How We Decide What Gets a Browser Port
TL;DR
Every title here passed a source and licence check before it went live. Here is what that actually involves, and why some obvious candidates never appear.
Every game on this site passed the same check before it went live, and that check is stricter than you might expect. Here is how it works.
The three questions
1. Where did this come from?
A title is only considered if we can point to a specific, checkable source: an open-source repository with a licence, a written authorisation from the rights holder, a title in the public domain, or an established fan project whose author has said publicly that ports are welcome.
"What if I found the code somewhere" is not a source. Neither is "it's just an old game".
2. Does the licence let us do this?
Redistribution is not the same as permission. A project might be publicly readable but carry no licence at all, which legally means all rights reserved. We look for an explicit grant covering redistribution in a compiled web build.
3. Does it actually play well?
A port that runs but feels broken is worse than no port. We check that it loads without console errors, responds to input promptly, and holds a playable frame rate on a mid-range laptop.
What gets rejected
The most common rejection is not a legal one. It is a quality one: the port works on the developer's machine and nowhere else. We would rather publish three good titles than thirty that need a specific browser version to run.
We also reject titles where the original creator asked us not to redistribute, even when the licence arguably permits it. If someone who made the thing says no, that settles it.
What this means for you
You will notice the catalogue grows slowly. That is deliberate. When a game appears here, it is because somebody checked it, not because a scraper found an asset pack.
If you think we are wrong about a title — either one that should be here or one that should not — tell us. Corrections get made, and the reasoning is on the record.