That is not at all true. It would not make any difference. There's real reasons developers don't make everything open source. It doesn't really matter what people want. People have always wanted tons of Unity features or Unity itself to be open source. That's not what the company does though. They decided early on to always remain closed source on everything. In fact, I'd be more willing to believe Unity doesn't care at all what the people want, than anything else. I'll argue that point too, because I honestly believe it. They take what people say into consideration, of course, but they decide almost exclusively the direction THEY want to go in. And that direction is more often than not contrary to the community (at least early on, anyway. Most early Unity projects were 2D games & 2D mobile games. Yet they just pressed for 3D every step of the way.) This is evident in so many areas. The 2D features were heavily demanded since Unity's inceptions. They didn't appear until Version 4.2. That's insane. Nested Prefabs have also been a request since the beginning. Still nothing. Bugs were reported 4 years before being fixed, with multiple threads about the issues. They didn't care then, no reason to think they'd suddenly care now. Hell, the documentation alone is just now seeing changes / promises of improvements. You know how long people have complained about it? You live in a fairytale world if you think more people pushing for LLAPI to be open source would matter in any way. And you live in another universe entirely if you think the semantics of "Open Source" versus "Full Source" would somehow revolutionize the entire IT industry. That is incredibly absurd. That wouldn't surprise me. There is A LOT of money in gaming. Hidden profits Trump everything, especially what is ethical, quality, or correct. That isn't why. There are hundreds of reasons that could be considered as to why, but I can guarantee you this is not at the top o the list. Try again. See, here is your problem. You claimed there are so many open source networking solutions for Unity. All while thinking of networking solutions that aren't native to Unity. People want something native to Unity. Whether or not they SHOULD care is irrelevant. The Unity community wants Unity supported assets. Doesn't matter if they could integrate all kinds of third party non-unity assets. Those don't count to them. This example sums up the mindset of the majority of Unity users: http://stackoverflow.com/a/19399016 (Read the comment) Whenever someone hasn't done something great, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why they wouldn't... you can rest assure There is a reason no one has. (99% Chance this is it) No one is smart enough to see the obvious. (1% chance - Rare Case Scenario. Applies mostly to game design, not technical reasons.) While it's simultaneously true that there are thousands of developers, there are also not very many developers. The IT world is huge, with incredibly high demand & huge opportunity. This means that although there are tons of competent technical persons, they are diced up into thousands of pieces (companies, projects). So what you're left with is: Great opportunity in a niche area (The reason no one has done it. There just not enough people to do it. Everyone who could, is doing something "better".) Great progress in broad areas of development. (Areas of development / progress where you have lots of people working on a similar thing. They share with one another tech advances, software design approaches, etc.) Great progress in specific, high priority areas of development. (Huge AAA companies or tech giants who push very niche features, but only because those features are at the TOP of priority list. So a company trying to push the boundaries of photo-realism in 3D graphics is more likely to happen than those same people/money pushing for some niche "Orleans" / "Akka.net" / "Helios" / "DotNetty" things which are so unknown barely anyone has even heard of them. Meanwhile, we have all heard of big engines like Unity or Frostbite. They have more priority, more focus, more money, and thus more people. (Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. This is what people perceive. This is the Unity community. Game Developers are most often NOT network programmers. They are gamers, programmers, artists.) And here you go: The one guy who did it, doesn't want to do it again. There's your specific reason for your very specific "Why hasn't anyone done it?" They have. It was you. And you aren't doing it again. The end! And how are they toys? All that matters is that our games work. Sure there are other factors in what makes something a quality asset... but we just want it to work. And the assets do, for the most part. Some do with more/less work, but there are several good solutions as you admit. What areas do you see are lacking? No. It goes back to Ease of Access. You need to realize this isn't a community composed of industry veterans with 30+ years of experience and millions of dollars. It's mostly a collection of newbies, novices, hobbyists, and low-budget professionals who make up a small segment of the "Indie Scene". If I had even just a tiny bit more experience as a games programmer, networking programming, or just experience making games- I'd have continued my own engine long ago & scoffed at the idea of using Unity. What people want is simple. Very simple. It's what we need for success, and it's not because of this incredible idea of semantics. It's as simple as: Easy to Use (Integrates very well with Unity & "The Unity Way". Very newbie friendly). Easy to Understand (Quality, Thorough Documentation + Tutorials + Explanation of even the simplest of concepts.) "Just Works." (We don't need every feature under the sun. We need a networking solution that does nothing more, nothing less, than "Lets me make my game multiplayer." Which means We just need very specific features, added based on priority. This is even more true if different developers or one developed with different releases focused on different types of networking packages: One for mobile, one for small games, one for open world coop games, one for competitive fast-paced games, one for MMO's, etc. OR A package that handles all of that AND thoroughly explains how to accomplish each. Instead, we get a collection of assets that either Don't work. (Too buggy, broken, abandoned, vaporware) Too costly. (CCU limits, messasging costs, etc.) Poorly Documented (Back docs, broken examples, not enough tutorials, no tuts to explain simple concepts) Quality, but too small budget. (When only one guy is working on everything, it limits what you can do. It sucks when your choice is "Should I add more tutorials, fix the technical documentation, or fix the most recent bugs?") With Unity, selling an Asset to the community is more about Customer Support & Documentation Writing than it is about even technical programming. Most Asset Store developers could attest to this, especially the networking ones. Remember, this is Unity. The majority here are NOT experts. You have to know your market.