These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Bidding Farewell to the In-game Browser

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#361 - 2016-07-07 18:43:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Speared wrote:

"Working to the schedule stated in CCP FoxFour's dev blog" which to me is removing the browser from the client seems like a lot of work indeed.



While I wasn't part of the discussion, and haven't seen the code, I _highly_ suspect the schedule is more giving people a chance to adjust, than to give CCP time to make the change.


Edit: The internal discussion, that is. The plan to remove the IGB has been well known in the Third party development community, for a few years now. It's been held off on, as some functions for sites weren't available. They are now. I've yet to meet a third party dev who isn't happy they won't need to support the IGB for much longer. Total PITA to work with.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Speared
Let's annoy'em
#362 - 2016-07-07 21:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Speared
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Speared wrote:

"Working to the schedule stated in CCP FoxFour's dev blog" which to me is removing the browser from the client seems like a lot of work indeed.



While I wasn't part of the discussion, and haven't seen the code, I _highly_ suspect the schedule is more giving people a chance to adjust, than to give CCP time to make the change.


Edit: The internal discussion, that is. The plan to remove the IGB has been well known in the Third party development community, for a few years now. It's been held off on, as some functions for sites weren't available. They are now. I've yet to meet a third party dev who isn't happy they won't need to support the IGB for much longer. Total PITA to work with.


If what you're saying is true then 3rd party devs care about as much about EVE players in this case as do CCP. I hope you're only speaking for yourself, though. Which bothers me as I always thought keeping as much functionality In-game should be everyone's goal.
Jessika Lee
Perkone
Caldari State
#363 - 2016-07-07 23:30:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessika Lee
BTW, about EVE and any external browser:

1. switch game graphics settings to Window mode / Fixed Window (looks like fullscreen)
2. install freeware and reliable AutoHotKey software
3. compile 1 line script with it to provide standalone traybar executable
(after you copy it to safe place, you can uninstall Autohotkey)

^!SPACE::  Winset, Alwaysontop, , A

4. while this app is active you can pin / unpin any currently active window on top of screen by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Space
(launch your browser, resize it's window, press hotkey, switch back to EVE - browser window still visible and usable)

so you no need Overwolf or something like it
Red Yxa
Freedom Buildiers Corp.
#364 - 2016-07-07 23:37:09 UTC
Jessika Lee wrote:
BTW, about EVE and any external browser:

1. you just need to switch game graphics settings to Window mode / Fixed Window (looks like fullscreen)
2. install freeware and reliable AutoHotKey software
3. compile 1 line script with it to provide standalone traybar executable
(after you copy it to safe place, you can uninstall Autohotkey)

^!SPACE::  Winset, Alwaysontop, , A

4. while this app is active you can pin / unpin any currently active window on top of screen by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Space

so you no need Overwolf or something like it

Its not "just". It overburdens your PC if you run multiple clients. And you cant have different browser windows in them
Jessika Lee
Perkone
Caldari State
#365 - 2016-07-07 23:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessika Lee
Red Yxa wrote:
Jessika Lee wrote:
BTW, about EVE and any external browser:

1. you just need to switch game graphics settings to Window mode / Fixed Window (looks like fullscreen)
2. install freeware and reliable AutoHotKey software
3. compile 1 line script with it to provide standalone traybar executable
(after you copy it to safe place, you can uninstall Autohotkey)

^!SPACE::  Winset, Alwaysontop, , A

4. while this app is active you can pin / unpin any currently active window on top of screen by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Space

so you no need Overwolf or something like it

Its not "just". It overburdens your PC if you run multiple clients. And you cant have different browser windows in them

Yep, that's a problem - one of many, but as I can see the question is not «to IGB or not to IGB» - CCP will remove it in any case, likes we it or not

P.S. this is my opinion about that situation
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#366 - 2016-07-07 23:56:44 UTC
Speared wrote:

If what you're saying is true then 3rd party devs care about as much about EVE players in this case as do CCP. I hope you're only speaking for yourself, though. Which bothers me as I always thought keeping as much functionality In-game should be everyone's goal.



Ahem. You know that 3rd party devs (in almost all situations) make no money from providing services, and instead are forking out what can be a reasonable sum each month? Which means they're paying for you to use their services. And you say they don't care about Eve players?



We also tend to be reasonable people, who've been talking to CCP for a fair time about this. This isn't a spur of the moment decision on CCP's part. It's been in the offing for _years_. Would it be nice to keep having an in game browser? Yes. Is the current one suitable, nope. Would it take a bunch of resources CCP could better spend elsewhere? Yes.

That's the cost/benefit argument.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#367 - 2016-07-08 00:23:31 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Speared wrote:

If what you're saying is true then 3rd party devs care about as much about EVE players in this case as do CCP. I hope you're only speaking for yourself, though. Which bothers me as I always thought keeping as much functionality In-game should be everyone's goal.



Ahem. You know that 3rd party devs (in almost all situations) make no money from providing services, and instead are forking out what can be a reasonable sum each month? Which means they're paying for you to use their services. And you say they don't care about Eve players?



We also tend to be reasonable people, who've been talking to CCP for a fair time about this. This isn't a spur of the moment decision on CCP's part. It's been in the offing for _years_. Would it be nice to keep having an in game browser? Yes. Is the current one suitable, nope. Would it take a bunch of resources CCP could better spend elsewhere? Yes.

That's the cost/benefit argument.



A better, and a well supported In Game Brower would be great for sure.

However, as I've stated before, given that it seems clear we will not be getting that (ever), then I and I think others would accept at this point, simply leaving the IGB in the game under an Unsupported Old Features toggle. 3rd party developers will have no obligation to make anything that supports it.

Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#368 - 2016-07-08 08:58:29 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Speared wrote:

If what you're saying is true then 3rd party devs care about as much about EVE players in this case as do CCP. I hope you're only speaking for yourself, though. Which bothers me as I always thought keeping as much functionality In-game should be everyone's goal.



Ahem. You know that 3rd party devs (in almost all situations) make no money from providing services, and instead are forking out what can be a reasonable sum each month? Which means they're paying for you to use their services. And you say they don't care about Eve players?



We also tend to be reasonable people, who've been talking to CCP for a fair time about this. This isn't a spur of the moment decision on CCP's part. It's been in the offing for _years_. Would it be nice to keep having an in game browser? Yes. Is the current one suitable, nope. Would it take a bunch of resources CCP could better spend elsewhere? Yes.

That's the cost/benefit argument.



Would it take a bunch of resources better spent elsewhere is a matter of opinion. I would rather they spent their resources on updating the IGB than any of the recent camera "improvements", docking "improvements" and the entire bit that lets me pointlessly get outside of my spaceship and walk around. CCP have an annoying habit of spending lots of resources on stuff they think will improve the game that noone actually ASKED for. This is something people are clearly loath to lose. That doesn't indicate those resources could be better spent elsewhere.

Suck it up and create a decent wrapper in-game into which you can insert something like chrome and you don't NEED to spend massive resources updating it.

It's been in the offing for years because they haven't spent any time on it at all, and yet it is STILL one of the most useful in-game tools there are.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#369 - 2016-07-08 12:02:26 UTC
The problem with the argument "But they're spending time on [insert thing here]", is that not all code is equal. People have specialities. Integrating a new version of the browser is a very different code requirement, than putting in, say, docking animations.

People _keep_ missing that.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Red Yxa
Freedom Buildiers Corp.
#370 - 2016-07-08 13:54:49 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The problem with the argument "But they're spending time on [insert thing here]", is that not all code is equal. People have specialities. Integrating a new version of the browser is a very different code requirement, than putting in, say, docking animations.

People _keep_ missing that.

People of all specialities are paid by same money. CCP should fire those who cant make something really usefull with their specialities and hire those whos specialities are needed for years
Oliver Ward
Doomheim
#371 - 2016-07-08 14:28:27 UTC
Red Yxa wrote:

People of all specialities are paid by same money. CCP should fire those who cant make something really usefull with their specialities and hire those whos specialities are needed for years

As a software dev, I feel that this comment highlights the general ignorance (often willful) of the general population when it comes to software development in a corporate environment. Or any environment, to be honest.
Speared
Let's annoy'em
#372 - 2016-07-08 17:27:25 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Speared wrote:

If what you're saying is true then 3rd party devs care about as much about EVE players in this case as do CCP. I hope you're only speaking for yourself, though. Which bothers me as I always thought keeping as much functionality In-game should be everyone's goal.



Ahem. You know that 3rd party devs (in almost all situations) make no money from providing services, and instead are forking out what can be a reasonable sum each month? Which means they're paying for you to use their services. And you say they don't care about Eve players?



We also tend to be reasonable people, who've been talking to CCP for a fair time about this. This isn't a spur of the moment decision on CCP's part. It's been in the offing for _years_. Would it be nice to keep having an in game browser? Yes. Is the current one suitable, nope. Would it take a bunch of resources CCP could better spend elsewhere? Yes.

That's the cost/benefit argument.



I don't belive you're representing the whole 3rd party Dev group here.

If you take time to read my post carefully you'll notice that I did not write that 3rd party Devs don't care about EVE players. I wrote they did not care for EVE players who tend to use In-Game Browser assuming your statement was true. Which clearly isn't true as there are many tools that work with the IGB. Also not every tool requires the same amount of work as far as I know. So if you think that using your own resources to develop tools for the IGB is a waste then don't do it.

Moreover, if you think that CCPs resources should be spent on whatever it might be as you did not even care to specify those things, it's only your opinion. Such decissions can cost CCP subscription payers as players experience with the game gets worse.

If you followed this thread carefully you would have noticed that some of the players already pointed out that the removal of the IGB will cost CCP subscriptions as their in-game activities will be impacted heavily and system/equipment requirements will be harder to meet.

Besides what we're seeing now it's just calm before the storm, as most players who really care for the IGB won't notice what's on the plate until the In-Game Browser gets removed.
Dex Cordell
EVE University
Ivy League
#373 - 2016-07-09 22:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dex Cordell
TL;DR the above, I've replied to the dev post already once, I'd stil like to know if CCP still didn't put this terrible idea on ice. I still wonder how hard it could be to get chromium put into the game, the code is already developed, getting security and bugfix updates is outside of the game devs responsibility, the chromium project guys take care of that, a ton of other normal game developers managed without any hassle about high development costs and all those other excuses of CCP.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#374 - 2016-07-09 23:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Cismet
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The problem with the argument "But they're spending time on [insert thing here]", is that not all code is equal. People have specialities. Integrating a new version of the browser is a very different code requirement, than putting in, say, docking animations.

People _keep_ missing that.


I'm sorry, but if we're going to the fallacy that someone has a skill set and can only possibly do the work that falls within a particularly narrow definition of that skillset then I'm out.

I work in support, and support a particular piece of software. As part of that I need to be able to support general windows, hardware, server, IIS, webserver, SQL, basic networking and various bespoke pieces of software as part of that suite. I can't do all of them to the same proficiency, but to claim that I absolutely cannot do any of it as I'm not "skilled" for it is clearly nonsense.

If we're going down the route that developers are special snowflakes and can't possibly code (or learn to code) outside of their specialty then I'm out. Enjoy the future of the game, when the IGB is removed I'll just stop playing, as will a lot of players it would seem. There have been no valid suggestions that are supported by CCP that would work, and some of them have been borderline insulting.

GG, have fun.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#375 - 2016-07-10 02:45:44 UTC
Dex Cordell wrote:
TL;DR the above, I've replied to the dev post already once, I'd stil like to know if CCP still didn't put this terrible idea on ice. I still wonder how hard it could be to get chromium put into the game, the code is already developed, getting security and bugfix updates is outside of the game devs responsibility, the chromium project guys take care of that, a ton of other normal game developers managed without any hassle about high development costs and all those other excuses of CCP.



I beleive they used http://www.awesomium.com/ (which, iirc, is a fork of chromium)

However, bear in mind that it has to be embedded into the 3d engine that Eve uses. (Which is custom. So no, it's not as simple as they make out)

It's not a one off task though. Because you have to redo it each time they have a new release (unless you want to get into the situation we're in right now. which they don't want. Hence the removal)


'ton of other game developers'. Not that many really. it's far from a common feature.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Jiradus Tazinas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#376 - 2016-07-10 02:58:32 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I've yet to meet a third party dev who isn't happy they won't need to support the IGB for much longer. Total PITA to work with.


Have you met a user with only one monitor who uses the IGB as part of their in-game Eve Online interaction that is happy that CCP is pulling support for the IGB?

How about Mac users?

How about full-screen users?
RustyAftaBurner
Hell Bent For Leather
Not Purple Shoot It.
#377 - 2016-07-11 01:59:28 UTC  |  Edited by: RustyAftaBurner
+1 for keeping in game browser
would be cool to work at keeping it in game its one of the core features .
although i dont know the effort it takes to keep it up to date but with respect to ccp
its one of the features that ties the functionality of the whole game together .
Cliverunner
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#378 - 2016-07-11 17:28:00 UTC
I can't even imagine playing a game this complex without the in game browser. The shear number of tools that people use as a matter of course (Dotlan - because both in game maps suck, adashboard, wh mappers, just plan info websites- uni wiki just mention a few) have all come to be because ccp has made truely massive game.

Maybe the igb browser is a problem for ccp, but to remove it with out a fully supported in game replacement is just stupid. They have been talking about needing to do something about the igb for years, now the best answer they can come up with is-we are taking it away and anyone who isn't happy about it can just quit playing. That seems to also be a stupid move for a company that is trying to build and maintain a player base.

As a software developer, I have some idea what it would take to embed a chromium browser from Google and it really is a bit of work. But I also have a feel for the amount of work keeping a game like this running is too, and I can tell you the effort to keep the igb is small compared to all that.

I really hope that ccp realizes that they need to have a better replacement plan than to suggest we use unsupported overlays or just learn to do without.
Cliverunner
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#379 - 2016-07-11 17:41:36 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
However, bear in mind that it has to be embedded into the 3d engine that Eve uses. (Which is custom. So no, it's not as simple as they make out)

It's not a one off task though. Because you have to redo it each time they have a new release (unless you want to get into the situation we're in right now. which they don't want. Hence the removal)



This is only true if ccp developers are totally incompetent, which they most certainly are not. This is not something that would not have to be redone completely ever. Only very small incremental updates would occasionally be needed. The initial implementation would be a job of work, but maintainence would be fairly easy (at least compared to the amount they have to do all the time anyway).
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2016-07-14 07:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Steve Ronuken wrote:
[quote=Speared]
Edit: The internal discussion, that is. The plan to remove the IGB has been well known in the Third party development community, for a few years now. It's been held off on, as some functions for sites weren't available. They are now. I've yet to meet a third party dev who isn't happy they won't need to support the IGB for much longer. Total PITA to work with.

That's not the point. 99,99% of the eve players aren't interested how you get your data but they are interested how they can access your websites.
The point is how will EVE players get conveniently on the websites. I don't give a dam for the IGB and how they implement the functionality but I really want the functionality. Overwolf is sometimes working sometimes not.......