Post by redonihunter in Better discoverability for self-hosted web projects

Viewing post in Better discoverability for self-hosted web projects

Your thread title does not include the special case where there is also a download version. You are suggesting this kind of homepage hosted web games discoverablilty for all projects.

I covered both cases in my reply.

I have seen attempts of having a placeholder project to drive people to a 3rd party service. Some of those have been crypto projects. So, yes, if someone would have a project that consists only of a web "game" that directs me to a another service, I would get very suspicous. I am browsing Itch and not a general software catalogue.

The "Play in Browser" filter can be understood as "Play in Browser on Itch and in the Itch app". A version hosted on some homepage would not run in the Itch app, nor on Itch. It is also understood as being hosted somehwere and not be a browser version for download. Though I would imagine the option to select "browser" as a platform for downloadable files would be usefull - but those files should not make projects appear in the "Play in Browser" category.

But this is my opinion and this is a discussion board.

For your case specifically, what kind of webhoster app would be compatible to self host your project? You mentioned special configuration being necessary. Or did you mean a browser version with "self host"? If you use the word host, you need a webserver even if it runs on localhost, otherwise it is not hosting. It is just running a browser version diretly from the file location. And if that is possible, I am kinda curious why the app would not run as a web version on Itch. I assumed some kind of multiplayer issues or whatever. But then I realized your project is a tool and seems to be made in godot and there is plenty of godot web projects https://itch.io/tools/made-with-godot/platform-web

Like Reply

yurisizov13 hours ago

I appreciate that this is just your opinion, but you started your reply by arguing with a point that nobody made. You assumed something that was never stated and wasn’t the point of the suggestion.

Back to the discussion, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the context for my suggestion. The project is already hosted and available to everyone who wants to use it in a browser. Just not on itch. But you don’t need to download it and host it yourself, locally or otherwise. I simply mention that you can also download the sources for self-hosting, if you want to. Alongside desktop versions. I’m making a point that the project is fully available on itch as you expect, to address your assumption that the project is not downloadable/available directly.

Still, the web version itself cannot be hosted directly on itch. There are specific issues and there is a general problem with user experience. Specific issues boil down to Safari being picky about certain security HTTP headers and itch is configured in a way that doesn’t make Safari happy. Safari wants more strict headers than all other browsers, but that makes it impossible to do certain things. For example, integrate ads to your web projects. Itch is specifically configured in a more relaxed way, allowing for such features, and it works in most browsers. To clarify, I don’t need ads, it’s just and example of the rationale behind server configuration considerations.

Yes, Godot projects run fine on web, and so does mine. But Safari makes it problematic, and in my specific case I cannot use a workaround introduced in a recent version of the engine.

So, again, the case here is with a project that has web as one of its platforms. The project is available in the browser, but not directly on itch, for technical reasons. Still, users might be interested in it and the fact that it runs in a browser, even if you cannot do it directly on itch.

Like Reply

redonihunter10 hours ago

Is this a translation issue? There are several things you say that make me believe there are things lost in translation. I shall try to exchange the generic you with one in this post, as that might have lead to misunderstandings.

You assumed something that was never stated and wasn’t the point of the suggestion.

I am not sure to what you are referring to, because I did not make any assumptions in such a way. And reading further, I am rather sure I understood your feature suggestion quite well.

Your suggestion is to make projects discoverable in the Play in browser section, even when they do not have a web-playable thingy actually on Itch, but by giving ability to state that the game is hosted elsewhere. Is this not so?

I posed two scenarios, where one would either have no downloadable files or one would have some. And gave my opinion and reasoning for having that opinion for both cases.

But you don’t need to download it and host it yourself, locally or otherwise. I simply mention that you can also download the sources for self-hosting, if you want to.

That makes little sense. What exactly do you mean by "host it yourself/self-hosting"? The second part would imply redistribution. The normal use case seen on other projects would be to open the index.html file on one's hard drive with a browser - and that would not be called hosting, hence my confusion.

Safari

So let me get this straight: your web project would not properly run on Itch when accessing it with Safari. But uploading it to Itch anways for all the people not using Safari was not an option? You could check for browser when starting the app and redirect people to your homepage and explaining that it does not work in that combination (Itch+this project+safari). And also put that in the description.

Well, when I try to run certain browser games on my phone, I just get the message that this and that will not run. Bad luck. Not all browser things run on all browsers. There are even flash games still on Itch and those will not run on most browsers, not only not on Safari. https://itch.io/games/flash/platform-web

The project is available in the browser, but not directly on itch, for technical reasons. Still, users might be interested in it and the fact that it runs in a browser, even if you cannot do it directly on itch.

If one makes a game, a game for Windows in this example, that also has a version for Linux, would you want to have that game appear in the section that officially proclaims that the game runs on a platform, even though the version for that platform is not actually on Itch? Like, one would only have the Linux version on github or whatever.

Like Reply

yurisizov10 hours ago

That makes little sense.

Key words are “don’t need to” and “can”. Hope it helps.

So let me get this straight

Quite frankly and with all due respect, I’m not asking for an advice on how to best distribute my projects. I’m explaining the circumstances and the problem with discoverability. If you do not believe it’s a real problem and think that my suggestion is unreasonable, just say so and let’s stop there.

Is this a translation issue?

I don’t like how this conversation is unfolding. And I’m sure you’re not trying to be rude on purpose, but the way you opened your initial reply and continue to engage with me is very unpleasant and hard to take in any way other than condescending.

You are perfectly clear. But you also make tangential and lengthy arguments which have little to do with the suggestion, like your opening point about projects not being available for download having no place on itch. And you also keep missing the point about source files being provided for download for those who want them — which has been just a side note, which I now regret making because it seems to have really confused you. And you keep trying to catch me on some technicality, posting, as if it’s some kind of proof, links to Godot games available on web or questioning my rationale for distributing the project the way I do.

To which end you do this I don’t know. I assume you just don’t see value in the idea, and that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. The added scrutiny, insistence, and argumentative attitude is unnecessary. So let’s leave it at that, and have a nice day.

Like Reply

redonihunter8 hours ago

No. It does not help. What do you mean with self-hosting? It is not an unreasonable question. This very thread here comes up on page 1 or 2 when searching for its usage on Itch https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aitch.io+self-hosting&ia=web

And wether or not you are interested in my opinion about your situation, I asked, if I understood your situation correctly. Judging from your reaction, I did understand. Sorry for bringing my point of view into a situation. And to clarify my view: I fail to undertsand why you do not upload your web version to Itch for the people that do can use it here. This would also have the benefit that you do not have to wait till your suggestion is implemented.

As for the general case, if you had answered the example with the Windows version on Itch + Linux version elsewhere scenario, there would have been a base for further discussion, depending on how you would like the discovery system to work, based on platforms. I consider that scenario and the one with external web hoster quite similar.

Like Reply

yurisizov7 hours ago (3 edits)

Self-hosting is a way of providing a web resource by hosting it on the server that you directly control, rather than using a service that hosts something for you and lets you control it via some high level tools like an admin or control panel.

When I talk about self-hosting I mean a situation where a developer hosts a web project of theirs on their own server or a server that they directly control, and not by uploading and embedding it on itch.

What got you so confused is my mention of the fact that I also provide the source files of the web version, so people who desire, for whatever reason, to host a copy of the project themselves, can do so. This is unrelated to my question, but I brought it up because you decided to make an argument about a situation where the project is not downloadable from itch. I merely pointed out that this is not the case for me, and that this is not a part of the premise for my proposal.

I provide source files because it’s an open source project. People are free to do with it as they please. So in good faith I provide as much as I can, because different users might have different needs. Which is, again, beside the point of this proposal and was but a side remark that I’ve added to highlight that the project is very much downloadable in my case, and that I use itch for its primary purpose.

This is not a blocker to me, and if leafo and team decide against this, or even completely ignore this suggestion, it wouldn’t really bother me. I just thought it’d be good to let the users know that the project is available on web in a way that is as noticeable as other related projects. It sucks to not be discoverable when great efforts have been put to make this version happen. But it is what it is, and I’d be fine with either resolution. Nothing hangs in balance for me. It’s just an idea.

I find your comparison inappropriate and pointless. There are no technical limitations for uploading any executable to itch and labeling them appropriately between the 4 supported platforms. If someone chooses not to do it, then, well, it’s up to them. Hosting web applications on 3rd party services like itch, however, is not always possible. While itch is extremely accommodating, it has its own things to consider. And as a developer I have to consider that if part of my users may have inadequate experience, I should make sure that they don’t.

I could upload the project to be hosted by itch in whatever form it can be, but that means I have to support this second web version of the app, in an environment that I do not control and cannot apply every fix possible if needed. This is undesirable, and it increases burden on me, as a sole developer maintaining a rather popular open source project. But again, I don’t demand or request itch to change anything about their support for web-based projects. And it’s not critical to me that they even consider my suggestion.

I just think it’s a good idea to help developers and users connect better. Your views seem to be rather conservative in that regard. So you try to convince me that I need to do something, that I’m approaching this incorrectly, that it’s mine and mine alone problem and my point of view is insignificant. You wave at the other comment here that mentions that they don’t want to go outside of itch’s ecosystem as if that should discourage me. You demand someone enlighten you why this should be such a brilliant idea.

What’s with all the gatekeeping? You’re making such a big deal out of a tiny suggestion, creating a hostile environment where the person proposing must prove something to you. I’m beginning to regret to even trying to propose anything. But maybe that is exactly what you want people to feel.

Like Reply

redonihunter4 hours ago

Thanks for the clarification. This was unexpected, as regular users usually do not have the capacity to do such a thing.

You might have understood my initial posting to be specific about your project. It was not.

I do hope that this is a language thing (btw, English is not my native language). You accuse me of things I did not do. Being of a different opinion is neither gatekeeping nor creating a hostile environment. Nor would asking for reasoning be a discouragement. And voicing an opinion is not telling you, that you are incorrectly doing something. Also, hoping for further arguments, is not a demand.

I really do look forward for any arguments, from you or other people, in favor for your suggestion. Or against it, for that matter.

Your argument seems to be, better discoverability.

And I agree!

My main argument was, that this is not what I expect from the filter "Play in browser". You also seemed fine with that.

So let's leave it at that.

Like Reply