Chrome 33 + WebGL performance

— - I haven't tried them yet, but it seems unlikely they will be any better unless the chrome team has changed their minds. This isn't a bug - it's a design decision to just not support hardware acceleration for XP and vista at all anymore.

Aphrodite - ideally, end users shouldn't have to make a choice like that. Generally if you ask a non-technical user a technical question, they will give up, try to cancel it, or pick a random choice because they don't understand the consequences.

Wouldn't this depend on how it's presented? I'm not sure if this is feasible, but having the user choose "This will improve performance but may cause crashes" in-game option should make things pretty clear. 'I'll try this, if I get crashes I'll just turn it off'. They don't need to know what it is.

Juryiel - in my experience, 90% of users don't even read the message, and click the first button. Then when it crashes they will email you complaining!

I think it depends on the game. Maybe if you're playing angry birds yes. If I make a quality game with a bit of depth etc, I imagine the audience would be different. I would in fact like the option to have it played on Win XP in an accelerated form when possible, and besides, my game is not playable without webGL anyway. If users care enough complain I would be more than happy to walk them through how to deal with the option.

I guess I don't see why having such an option available can hurt. And not having it means that essentially C2 no longer supports Win XP for my game. Not that any of this matters since I just do this as a hobby and no one who isn't me will play this game, but in theory

WebGL performance has been worse on blackberry browser too.

A single .exe would be awesome for client's sake as well.

when Im delivering a product in this method,

the client is less confused without having to sift through the other files to find the executable.