Search Unity

  1. Unity 6 Preview is now available. To find out what's new, have a look at our Unity 6 Preview blog post.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity is excited to announce that we will be collaborating with TheXPlace for a summer game jam from June 13 - June 19. Learn more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Important news about Flash

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Aurore, Apr 24, 2013.

  1. Aurore

    Aurore

    Director of Real-Time Learning

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Posts:
    3,106
    Sometimes we have to make some tough calls, this involves thinking very carefully about what the future holds for specific technologies and mediums.

    Unity will not support Flash deployment beyond the Unity 4.x development cycle.

    This decision reflects our views on the future of web gaming and we go into more details in our Blog Post

    So, what does this mean for you?

    • There is a considerable window to finish your current Flash projects. All upcoming versions of Unity will continue to support Flash deployment, however we will not be making further significant investments to this platform.
    • We strongly recommend that you do not begin work on new Flash projects.
    • If you have any questions or concerns contact support@unity3d.com or your account manager for further info.


    As always, if conversation on this topic could stay inside this thread so we can keep track of conversation, that would be awesome. If you find any new threads please direct them here and let me know, thanks.
     
  2. Kryger

    Kryger

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Posts:
    169
    While bad news for some, I'm always glad to see flash support diminishing. It's more trouble than it's worth I'm afraid.
     
  3. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    4,835
    Kind of a bummer but it was damn near impossible to port an existing project to flash, you could only find the errors after it was finished building the project. I guess in a way that could be great news, because if flash is on the way out all those flash portals will go unity. :eek:
     
  4. jcarpay

    jcarpay

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Posts:
    561
    Wouldn't it have been better if this 'new Unity web publishing initiative' (blog post) was introduced first?
    Without having specifics about this new web publishing initiative and the news about dropping future Flash deployment, there are concerns regarding broad audience reach for web. What is the alternative to the 1 billion (desktop) Flash installs?
     
  5. Metron

    Metron

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    1,137
    Well... let's say that so many developers here in the forum told you that Flash in dead... listen to your customers :)

    No go and solve all those bugs before any new features :)
     
  6. UnityCoder

    UnityCoder

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Posts:
    534
    And hardly few people built unity games with the flash deployment and so many bugs and less future compare to Unity web player are there. So its big headache if you build with flash deployment.
     
  7. Cascho01

    Cascho01

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Posts:
    1,347
    I think it´s a very good decision from the Unity-Guys:
    Manpower can now focus on new trends, hopefully on html5/WebGL...
     
  8. superpig

    superpig

    Drink more water! Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,665
    It is hilarious that you guys announce you're dropping support for Flash because it's a dying platform less than a week after announcing your support for Blackberry.
     
  9. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,646
    Ack, that's super lame. I really wanted to use that for some stuff at work, but now it's not an option.

    Ah well, on to other things!
     
  10. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    Lol, though I think that BB10 is rather straightforward porting from Android.
     
  11. Dabeh

    Dabeh

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,614
    I think he means to say that Blackberry is also a dying platform.
     
  12. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    I know. But if it is a simple port then why not support a dying platform?
     
  13. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    Because if a platform is dying, why bother to spend money on supporting it?

    As for the loss of flash licenses? Good riddance to bad rubbish.
     
  14. Jaimi

    Jaimi

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Posts:
    6,244
    You all would be surprised how much Blackberry is still used in SE Asia and other parts of the world. More market share than Windows Phone, and still we have people asking for that. :) Not that I want to support it, but it is out there.
     
  15. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    IDK, I heard that it is nearly a one button process to build an Android app to BB10.
     
  16. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,404
    Well I’ve never felt interested in Flash, neither Unity Flash. I knew it would be a waste of time and resources for Unity. Flash have been the buggiest thing I’ve ever saw in web dev and Adobe made it worse when they bought Macromedia.
    As for those asking in HTML5/WebGL, please do some research! Unreal Engine is running even slower than their iOS hardware version… On a frigging gamer rig!!!
     
  17. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Unity most likely will be embracing html5 and such. This is the smart option. Slow now doesn't always mean slow. Lets see how the standards evolve going forward.
     
  18. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    It's not a smart option because HTML5 isn't just slow. It's also notoriously incompatible between browsers and barely supported by anything fully. The best option would be to stick with the Unity plugin for website development until HTML5 isn't completely useless.
     
  19. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Since it's not yet available on unity and it IS the world's web standard moving forward, your post has no value whatsoever. There is a difference between insight and trolling, you've just crossed it.
     
  20. polytropoi

    polytropoi

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I know that will hurt some people, and I cut my teeth as a developer with Flash, but enough is enough. It's interesting in the context of Unity's Facebook integration talks - this conversation of ending Flash support must have come up, which might imply that Facebook sees (correctly, IMO) the Unity weplayer as the future for embedded apps, as opposed to Flash.
     
  21. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    "You must be trolling!"

    No, I've actually tried developing in HTML5. Throwing out likes like "it's the web standard" and anything like that means nothing because web standards don't mean a thing. Traditional HTML still has differences in how it's rendered by IE, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. CSS has an implementation standard and getting it to render across browsers is still a pain in the ass. Just going "Well it's a standard" doesn't mean anything and anyone who's actually done any development with "standards" can tell you that.
     
  22. ZJP

    ZJP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,649
    Get an Windows RT or a BlackBerrry licence from FREE or not...
     
  23. Starsman Games

    Starsman Games

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,152
    I'm going to side with MarigoldFleur on this, not even sure why you reacting this harshly to that post. HTML5 IS a mess of incompatibility. Yes, it's a "web standard moving forward" but its not even complete, likely wont be complete for years to come, and every single browser implementation is radically different.

    I am currently working (on my day job) to implement a new site design for a web app and its nightmare simply to have the same look and positioning around a stupid div tag across all the browsers. Heck, even WebKit browsers have different compatibility issues because they don't use the same javascript engine, therefore different implementations. Even when things are implemented on different browsers, they may behave slightly different on all, different enough to not work.

    And then there is mobile. Despite coming from the same company, Safari for iPhone has a lot of differences to Safari for Mac. Same goes for Google's browsers. And we just cant ignore mobile, the only point of pursuing HTML5 output is to reach mobile, since by the time any such effort is finished most users are very likely going to be there.

    You can dream of a future where Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, Google and Opera all hold hands and work like a team to make the one definitive standard, but I expect all religions in the world to get along before that happens.

    Just recently Google announced the entire opposite: they forking WebKit in their own path, making things even harder for anyone down the line.

    So again, I agree with MarigoldFleur: Unity's best interest is to pursue heavier push on the Unity Web Player. I never got why we needed flash export to begin with. Maybe to have easier access to Facebook users that don't want to install anything on their computers, but now that Facebook and Unity are working together that may no longer be dimmed as a strategic advantage.

    HTML5 standards ARE the future for many things, but a 3d video game engine... not saying never but definitively not in the next decade. Mind you, there are 2D engines that export to HTML5, but it is a very limited engine with very restrictive feature set. A viable Unity HTML5 implementation would have to be able to convert C#, Boo and JavityScript into actual JavaScript.


    Every 3D decent HTML5 render demo I have seen so far only works on one brand browser.


    ... so yea, color me skeptical.
     
  24. Amon

    Amon

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Posts:
    1,384
    They may as well let everyone have the export option for free. Unity free users get the standard version and Unity Pro users get the Pro version.

    It would certainly draw in, imho, more potential buyers and it could be considered as this years give away much like the basic licenses for iOS and Android last year.

    Do it.....DO IT NOW!
     
  25. superpig

    superpig

    Drink more water! Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,665
    There's only one version of the Flash export AFAIK.

    And no, it doesn't make any sense. The point of retiring a product like this is to allow the resources it's tying up to be allocated to other things - usage of the Flash export will gradually drop off until there are no new bugs that need fixing and no new user support questions coming in for it. Giving away a hundred thousand Flash export licenses would make that take a lot longer.
     
  26. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    With Adobe's revenue sharing model, wouldn't this really mess up Unity financially as well, with the license distribution change being tied to overall revenue instead of individual license revenue?
     
  27. mada

    mada

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Posts:
    53
    If you were frustrated with developing in HTML5, why wouldn't you want Unity to make that process easier for you?


     
  28. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    Did you actually read my post as to why it's frustrating?

    Why should I care about HTML5 or WebGL when browser implementations of these are going to lead to massive incompatibilities across the board? Why would I bother even caring about HTML5 support when the Unity web player reaches over 200 million computers and 33% of gamers on Facebook? What does HTML5/WebGL bring to the table that the web player does not?

    Nothing HTML5/WebGL can do offers any significant benefit to me, as a developer, over continued improvements to the Unity web player? What benefit does it offer to the average consumer, who only even updates their browser either when the browser does it without asking or when their OS does it for them?
     
  29. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,058
    The real question for me is why would mobile devices want to support such a technology that can effectively circumnavigate there own app stores (probably more so Apple)


    As for dropping Flash, I can't say i'm surprised. None of my projects I attempted to convert to Unity Flash ever worked, even relatively simple ones had so many errors and incomplete features that it was almost pointless to try. The only success I had was starting a ne project from scratch. Unfortunately this experience marred my opinion of the Unity Flash exporter and so whilst I would love to have explored it further I couldn't justify bying the Pro license just to do that.

    In my opinion Unity dropped the ball making Flash a Pro add-on only as it just completely killed the ability for users to play around with it, to develop flash based content. Its not that I'm against them charging for pro add-on, just there was simply no way to test or experiment with it unless you wanted to set up constant unity demo's. I wouldn't be at all surprised if ultimately the decision for this came down to revenue and the lack of it from the add-on, a situation that could have been changed if Unity offered the add-on in some form of free state, but required a purchase to release builds.

    I also don't subscribe to the Flash is dead. Sure its thankfully being used much less these days for pointless 'flashy' things, but on desktop it still has huge reach and acceptability. It would have been hugely valuable to certain projects to be able to offer a Flash and a Unity version.

    Overall i'm really disappointed in the news. I feel Unity could have made it work (financially) with a different strategy.

    I wonder what the chances are that they may open source it and let the community continue to update it?


    Hmm, tried to post a summary of these points in the blog comments as a single comment and it said I was posting too quickly? Lost the comment, not going to bother typing it all back in. Sod it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  30. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,066
    Well said.

    IMHO, UT jumped in pretty fast and hard with promoting their Flash capabilities and devoted a lot of resources something that never really solidly panned out and is now being phased out before it ever became a solid product. Sadly, one of our teams banked heavily on it, and this news will not sit well after over a year of frustration getting the game to work well in flash.

    While HTML5/WebGL "may" be viable in the future, I would rather see UT focus on their core products and continue to push the web player and increase its user base. As Marigold said, it doesn't currently offer any benefit over the web player.
     
  31. Reahreic

    Reahreic

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    I'm sorry to disagree with hippo on this but the above is right. It's a known fact that HTML compatibility across browsers creates nightmares for web designers, hell even the DOM model has variances between chrome IE and Safari.

    Now i really like what HTML5 is trying to do but it's a specification, that the browser manufacturers are all implementing in a slightly different way. Flash was great as it allowed for a standardized approach to rich web content, before the HTML specifications allowed such functionality. I see the webplayer bringing realtime high quality interactivity and graphics to the web in the same way that flash brought rich media websites. all those years ago.

    When it comes down to it i'll take a standardized implementation over a specification anyday, so long as it fits the project's requirements.
     
  32. jonkuze

    jonkuze

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Posts:
    1,712
    Interesting discussion a about Web Standards, so I have a question because I feel I've just learned something that might very crucial to understand when developing for HTML5/WebGL...

    are you guys saying that even though theses are considered web standards of the future, that does not mean every browser will support and or render everything the same way on every browser due to the different implementations?

    If so, this kind of busted my bubble about HTML5/WebGL being a Create once Publish everywhere kind of solution.

    While Unity Webplayer will always render the same content the same way on any browser.

    In this case it might make more sense for developers and unity to focus on Unity Webplayer, at least that what makes sense to me. (while still keeping a close eye on HTML5/WebGL development anyway lol)
     
  33. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    It's 2013 and there's actually subtle differences in how different browsers render tables. But basically, yeah. Expecting every browser to render everything the same is incredibly unrealistic. It's one of the big advantages that plugins like Flash and the Unity Web Player have.
     
  34. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,804
    I don't see how HTML5/WebGL is anywhere even close to be supported by UT when its not even properly support by all browsers. Its sometimes a mess even with basic html or javascript/css. Even if they manage to get nearly identical execution of the standards there is no guarantee how well will they all perform. Like javascript execution times currently between browsers. Mozilla doing hacky stuff generally or with latest Unreal thing. Google doing its own labs and stuff while Microsoft and Apple doing more strictly and slower.

    BTW with HTML5 isn't it a hard fact that there is nothing to even protect things you make since its all open and all based on standards, I mean all your code and assets will be freely exposed for copying and changes and there is nothing in specs or elsewhere planned as solution (?) (I know you can decompile Flash/Unity too but its not the same and as simple thing)
     
  35. jonkuze

    jonkuze

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Posts:
    1,712

    I guess that explains why my simple HTML/CSS websites would always look different from browser to browser, so annoying... and crazy because this means if you want to ensure you reach everyone using HTML5/WebGL, you will have to test your work on multiple different Operating Systems, and Devices from Smartphones, to Tables, to Mac,PC,Linux. As I've noticed even some difference in my websites from same browser running on two different OS. Hmmm far from a Creat once Publish everywhere solution, well maybe it still can be but sounds awfully painful.

    While we can be safe to know that our content will render the same on any OS, on any Browser that runs Unity Webplayer.
     
  36. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    Pretty much. It'd be much more sensible to put more effort toward things like a further improved webplayer, a webplayer plugin for linux, and general editor improvements rather than some big weird shift to a platform that isn't even remotely finalised and that would come saddled with so many issues.
     
  37. Starsman Games

    Starsman Games

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,152
    The real hype behind HTML5 vs Flash (the only "alternative") is that HTML5 is an open standard not owned by any given entity. Advancements in the standard are not tied to the profitability of a single company. And, more than anything, you don't need to run yet another layer of runtimes that add complexity, performance overheads and use up extra memory, not to mention potential stability issues.

    As far as "create once and run everywhere", that's a pipe dream. It's been the "moto" behind Java for ages and never held true. Java never worked exactly the same on every platform, sometimes intentionally so (you do expect things to look a bit native to the OS they run at.)

    Unity does not give you "write once run everywhere" either. Create a Unity game and try to run it on a variety of computers with various video cards and you will see your game looks very different. From shaders, to frame rate and potentially unexpected bugs, all without leaving the same OS. Unity has done a lot of work to keep things working as smooth as possible on the various platforms, though, but you should seriously consider testing on multiple platforms (even web players) to make sure your game or app works as you expect it to (I find it frustrating when a web player expects me to use Windows specific keyboard keys while on a mac or when a mac developer forgets the equivalent to the command key just pulls up the start menu on windows.)

    There is a reason why large studios invest a lot on Q&A for every platform they target, that should tell you a lot given how they love to cut corners.
     
  38. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Never quite got why I'd want to deploy a Unity game in Flash... And, now I don't have to. Maybe Unity jumped in too fast. And now, recognizing it was a mistake, they are acting quickly to undo it. Agility is a sign of a healthy company.

    Gigi.
     
  39. UnknownProfile

    UnknownProfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Posts:
    2,311
    I can't think of a large number of Unity games that had flash versions, anyway. Didn't Adobe go against the Unity core belief of no royalties with the 3D stuff in Flash?
     
  40. Ferazel

    Ferazel

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Posts:
    518
    Good for Unity for dropping this platform. I really didn't understand it when it was announced and I still don't understand why this was made a priority platform for deployment. It's great that most people didn't have to download a 3rd party plugin, but I think Unity is getting so well known now-a-days people are willing to install a plugin for it for most end-users.

    I could understand the advantage in a corporate environment where installed software is highly controlled, but there's no reason why they couldn't make a deployment package with the Unity plugin if you can provide the value to do so.
     
  41. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,066
    The reason it was a priority is simple : Facebook games. FB games are a huge source of revenue, and have a massive user base. The typical paying FB demographic typically isn't the type to install plug-ins. Additionally, most of the top FB games receive a sizable chunk of their traffic during business hours (people checking/playing their games from work). So those folks in corporate environments are capable of playing a flash game, but may not be able to install unity, and most certainly couldn't convince their IT department that they need unity for legit business reasons.

    But, that being said, looking back about 2 years ago when this was probably decided on, the mobile market was nothing compared to the goldmine that was FB. Understandably UT wanted in on that. Today the mobile game revenue has just begun to pass social. UT is good size player in mobile development, not so much on the web. Seems like they are focusing on their strengths.
     
  42. Airship

    Airship

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Posts:
    260
    I am happy with this decision.
     
  43. deram_scholzara

    deram_scholzara

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,043
    I just hope Unity develops an exporter for WebGL/HTML5

    Flash has been dying for a while - even Adobe doen't really seem to put too much effort into it anymore.
     
  44. UnknownProfile

    UnknownProfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Posts:
    2,311
    Deram, there are many problems with WebGL/HTML5 support, as mentioned earlier, including but not limited to the fact that Unity and WebGL use different technologies. WebGL is JavaScript. Unity is Mono.
     
  45. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    I like the idea of HTML5, because soon it will reach 100% of everyone who wants to play games.

    The Unity web player still has the problem that it is infact a plugin that only supports two operating systems, and at max can support three. But then if Unity did support HTML 5 what would the point of other licenses be?
     
  46. ScottyB

    ScottyB

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    146
    I know what you were talking about is 100% reach for people who specifically want to play games which depending on how you define people who want to play games, might be true soon...ish... maybe. I think that the number of people who want to play games is always growing and is always hard to judge. I'm going to go out on a very slight tangent and talk about reaching 100% of all people as I think that is an interesting topic and some people might find my experiences interesting.

    The reality of HTML5 reaching 100% of everyone is still years away, and then the reality of HTML5 being implemented fully and in a useful way for games is still years away after this.

    I work as a web developer for my day job and we have a lot of government clients. You would be surprised how many website we develop that we have to make work in IE6. I mean, hell, its a absolutely joyous day when we only have to develop for IE8 as the minimum, and IE8 is still an absolute mess compared to modern browsers.

    One of the huge problems with the large corporate and the government sectors is that they have created lots of old, usually internal, web applications that rely on these older versions of IE. These applications simply don't work on new browsers as they use functions that only work on those browsers. So it becomes a sort of catch-22, they can't update to newer browsers until they re-create those applications and they can't justify the cost of re-creating those applications until they need to upgrade their browsers.

    Another huge problem for big corporations and governments is if they need to target some of the bigger Asian countries that often run much older computers then a lot of western countries. I recently finished a project and one of their key targets was China and the number of Chinese users that still use Windows XP and IE6 is huge.

    And finally, a lot of less tech-savy users who work at these large corporations and government sectors don't like to branch out and learn anything new unless they need to when it comes to technology. This means that because they have to use these old pieces of software at work, they choose to use it at home as well. This means that even if you decide to not target people who want to play games at work, there are still going to be lots of users you would miss out who want to play at home.

    Bottom line, 100% usefully implemented HTML5 reach is a long way off. In saying that, depending on your target demographics, you will be able to get away with using HTML5 sooner. But I agree with what others have said here and I won't be trying to use it for games for a long time.
     
  47. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,066
    Heh... much like it was with HTML4/CSS/CSS2/etc... (usually waiting on IE most of the time)
     
  48. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,646
    I also think that a WebGL export would be great, but I don't think that it's ready yet. In a year or two, maybe.

    What would make sense to me is working to get the Web Player or an equivalent runtime onto more devices. Perhaps work with the major browsers to have it included by default?

    My web development experience is far from extensive, but I was under the impression that browsers did do a pretty good job of rendering things as-per-specification now? I thought that the main issues with modern browsers wasn't that they don't operate to spec so much as that they all come with slightly different default styles, which then (not surprisingly) cascade onto everything that isn't explicitly overridden. Last time I did any significant web development I started with a "CSS Reset" style sheet, and on modern browsers at least (ie: current ones just over two years ago) there were no rendering differences.

    Mind you, that doesn't brush away the downsides to WebGL. Even if it renders the same different implementations could cause wildly different performance characteristics which for a game is just as bad. And assuming it gets to that point, it will probably take several years. Then there's the issue that WebGL is a graphics library only, and there's a lot more to a game engine than just a renderer.
     
  49. UniteMage

    UniteMage

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Posts:
    120
    HTML5 and WebGL is the future. It uses nothing but Javascript. That means the engine also has to be in Javascript.

    Unity has to build a javascript engine surrounding the WebGL technology so therefore it has to be built from scratch. The present Unity technology will export this javascript engine along with the assets and user code written from any of the script languages converted to javascript. Everything has to be in javascript even the assets.

    I did an experiment at school using Mr doob's three.js, Mr Parisi's sim.js plus a few others in less than 3 weeks for a final grade.

    Check out the website and the little game I created using WebGL. Remember to use Google Chrome because it is best for this.

    http://w3.cnm.edu/~jcarpenter3/cis1210/final/index.html

    CSDG
     
  50. MarigoldFleur

    MarigoldFleur

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Posts:
    1,353
    Except for the part where 1/3rd of gamers on facebook already have the unity web player?

    Much like it still is. There's still loads of CSS rendering differences and support level differences between browsers.

    Case in point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013