I ranted a bit when this news was first posted on HN late last night, now that I've had more time to mull it over, it just pisses me off even more. It seems like every Adobe press release these days is like a gorgeous chocolate cake...

...with cigarette butts stubbed out in it.

I write games in Actionscript every day, that's my day job and it was going to be my night job too. The state of Flash development has never been worse than it is right now, and it is largely because of Adobe's utter incompetence at building tools for targeting the Flash VM. Their documentation ranges from mediocre to horrendous, their frameworks have sprawled far too much, and the runtime is needlessly fragmented. They threw in the towel on mobile development months ago. Then they killed (more or less) their Linux support. So much for write once run anywhere. And what did they declare as their new strategy? Games. Console quality, AAA dev worthy games. They're betting the whole flash ecosystem farm on people playing GPU accelerated, high quality games in the browser. Not the worst idea they've ever had, but not particularly inventive.

Obviously they were going to have to make some money off of this new initiative, and I naively assumed that they would build a really great toolset for developing these games. For some really ridiculous reason, I actually thought that they would get back in the business of building tools to let people create really great content (they haven't been selling the best tools for making Flash content for the last 4 years or so, so I thought maybe they would change that).

Instead we get this, the chocolate cake with cigarette butts stamped out in it. I fully understand that Adobe have not had the time to actually develop a useful developer's kit for game dev targeted at the Flash runtime. In fact, it might not ever be appropriate for them to do so. But right now they are struggling mightily just to remain relevant, so it seemed natural to me that whatever they did come up with would really give devs an incentive to consider their runtime and workflow as a reasonable, efficient, and cost effective option.

Instead some greedy twit seems to have taken a gander at UDK licensing costs (25% off gross after your first 50 grand in revenue), and thought, "we can charge that!" If they offered a tenth of what UDK actually offers, then they might very well have been able to charge what they're going after--9% off net from pretty much all revenue in excess of 50 grand, virtual items, whatever. How very generous of them. But what are you actually getting for this big chunk of your profit?

You're getting Alchemy, a cross compiler that compiles C/C++ into AS bytecode to be executed by the Flash VM or a binary compiled for iOS. Are you getting an industry leading developer's toolkit like Unreal? An amazing engine? A version of Gears of War 3 or some other equally massive/ambitious game to use as a starting point to base your project around? No, you'll still have to pay Unreal for that (or Unity or write your own game engine) and pay their licensing fees (remember, that's 25% off gross). Alchemy was introduced years ago, and at the time, it was just a one man project (if that, it seemed like it was just a part time project at the time). Cross-compile C and C++ into AS bytecode, sweet. Cost: free. I seriously doubt that this stopgap, bullshit, announcement has been preceded by considerably more development into Alchemy, and even if they have thrown dozens of people at the project for the last 6 months, it can't possibly justify the cost. I would think they would work for longer than 6 months on flagship product announcements that are the lynchpin for their entire damned roadmap, but at Adobe, roadmaps themselves don't seem to last that long. So will any giant game developer actually use this? I can't see how it's viable for them to use it at the public royalty rates. Maybe Zynga can get a better licensing contract than us poor schlubs, but there's no way they're going to throw away 9% of their net after blowing through 55% on Unreal and Facebook's take before even considering their own costs.