Adobe to charge Flash coders to use 'premium' features(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Adobe to charge Flash coders to use 'premium' features
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57405606-264/adobe-to-charge-flash-coders-to-use-premium-features/
24 comments
Perhaps Unity and Epic declined the offer.
Well, shit... Alchemy+Stage3D is directly a competitor to NaCl+WebGL. By refusing to help NaCl become open-standards-worthy, Mozilla is going to end up watching Alchemy beat out NaCl (and Emscriptem) with a completely proprietary, revenue-shared (and therefore implicitly licensor-dependent) alternative.
> Well, shit... Alchemy+Stage3D is directly a competitor to NaCl+WebGL.
First of all, NaCl has little to do with WebGL. NaCl has it's own, non-web-standard way (like NaCl itself) to render 3D graphics. If you use NaCl, you likely do not use WebGL.
> By refusing to help NaCl become open-standards-worthy, Mozilla is going to end up watching Alchemy beat out NaCl (and Emscriptem) with a completely proprietary, revenue-shared (and therefore implicitly licensor-dependent) alternative.
Mozilla can't help NaCl become a relevant standard for the web, even if it wanted to. NaCl is still CPU-specific, still too complex and evolving to standardize and create alternate implementations of, and still will not be supported by browsers without plugins like the iOS browser and Windows 8 Metro.
Alchemy might beat out NaCl. It works in far more places than NaCl, but it's slower, so that will be interesting to watch. But I very much doubt Alchemy will beat 3D gaming on the open web. It isn't just Emscripten, it's also Mandreel and several other C++ to JS compilers in the industry. That approach reaches more people than even Alchemy, and it reaches them with 0 license fees.
First of all, NaCl has little to do with WebGL. NaCl has it's own, non-web-standard way (like NaCl itself) to render 3D graphics. If you use NaCl, you likely do not use WebGL.
> By refusing to help NaCl become open-standards-worthy, Mozilla is going to end up watching Alchemy beat out NaCl (and Emscriptem) with a completely proprietary, revenue-shared (and therefore implicitly licensor-dependent) alternative.
Mozilla can't help NaCl become a relevant standard for the web, even if it wanted to. NaCl is still CPU-specific, still too complex and evolving to standardize and create alternate implementations of, and still will not be supported by browsers without plugins like the iOS browser and Windows 8 Metro.
Alchemy might beat out NaCl. It works in far more places than NaCl, but it's slower, so that will be interesting to watch. But I very much doubt Alchemy will beat 3D gaming on the open web. It isn't just Emscripten, it's also Mandreel and several other C++ to JS compilers in the industry. That approach reaches more people than even Alchemy, and it reaches them with 0 license fees.
OK, technically OpenGLES2 is the open-standard that the open-web-standard WebGL is based on. Still a big step in the right direction compared to Stage3D. Moving from ES2 to a C++ interface to WebGL would not be a huge pain at this point if someone pushed for it.
That's how Mozilla /can/ help NaCl become a relevant standard for the web. It's still evolving rapidly! That could be a good thing because it's far too complex and cpu-specific /now/. With Moz's participation, that evolution could be directed to something standardizable. It's a lot of work, but it's better than sitting back and watching Adobe take over without asking for anyone's support.
Right now, Alchemy runs at 40% of native speed. They are targeting 80% at public launch. We'll see how that goes... Meanwhile, I've dug deep into the performance of JS and I've been happy when I can get deeply-optimized JS to reach 10% speed compared to deeply-optimized native.
That's how Mozilla /can/ help NaCl become a relevant standard for the web. It's still evolving rapidly! That could be a good thing because it's far too complex and cpu-specific /now/. With Moz's participation, that evolution could be directed to something standardizable. It's a lot of work, but it's better than sitting back and watching Adobe take over without asking for anyone's support.
Right now, Alchemy runs at 40% of native speed. They are targeting 80% at public launch. We'll see how that goes... Meanwhile, I've dug deep into the performance of JS and I've been happy when I can get deeply-optimized JS to reach 10% speed compared to deeply-optimized native.
Mozilla can't make NaCl non-CPU specific. It's CPU specific by design. PNaCl, which tries to be portable, is a completely separate project (although the underlying SFI is similar), and it's too early to evaluate the performance there to see if it's worth it. So there is nothing Mozilla or Opera or anyone can do.
Deeply optimized JS should run much faster than 10x slower than native. Most benchmarks I've run on compiled code are 2x-6x slower than native. And that is before JS engines actually optimize specifically for that type of code, which is happening this year.
Deeply optimized JS should run much faster than 10x slower than native. Most benchmarks I've run on compiled code are 2x-6x slower than native. And that is before JS engines actually optimize specifically for that type of code, which is happening this year.
The point is that Google isn't self-motivated enough to get an Open-PNaCl-Whatever in shape to be standardizable on their own. They need Moz and Opera to push them, not rebuke them.
I understand Moz's position. I'm just frustrated. Mozilla seems to be so proud to have finally reaching the point that we can run Super Nintendo games in the browser (http://browserquest.mozilla.org/) only 18 years after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBAND Meanwhile, Alchemy and NaCl can deliver a better-than-iPad3 user experience (zero install + sandboxed, etc) comparable to http://infinitybladegame.com/ to the browser today.
When I speak of deeply-optimized native, I'm talking about large volumes of tuned double-precision SSE vs tuned double-precision math in JS. If I were to cheat and do single-precision in SSE, it would be more like 20x. Moz is talking about adding a Matrix4x4 type to JS to make it easier for games to keep up. That seems to me like a patch to the larger problem of SIMD not making sense the context of JS.
I understand Moz's position. I'm just frustrated. Mozilla seems to be so proud to have finally reaching the point that we can run Super Nintendo games in the browser (http://browserquest.mozilla.org/) only 18 years after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBAND Meanwhile, Alchemy and NaCl can deliver a better-than-iPad3 user experience (zero install + sandboxed, etc) comparable to http://infinitybladegame.com/ to the browser today.
When I speak of deeply-optimized native, I'm talking about large volumes of tuned double-precision SSE vs tuned double-precision math in JS. If I were to cheat and do single-precision in SSE, it would be more like 20x. Moz is talking about adding a Matrix4x4 type to JS to make it easier for games to keep up. That seems to me like a patch to the larger problem of SIMD not making sense the context of JS.
> The point is that Google isn't self-motivated enough to get an Open-PNaCl-Whatever in shape to be standardizable on their own. They need Moz and Opera to push them, not rebuke them.
Opera, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple can't help Google push a standard that doesn't make sense for the web. I don't understand what you want them to do. Help from the other browser vendors can't magically fix the problems already mentioned with NaCl.
The only thing they can do, is ignore the principles of standardization and what is good for the web, and just drop NaCl into their browsers. That would be terrible though.
> Meanwhile, Alchemy and NaCl can deliver a better-than-iPad3 user experience (zero install + sandboxed, etc) comparable to http://infinitybladegame.com/ to the browser today.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6873971/data/cube2/index.html
And again, this is before actually optimizing for that kind of code. In a few months that will improve even more.
> When I speak of deeply-optimized native, I'm talking about large volumes of tuned double-precision SSE vs tuned double-precision math in JS.
That's true, for that kind of code JS is slow currently. Things like RiverTrail should help, but they are not close to ready yet.
Opera, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple can't help Google push a standard that doesn't make sense for the web. I don't understand what you want them to do. Help from the other browser vendors can't magically fix the problems already mentioned with NaCl.
The only thing they can do, is ignore the principles of standardization and what is good for the web, and just drop NaCl into their browsers. That would be terrible though.
> Meanwhile, Alchemy and NaCl can deliver a better-than-iPad3 user experience (zero install + sandboxed, etc) comparable to http://infinitybladegame.com/ to the browser today.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6873971/data/cube2/index.html
And again, this is before actually optimizing for that kind of code. In a few months that will improve even more.
> When I speak of deeply-optimized native, I'm talking about large volumes of tuned double-precision SSE vs tuned double-precision math in JS.
That's true, for that kind of code JS is slow currently. Things like RiverTrail should help, but they are not close to ready yet.
What I want is to /eventually/ get PNaCl with WebGL/WebAudio/IndexDB/whatever APIs make Mozilla happy. I make high-end 3D apps to pay my bills. I want to bring them to the web. But, what I don't want is to go through Adobe's content approval process in order to not be 15 years behind the technology curve (Cube2=Quake2=1997).
JS+WebGL is great and I'll keep pounding on it. But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but...
JS+WebGL is great and I'll keep pounding on it. But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but...
> What I want is to /eventually/ get PNaCl
Well, NaCl is in no way a step towards that. They are completely separate technologies: One is a modified gcc compiler and custom validator in the browser, the other is a modified LLVM compiler and another modified LLVM compiler in the browser. The only similarity between them is the name, and some of the SFI approaches they utilize. But their code, potential spec for standardization some day, startup times, portability etc. are entirely different.
Supporting NaCl now would not help out PNaCl in any way. (In fact, the opposite could be argued.)
> But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but...
First thing, I do understand your frustration. I feel it too.
But JS isn't just there because of inertia. There is no other valid option, all the proposals have major flaws, either technical or legal. JS also has its flaws, to be sure. But since the others are not clearly better (running faster, but only on certain CPUs is not better), JS will win because it does have inertia.
Well, NaCl is in no way a step towards that. They are completely separate technologies: One is a modified gcc compiler and custom validator in the browser, the other is a modified LLVM compiler and another modified LLVM compiler in the browser. The only similarity between them is the name, and some of the SFI approaches they utilize. But their code, potential spec for standardization some day, startup times, portability etc. are entirely different.
Supporting NaCl now would not help out PNaCl in any way. (In fact, the opposite could be argued.)
> But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but...
First thing, I do understand your frustration. I feel it too.
But JS isn't just there because of inertia. There is no other valid option, all the proposals have major flaws, either technical or legal. JS also has its flaws, to be sure. But since the others are not clearly better (running faster, but only on certain CPUs is not better), JS will win because it does have inertia.
Adobe sounds pretty clueless on this. I personally don't use Flash (unless I really, really can't help it); I look forward to the day when it's gone the way of the dinosaur.
I think... I mean I guess it sounds like Adobe sees that Apple is able to get a percentage of revenue and be successful attracting developers, and they somehow think that they can do the same thing and also attract developers? Sounds like... a winning proposition to me!
I think... I mean I guess it sounds like Adobe sees that Apple is able to get a percentage of revenue and be successful attracting developers, and they somehow think that they can do the same thing and also attract developers? Sounds like... a winning proposition to me!
I think you're giving them too much credit. They are just relying on the staunch Apple/Adobe designers who refuse to use anything but what they've always used (like an artistic VB developer). Also Apple people are used to saying "How high?" whenever their beloved says "Jump".
Most Flash developers actually use Windows since, until recently, the Flash IDE ran much faster on Windows.
Ha, yeah, I bet you're right. It blows my mind though - it just doesn't seem like a great business strategy.
I believe too many are jumping the gun on this one. Based on the rather strict requirements I would say this change is irrelevant to the majority of the Flash developers out there. It seems to be aimed at the developers that might be making an Unreal engine game (as an example) and wish to port it over to Flash for whatever reason. Most likely these are projects in the high dollar development range expecting a high return. Adobe simply wants a cut of that revenue just like every other major game tools creator out there. Epic Games has a similar deal with using the UDK platform. Some of you are simply reading too much into this.
This move is currently getting HA-HA'ed here on HN but it's a fairly decent move. Some people have no choice but to use flash (mostly game-makers). Some of them, like Zynga rake in big money. Adobe looks like they might get a piece of that action. What's to laugh at?
> What's to laugh at?
The fact that this is a pretty big incentive to change the situation of "some people [having] no choice but to use flash".
The fact that this is a pretty big incentive to change the situation of "some people [having] no choice but to use flash".
Flash is rapidly overtaken by HTML5 and JavaScript. Obviously, it's the moment to slap a royalty on it. Genius!
No options? Silverlight? WebGL? Sure they may not be perfect, but for 9% of revenue, companies will consider alternatives pretty quickly
Why would they switch? These are new features they haven't been using and which probably aren't available on Silverlight or WebGL. Switch because they're adding an option you don't want to chose?
Silverlight 5 and WebGL offer hardware accelerated 3D graphics. So if you're making a new 3D game from scratch, SL or WebGL could be worth looking into.
If a company has no plans to use these premium features, then yes, I would imagine they will continue along as-is with Flash.
But a last thought; a revenue sharing plan like this will make big players nervous - what might Adobe starting charging for next? It will cause developers to start at least considering alternatives.
If a company has no plans to use these premium features, then yes, I would imagine they will continue along as-is with Flash.
But a last thought; a revenue sharing plan like this will make big players nervous - what might Adobe starting charging for next? It will cause developers to start at least considering alternatives.
This. Development studios won't want to be locked into the ass-raping that iOS developers have been putting up with. With advanced browsers and WebGL gaining traction, along with the proliferation of iOS devices which don't use Flash at all, I'd say Adobe has completely screwed themselves.
If we're only concerned about Adobe's customers not leaving, it's very certain that Adobe is in a losing proposition. That's the position Microsoft is in and IBM was in for a long time. Why would anyone want to pay for Flash over WebGL or nacl if they're starting a new project?
With this kind of move alternatives are going to start to pop up and HTML5 gaming is going to start to pick up.
Adobe seems pretty desperate here.
Adobe seems pretty desperate here.
If Unity could convince Chrome and Mozilla to add the Unity player plugin to those projects, then they don't need Flash at all.
In the meantime, it seems like a lot of unity devs are trying to figure out ways to get Facebook users to install the player through sneaky methods.
In the meantime, it seems like a lot of unity devs are trying to figure out ways to get Facebook users to install the player through sneaky methods.
I'm glad Adobe has finally taken the initiative to phase out Flash.
Kneejerk response:
"What th... seriously? It's almost like they WANT flash to lose to HTML5.."
"What th... seriously? It's almost like they WANT flash to lose to HTML5.."
Is it out the question that that's part of the equation here? Adobe is making Canvas tools after all. Flash is going to increasingly become a cost center for Adobe (support cost remain as profits diminish), so why not cannibalize that business by sending developers to another one of your products? And grab some cash from the suckers who refuse to leave Flash behind.
Or they've decided that Flash has already lost to HTML5, so they're looking to squeeze as much money as they can out of Flash's remaining developers on the way down.
[deleted]
Sounds like Adobe finally figured out how to monetize Flash. Too bad it's at the expense of their most important resources, their developers.
> Sounds like Adobe finally figured out how to monetize Flash
Adobe sells a Flash authoring app for $700, wouldn't that be considered monetizing it?
Adobe sells a Flash authoring app for $700, wouldn't that be considered monetizing it?
There are quite a few ways to develop Flash games without using Flash the tool.
If I was developing for the Flash platform, this would make me seek alternatives immediately. Sure, maybe the premium licensing isn't needed for my app now, but the cat is out of the bag. Why would I invest time/money into a platform that could change terms and take a % of my revenue at any moment?
Then I suppose you should never use any commercial development platforms because that possibility is there for them all. Stick with open source I suppose.
I am a flash devoleper. Have been an ardent flash supporter for the past 7 years, but sadly, at this point, even i have to admit, it's Game Over. Adobe fucked up. Over, and over and over again. They had everything going for them, a large and and extremely smart, devoted community, a very rich and powerful authoring platform, and ,most importantly,ubiquity, but they got complacent, deluded by their own hype. They failed to make flash better, and they failed to make AIR better. At this point, they are just shooting a dead horse in the face. This is an inexplicable move, the exodus has already begin. This then is going to be the final warning alarm before the train leaves the station. There will be few who can risk getting left behind now.It's over.
No, it's not over. Not yet.
I think only a small percentage of developers make $50k / year per game/app.
And Stage3 is way ahead of what one day hopefully WebGL will offer. There's no way (at the moment) of producing the same quality application in HTML5/js with the same effort you need for Flash.
Mozilla released their cute browserQuest game yesterday, something "Realm of the Mad God" did 2+ years ago in Flash.
HTML5 is very likely to be the future but there's no way they can compete with Flash at least in the areas of Games (and Audio) at the moment..
And Stage3 is way ahead of what one day hopefully WebGL will offer. There's no way (at the moment) of producing the same quality application in HTML5/js with the same effort you need for Flash.
Mozilla released their cute browserQuest game yesterday, something "Realm of the Mad God" did 2+ years ago in Flash.
HTML5 is very likely to be the future but there's no way they can compete with Flash at least in the areas of Games (and Audio) at the moment..
Correct. Audio support is one of the big features what is keeping me on Flash. This is a great rundown on the depressing state of audio support in HTML5:
http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audi...
http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2011/03/the-state-of-html5-audi...
I ranted a bit when this news was first posted on HN late last night, now that I've had more time to mull it over, it just pisses me off even more. It seems like every Adobe press release these days is like a gorgeous chocolate cake...
...with cigarette butts stubbed out in it.
I write games in Actionscript every day, that's my day job and it was going to be my night job too. The state of Flash development has never been worse than it is right now, and it is largely because of Adobe's utter incompetence at building tools for targeting the Flash VM. Their documentation ranges from mediocre to horrendous, their frameworks have sprawled far too much, and the runtime is needlessly fragmented. They threw in the towel on mobile development months ago. Then they killed (more or less) their Linux support. So much for write once run anywhere. And what did they declare as their new strategy? Games. Console quality, AAA dev worthy games. They're betting the whole flash ecosystem farm on people playing GPU accelerated, high quality games in the browser. Not the worst idea they've ever had, but not particularly inventive.
Obviously they were going to have to make some money off of this new initiative, and I naively assumed that they would build a really great toolset for developing these games. For some really ridiculous reason, I actually thought that they would get back in the business of building tools to let people create really great content (they haven't been selling the best tools for making Flash content for the last 4 years or so, so I thought maybe they would change that).
Instead we get this, the chocolate cake with cigarette butts stamped out in it. I fully understand that Adobe have not had the time to actually develop a useful developer's kit for game dev targeted at the Flash runtime. In fact, it might not ever be appropriate for them to do so. But right now they are struggling mightily just to remain relevant, so it seemed natural to me that whatever they did come up with would really give devs an incentive to consider their runtime and workflow as a reasonable, efficient, and cost effective option.
Instead some greedy twit seems to have taken a gander at UDK licensing costs (25% off gross after your first 50 grand in revenue), and thought, "we can charge that!" If they offered a tenth of what UDK actually offers, then they might very well have been able to charge what they're going after--9% off net from pretty much all revenue in excess of 50 grand, virtual items, whatever. How very generous of them. But what are you actually getting for this big chunk of your profit?
You're getting Alchemy, a cross compiler that compiles C/C++ into AS bytecode to be executed by the Flash VM or a binary compiled for iOS. Are you getting an industry leading developer's toolkit like Unreal? An amazing engine? A version of Gears of War 3 or some other equally massive/ambitious game to use as a starting point to base your project around? No, you'll still have to pay Unreal for that (or Unity or write your own game engine) and pay their licensing fees (remember, that's 25% off gross). Alchemy was introduced years ago, and at the time, it was just a one man project (if that, it seemed like it was just a part time project at the time). Cross-compile C and C++ into AS bytecode, sweet. Cost: free. I seriously doubt that this stopgap, bullshit, announcement has been preceded by considerably more development into Alchemy, and even if they have thrown dozens of people at the project for the last 6 months, it can't possibly justify the cost. I would think they would work for longer than 6 months on flagship product announcements that are the lynchpin for their entire damned roadmap, but at Adobe, roadmaps themselves don't seem to last that long. So will any giant game developer actually use this? I can't see how it's viable for them to use it at the public royalty rates. Maybe Zynga can get a better licensing contract than us poor schlubs, but there's no way they're going to throw away 9% of their net after blowing through 55% on Unreal and Facebook's take before even considering their own costs.
...with cigarette butts stubbed out in it.
I write games in Actionscript every day, that's my day job and it was going to be my night job too. The state of Flash development has never been worse than it is right now, and it is largely because of Adobe's utter incompetence at building tools for targeting the Flash VM. Their documentation ranges from mediocre to horrendous, their frameworks have sprawled far too much, and the runtime is needlessly fragmented. They threw in the towel on mobile development months ago. Then they killed (more or less) their Linux support. So much for write once run anywhere. And what did they declare as their new strategy? Games. Console quality, AAA dev worthy games. They're betting the whole flash ecosystem farm on people playing GPU accelerated, high quality games in the browser. Not the worst idea they've ever had, but not particularly inventive.
Obviously they were going to have to make some money off of this new initiative, and I naively assumed that they would build a really great toolset for developing these games. For some really ridiculous reason, I actually thought that they would get back in the business of building tools to let people create really great content (they haven't been selling the best tools for making Flash content for the last 4 years or so, so I thought maybe they would change that).
Instead we get this, the chocolate cake with cigarette butts stamped out in it. I fully understand that Adobe have not had the time to actually develop a useful developer's kit for game dev targeted at the Flash runtime. In fact, it might not ever be appropriate for them to do so. But right now they are struggling mightily just to remain relevant, so it seemed natural to me that whatever they did come up with would really give devs an incentive to consider their runtime and workflow as a reasonable, efficient, and cost effective option.
Instead some greedy twit seems to have taken a gander at UDK licensing costs (25% off gross after your first 50 grand in revenue), and thought, "we can charge that!" If they offered a tenth of what UDK actually offers, then they might very well have been able to charge what they're going after--9% off net from pretty much all revenue in excess of 50 grand, virtual items, whatever. How very generous of them. But what are you actually getting for this big chunk of your profit?
You're getting Alchemy, a cross compiler that compiles C/C++ into AS bytecode to be executed by the Flash VM or a binary compiled for iOS. Are you getting an industry leading developer's toolkit like Unreal? An amazing engine? A version of Gears of War 3 or some other equally massive/ambitious game to use as a starting point to base your project around? No, you'll still have to pay Unreal for that (or Unity or write your own game engine) and pay their licensing fees (remember, that's 25% off gross). Alchemy was introduced years ago, and at the time, it was just a one man project (if that, it seemed like it was just a part time project at the time). Cross-compile C and C++ into AS bytecode, sweet. Cost: free. I seriously doubt that this stopgap, bullshit, announcement has been preceded by considerably more development into Alchemy, and even if they have thrown dozens of people at the project for the last 6 months, it can't possibly justify the cost. I would think they would work for longer than 6 months on flagship product announcements that are the lynchpin for their entire damned roadmap, but at Adobe, roadmaps themselves don't seem to last that long. So will any giant game developer actually use this? I can't see how it's viable for them to use it at the public royalty rates. Maybe Zynga can get a better licensing contract than us poor schlubs, but there's no way they're going to throw away 9% of their net after blowing through 55% on Unreal and Facebook's take before even considering their own costs.
So true about the documentation and APIs. In the network stack for example, if you do certain things to a POST, Flash actually stops using HTTP and starts using "XML Sockets" which runs over a different port, and AFAIK is something Abobe just made up one day. This happens silently and can be triggered in a couple different subtle ways. They need to fix nonsense like this before I can take Flash seriously again.
This is Adobe telling the Flash team to find a way to pay for themselves going forward.
I don't think Adobe understands the concept of "substitution"--namely, that for most things, HTML5 seems to far outweigh Adobe's inferior Flash. So charging for Flash may prove to be a bone-headed move.
This being said, what better way to force a spin-off than to totally wreck that side of the business' pricing?
This being said, what better way to force a spin-off than to totally wreck that side of the business' pricing?
Wrote this up here, with some choice quotes from this thread: http://webdev360.com/adobe-tries-to-lock-in-flash-devs-with-...
Seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me.
Seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me.
Given that there's a grace period until August 1, I suspect we're going to see a lot of barely-working applications and games released before then, just so they can get grandfathered in before they're made to function properly.
I'll be curious to hear how Adobe plans on enforcing/auditing this. There are but a handful of gaming companies, I suspect, that would be affected (Rovio, EA, Zynga), but still.
$50K isn't really that much. This will basically affect anyone trying to make a serious commercial 3D flash game with Unity, UDK or a custom engine. This includes small indie developers that might want to target flash as a platform as well. The 9% would also apply to UDK games like QUBE or Antichamber, if they decided to release a web versions.
That's fantastic news.
The sooner Adobe makes Flash go away, the better.
The sooner Adobe makes Flash go away, the better.
…and how exactly are Adobe going to know what 9 percent of net revenue for a given movie is?
You've obviously never worked in the business world. It's all built on trust. You either have it, or you don't. When you sign a contract with these companies, you give them the right to, if they so choose, ask for all your records to review at any given point in time.
I'm not at liberty to go into specifics, but for example one company we deal with charges a flat royalty off of every product that includes their tech. At the end of the month, we send them exactly 2 statistics along with a check: how many items sold, and what we now owe them. (This is a huge company and we're talking on the scale of hundreds of thousands of dollars.)
When you're a company, you don't take stupid risks like cheating out your licensors over something less than half of what you're making. It's nowhere near being worth the risk, as even aside from any legal issues, fees, and compensations, if you get caught you can kiss that licensing agreement goodbye and then you have to start over from scratch with a different platform, a different provider, and different tech.
I'm not at liberty to go into specifics, but for example one company we deal with charges a flat royalty off of every product that includes their tech. At the end of the month, we send them exactly 2 statistics along with a check: how many items sold, and what we now owe them. (This is a huge company and we're talking on the scale of hundreds of thousands of dollars.)
When you're a company, you don't take stupid risks like cheating out your licensors over something less than half of what you're making. It's nowhere near being worth the risk, as even aside from any legal issues, fees, and compensations, if you get caught you can kiss that licensing agreement goodbye and then you have to start over from scratch with a different platform, a different provider, and different tech.
It doesn't matter, since movies won't be using Stage3D or Alchemy. This will mostly monetize games made in Unity and UDK published for Flash.
I wonder what counts as making net revenue with Flash that would cause this to kick in.
Advertising agencies have been charging clients well over $50,000 to build flash sites for years. Are they going to have to start giving Adobe a 9% cut of everything made on their client work?
Advertising agencies have been charging clients well over $50,000 to build flash sites for years. Are they going to have to start giving Adobe a 9% cut of everything made on their client work?
1. Flash sites won't be using the features in question.
2. Flash sites should die a horrible horrible death.
2. Flash sites should die a horrible horrible death.
No disagreement here on the fact that flash sites should die a horrible death.
Regardless, many flash developers have been clamoring for true 3D rendering in flash for a long time, and hack it together with libraries like Paper Vision. Perhaps I missed something, but the article seems to suggest that these features will indeed be available in the browser plugin, and thus usable on flash sites.
Regardless, many flash developers have been clamoring for true 3D rendering in flash for a long time, and hack it together with libraries like Paper Vision. Perhaps I missed something, but the article seems to suggest that these features will indeed be available in the browser plugin, and thus usable on flash sites.
You should actually read the details of what the discussion is about.
Isn't this just going to encourage people to use WebGL?
looks like Adobe tries to squeeze every last bit out of money out of the Flash platform
Adobe is a business. Businesses are supposed to make money. Where's the conflict?
If it's dying, you may as well plunder it...
last nail in the coffin.
I do wonder if this will affect haxe though.
I do wonder if this will affect haxe though.
"It's not clear to me how requiring programmers to pay to use something that was previously free will spark innovation."
Steve doesn't understand his own article. The whole point is that they're changing for completely new functionality. These aren't improvements of the existing flash player, they're completely new additions. And beyond that the vast majority of devs will never even have to think about it. You have to make over $50k with your flash product and you have to use the premium features.
Weather you like flash or not, these new features are great for online and ios game developers and cost Adobe a lot of time and money. Also weather you think about it or not, many of the mobile games you play are written in actionscript and running in Adobe air and air apps are specifically exempt from the fees.
So all in all, this is interesting news, but it's in no way as dramatic or devastating as some people would like to believe.
Steve doesn't understand his own article. The whole point is that they're changing for completely new functionality. These aren't improvements of the existing flash player, they're completely new additions. And beyond that the vast majority of devs will never even have to think about it. You have to make over $50k with your flash product and you have to use the premium features.
Weather you like flash or not, these new features are great for online and ios game developers and cost Adobe a lot of time and money. Also weather you think about it or not, many of the mobile games you play are written in actionscript and running in Adobe air and air apps are specifically exempt from the fees.
So all in all, this is interesting news, but it's in no way as dramatic or devastating as some people would like to believe.
It's not completely new functionality. Adobe Alchemy, for example, has been free since 2008 and is used by a number of popular Flash apps and games. Of course they can charge for it if they want, but they're now competing with Unity, NaCL, UDK, and HTML5, so it is going to be a hard sell.
Don't forget you have to use Alchemy and Stage3D in the same project. I think too many are glossing over that fact.
Plus UDK has a similar deal.
Plus UDK has a similar deal.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I don't really see a problem with this. From the Unity3D blog [1].
Adobe announced a brand new licensing structure for Flash games You should definitely read the details as Adobe explains them here: www.adobe.com/go/fpl and here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea... The short version is that Adobe is introducing a new revenue share licensing model where they will take a revenue share from some content publishers. Adobe will charge publishers 9% of only the revenues directly caused by the game which exceed $50K. If revenue is not directly caused by the game you pay nothing. i.e. An online teaser level for a iOS / Android game, a car company having a realtime 3d demo of their newest model which you can inspect and drive around, a 3d walkthrough for a library, etc, all would not pay the revenue share. We see this as Flash positioning itself alongside other well known distribution channels: make money through the App Store, Apple takes a share. Make money through the Android Market place, Google takes a share. Make money through Flash, Adobe takes a share. It’s also worth noting that the new Adobe license will prohibit scenarios where you’d have the first level of a game in the Flash Player, and the full experience inside the Unity Web Player. Alas, this is something you’ll need to be aware of if you were considering such a route.
You see, Flash is not web technology.Neither is iOS, or Android. Flash was web tech, a long,long time ago, but frankly the web hasn't evolved fast enough to keep up. HTML5 is still nowhere close to flash. WebGL is, but that's not exactly standard.
[1] http://blogs.unity3d.com/2012/03/28/unity-flash-update/
Adobe announced a brand new licensing structure for Flash games You should definitely read the details as Adobe explains them here: www.adobe.com/go/fpl and here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea... The short version is that Adobe is introducing a new revenue share licensing model where they will take a revenue share from some content publishers. Adobe will charge publishers 9% of only the revenues directly caused by the game which exceed $50K. If revenue is not directly caused by the game you pay nothing. i.e. An online teaser level for a iOS / Android game, a car company having a realtime 3d demo of their newest model which you can inspect and drive around, a 3d walkthrough for a library, etc, all would not pay the revenue share. We see this as Flash positioning itself alongside other well known distribution channels: make money through the App Store, Apple takes a share. Make money through the Android Market place, Google takes a share. Make money through Flash, Adobe takes a share. It’s also worth noting that the new Adobe license will prohibit scenarios where you’d have the first level of a game in the Flash Player, and the full experience inside the Unity Web Player. Alas, this is something you’ll need to be aware of if you were considering such a route.
You see, Flash is not web technology.Neither is iOS, or Android. Flash was web tech, a long,long time ago, but frankly the web hasn't evolved fast enough to keep up. HTML5 is still nowhere close to flash. WebGL is, but that's not exactly standard.
[1] http://blogs.unity3d.com/2012/03/28/unity-flash-update/
Of the possible revenue sharing arrangements this type (similar to Unity's) is the most civilized. It doesn't stop indie devs from experimenting (since it doesn't kick in until the first 50k has been exceeded) and it allows Adobe to profit when its tech is used on a breakaway hit.
What I don't understand is the timing of this. Since it is popularly believed that HTML5 will kill Flash in the near future and that Adobe has stopped developing the mobile plugin (neither is true). This will only give Flash detractors more ammo. Adobe needs to do some damage control before they add more drag to one of their flagship products.
What I don't understand is the timing of this. Since it is popularly believed that HTML5 will kill Flash in the near future and that Adobe has stopped developing the mobile plugin (neither is true). This will only give Flash detractors more ammo. Adobe needs to do some damage control before they add more drag to one of their flagship products.
Specifically:
Premium features licensing will only be needed when both of the following APIs are used in the same application run in Flash Player:
* ApplicationDomain.domainMemory, which provides access to domain memory
* Stage3D.request3DContext, if using hardware acceleration
--
From the article, it looks like ApplicationDomain.domainMemory is required when using the Alchemy compiler which allows compiling and running C/C++ code in Flash Player. (Hmmm.. seems like a competitor to Google's NaCl)
While Stage3D.request3DContext is required for using Stage3D which enables hardware acceleration in Flash Player. Angry Birds on Facebook already uses this.
Most games coded natively in Flash/AS3 won't require both. However, I'm not sure whether Unity's export to Flash and Unreal's export to Flash require Alchemy.
In any case, the revenue share is only required when both features are used. However, again the media aren't communicating the whole deal and again it's Adobe's fault for coming up with such weird/complex terms.
Edit:
After some quick research, it seems both Unity and Unreal's export to Flash Player feature require both Alchemy and Stage3D to work. So it looks like what Adobe are trying to do here is to generate some revenue from their 'platform' as otherwise they wouldn't receive a dime from all those Unity devs who would have easily exported their project to run on Flash Player which has a ton more penetration than Unity Web Player.
I think it is unfortunate though that they chose a 'revenue share' model.
It would have been a lot better for the end developers if Adobe just charged Unity and Epic a licensing fee for targeting Flash Player.