I just published a GigaOM story on InstantAction, a new technology platform that can convert 3D games into a web browser. The company execs emphasized "any" game, even hardcore PC/videogames like World of Warcraft or Gears of War. This is done with a 150K plug-in, and some proprietary "secret sauce" which translates the data from any game engine, and feeds it into the browser. Above, that's me playing Fallen Empire, a hardcore FPS with great frame rate, in Firefox; load times for this 3D game took a few minutes the first time I played it, and a matter of seconds afterward. Read more about it here.
The most obvious question for NWN, of course, is whether this technology could be used to convert Second Life into a web browser. The InstantAction execs told me they thought so, and that they were in talks with at least one 3D virtual world developer, but wouldn't specify which one. To create an InstantAction version of SL would require paying for a license from that company, and presumably, a license from Linden Lab. So either the Lindens would have to sponsor that project, or another company with enough cash to do so. Whatever the case, I think the best and perhaps only chance Second Life has to become truly mass market is a full-featured version for the web.
Update, 3:45pm: InstantAction General Manger Andy Yang confirms, "Yes, this technology could work with Second Life and we'd be happy to speak with them."
James,
This is Andy Yang with InstantAction. It was nice speaking to you in-person and again virtually. Yes, this technology could work with Second Life and we'd be happy to speak with them. We've been thinking about reaching out to them and if you know anyone you think we should be talking to specifically then let us know.
Regards,
Andy
Posted by: Andy Yang | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 01:59 PM
That... would be absolutely incredible if you were to create a conversion of the Second Life client viewer via this tech, Andy.
Hamlet, please do try to help get them into contact with LL!
Posted by: Nexii Malthus | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Does it mean that Second Life could be downloaded as a firefox plugin, and totally transparent for users ??
Posted by: koxinell lane | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Yes, Koxinell, that's what that seems to mean. Thanks for the info, Andy!
Posted by: Hamlet Au | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Just visited their web site. Like the woman at Bob's Country Bunker in _The Blues Brothers_, they are proud of their cross-platform nature: they support both Windows AND Macintosh!
Posted by: Melissa Yeuxdoux | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 03:42 PM
Seeing an Instant version would be interesting. I'll have to poke at it when I get home. I wonder if this uses the local hardware or server-side.
Posted by: Rez Gray | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Wait a sec. Don't you mean "embed into a web-browser"? Because "convert into a web-browser" is something rather different.
Posted by: Tateru Nino | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 04:37 PM
I'm with Tateru.
Is the "secret sauce" part of the browser plug-in or is it a 50Mb install?
Posted by: csven | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 05:24 PM
Let me try to address everyone's comments and questions all at once :) Please feel free to email me if you have any more questions and comments as well at [email protected]
@koxinell lane and hamlet au - Yes that is exactly right. FF, IE, Safari, and soon Chrome.
@Rez Gray - Our architecture is a hybrid. Some of the technology is client side and some is server side. We took a look at a pure server side approach and is certainly feasible for us from an implementation perspective. However we don't think broadband speeds where they are in the U.S. is ready for this. Yes you can render games on the server, but a full multiplayer experience is just not possible to scale right now. So we opted for a hybridized approach and will certainly move more into the cloud as the technology and infrastructure will allow it over time.
@Tateru and cseven - We are talking about rendering in the browser and the secret sauce is in a 150KB plugin. The whole point is to circumvent the need for an onerous installation process.
Thanks all!
Posted by: Andy Yang | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Clive Thompson has an article in the latest issue of WIRED magazine (March 2009) where he mentions something similar (on page 70):
"AMD is working on an experimental 3-D graphics server farm that would run high-end video games, squirting a stream out to portable devices [or any computer] so you could play even the most outrageously lush games without a fancy onboard processor... imagine you've got servers running _Crysis_ and streaming it to an iPhone or a netbook..."
(Full article at http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks )
It sounds like AMD is doing all the rendering server-side.
OTOY is supposedly doing something along these lines as well. (See http://search.techcrunch.com/query.php?s=OTOY )
It seems there are two choices:
1) Do the rendering server-side and hope the client has a fast enough internet speed to get what is effectively live video, or
2) do the rendering client-side and hope the client has a good enough graphics card. (This requires a plugin to work in current web browsers.)
I guess InstantAction is going with choice 2. (From the GigaOM article: "This process does require a 3D graphics card...")
Unless... Is it possible to do some initial rendering calculations server-side and finish them off with a crummy computer (think netbook) at the client end?
Posted by: Troy McConaghy | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 09:14 PM
@Andy Ah, so it's essentially a sort of embeddable VNC-style setup. Interesting.
Hmm. This sounds way too expensive for pay-by-the-byte plans or capped plans, mind. Just rendering SL locally eats up a ferocious amount of plan-bandwidth, never mind doing it remotely.
Posted by: Tateru Nino | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 09:18 PM
@andy - How many server resources would be required to host, say, 1,000 clients? Can you handle more than one client per server machine?
James
Posted by: James Ratner | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 09:32 PM
This looks similiar to the solution Vollee have come up with for getting Second Life (and other 3D applications) on mobile devices www.vollee.com
Posted by: Obvious Schism | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 03:12 AM
For SL, done and done:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwengareth/2914357868/
Client-side rendering, but it works, here's the code:
http://www.garethnelson.com/code/ffwrap
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 08:12 AM
"@Rez Gray - Our architecture is a hybrid. Some of the technology is client side and some is server side. We took a look at a pure server side approach and is certainly feasible for us from an implementation perspective. However we don't think broadband speeds where they are in the U.S. is ready for this."
I tried the server-side rendering thing with my company (Litesim Ltd). Here's what happened:
Day 1 - Announce it to a few users
Day 2 - Order first render server
Day 5 - Server installed at data center
Days 6 and 7 - Software setup
Day 8 - Basic proof of concept ready
Day 9 - Money runs out and no extra capital, servers get unplugged
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 08:16 AM
Hey All - Great conversation going on here and I'd be more than happy to provide more details. Please email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss in more detail.
Posted by: Andy Yang | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM
This would definitely help out with businesses where the software installation is locked down to administrators. The support for installation also goes down since it's just a plug-in. How many people can use the site concurrently using the plug-in?
Posted by: Dedric Mauriac | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I am still confused....can we display active browser pages in SL now as textures, or can we not?
Posted by: Alastair Chamerberlin | Friday, February 27, 2009 at 05:13 PM
I tried InstantAction and QuakeLive, both were quite impressive. Playce didn't work in the Flock browser I'm using at the moment. I'm not much of a fast action game player, but those who are should take a look at both InstantAction and QuakeLive.
Glad I read your post, Mr. Au.
Regarding "an we display active browser pages in SL now as textures, or can we not?" No, no interactive web pages in SL, other than in the embedded browser.
For a virtual world that does have in-world active browsers, try Twinity. Hipihi has Shockwave interactive on prims.
Posted by: Chuck Baggett | Wednesday, March 04, 2009 at 08:42 PM