That tiny game idea - where to host?

[Callan S.]

In regards to the idea I had over here, the previous free host I used is free no more.

So in regards to having some thread going with tiny games, I'm wondering what to do? Thought folk here might have ideas!? I'm thinking games could be php (or even just html link games!), but also might have flash or unity stuff latter on. What's available?

I was hoping to do this sort of tiny game challenge in the near future.

[a_bertrand]

Why not simply JS? With JS you can create full running games, and yet many don't do it. I'm not talking about pre-made JS engines, I'm talking about creating fully a JS game from scratch. Advantages would be that you have minimally code running on the server and therefore less security issues than for example running PHP code written by 3rd parties on your server. Also, for the developer, all they need is a text editor and a browser.

[Jackolantern]

Yeah, I couldn't really suggest going Flash. The number of browsers connecting from desktops is rapidly shrinking, and Flash's future is uncertain. I would also suggest either PHP for more classic server-side PBBG, or more canvas and JS based for more traditional, animated, client-side games.

[Callan S.]

I didn't really mean to write in stone what would be used. I was just giving example in case it helped with finding a home for example games.

I guess I could resort to gamejolt, though I don't like the philosophy of the guy running it.

[Jackolantern]

I didn't really mean to write in stone what would be used. I was just giving example in case it helped with finding a home for example games.

I guess I could resort to gamejolt, though I don't like the philosophy of the guy running it.

Out of curiosity, what is his philosophy? I had never actually seen the site until the other day when I played "No One Has to Die" on it (which, as a side note, I highly recommend checking out).

[Callan S.]

Well, in regards to part of it, he works from the idea that developers get X percentage of ad revenue per play. Sounds fair enough and when you're at low levels of traffic, it is.

However, the more traffic he gets, the more he gets merely for running a service (while developers get the same amount for putting in substantial amounts of coding). A classic middle man non contributor position, alot like running a vending machine, but others put effort into making the new interesting drinks it dispenses. The more traffic, the more unfair it gets. He seemed to be the 'head in the sand' type in regard to recognising that.

[Jackolantern]

I can understand that, but how can you fix it? I guess maybe you could have a graduated percentage plan where the more popular a game gets, he gets less of a cut (which would still be more money since the amounts will be larger). I just don't know if any game portal owner would do that, though, as that kind of lowers their incentive to make the games they are hosting more popular.

I can't really say it is a bad philosophy per se, simply because it is the one that pretty much every game portal uses, and it seems logical. Being on the site owner's portal does add value, since it can bring in more players per game. It is just that the site owner's contribution is the page views he brings into play for the developers.

And I am sure it is not a cake walk to run a large, successful game portal, either. Most of them have other content on the site besides the games that need to be created and maintained, oftentimes they will need to have service available for devs and players for when things break, etc.

You could always try to outright sell your game, at which point the portal owner has bought the rights and is simply trying to make their own profit off of a product they bought from you up-front. That is pretty ethical anyway you cut it

[Callan S.]

as that kind of lowers their incentive to make the games they are hosting more popular.

If they're only in it for the money, sure.

I guess maybe you could have a graduated percentage plan where the more popular a game gets, he gets less of a cut

I would say decide the income he wants from running the project per hour and state that. Once profit goes over that, just distribute the extra money.

If he actually stated how much he wants per hour, some people might be okay with the amount he wants. Or, if it was alot, some might be disgusted.

Right now - well, it's an unlimited amount per hour. Whatever he can get. I suspect because no actual number is given, it all seems alright. But if an actual number was given, like $10,000 an hour, you might balk at that. And yet if the traffic gets high enough, indeed, that's what you get per hour.

It depends if you like slaving for bosses who get more while you get the same as before. If that's not a prob, then the whole thing wont be a prob.

I can't really say it is a bad philosophy per se, simply because it is the one that pretty much every game portal uses

That's really not a good measure of whether anythings okay - if more people do X, X must be okay?

Being on the site owner's portal does add value, since it can bring in more players per game. It is just that the site owner's contribution is the page views he brings into play for the developers.

You're not mentioning how much the site owner gets - of course there doesn't seem a skewed site owner/developer ratio if you don't mention what the site owner potentially gets. You're just saying the developer gets something - as if that's all there is to it. Say the developer is getting $10, which seems great!!1!. But if you actually bring in what the site owner is getting from across a number of developers/submitted games - lets say $1000 Vs that $10, it seems kind of skewed. If that doesn't seem skewed, simply increase the $1k until it does seem skewed. Because the more traffic gained, the more it'll increase.

And I am sure it is not a cake walk to run a large, successful game portal, either. Most of them have other content on the site besides the games that need to be created and maintained, oftentimes they will need to have service available for devs and players for when things break, etc.

Keepin' that vending machine working is hard work? Hard like building games is hard work? Let's pin it down to actual work hours. Say the site owner puts in 100 work hours into the site - and each game built by developers takes 100 hours as well. Well, ten developers add a game and the site has 1000 work hours of content on it, for the site owners mere 100 work hours contribution.

More games added, the more skewed this gets.

You could always try to outright sell your game, at which point the portal owner has bought the rights and is simply trying to make their own profit off of a product they bought from you up-front. That is pretty ethical anyway you cut it

If the developer doesn't need the money, sure.

I've no idea why you think it's fair otherwise? To take an extreme example, you could be dying of thirst in the desert and the only way to pay for a drink is to sell your game - nothing in an open market promises you anyone will pay. Open markets don't give a jot about anyones ethical welfare.

Possibly it might all seems like money in monopoly - just a game/something without consequence.