I see the desktop shortcuts not as a way to save the time of navigating to the page and clicking Play, but to provide a more Windows-familiar interface to many users who may not be as web-savvy. Surely you can think of a few people who would be more comfortable with Start Menu or desktop shortcuts once the client goes away?

> {quote:title=freyarh wrote:}{quote}
> What about passing command-line arguments? Wouldn't that be the whole point of having shortcuts?

It is a shortcut to the same encrypted games we use now, which do not support command-line arguments.

> {quote:title=freyarh wrote:}{quote}
> How will the gameplay window scale for people using alternate resolutions? Will I end up with more white-space and ad-space if I'm running at 1900x1200 as opposed to say... 1024x768?

Can someone from the dev or testing teams answer this please?

> {quote:title=BurnedToast wrote:}{quote}
> If I was a bit more clever perhaps I could make a bookmark right to the javascript you use on the 'play' button and accomplish the same thing?


Some beta testers tried this when the web browser and the results were very very mixed. about half of us had luck, 1/4 got nothing, and 1-2 people had to reset their GT because somehow their catalog got corrupted. We never figured out why the varience and gave up. This will standardize and automate that function to remove any error we may have introduced (that's a good thing).

I like the browers Ider

> {quote:title=freyarh wrote:}{quote}
> How will the gameplay window scale for people using alternate resolutions? Will I end up with more white-space and ad-space if I'm running at 1900x1200 as opposed to say... 1024x768?

The website size and player window are a fixed size. In the current browser player and in the new player beta you can use the built-in browser zooming (crtl + scrollwheel) to increase the player size, so there is a chance it will still work after the update. When I can test and confirm this I'll let you know.

But fixing the window only bug is one of the bugs that GameTap is working on, right?

Yes, is there something specific you want to know about? (because there are several things they aren't going to support.)

> {quote:title=Belial6 wrote:}{quote}
> But fixing the window only bug is one of the bugs that GameTap is working on, right?

Yes, fullscreen play is a +high+ priority.

I'm confused at this. LC said to me a few pages back that this was a way of refining the system. What exactly was imperfect about the old ways, and how is this going to fix it?

> {quote:title=BetaWolf wrote:}{quote}
> I'm confused at this. LC said to me a few pages back that this was a way of refining the system. What exactly was imperfect about the old ways, and how is this going to fix it?

Can you be more specific? I don't know what you're asking.

i think he (and all of us) want to know how in any way this is going to be better then what we have now.

Oh wait, it was tsrblke2 who said it.
http://www.gametap.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=129850#129850

While I realize you may not share the same views, how would you say that this revamp is "refining" the games on demand structure? I don't see any advantage this has over the client. While it may not be screwing the customer over, as many here believe, it seems to be fixing what isn't broken, while leaving other issues unresolved. Why scrap the client instead of improving on it?

Other services like EA Store and Steam use their own client. .exe programs have much greater potential than web clients. So what's the deal here? It seems more like an aesthetic change more than an improvement. Want an example of something that took that route and proved unsuccessful? Windows Vista.

Hey, off topic, but man is this thread active! It's only been up for a week and it's already to page 10!

> {quote:title=BetaWolf wrote:}
> Other services like EA Store and Steam use their own client. .exe programs have much greater potential than web clients. So what's the deal here? It seems more like an aesthetic change more than an improvement. Want an example of something that took that route and proved unsuccessful? Windows Vista.

Exactly. I don't see a reason for the move away from a stand-alone client consolidated software library. Steam popularized it already and other companies are moving that way as well. Not only is this fixing something that isn't broken, this is fixing something that isn't broken just for the sake of fixing it it seems.

While I REALLY dislike this move to the browser, the idea that they are fixing things that are not broken while leaving other bugs unfixed could be entirely wrong. In most programs, there is far more code that you don't see than what you do. Trying to hack fixes to the UI when the backend is totally borked is a massive drain on resources and often leads to a completely unmaintainable application. Just as your house needs a good foundation if you don't want the sheetrock inside to crack, software needs a good foundation if you want the user experience to be good.

Now, the choice to go web based instead of client based is an unrelated design choice, but rewrite of the application as a whole may have been a necessity before some outstanding bugs could even be seriously looked at.

> {quote:title=BetaWolf wrote:}{quote}
> While I realize you may not share the same views, how would you say that this revamp is "refining" the games on demand structure? I don't see any advantage this has over the client. While it may not be screwing the customer over, as many here believe, it seems to be fixing what isn't broken, while leaving other issues unresolved. Why scrap the client instead of improving on it?
>
> Other services like EA Store and Steam use their own client. .exe programs have much greater potential than web clients. So what's the deal here? It seems more like an aesthetic change more than an improvement. Want an example of something that took that route and proved unsuccessful? Windows Vista.


Good lord, I wish there was a corallary to Godwin's law that delt with Windows vista.

First, I'm not a GT employee, so my words don't mean jack in the entire grand scheme of things (I'm going to have to ressurect that non-moderator account I keep around for making comments I suppose.)

Second, you've taken my words out of context. I said that each major client upgrade has represented a refocusing (take 3.5, it was a refocusing away from GTTV to a more streamline client, with new community features. 3.0 represented the focus on beginning the commuity, or was that 1.8, still I think you see my +generalized+ point.)
Then I went on to say the the "Buffet Games on demand" industry was still refining itself. Granted, there are only 2 big players in this market (1 now that GT and Metaboli are joining.) But even so, I feel this industry is still trying to define itself, get in tune with what will work the best with regards to content, pricing etc. Even the entire Digital Games on demand industry is still in a wild state of flux IMHO, we've seen things like XBLA shift from Game add ons, to casual games (see: Uno, Castle Crashers, etc.) to not putting a large focus on so called "community built" games. I don't follow steam, so I won't comment on it.

Now, don't consider this an attack, I just feel the need to explain myself, before things I say get tossed around as gospel truth.

Even as a mod, I'm sure GameTap gave you the position for a reason, no? On an unrelated note, explain your Godwin's Law analogy. I'm not familiar with Godwin's Law x_x

> {quote:title=BetaWolf wrote:}{quote}
> Even as a mod, I'm sure GameTap gave you the position for a reason, no? On an unrelated note, explain your Godwin's Law analogy. I'm not familiar with Godwin's Law x_x

Godwin's Law is an old internet rule that says that the longer a discussion goes on the internet, the higher the chance that someone is going to reference Hitler.

I believe Tsr is saying that the longer a discussion about software goes on, the higher the chance that someone is going to bash on Vista.

GT gave me this position because I'm level headed and mostly fair, not because I agree with them on most things. Trust me, I'm sure I'm dead on the opposite side of the company line for most things.

Re: Godwin's Law (and/or it's corallary) "Vista Suxxs" has always been a pet peve of mine, I dunno why. I'm not really a MS apologetic, but alot of people who I know who have vista (and aren't that tech savvy) actuall like it.
I also wanted to start a news program called "Godwin's Law" where any guest who violated said corallary would immediately have his/her mic cut and would be kicked off the show (possibly only temperarily) and a big sign would appear on the screen like "Void" stamp. I decided this after watching something on CNN (I think) where the guy kept comparing something or another to Nazi's in a way that didn't fit, and I decided that he hurt his argument (which I think I agreed with the overall premise actually) more than helped it, and generally looked like an idiot. I decided that such a program would be awesome!! (Hey CNN, wanna pick me up on this Idea?)

Ahh, I get it now. The law doesn't seem to mention that in a negative fashion though... just states it as a theory. Even if a Vista one existed, it wouldn't change anything :P

Part of this update is GameTap needing to move forward and keep up with the industry. We are a different company now and must be profitable while continuing to offer a tremendous value to our customers. That's marketing spiel, but its true. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible here, there is no dark conspiracy at work.

I know you guys love the client, lots of staff members do too, but there is tremendous demand for browser based, instant gratification gaming. Couple that with the need to get GameTap under one roof (website, community, games,accounts and support) plus the cost of developing 2 clients and the steep cost of Mac support and you start to see why the old client is going away. The client has been something of a barrier to entry for new users in the past. A fully web-based client makes it much simpler for people who aren't as familiar with GameTap to get in and see what we're about quickly. These are decisions born from necessity; they are not arbitrary choices. To provide you this service we have to stay in business, and to stay in business we have to adapt. The new player allows us to do that. All that said, we're listening to the feedback you have about this change, and we are working our butts off to get the features you know and love back online.

If you ignore the fact that the majority of games don't work in browser...
And it ignores what I just said - the industry is moving towards stand-alone clients as consolidated games libraries. What exactly are you adapting to? Anti-market?

That makes sense. A service that charges chump change for access to 1000+ games should very well emphasize cost efficiency in its business plan. If it weren't for Metaboli merging/buying GameTap, would you guys have gone under?

> {quote:title=Cartigan wrote:}{quote}
> And it ignores what I just said - the industry is moving towards stand-alone clients as consolidated games libraries.
> What exactly are you adapting to? Anti-market?

GOG.com has proven largely successful, yet it doesn't have a stand-alone client. I know Steam has a client, but who else in the games-on-demand business does?

> {quote:title=BetaWolf wrote:}{quote}
>If it weren't for Metaboli merging/buying GameTap, would you guys have gone under?

I doubt staff will be able to answer that one. Business confidentiality and all.