Linux Web Player?

Heh, well you never know. A slip of a #define here, unticked compile flag there and bam! YOU'RE FIRED!

 

Vectrex. Love how you pulled out the news.

I loved Spaghettios back in the day. xD

 

I keep hearing the same songs.

Corporate says, "Yes , We agree. It is a wonderful OS. True, not many people in the USA use it. It is very stable and secure. I use it myself there are some very good programs. but the distribution is lacking. No one properly markets the software and no one really supports it. There are not enough users, if there were a bigger market share we would jump on the band wagon.
.
Programmers say:
Yes we agree that it is a wonderful OS; true not many people in the U.S.A use it. It is very stable and secure. I use it myself . There are some very good programs but the distribution is lacking marketing and proper support , due to statements of lack of use. If enough people used it we would jump on the band wagon
.
IT. says
yes we agree that it is a wonderful OS ;true not many people in the U.S. A use it. It is very stable and secure. I use it myself and there are some very good programs, but the distribution is lacking marketing, and no one really supports it. There are not enough users. If there were , We would jump on the bandwagon.

users say:
(*^*(^%^$ )^%T^%$*^ ()*^*%( windows crashed !!!!!
Linux sounds good but not many people in the U.S. use it it is very stable and secure there are some very good programs. I would use it myself but, the distribution is lacking no one markets the software, and no one really supports it . Maybe ill buy a APPLE no there to expensive,...

I say:
If YOU BUILD IT.... We WILL COME

 

That was hilarious xD

Exactly. It's not that there's no interest in Linux. It's that gamers choose windows for lack of options.
If Unity made a player for Linux, the companies porting to MACs would have very little trouble porting to LInux and the games would work on linux. Now that makes NVIDIA and ATI think about writing better drivers for Linux. And that makes Linux better for gaming and more people would use it. Now that would mean better Linux distros, better Linux drivers, more Linux games and the cycle continues
Someone has to go first

 

It appears you have decided to support Linux. If this is true, why is there no status here: http://feedback.unity3d.com/forums/15792-unity/topics/15792-unity-needs-/filter/top . I also would like to put my support behind a Linux port. I do have a few comments on the thread.

First, the multiple distribution thing really is not a problem. The same binary will work on most Linux distributions. Personally I run Arch Linux and a lot of companies who do not provide source only provide .deb and .rpm files. If you do not already know, those are the two main package formats in Linux. Ubuntu, Debian, and several others use .deb files to distribute programs. Fedora, Red Hat, openSUSE, and several others use .rpm files to distribute programs. Arch Linux uses .pkg.xz (I think) to distribute programs. This has nothing to do with the underlying binary. It is just the different ways that dependency resolution and installation are handled. Companies should, either in addition to the above, provide binary packages. This would make it installable on all distributions. Although this is true, it is not my main point. I, as an Arch user, have actually installed .debs and .rpms. No, this is not the best method of installing software on Arch, but it does show that the different bases mean very little. The same program runs the same on all bases. If you are worried about various package formats, give us the binary and we will make the packages ourselves. You don't even have to give us any source for us to do this. Basically, supporting Linux is just supporting one platform.

Second, although you may see the user base as small, the developer base of Linux is much larger. Many developers use Linux, not because they don't want to spend money but because they want to use the best OS. Most of us Linux users have spent money on Windows. I personally have several Linux computers, a Mac, and a Windows computer. My main machine, which is also my best gaming machine, runs Linux almost full time. I keep one Mac and one full-time Windows computer around to test things against against them. I refuse to develop anything that won't run on all three. The point is that I am not afraid to spend money. How many people do you know with this many computers? I buy the most recent version of Windows and Mac every time one comes out. Yes, I do dual boot my main computer, but I am seriously considering deleting the Windows partition. If you want to attract devs, support all platforms. Even if I didn't use Linux, I would never support a platform that doesn't support it. There are enough good platforms that do support Linux (Native Client and WebGL are the ones I am looking at now) that I never have to feel bad about avoiding Unity. All of my desktop applications support all three major OS. It is a bit of effort, but as long as the code is written with cross platform support in mind, it is definitely not insurmountable. I have seen a single Linux dev easily maintain Linux compatibility in his spare time. If you can't handle this, you have problems. You could always open source your code and we would port and maintain it for you, provided you have a decent code base.

On the before mentioned page ( http://feedback.unity3d.com/forums/15792-unity/topics/15792-unity-needs-/filter/top ), Linux support is by a large margin the largest feature request. I really can't believe you would choose not to fulfill the single greatest request of your customers.

Anyway, I really like this project and would love to throw my support behind it. Unfortunately, I can not support what refuses to support me. Even silverlight (created by Microsoft) is more supporting of Linux than you are. If supporting* the competition is good for Microsoft, then how could supporting that same platform not be good for you? You are not even trying to compete with Linux.

I hope I did not come off as fanatical or otherwise not of sane mind, but I do feel strongly on this issue. I see your concerns, but they are baseless. Linux is a great platform. Also, the Linux comunity loves to support projects that support Linux. I know someone who buys almost every game he hears about that supports Linux, just to support a company that makes the smart decision. We may be a small number of people, but we are an important group of people. Who do you think has the most powerful, game capable computers? Computer enthusiasts. That's right, Linux users.

*I do realize that there is not an official silverlight for Linux, but Microsoft supports and helps with Moonlight.

 

Hi. Linux user. New Star Trek Infinite Universe coming out and uses Unity. Checked downloads but no Linux download. I do have a Virtual XP with plenty of power behind it to probably go that route but preference would be to use Linux in all truth. Seen someone post something with a Linux port, where do I get it?

 

There currently is no native linux Unity web client or build option. You might be able to get it working under WINE, or you could try VirtualBox with 3D acceleration enabled, but that's about it for now. They did get a web client working under Linux during the recent Ninja Camp, so we're all hopeful that at least web player and possibly standalone build support will be added in the not so distant future.

 

This is largely incorrect. While at one time linux had as many or more users than OSX, it currently doesn't (or so the statistics I've seen have stated).

Also, OSX is not based on BSD, it is POSIX compliant, which allows it to run recompiled BSD applications. All such applications are released open source, and there is no license violation. OSX is based on Mach, and mach has virtually no licensing (as well as when Apple modifies the lower levels of their kernel, they will usually release it for mach as well.)

My experience hasn't been the same as the one you have stated for 3D linux, as well as linux isn't guarenteed to have drivers for the latest graphics cards, which are generally very poorly documented, and hard to write drivers for unless you know someone with the knowledge needed to interface with the card.

Your third paragraph sounds like a load to me, unless I am misunderstanding it.

Converting any large software project to a different platform is a challenge. I think your theory that Unity won't transfer their engine over because Linux is Open Source is one of the least intelligent arguments as to why they wouldn't do it that I can think of.

 

unfortunately niosop i have tried the WINE program to start the unity player but for some reason it made my internet really laggy and slow to run, in addition after adding the unity player to WINE the games i try to play with unity dont work for some reason.
they just appear as a White screen...
battlestar galactica online, dead frontier, just a blank white screen...
The virtual box i'm not sure i haven't tried it yet and im not sure if i will.

A linux version of unity will be released soon i hope?
cause the linux limitations are torturing me and i dont have any other boot disks till A long time from now.

 

Unlikely there were not plans for Linux revealed so far. You might have to wait for molehill targeting to get any way to support linux.

If the linux limitations are torturing you, I would recheck if you choose the right OS for your needs as gamer

 

The plans for a Linux Player have just been revealed in this thread. Also, there's this.

 

I can see they have a player up and running, but its not exactly finished for gaming use right?
at any rate why isn't it a official project? if the linux support is an official project it could get done faster with more people getting more devoted into its completion.allowing more work to be done in the same amount of time, but thats just my opinion anyway.

dtoliaferro do you have any Recent blogs about this work? this blog is a month old.

 

Nope, just the original blog post that broke the story, which is even older. Personally, I'm satisfied with the news.

 

ok heres a problem, when i use any version of a player add on, like microsoft silverlight for linux, any games i play just shows me a white screen no matter how many times i restart it. Now why im posting this here is because im worried that the unity web player will do the same thing and just show me a white screen. Am i doing something wrong or is this un fixable?

 

Translation: "This product UT have absolutely no connection with doesn't work on my computer! Will a Unity plugin have the same problem?"

How is anyone supposed to answer that?

At the very least, Microsoft—not Unity Technologies—will need to know:

• Which Linux distro are you using?
• Which GUI (if any) are you running on top of it?
• What browser are you using the plugin in?
• What version of that browser is it?
• What's the version numbers of every one of the libraries the Silverlight plugin relies on do you have installed?
• Are you running on PowerPC, Intel, ARM...?
• Which graphics card(s) do you have in the box?
• Do you have the open source drivers for said (if applicable), or the closed-source binary blobs?
• What audio chipset does your PC use?
• Do you have ALSA installed, or one of the other audio support frameworks?

... and so on, and on, and on.

If that lot doesn't give you an idea of why Linux support isn't exactly #1 on UT's list, nothing will. Linux's very openness is also its Achilles' Heel: it's a nightmare to support. (Not only are there multiple GUIs—not to mention the multiple command-line interfaces!—there isn't even a single, unified, installer / uninstaller framework.)

Windows is already a pain in the proverbial to support. There are so many possible permutations and combinations of hardware and software that it is simply not possible to make a cast-iron, 100% guarantee that any one piece of software will work perfectly on every Windows-based PC.

If UT does end up supporting Linux, expect that support to be limited to a very specific subset of the GNU/Linux world.

 

Likelyhood is that the only linux support you are going to see as long as the Linux supporters play the "my sandbox is cooler than yours" game is the upcomming Flash Molehill targeting as well as Chromes NaCL which by their nature are crossplatform

 

Flash does it, ShiVa does it...

I don't get why you guys think it's not possible for Unity Technologies to do it, too.

Even if Unity Technologies decides to support only one distribution, it's most likely going to be Ubuntu (99% of Linux gamers are on that platform anyway). It's still a win/win situation.

 

so theres basically no answer to why some of my players show a white screen?
XD im Soo going to go beserk if this unity player does the same thing
but thx for trying...

 

That's largely Dreamora. On the other thread he was continually saying why Linux support for Unity wasn't feasible, useful or worthwhile. His arguments tended to be dismissive and often his arguments wouldn't stack up. At one point he even dismissed the opinions of indie developers as a whole as irrelevant, despite that being a key market for Unity.

I really would like to know what his problem with Linux users and/or Unity supporting Linux is because there's clearly an emotional reason he's making these arguments. My best guess is that he had a bad experience with Linux, or had to deal with some annoying Linux zealots at one point in his life and became angry towards them (pity if that's the case, there's always going to be the more annoying supporters of anything). Ultimately though we've got support for Linux coming in Unity, so if Dreamora wants to continue his game deposing Linux, that's his decision.

 

*** Unreasonable Comment Removed ***

Unity is all about multi-platform development. Linux will happen some day, both as a consuming development platform. It's just a matter of time.

 

Not so much of an emotional, more of a factual as I had my share of fights trying to get customer software work fine, one caused by the "fight" RedHat / Fedora vs Ubuntu vs Mandriva - 3 distributions that if they worked together on a standardized core platform with their own work on top could create a platform thats worth and reasonably possible to support with no source technology as Unity where you have no source access at all and are doomed if a kernel update and alike renders your crucial library non-working. In such a case you will end in a situation where you first won't be able to support all newers and once UT has updated, no longer support all older systems, as you can see it on Ubuntu already if you take Ubuntu LTS vs Ubuntu current and you need to realize that Unity would likely support the LTS, not the current as business systems (lets be fair, visualization and simulation market is larger monetary on linux than the gamer market and its their source licensing that pays the new platform, not our laughable $0 - $1500, not even if linux were an own addon platform) are more likely to run on the LTS than one that breaks library compatibility all few months (the always current version of it as the focus either would be long term or current + future, not "somewhere between").
On top of that there are the known trouble of 64bit linux and 32bit software and the resulting need of an access level higher than on Win and OSX to guarantee the possibility to install the webplayer

Might be that you do not consider such a situation as unfavorable to unworkable, but I personally consider do so and it also means a major amount of extra maintenance work for UT and that for the minority desktop platform.
Also I'm not willing to silently accept to see even less dev efforts for the real platforms in favor of a platform with more or less major bugs dragging on for a 6-12 months to get fixed and that for a platform that even after a decade can't agree on a standardized longer term stable platform up for the OS and only seperate themself in software, behavior and look..

Nothing against OpenSource etc, thats all great and where possible I support it, but Linux as an enduser desktop platform is definitely driving it to a point where its damaging, not supportive and as long as there isn't a clear leader marketshare wise (80%+), there is just no platform to reasonably support. The way "Linux" is driven is favorable and great for servers where you opt it for your purpose, compile the sources accordingly etc and wherever possible I use linux on that end, but for desktop they finally need to clean some of those "rotten patterns" that worked in a pure source environment but suck like hell with pure closed source (which it just has to accept if it wants to become a real enduser OS, independent of its OpenSource roots and the attitude some major Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora supporters have shown in the past for which I hoped more than once that the distri would take a major hit due to their total ignorance towards basic requirements - please recall the ubuntu "PR" in relation to no proprietary drivers some year ago and similar statements).

Also you forget that Unity has already 10 platforms and like 50 open job postings, chances to see any further platforms not already in work in such a situation isn't that large as they are dangerously close to spread their workforce even thinner than "garagegames thin" and the torque technology, once great and famous, was brought down by this major problem from great to "urgs, never mention it again" from which it now has to regenerate first.

Out of my view, the 2 platforms through which Linux will first become targeted in Unity will be NaCL and Flash Molehill targeting (which I expect to happen as distinct addon platform). With Chrome 10, NaCL is naturally much closer than Flash but the later has more business developer relevance.
I don't expect any native code level port as required for the webplayer to Linux till at least Unity 4 unless Ubuntu approaches them for a form of integration for example.


PS: I wouldn't be sad if linux would finally became a platform that is standardized in a similar sense as OSX and Windows and worth supporting, not at all, as more diversity means more competition and more options in general.

The future will generally show to what degree I saw things wrong and please believe me if I'm saying that I love to be proofen wrong if it is for the good

 

dreamora,

I actually agree with a lot of what you said. Ideally the primary form of linux support i would love to see is just the ability to run unity is a headless mode. Not rendering, ect. Just something to make a server for the game. I really could care less about the Visual Gaming aspect of linux. Using linux as a primary OS for anything other then a server (for the low OS over head) and a Point of Sales/Webbrowser Kiosk computer OS (again low OS overhead) just didn't make any sense, because of the Fedora vs Debian vs Mandriva divisions.

With the 3 linux OS's being so different from one another and each have so many kernel version, it does make it difficult to almost impossible to make 1 version of anything work on all 3 with out compiling.

Again i don't think unity should worry, but rendering linux and put any "linux attention" they have in a headless server.

 

Well it's happening whether you guys like it or not. Unity Technologies will address the "problems" of supporting multiple distributions just like other companies do.

 

Sure man, linux web player's certainly a priority!

 

Happened upon this web site because I once played Battlestar Galactica and it is run under Unity. I went to the web browser and realized I couldn't play unless I rebooted into Windows. So I blew it off and went looking around at this unity thing and here I am.

There are some pretty good arguments here about Linux not having a big enough user base to program games for. I know a hell of a lot of people and none (0) of them use Linux. But then I'm 62 years old so most of my friends aren't really into learning something new.

I have been using Linux since around '92 or '93. I started out with the dist called SLS and when Patrick Volkerding released a modified version of SLS called Slackware I went with it and stayed to this day. So I guess I'm in my 18th or 19th year using Linux. In that time I have never left my computers off overnight. My computers run non-stop, day, after day, after day. I have never once come home or got out of bed to find a computer down or non operational because of the OS.

Here are the differences in usership as I see it. (is that a word?) Today's younger people who don't switch to linux say, for the most part, it's because of games. Windows has the games. Most of the younger people I have talked to say they would make the switch if Linux had the games. But no one is writing games for Linux because the user base isn't there. Sounds like a catch 22 eh? Game writers say they won't port for Linux because there's no money in it due to copyright restrictions.

Most Linux users who are also gamers, dual boot their system so they can play the stupid games and still have a very steady, rock solid desktop in Linux that they can do their work on. I have been using Linux at home for the last 18 years. I use windows at work because that's what the company i work for insists on using. My experience with the two operating systems has proven to me that Windows is a far inferior desktop os compared to Linux. The frustration I experience with windows at work has my co-workers hearing foul language coming from my office. The crashes, the lockups, the lost time and especially the constant re-installs are infuriating. Also when windows updates to their newest greatest version I have thousands of dollars worth of software that needs to be replaced because all of a sudden my software applications no longer work. I heard someone complain on here that it's Linux that has that last problem, but I assure you windows changes are just as bad. At least using Linux I can get a new version of my apps and replace them and I'm done and the new versions usually last for years. And the best part of that is it didn't cost me an arm and a leg. Don't get me wrong, if someone was writing games for Linux and selling them people would buy them, myself included.

I played World of Warcraft online for several years until I got tired of it, I had to dual boot into windows to play. I played another online game for pay for a year or so until it got boring, so there's no argument that Linux users won't pay to play, they just have to do it with an inferior operating system. I met plenty of Linux users online when I was playing these games all of them were either dual booting or using Wine. I don't buy the argument that the user base isn't there. No one knows how many Linux users there are. I have seen estimates from fairly reliable sources that ran anywhere from 2.0 % to 28.9%.

I don't think Linux will ever get the games written for it when developers know for a fact that they can write one port and force users of other systems to use Windows to play their games. I personally have decided to quit using these pieces of software, not because I think it will affect anything or that I will change any developers mind but for the simple fact that I am sick and tired of being treated as second class because I choose to use a system that is superior to the trash that has flooded the market.

Unity, indeed...

 

Translation: Linux is such a great OS that I, and my friends, continually have to use Windows.

 

I see you couldn't graduate third grade reading, too bad.
You're reading comprehension is horrible.

 

What you may think is a great OS, others might not. Personally, I love linux and use it everyday, so I am not biased in saying this. The problem is that not everyone feels the same way. It all comes down to adoption. Sure linux can be considered a great OS, but there aren't enough people out there using it for recreational purposes to consider it a valid platform for development from a business stand point. If more people start using Linux as a personal OS, and not for a programming specific or server speecific environment, then that will likely change. In fact, Linux distros such as Ubuntu are becoming very popular already and the adoption rate is greater than it ever has been in the past. Hell, Dell even ships Ubuntu 10.04 on many of its netbooks.

With that said, the numbers still aren't quite there to make game and game engine development a good business choice.

 

Re-read 4th paragraph.

 

Well I'm outta here. All your reading teachers get a D-

 

That's a bold claim to say that's why they won't switch. Do you have statistics to back this up?

 

Not to add to the flame but, I agree with a Linux Client. I can't say I love JUST Linux, because Linux is just the Kernel (some executables and a console[s?] ), so I love Linux AND Ubuntu (in my case). It is true that there needs to be a standardized distribution, where all work can be done on one software-base (isn't the LSB trying to do this?). Anyway, I constantly read about this small market share that Linux users have that play games.. It is true, because we have no choice but to play games on Windows. I previously posted in another thread that yes, I add to the Windows Gamers Statistics, but still use Linux 99% of the rest of my time infront of the computer. How many others share my same scenario? Was there ever a poll or other way of calculating statistics that holds this case?

P.S. Steam seems to be releasing their Client/SDK for Linux (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_steam_announcement&num=1) and the Game Engine "Unigine" also is available for Linux (and no Mac version), yet produces excellent results.

Perhaps other companies see hope in Linux?

 

"Linux" is not a platform. Not even "GNU / Linux" is a platform.

It's just a vast pile of code, including a kernel, support libraries, any number of GUIs, shells, printer drivers, sound support frameworks—you name it.

Another bunch of people—most of whom can't even agree on whether tabs are better than spaces in source code—cherry-pick the bits they want from that vast pile of stuff, and produce a bunch of "Now That's What I Call LINUX!" collections, known as "distros". None of which is ever entirely compatible with any other, and all the selections are, unsurprisingly, subjective.

Calling Linux a platform is like calling Google an encyclopaedia.

I assume your writing teacher got an F.

 

Have you ever thought that this is because of the lack of a unity and to a much larger extent shockwave (do to the fact that some have not seen the wonder of unity)
I meen if these plugins were to become available the market would go sky high

 

Hello everyone,

First of all i need to say that I’m sorry for my bad English. I'm a french Canadian so i do my best . Second thing is that I’m not a dev, I’m not a market man... Only a thinker and a game user.

So i have not read all the thread cause that turn all around the same point. Everyone want the same thing but no one speak the same language. I know that if they can do it "affordable" Unity should be happy to made everything they can to put Linux in the "same Box".

And i know that dev don't really want to use Unity web player if that not support Linux....

But in fact their are something that i don't really understand so maybe some can explain to me.

First, when you say that Linux don't have much of player in their community did you take time to think about the fact many company made this kind of statement? How much Player can use Linux if they are no game on linux? Well... I mean... How much game was on Mac some year ago? Not much... And how many player have buy a Win and not a mac only for playing? So well, its no a valid argument at all... If unity was ported on Linux how much dev will use it, dev on it, then offer to a big linux community some quality game?

Why that i say this? Well I’m a Win user. In fact i'm on it from window 3.1 . But its not because its "better then linux". Hell no. Its only cause between Win, Mac and Linux only one support gamer. But this week my computer just die. In fact my harddrive died... Then I'm now on Linux from my LiveCd. And you know... I LOVE LINUX!. More stable then Microsoft thing, Less trouble. But yeah, the game i was played on windows don't work here. That not mean that i don't WANT to play on linux. the fact is that i CANT play on linux. Not the same thing.

But i really understand the fact that, made a port, without any insurance of income from it is pretty not good for a company. But hey... If i was a dev should i pay for something that my user cant use everywhere, every time? I mean... I was playing Battlestar galactica online... Then now my Computer are broke and i have to use linux for maybe a month... So now i can't play to the game! I can't play it, so i will not pay money to get "game item".

So if i was a dev should i dev on platform that cant be playable everywhere? Cause after all if i go in travel then have only a computer with linux that will be the same S***. So! Port to linux is not only for dev and gamer. Its a good promotional for you. "You can play Unity everywhere on any system you want!"

That sound like good marketing to me. But there is another problem. Cost of port... Well in fact I’m not really sure if that can cost more then dev on other. Why? Cause Linux have a large community of dev who may help you to "simplify" the port of unity.

Well... In fact if i was you i should make a study between what that can cost to dev unity for Linux too or not and take in fact that can secure game dev to know that their game can be play on any support from anywhere. Cause its true, you work for game dev and game dev work for player. When you think about cash you may loose by port the Web player for linux think about cash they can made by dev on a web player that can be use from Win, mac and Linux.

Then if game dev see that they can get more income from using Unity they will take it... That all i have to say. Hope that make sens. Hope my English was not too bad lol.

Take care and thank for reading.

 

Yeah, but realize that there are now 7 billion people on the planet and it's estimated 80%+ of them surf the web regularly. Well, 1.19% of 80% of 7 billion is 66,640,000...no potential for earnings there? If it averaged out to $20 per year per user that's an estimated annual earnings of $1,332,800,000 per year which is more than may companies make in a lifetime...

 

More accurate statistics.
The most important is to look at how Linux usage is raising up every month or two.

 

This is just a statgasm. It's of no use to anybody as a basis for making sound business decisions. There's precious little of any useful substance in there.

Lumping everyone using GNU/Linux-based distros under the same heading is as misleading as the claim that "Android" is trumping "the iPhone". After all, "Windows" is available in a bunch of 'editions' too, and each one since Windows XP is represented in its own column this year. Yet Linux is available in umpteen distros; which one(s) should Unity Technologies consider supporting? From that table, it's impossible to tell.

Mac OS X is tolerably consistent over its various releases, but the same isn't true of Linux distros, some of which are aimed at desktop PC users in offices, others are aimed at hardcore nerds who think wasting hours watching source code download and compile itself is a genuinely useful installation method for an OS that many claim is "ready for prime time". Does the distro support installation using tarballs? RPM? Ports? Is the filesystem laid out in a consistent manner across all these distros? (Hint: Is it buggery!)

What's needed is a set of "Linux distro" columns too, so at least we can tell which distros are worth paying any attention at all to. Because there is no way in cold, cold hell any business can justify supporting even all the major distros, let alone the umpteen others.

Even the "mobile" heading is confusing: Android is technically just another GNU/Linux-based distro. So are Meego, Maemo and their bastard siblings. Of these, only Android is represented in the "mobile" column; where do the other GNU/Linux-based software platforms come in? Are they lumped under desktop "Linux"? Or are they just not counted? And why are the iPod, iPhone and iPad hardware platforms given their own columns, while Android—available on far more platforms than just the three[/i]—is limited to just the one? How many of those "Android" users are running a 1.x release? How many are on 2.x, which added a plethora of new features? And how many are running Android 3.x "Honeycomb", with its very different GUI?

Of that 80% of users who you claim "surf the web regularly" (and I would really like to see your citations for that claim), only "1.19%" are running some form of Linux-based OS.

Of that 1.19%, how many are interested in playing games in a web browser? Of those, how many have the necessary hardware? Of those that remain, how many do you seriously expect to pay for this privilege? Remember: you're the one claiming "$20 per user", but Unity Web Player is actually free on Windows and Macs! UT wouldn't get a penny from this, but they'd have mammoth ongoing support costs.

 

Ok... well So at any Rate, How much has the Linux player been worked on?
From what I can tell Unity hasn't been releasing ANY sort of information besides the fact they worked on it,and Created a unpolished demo of the player on firefox 4.0 and that was a LONG time ago....

Anyway After registering to the Wine Forums and getting my own version of WINE 1.3.15, And then SLAVING over the thing in an attempt to make it work with Unity Web player... My only results was getting nothing. It appears there were bugs when attempting to use it online similar to the Silverlight player as well... In addition the Player is broken In 2 ways when Running it on Wine.

So if anyone wants to attempt to run this with a WINE player, don't try it, As its rating on the Forums of wine is Rated "Garbage"
-.-"

 

While we are in the process of making random claims.

How about Unity adds DX11 support instead? Lets say that'll only add $1 per user right?

98.81% of 80% of 7Bn = 5 billion, 533 million and 360 thousand dollars.

Numbers are fun

 

I would love linux support

 

Linux really only needs support for rpm and deb because they are all very similiar
don't know how to explain it other than i think it would not be too dificult for support if they just found 3-4 linux gurus.
sincerly my 2cents

 

As a linux user who found Unity because of Kongregate, where I play a lot of web based games. I am disappointed. I find it ironic that the name Unity is used for such a limited web application plugin.

 

It's happening, don't worry.

 

so Unity IS making A Web player for Linux. and is STILL working on it. Cool.

Well At any rate, When exactly Will this be released? I'm getting kinda Impatient Due to the fact there is NO information on the developments from the Blogs, Just other things.

So REALLY soon Will be nice, But if you guys can't do that Ill Wait. I just wish I had some info on the Development. T.T

 

Ok Now I'm getting Sayings from other Threads That Unity will NOT be porting their Web players to Linux Due to it being Very costly And difficulty. But according to this thread, A staff member Mentioned that they were indeed making a web player For linux.

SO...Which Is it? Are They Making a Web player or are they NOT making a Web player?
And Have some Info to back your Claim Please.

Do not Tell me to Use WINE with unity also... It DOESN'T work.

 

When its done
Given it was mentioned even less than Flash Targeting or NaCl I wouldn't hold the breath unless your lungs keep air for 18-24 months to be on the safe side

UT has enough trouble to keep the webplayer working on the 2 platforms it supports and I consider it more likely that you target Linux with the Molehill export or NaCl before you do so with a native webplayer

 

As far as we can tell there are three seperate multi-platform web-players in the works.

Flash, NaCL and a native one.

What and when, that's harder to say.

Source: Google it

 

If I can add my 2 cents here:

I had some contracts for 1-2 companies and I used unity. They were very much interested in having a linux standalone app because the app would be installed on several machines and they wanted to avoid windows licenses.

I would pay for the ability to create linux standalones!

 

Hmm...When It comes to Me and 3D games...
I think I WILL hold My Breath For About a Year.

Better than someone saying "NO it Will NOT happen Because of this and This"
I really Hope They Port this to Linux.