<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Okay, Social Platform Might Replace Something&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gameproducer.net/2010/06/05/okay-social-platform-might-replace-something/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gameproducer.net/2010/06/05/okay-social-platform-might-replace-something/</link>
	<description>I bake games. Indie style.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:09:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juuso</title>
		<link>http://www.gameproducer.net/2010/06/05/okay-social-platform-might-replace-something/comment-page-1/#comment-140688</link>
		<dc:creator>Juuso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gameproducer.net/?p=4645#comment-140688</guid>
		<description>True, all plugins are obstacles, but there&#039;s attempts to do this well... and I wouldn&#039;t be amazed to see some sort of &quot;standard&quot; (whether commonly accepted, or developed by Some Big Company) in this matter as well. 

By the way, have you checked:
http://www.instantaction.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, all plugins are obstacles, but there&#8217;s attempts to do this well&#8230; and I wouldn&#8217;t be amazed to see some sort of &#8220;standard&#8221; (whether commonly accepted, or developed by Some Big Company) in this matter as well. </p>
<p>By the way, have you checked:<br />
<a href="http://www.instantaction.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.instantaction.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.gameproducer.net/2010/06/05/okay-social-platform-might-replace-something/comment-page-1/#comment-140685</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 19:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gameproducer.net/?p=4645#comment-140685</guid>
		<description>Honestly, I&#039;m a bit worried about Unity3d. On one hand, it&#039;s great to see that native gaming can be integrated with the web and social networks, but on the other, this shouldn&#039;t be tied to any one particular technology platform like this. Unity3d might be a great game engine, but still, I&#039;d like to see some similar browser plugin technology that is independent from it (or any other engine), so that people have the freedom to build their games on whatever technologies they see fit, and then deploy them on the web or social networks. There are some attempts, like OSAKit, but they don&#039;t seem to have the same level of user acceptance as the Unity web plugin does. 

The best and most obvious way to achieve this would be if Unity themselves decided to decouple the web deployment (and connected sandboxing) technology from the game engine, but of course it is not in their business interest. Another possibility would be if some of the big tech companies like Microsoft or Google started pushing in this direction. And in fact, Google seems to have begun doing just that with their upcoming NativeClient stuff. At the moment I&#039;m hoping that this is going to gain momentum and make it possible to do some serious game development based on existing C++ technology, but deploying on the web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly, I&#8217;m a bit worried about Unity3d. On one hand, it&#8217;s great to see that native gaming can be integrated with the web and social networks, but on the other, this shouldn&#8217;t be tied to any one particular technology platform like this. Unity3d might be a great game engine, but still, I&#8217;d like to see some similar browser plugin technology that is independent from it (or any other engine), so that people have the freedom to build their games on whatever technologies they see fit, and then deploy them on the web or social networks. There are some attempts, like OSAKit, but they don&#8217;t seem to have the same level of user acceptance as the Unity web plugin does. </p>
<p>The best and most obvious way to achieve this would be if Unity themselves decided to decouple the web deployment (and connected sandboxing) technology from the game engine, but of course it is not in their business interest. Another possibility would be if some of the big tech companies like Microsoft or Google started pushing in this direction. And in fact, Google seems to have begun doing just that with their upcoming NativeClient stuff. At the moment I&#8217;m hoping that this is going to gain momentum and make it possible to do some serious game development based on existing C++ technology, but deploying on the web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jtrencsenyi</title>
		<link>http://www.gameproducer.net/2010/06/05/okay-social-platform-might-replace-something/comment-page-1/#comment-140683</link>
		<dc:creator>jtrencsenyi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gameproducer.net/?p=4645#comment-140683</guid>
		<description>Tiger Woods PGA Tour Online is the another Unity3D example:
http://tigerwoodsonline.ea.com
But it hasn&#039;t got Facebook integration...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tiger Woods PGA Tour Online is the another Unity3D example:<br />
<a href="http://tigerwoodsonline.ea.com" rel="nofollow">http://tigerwoodsonline.ea.com</a><br />
But it hasn&#8217;t got Facebook integration&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
