Jump to content


Adobe Flash is going to be Dead by 2020...


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

IndygoEEI #1 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 18:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 48250 battles
  • 4,873
  • [GUNS6] GUNS6
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012

Well this is good, but I hope someone can make a browser to run legacy Flash stuff.  Also, I

wonder if any WG Web Devs could comment on the matter and give their professional

opinion...

 

https://www.cnet.com...linkId=40173594



landedkiller #2 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 18:50

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 7783 battles
  • 1,404
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013
Finally battle pirates will die out 

Lonewolfpj #3 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 18:53

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2266 battles
  • 432
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I will wait to see.

Gothraul #4 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 19:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 1526 battles
  • 2,904
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
Adobe flash is so retro like miniclip.com, I won't miss all the bloat and crashes it causes in firefox ect.

black_colt #5 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 19:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3370 battles
  • 2,012
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

Flash for mobile ended in 2011

 

And now Flash for non-mobile is ending in 2020

 

Adobe Flash was a good technology but I am glad to see that Adobe has realized that Flash has been in decline for several years and are not wasting resources on it anymore.

 

Long Live HTML5, HEVC [MPEG-H Part 2], and HEIF [MPEG-H Part 12] who are now ascending ...

 

Now WarGaming where is the 64-bit version of World of Tanks ....


Edited by black_colt, Jul 26 2017 - 19:49.


yereverluvinunclebert #6 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 20:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

The WoT client is written mainly in Flash/actionscript and some middleware and I believe it needs some sort of a thin browser client to run within and reading around it appears to use IE. Regardless of any 2020 abandonment date the game isn't actually going to stop working though.

 

Flash as a game development tool is actually a fantastic and flexible tool. The Flash code base that WG has created is enormous I should think. Huge amounts of effort and an enormous investment in time that WG will be really loathe to dump.

 

Reason for Adobe's announcement is that all the main browsers are abandoning support for Flash - this doesn't really matter whether any of the main browsers support flash as WG can always provide some sort of a stub browser to run the client on the windows desktop. After all, you can already run Flash apps on the desktop without a browser so I don't think this is much of a worry.

 

The only issue is if Adobe stops all support for developing Flash programs for the future altogether, browser or desktop as it makes it harder for WG to justify using an increasingly obsolete tool to develop the current version of the game. Using Flash would be the only method to continue development on WoT 1.0 bearing in mind so much of the code they have produced is already in Flash and shoe-horning something like Python in would be a mistake. They already tried doing some of the stuff in Python and found it to be less flexible and slower than Flash.

 

I imagine Flash will continue working though after 2020 regardless of whether it is supported or not. The WoT client is unlikely to die even years after that date. It will just work.

 

However, it does mean that WoT 1.0 has a finite shelf life and that WoT 1 and 2 will NOT run in parallel for long. Expect WoT 2.0 to replace WoT 1.0 after 18 months or so.

 

WoT 2.0 is most likely to be run using an entirely different engine, something like the unreal engine or similar that I believe is used in Arthured Waffe (I may be wrong). I have no real knowledge on which technology WG will migrate to but it would be unwise to put all their efforts into Flash given that all the scaremongering that Flash is dead has actually caused Flash to really start dying.

 

The issue for us is that very little of the Flash code base will be carried over to the new version so there will be lots and lots of lovely new bugs, the 'feel' of the tanks and the way they operate will need to be replicated and a lot of that feel is due to the engine they use. A new engine and it is very likely the tanks will 'feel' different, the way they interact with the ground &c will be different. We don't want Wah Funda's slippy tanks...

 

Just some thoughts.

 

PS It would be nice to hear from the developers. They could always just buy Arthured Waffe from MY.COM...


Edited by yereverluvinunclebert, Jul 26 2017 - 21:00.


yereverluvinunclebert #7 Posted Jul 27 2017 - 09:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012
That last post by abo_hayadar was a bot trying to prove he is a real account - or a moron.

black_colt #8 Posted Jul 28 2017 - 00:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3370 battles
  • 2,012
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View Postyereverluvinunclebert, on Jul 26 2017 - 11:17, said:

The WoT client is written mainly in Flash/actionscript and some middleware and I believe it needs some sort of a thin browser client to run within and reading around it appears to use IE. Regardless of any 2020 abandonment date the game isn't actually going to stop working though.

 

Flash as a game development tool is actually a fantastic and flexible tool. The Flash code base that WG has created is enormous I should think. Huge amounts of effort and an enormous investment in time that WG will be really loathe to dump.

 

Reason for Adobe's announcement is that all the main browsers are abandoning support for Flash - this doesn't really matter whether any of the main browsers support flash as WG can always provide some sort of a stub browser to run the client on the windows desktop. After all, you can already run Flash apps on the desktop without a browser so I don't think this is much of a worry.

 

The only issue is if Adobe stops all support for developing Flash programs for the future altogether, browser or desktop as it makes it harder for WG to justify using an increasingly obsolete tool to develop the current version of the game. Using Flash would be the only method to continue development on WoT 1.0 bearing in mind so much of the code they have produced is already in Flash and shoe-horning something like Python in would be a mistake. They already tried doing some of the stuff in Python and found it to be less flexible and slower than Flash.

 

I imagine Flash will continue working though after 2020 regardless of whether it is supported or not. The WoT client is unlikely to die even years after that date. It will just work.

 

However, it does mean that WoT 1.0 has a finite shelf life and that WoT 1 and 2 will NOT run in parallel for long. Expect WoT 2.0 to replace WoT 1.0 after 18 months or so.

 

WoT 2.0 is most likely to be run using an entirely different engine, something like the unreal engine or similar that I believe is used in Arthured Waffe (I may be wrong). I have no real knowledge on which technology WG will migrate to but it would be unwise to put all their efforts into Flash given that all the scaremongering that Flash is dead has actually caused Flash to really start dying.

 

The issue for us is that very little of the Flash code base will be carried over to the new version so there will be lots and lots of lovely new bugs, the 'feel' of the tanks and the way they operate will need to be replicated and a lot of that feel is due to the engine they use. A new engine and it is very likely the tanks will 'feel' different, the way they interact with the ground &c will be different. We don't want Wah Funda's slippy tanks...

 

Just some thoughts.

 

PS It would be nice to hear from the developers. They could always just buy Arthured Waffe from MY.COM...

 

Would be interesting to understand what gaming engine World of Tanks Blitz [MS Windows and OS X/macOS - not iOS or Android] is running.

 



yereverluvinunclebert #9 Posted Jul 28 2017 - 22:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

I agree but I am afraid I can't help. I am not aware of the Windows metro platform and how you code for it - but the difference is enough to assume the technology is completely distinct and the way it has been implemented makes it appear to be incompatible. You'd normally use the same database and merely use some middleware to adapt the existing codebase and data to a new GUI client on the different platform. Blitz however looks as if it has been designed from scratch using very little from the PC version except base models and map layouts so I am guessing it is a different codebase, technology and engine, the lot. That all makes the Blitz game 'feel' very different and with little commonality when it comes to gameplay This is mostly supposition... much of it is correct though, I suggest. This might have been done this way deliberately to create an entirely 'new' game for a younger market or because they were quick to recognise that the Flash component was not compatible with the metro way of doing things so a new approach/technology was required. It could also be that the type of hardware that is used to play Blitz defined the technology/platform.


Edited by yereverluvinunclebert, Jul 28 2017 - 22:07.


yereverluvinunclebert #10 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 16:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

I wonder how WoT users would feel if the new version of WoT was based upon the console version code base?  Looking around t'net I see that is a more than feasible option, one game for us all to play, one code base to bind the more serious players together... in the darkness bind them.

 

Is anyone here both a PC and a console player? I wonder if you can enlighten us into how different the two games play, the playstyle, the tank 'feel', control response &c.


Edited by yereverluvinunclebert, Aug 04 2017 - 17:15.


Heldar #11 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 17:02

    Major

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 28298 battles
  • 2,934
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View Postyereverluvinunclebert, on Aug 04 2017 - 09:55, said:

I wonder how WoT users would feel if the new version of WoT was based upon the console version code base?  Looking around t'net I see that is a more than feasible option, one game for us all to play, one code base to bind the more serious players together... in the darkness

 

No one honestly cares about where the code or engine comes from, so long as its solid, mostly free of bugs and stable.

yereverluvinunclebert #12 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View PostHeldar, on Aug 04 2017 - 16:02, said:

 

No one honestly cares about where the code or engine comes from, so long as its solid, mostly free of bugs and stable.

 

That's rubbish, you could end up with Wah Funda's code base, slippy tanks and wierd ground model would be the result. The code base and the engine choice are what make or break the game. You need to come from a direction where there is some inherent knowledge before you comment.

Heldar #13 Posted Aug 05 2017 - 17:00

    Major

  • WGLNA Bronze League Player
  • 28298 battles
  • 2,934
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View Postyereverluvinunclebert, on Aug 04 2017 - 10:06, said:

 

That's rubbish, you could end up with Wah Funda's code base, slippy tanks and wierd ground model would be the result. The code base and the engine choice are what make or break the game. You need to come from a direction where there is some inherent knowledge before you comment.

 

Guess you missed the part of 'solid, stable and bug free'.  If the code base and engine are THAT imortant, then i wonder why WoT is doing so well based off an absolutely crapand ancient engine....   So long as its stable, the mechanics of the game is good and the damn thing is mostly bug free, NO ONE REALLY CARES what engine its made out of, out side of the people who give a crapabout that kinda stuff.

yereverluvinunclebert #14 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 16:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View PostHeldar, on Aug 05 2017 - 16:00, said:

 

Guess you missed the part of 'solid, stable and bug free'.  If the code base and engine are THAT imortant, then i wonder why WoT is doing so well based off an absolutely crapand ancient engine....   So long as its stable, the mechanics of the game is good and the damn thing is mostly bug free, NO ONE REALLY CARES what engine its made out of, out side of the people who give a crapabout that kinda stuff.

 

You've missed it again.

 

Please re-read and TRY to understand. I don't think this thread is for you if you cannot understand the difference between stability, a code base and gameplay. Thankyou for trying though.

 



yereverluvinunclebert #15 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 11:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Reading around the web I see that Adobe Air, the tool that is used for building desktop apps using flash technologies and actionscript (Adobe's version of javascript) has not been updated for quite a while.

 

With the on-rushing death of Flash for the web it seems that Flash for the desktop may die with it. Its days may be numbered as anything associated with Flash is being tarred with the same negative brush even though this may not be entirely fair in the case of desktop apps.

 

Adobe seem to make it very unclear as to Adobe Air's future, not having updated it for 5 years now.



yereverluvinunclebert #16 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 01:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Some fairly recent news is that scaleform, the main tool that is used to design WoT's HUD in-garage and in-game has been abandoned and shutdown by its owner Autodesk. Scaleform was the middleware used to integrate flash video content and  actionscript logic allowing its integration into the game.

 

Due to this I have to start to agree with the OP that the writing is not just starting to appear on the wall, it is there in big bold letters. The demise of WoT in its current form is starting to be a reality.

 

The tools will continue to operate, nothing much will change there in the short term, just because a product is abandoned doesn't mean it stops working, it just gets more and more difficult to justify its use. Therefore it won't be used in WoT 2.0.

 

Scaleform supported the creation of logic using actionscript, a version of javascript and it also allowed the integration of flash-built .SWF files that contained video content. All that is in peril now.

 

The work to re-create the Flash video content, the logic to control it, the tools needed to integrate all of this needs to be remade, largely from scratch. It would be bad form to re-use obsolete video content so I suggest it all has to be re-made as conversion of existing assets is probably out of the question for a new and improved version of the game. The code logic will change dependant upon how the new engine implements that and it is likely that it will revert to being Python-based as it used to be in the beginning, possibly it could change to LUA. That could mean very little code re-use.

 

When scaleform is dropped entirely, Autodesk will make it open source which means it may be possible for Wargaming to pick it up and use the skills they have in-house to maintain it themselves. More developers doing non-game development would be the result. It is also a proven dead-end as its only purpose is to integrate Adobe Flash.  It may serve for a while but it is largely a dead-end for WG.

 

Therefore a new code base and new HUDs using new technologies is inevitable for WoT 2.0 and we should expect a differing experience. Modern tanks will probably be the justification and the means to get new users used to the new engine and gameplay. As the user base gets used to the new engine, WWII tanks will probably start to appear and WoT version 1.0 will then be pensioned off. It will be a hard job for WG to attain the same gameplay experience with an entirely new engine but it may be possible but it'll need a lot of work on WG's part. Let's hope they don't shift it too early. How would you feel if the response to your mouse movements resulted in significantly different reticle movement/shot dispersion &c? Slippy tanks might only be one part of it.

 

It will need thorough testing that is for sure.

 

 

 



FrozenKemp #17 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 03:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 42088 battles
  • 4,260
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postyereverluvinunclebert, on Jul 26 2017 - 14:17, said:

The WoT client is written mainly in Flash/actionscript and some middleware and I believe it needs some sort of a thin browser client to run within and reading around it appears to use IE. 

 

... [edited], you're right.  That's crazy... although it seems to be Flash "for the UI", not necessarily for the graphics rendering. 

 

https://hackmag.com/...wot-developers/


Edited by FrozenKemp, Oct 04 2017 - 03:54.


yereverluvinunclebert #18 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 14:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View PostFrozenKemp, on Oct 04 2017 - 02:41, said:

 

... [edited], you're right.  That's crazy... although it seems to be Flash "for the UI", not necessarily for the graphics rendering. 

 

https://hackmag.com/...wot-developers/

 

It isn't crazy, it is a fantastic solution allowing video/animated content which is easily created using Flash, one of the best tools for the job, actionscript which allows the logic to be defined (actionscript is really javascript which is another web technology) and then integration of these Adobe components into the game which was provided by libraries within Scaleform. All rather good.

 

The HUD as described above is the UI you mentioned. The HUD in the garage and in-game are both implemented using the above technologies.

 

The reason it isn't crazy? Have a read the thread from the top and it should become apparent. The reality is Adobe Air/Flash/actionscript/scaleform combination is a great client solution for web-based MMO games. The trouble is that these tools are all dying as their suitability for browser-based content on the web has been challenged due to security and bugginess on multiple browsers and o/ses. Providing web content to browsers is their biggest market, it is drying up rapidly and so their use on the desktop to provide a few game client interfaces like that of WoT, being merely residual use, will dry up also. It isn't a big enough market to sustain a product.



FrozenKemp #19 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 14:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 42088 battles
  • 4,260
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
Well, sure... For UI work. It's not what I associate with 3D rendering, though!

yereverluvinunclebert #20 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 14:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 16613 battles
  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View PostFrozenKemp, on Oct 04 2017 - 02:41, said:

 

That's a very interesting article. He says:

 

"The trend is that Flash becomes a highly specialized technology. Yes, all sorts of Flash games on the Web, most likely, will die. But in such major projects as “Tanks”, “Ships”, and so on, Flash has proven to be a very popular technology. It is perfectly suited to meet the challenges in terms of performance and in some other areas… like adding buttons and that sort of thing."

 

That shows they came to the same conclusions long before me. I couldn't see a date on that article but I will assume it was made some time ago as some of the current predictions might be a little more pessimistic.

 

He also said:

"Even though we are looking for an alternative to Flash, so far it perfectly handles the current tasks. For now, we are not planning any internal implementation."

 

I bet they are seriously thinking about it now or looking for the new engine that already has everything they need off-the-shelf.

 

"we craft a separate client for Xbox" - that states they clearly have the capability to recreate WoT on a different technology if they really need to.

 

A useful link, thankyou.

 

Edit: I looked the code for that article and it implies that the article date was June 2015, so a little old, I imagine their outlook has been revised since then.


Edited by yereverluvinunclebert, Oct 04 2017 - 14:47.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users