is just going to better and better as time passes and the plugin tech improves. FS is a high-demand feature for IA games, so I'd say we're likely to figure out an optimal solution faster than just about anyone. But, for now, whether the plugin will support FS toggling is unknown...it could be just left as an option when you deploy your project.
#6
01/22/2009 (5:06 pm)
@Chris: Actually, we all address him as "Our Dark Master," but whatever works for you...
#7
Any idea on when you'll have a better picture on pricing of T3D and feature set etc? We're getting a lot of info suddenly about features etc. (Point raised to due mention of web publishing possibly rolling into T3D) Tbh I'm sizing up whether I'm interested in T3D after finding out T3D doesn't appear to be writeup from ground up. (components etc are lacking as I understand it? No rework of general architecture)
Hope thats not off too topic and likely to create a huge tangent to discussion... (feel free to shoot an email in response or start a forum thread?)
01/22/2009 (5:08 pm)
@Brett: I get called "Sir" at work by one student. Freaks me out!Any idea on when you'll have a better picture on pricing of T3D and feature set etc? We're getting a lot of info suddenly about features etc. (Point raised to due mention of web publishing possibly rolling into T3D) Tbh I'm sizing up whether I'm interested in T3D after finding out T3D doesn't appear to be writeup from ground up. (components etc are lacking as I understand it? No rework of general architecture)
Hope thats not off too topic and likely to create a huge tangent to discussion... (feel free to shoot an email in response or start a forum thread?)
#8
What I would recommend is to put some -if not all- of this info in the IA Tech section, for newcomers to get the difference on one shot [...kiddo, one shot].
01/22/2009 (5:15 pm)
Pretty much understood the difference since the begining, but there are some pretty juicy insights here :)What I would recommend is to put some -if not all- of this info in the IA Tech section, for newcomers to get the difference on one shot [...kiddo, one shot].
#9
On the FS model, ...just a thought... couldn't you render it both ways? IE: just stretch 25% of the pixels? I'd love to see GG's IA webtech jump leaps and bounds above the rest.
01/22/2009 (8:43 pm)
Great blog Brett. I didn't know the difference, so this clears up any misunderstanding of the tech I had. On the FS model, ...just a thought... couldn't you render it both ways? IE: just stretch 25% of the pixels? I'd love to see GG's IA webtech jump leaps and bounds above the rest.
#10
01/22/2009 (8:59 pm)
Good explanation. I'm still a skeptic on running serious 3D games in a browser, primarily because of the input issues and the full-screen issues involved. Though I can see a utility in using the browser as a portal for demo versions of a game. i.e. let them play a level in the browser to get an idea of what the game is all about, and so hook them to buy the full game.
#11
01/22/2009 (10:31 pm)
ya i played those browser demos they have at unity i found many many bugs though so i don't know how that's showing off there work when in mater of fact its pushing you away from there engine. :P 
#12
01/22/2009 (10:52 pm)
I dont understand something. Does the first time the player plays the game, all the game is downloaded to his/her PC or it will be downloaded every time he runs it? What happens if you want tu patch or update the game? 
#13
1. Is the Torque 3D web publishing option going to stream
the game just pulling what you need while you play?
If not, there is no point in a web option (except maybe for a small casual game). With resource hogs like IE 1.8 about to hit the market in full force it would just eat up massive amounts of memory and resources that could be used for the game.
01/22/2009 (11:02 pm)
Quick question...1. Is the Torque 3D web publishing option going to stream
the game just pulling what you need while you play?
If not, there is no point in a web option (except maybe for a small casual game). With resource hogs like IE 1.8 about to hit the market in full force it would just eat up massive amounts of memory and resources that could be used for the game.
#14
In the long run I wonder about the browser at all though. It's getting pretty dumb and dated. It will be interesting to see what the next moves "beyond the browser" look like.
01/23/2009 (12:06 am)
@Gerald: I pretty much agree with you here for the core gamer audience. It doesn't make a lot of sense to *only* offer Fallout 3 in the browser with the current state of available tech, but I can see it improving sufficiently in the next 2-3 years to make that a really smart play. There's a whole host of opportunity for gamers who are sort of "sub-core" or "mid-core" to play browser games though I think, and this audience appears to be vastly underserved.In the long run I wonder about the browser at all though. It's getting pretty dumb and dated. It will be interesting to see what the next moves "beyond the browser" look like.
#15
Using the Torque 3D web publishing option, I'm not certain yet how patching will work. It might be that the plugin just checks against what's already on the client machine and does it's thing on the fly. More details on that down the road.
01/23/2009 (12:10 am)
@Guimo: first time only...and it's done with dynamic streaming with the IA tech. You don't really need "streaming" to deliver great games in the web though. Marble Blast is only like 12mb. That downloads in less than a minute for a huge audience of gamers. The only game even in the XBLA-size range on InstantAction.com is Legions (about 80mb I believe).Using the Torque 3D web publishing option, I'm not certain yet how patching will work. It might be that the plugin just checks against what's already on the client machine and does it's thing on the fly. More details on that down the road.
#16
01/23/2009 (12:12 am)
@JeremyE: No, Torque 3D will not have a built-in streaming tech AFAIK. I disagree with you about there being "no point" though. With your game right there in the browser, you can handle monetization, multiplayer communication, and lots of stuff in cool custom ways all without losing the gamer's attention. You don't see people downloading SWFs to play Flash games do you? Look at Kongregate and then imagine what you could do with real, high-end games. 
#17
01/23/2009 (12:21 am)
@Brett - so are you saying that communication within a T3D game in the browser means more connectivity with web servers and backend databases to update the state of your game in a real or semi-real time environment?
#18
When you say :
To have web publishing included in the base price of the tool is very important to me, for Torque3D to be comparable with Unity and Shiva, and for me to decide what will be the tool I will use for 2009/2010.
Nicolas Buquet
www.buquet-net.com/cv/
01/23/2009 (12:53 am)
Hello Brett, and thanks for these informations.When you say :
Quote:Torque 3D's web publishing is very Torque specific and will be very affordable. It may or may not be included in the base price for Torque 3D, that's yet to be determined.Does it mean that Torque3D pricing will be with options ? (excuse me to come back on this hot topic)
To have web publishing included in the base price of the tool is very important to me, for Torque3D to be comparable with Unity and Shiva, and for me to decide what will be the tool I will use for 2009/2010.
Nicolas Buquet
www.buquet-net.com/cv/
#19
Aside from the usability issues, security issues are one major area that makes it unattractive. The browser being a major focal point of security threats, offering products that essentially encourage users to compromise their own security there is asking for trouble, for them and you. You'll need at least one, and probably more, really solid security guy(s) on the team to make sure that what you're asking people to install in their browser isn't going to be easily compromised by other sites, and quickly update it when it is. And also people will probably blame the product for security problems that weren't actually caused by it.
Flash is a fairly well trusted plugin with many years of track record behind it, but it took a long time for it to get there and overcome the security issues.
01/23/2009 (1:19 am)
@Brett, well you have more faith in the future of web browser technology than I do I suppose :P I think there are just too many issues with the nature of web browsers for it to be an option to be too excited about. Aside from the usability issues, security issues are one major area that makes it unattractive. The browser being a major focal point of security threats, offering products that essentially encourage users to compromise their own security there is asking for trouble, for them and you. You'll need at least one, and probably more, really solid security guy(s) on the team to make sure that what you're asking people to install in their browser isn't going to be easily compromised by other sites, and quickly update it when it is. And also people will probably blame the product for security problems that weren't actually caused by it.
Flash is a fairly well trusted plugin with many years of track record behind it, but it took a long time for it to get there and overcome the security issues.
#20
01/23/2009 (2:02 am)
@Gerald: You're definitely right about the security concerns, and that's why InstantAction is not a "youtube for games." That just can't be done easily without either compromising security (because you never know what people will upload) or using a very sandboxed technology like Flash. Usually the sandboxing comes with big performance costs (as it does with Flash). However, the internet giants of the world aren't really happy with this as the status quo either. Google and Micosoft are both pushing hard to find ways to deliver arbitrary native apps securely through the browser. I suspect one or both, or some brilliant start up will solve this in the next 2-3 years. 
Torque Owner Andy Rollins
ZDay Game