Re:Show HN: Feedback on our new multiplayer game API?
by bitJericho on Monday June 02, 2014 @11:03AM
(#7833862)
We're not looking to replace the multiplayer engine (at least not on launch day), we're more looking towards relieving the developer from having to manage a server for users/lobbies. The players or the developer would still need to run the actual game server where the gaming is taking place.
Re:Show HN: Feedback on our new multiplayer game API?
by teraflop on Monday June 02, 2014 @11:26AM
(#7833973)
I would suggest you come up with a more descriptive name than "simple multiplayer platform", then.
Re:Show HN: Feedback on our new multiplayer game API?
by bitJericho on Monday June 02, 2014 @11:39AM
(#7834044)
The language is sometimes tougher than the actual development! The descriptive language is all a work in progress and we'll be doing some more brainstorming on it.
Second point is, to launch, it would be nice to have big examples for incoming visitors to be attracted to the service.
Apropos the idea of multiplayer gaming, I have found that node.js and a smart bit of client-pool reflection has meant that I don't have to lean heavily on a 3rd-party API framework for the 'backend multiplayer' bit, because after all .. that's the good bit. Today's multiplayer game engine is a few well-spent afternoons with node.js, imho .. it does at least make just-in-time deployment very smooth. Don't forget that this is, also, a place for things like Lua and Rust to excel. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but these are the realms in which you dwell; a multiplayer API+(deployment problem solved with magic), versus having someone built such a thing in a month or 3, themselves, and consequently owning the codebase, because .. after all, the backend is where a lot of the magic happens when you've got 10's of k's of gamers online, and can watch it happen for months on end ..