No more web player support in chrome and firefox

I foresee a webapplet launcher ala origin for unity stuff with the existing streaming mechanism. And because Unity seems to like going in other directions than the Engine itself they will also take the opportunity to have a unity distribution/publishing platform integrated in this thing for a share of your revenue

Hehe I'm kidding... Or am I ?

 

My bad. I didn't notice that Graham was an admin. I thought he was just someone saying what Unity "had" to do, as I see so often on the internet from people who aren't involved at all.

Thanks Graham!

 

I suppose asm.js/emscripten and PNaCl are good - but completely different - candidates.
Anyway UT has always been *very* good at tackling that sort of problems...

 

It'd be helpful if all staff members would have little Unity cube besides their name so such mistakes won't happen too often.

Anyway, I hope that you will figure something out.

 

We can still use NaCl (Native Client), right?

 

Wow! am I glad today is the day I decided to start browsing through the Unity Gossip Threads lol! This is some very important news!

Yes, we can still use NaCI... and personally I have no problem using Native Client as long as Google and Unity make sure it is Optimized to Run our Unity Games Just as good as Unity Webplayer Does if Not Better!

I actually have been wondering how Google would get developers to switch over fully to NaCI. I guess removing NPAPI will get the job done lol!

on another note, I think we all shouldn't be all that surprised, this is the nature of Technology and Browser Wars! The same way we have to decide what platforms we are publishing our games to between Console, Mobile, and Web, it seems now there will be a line drawn between Browsers as well. Sucks, but i'm sure we will find a way to make the games work...

For example, if Firefox say had their own version of NaCI (which maybe they do already I don't know), then Unity just needs to Support Publishing to Firefox's Native Client and Chrome's Native Client.... We Publish two Native Client Builds for each Browser, Host them on the Web Host, but have a Browser Detect HTML or Javascript Code that tells the Browser which Native Client Build to Load depending on What Browser it is.

Sounds messy I guess... but if I had to do that, it would not be the end of the world for me. I really don't even count Safai, or Internet Explorer Lol! All of my Unity Games Hosted on my Website are played 95% of the time from Firefox or Chrome anyway...

Honestly I don't see any other way around it... I think Native Client is the Answer.

 

I don't find it likely that you will see that in Firefox. They are really into the 'pure web' and such a thing would go against their loudly stated philosophy.

For example the Epic Citadel HTML5 demo uses the kind of tech that is up Mozillas street - WebGL and optimised javascript via Emscripten asm.js.

But this poses a large number of challenges for Unity, both from a technical and licensing point of view. Let alone the amount of engineering work required, the number of important technologies in Unity that are provided by 3rd parties makes it hard to see how this approach could be feasible, unless I am making a mistake in my thinking somewhere.

 

Thanks very much. To be fair to whoever was extrapolating the urine from me, it is better if I can keep my posts below the size of a lengthy blog post though

 

geez... :neutral:

 

Firefox isn't dropping support for NPAPI, just Chrome. The article is a little unclear, Firefox will just start blocking those plugins (except Flash) from running automatically. So if you visit a page with the Unity webplayer in it, you will get an alert asking if you want to run the plugin. You can also set in the preferences to allow a plugin to "always" run. The Firefox change really isn't a concern, its actually a very reasonable move.

 

This is pretty cool actually. It's about time the makers or web browsers thought about security rather than free and features.

Elbows, I was joking I myself occasionally post long posts knowing full well if it doesn't says zombies and run one or two sentences maximum then it doesn't get read.

 

Joking is disabled in my browser, unless the jokes are confined to a sandbox and forced to wear a giant luminous top hat.

 

But the bad side of that is that user will also be afraid of legitimate plugin and won't install them (except flash...).
So this is not a good news for unity.

 

No, because this is not changing. People have always been prompted to install a plugin. (Hence the current low adoption rate of Unity). Flash had a high adoption rate because it was used for everything under the sun, and you practically couldn't use the web without it. Once they hit high 80s installs, browsers just started shipping it.

The only difference now(soon) for FF users is they will just have to click a dialog to Unity content, if they have Unity installed. More than likely, most people who use Unity regularly will just permanently enable it.


--------

I would like to see Unity come to some agreement with browser makers to bundle a native/builtin version of the web player. A couple of years ago, there would have been little chance of that, but Unity has grown to become a standard practically. Other browser 3d/gaming plugins have come and gone, but Unity remains, and has evolved significantly.

I think the time has passed for Unity to really hit a saturation rate with the web player without some sort of bundling/arrangement with at least one of the big browsers. Browser based gaming is on the decline and with moves like the one by Chrome, the window for significant end-user adoption is closing quickly. Which really, isn't that big of a deal, as long as there is some sort of solution available for those who do use the web-player. Even if it is just an external request.

 

Why does FF block Unity from running automatically? For security reason? AFAIK, unity web player was designed with security in mind, so it is mostly safe.

Is there anyway to get plugins be certificated like certificated websites? It will encourage users to install it.

 

Not just Unity, all plugins (except Flash). It is partially for security, but mostly to users control over their browsing experience.

There is no universal certification for websites. Browsers could adopt it though. The only thing that will encourage users to install it, is for them to encounter Unity content that has enough value for them to bother installing it. Hopefully the deal with FB will boost the install numbers.

It's a catch-22 though, more people will install when there is more content. More developers will create content when more people have installed it.

 

I agree, this is probably the best solution if Unity can manage to do that with Chrome and Firefox at best.

on another note, I'm very interested in how you conclude that Browser based gaming is on a decline? Browse-based gaming is big business... with HTML5 and WebGL on the rise, with websites like Kongregate, and Facebook that Promote Browser Games, and lets not forget just about every device now and days supports a browser now, do you really think it's on a decline or do you have some data to show that proves this?

I strongly believe Browser Gaming is on rise, and the Web-Browser is the Ultimate Publish Once Play Anywhere Platform of the Future, especially if say Browsers Supported Flash, WebGL, HTML5, and heck Unity one day all as Native/Built-In to the Browser on all Devices... I know the idea may seem far fetched right now, but it's 100% possible, and by the looks of it that's where it's headed... for best example Chrome-browser on Android already Supports WebGL! Although i'm sure the games probably run like crap lol! but it's Gaming in the Browser is just getting started as far as i'm concerned.

 

Clearly then you need to get out more.

 

Well, I hazard a guess that iPhone iPads are so popular because you don't have to dork with plugins and nerds trying to subvert them.

With an iPod you got your apps, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, whatever without the dorky browser.

Will 'Facebook games' play in the Facebook iOS app?

Besides the dork illiterati does anyone use a browser outside of work?

 

I believe this is the most feasible solution, and hopefully won't impact UT too much.
I really hope this happens.

@Graham Dunnett, what are your thoughts on this one?

 

What is in html5? Isn't it a mark up language and will have performance issue?

 

Every small step counts.
1/ If unity can deal with browser maker then it is the best
2/ If it can't get a deal then a certificated plug in model will help adding some percentage of user install it
...
Maybe there are several back up plans, in real world there is nothing such as the only thing

You need to be prepared for every situation, not putting all eggs on one basket

 

Yep, HTML itself is a language for defining documents. However, HTML5 is a "cornerstone" where a lot of other mobile/web technologies integrate, and a lot of the hype and/or excitement about "HTML5" actually arises from those. W3C kind of added to the confusion themselves by initially defining HTML5 as an umbrella term for all of those things.

 

This is great point, and touches on a larger concern someone else brought up. Unity currently isn't a "security" concern, especially compared to flash. But if Unity Web Player had the adoption rate on the same order as flash, you can bet those same nerds would start finding ways to exploit it.

If you mean for web based gaming, then sadly, the answer is yes. The largest, and most profitable demographic on FB has been middle-age, stay-at-home moms. (hence the nature/type of the largest FB games). They have expendable income, and the time to indulge. But even they are switching to tablets when the option is available.

 

In this case it is though. (and again, no such thing as a certified plugin, so not sure what you mean there) People are generally reluctant to install a plug when it is required to play a game as it is. (Getting them to install a plug-in "just in case" is pretty much not going to happen). Wether it is laziness, security concerns or confusion is not clear, but even when presented with a very compelling game, only a small percentage will take the action of installing. I can't really provide details, but we tested a game based on huge and compelling IP, and were unable to get much above the standard install rate for Unity.

Either it has to be provided to them in the first place, or they have to be given a really compelling reason/game to entice them to install. It is definitely growing in adoption, just slowly.

 

Indeed, generally when people say HTML5, they are usually referring to HTML5 and the tech that leverages it. For example WebGL isn't part actually part of HTML5, but is a tech that uses HTML5 as a connection point, meaning that HTML5 can control/access WebGL elements through the DOM in a standard way. Same with other rich content. Prior to HTML5, putting rich content like audio, video, etc into a web page was little more than a hack and not standardized.

 

NOTE: Wow, this turned out way longer than intended. This subject is (web gaming) dear to my heart and is my passion. (and the core of my professional life for nearly the last 2 decades.) It is largely my personal thoughts on where web gaming been and where it is now.

Numbers and experience. I am not saying it is "dead" or "dying" or anything like that. Maybe "decline" isn't the most accurate phrase, something more like "decline as a primary platform". You can look at the revenue and interest of the large web-based companies to see that reflected in the numbers. And you can look at the stall and decline of FB gaming over the last couple of years to support that. (these all well published numbers.) Now, FB gaming recently showed an upswing the last couple of quarters and still growing. But... the devil is in details. That growth is due to expanding connectivity via mobile. More people are connecting to FB for gaming, but overall the number playing on the web is down and continuing to decline. The most successful games are ones that have both web and mobile components.

Browser based gaming success was driven by a handful of titles/companies. While there are a ton of browser games out there, the success and revenue is much more polarized than even on mobile. Reports show that 50% of mobile revenue are from the top 25 developers. While with web/social about 90% of the revenue comes from the top 10 games of FB. And even of top 10 list there is a massive difference between 1 and 10. Though in fairness, revenue from top FB is well... let's just say substantial. Having had games in the top slots, they can easily out-pace a top mobile game. (at least right now). But on the flip-side the cost to maintain a game like that is also much higher. But the point being that making a successful web game is much more unlikely than making a successful mobile or downloadable game. And for indie developers, a successful web game is nearly impossible. Not the case with mobile, downloadable or even console games.

The decline of browser based gaming as a market is clear from any numbers you will find (looked at properly). Though you will find a rise in hybrid/social gaming figures. Though you won't find a lot of discussion on it specifically, as the social games are still growing, they are just migrating to mobile. "Social" games used to mean browser-based games, but that term now generally includes mobile games as well.

Smaller sites may not be showing decline, and may show some growth, but these numbers aren't enough to impact the reduction from FB. Even Kongregate , which is growing generally, has started the shift to mobile.

Common numbers/data support this trend. Internal industry stats support it even more strongly. But decline does not mean "pending demise" or imminent death, its just past is growth phase and the future is in moving in a different direction.

--

But that is "what" is happening.

Let me clarify my perspective on this. Web/browser gaming is my "thing". I have been doing it professionally since before it was really even an industry. I was very passionate about for a variety of the reasons including the ones you mentioned. Ease of deployment, democratization of publishing and platform independence. I have built web games for a wide range of clients/companies from ad agencies to NASA to educational institutions and government as well as game and entertainment companies. I have had huge hits and huge failures (InstantAction). A significant portion of my career has been in this area, and as a whole, have been very successful with it. But, now, I have changed my focus to mobile and multi-platform. As have many companies and my peers.

So, from my perspective, this is what I see as "why" things are changing and the limitation of the web as game platform: (And to be clear, these are observations shared by myself and others in my industry, not the absolute truth and claim of a perfect view of the future. Really just opinions with the benefit of experience.)

1. Ease/Consistency of deployment:

This has been said for many years. I personally have argued in favor of this point many, many times. The reality though is that it will never happen. For two main reasons.
First, it has never happened before. Since the beginning of web development, devs have always been waiting for consistent adoption of one thing or another. HTML3.2/4/5, CSS/CSS2/CSS3, broadband, plugin adoption/upgrades, etc. As long as there is more than one browser and one platform, there will always be gaps/differences. Second, and more importantly, the goal is always moving forward. Tech/innovation does't stop and wait for adoption. There may come a point in the future when HTML5/WebGL is widely enough adopted to support the desires of todays needs, but at that point they will be old tech and everyone be looking at html6/next and what WebGL (or alternates) evolve into or get replaced by.

You can look at Flash as perfect example of this. In the early days, it was difficult to get people to install Flash. By the time it hit full (or as close as possible) penetration, it became and issue of getting people to upgrade to FP10/11 to leverage more advanced features. Today it is probably the largest web/tech to be deployed to, but now everyone is looking forward to 3d and more advanced tech both as devs and players. You can never catch up, because the target moves forward.

Not only that, but the tech is becoming more complex and the devices are becoming more divergent. Getting quality lighting, for example, across browser games where hardware/cpu/gpus are different is much more of a challenge than consistent text alignment across browsers, and that took years. And even today, (and even with flash) browser deployment is a challenge and inconsistent. Mostly with connectivity, but other aspects as well, it is just obscured by conditional code changes. There is no reason to believe this will improve as more complexity is introduced. Best case scenario, there will just be alternate versions/includes per platform/browser. Write once deploy everywhere is a myth that is facilitated by creative developers who handle fixes in the deployment.

2. Write once deploy everywhere...
On the web that doesn't happen now, it looks like it happens, but there a lot of compensation going on under the hood. Even with flash, at least where connectivity/communication happens. As I noted above, it seems unlikely that it will ever happen, as by the time anything does catchup, it is already old tech.

But more importantly, that goal of multi-platform deployment for games is a reality right now. No browser required. And no one does that better than Unity. Any significant platform that supports a browser you can already deploy a Unity game to. IF browsers catch up, and IF Unity makes a plugin for every browser (or html5 or flash deployment) and platform, and IF that solution is installed/upgraded/adopted by all users, it doesn't open up any NEW paths for deploying Unity based content. Being able to play a game made in Unity on a browser on iPhone is redundant, you can do that right now without the browser.

So, if your goal as a game developer is to reach the widest audience possible, you have that now with Unity. Deploying something made in Unity to web browsers, doesn't actually increase your audience, just provides them an alternate way to reach the same goal, playing your game. It just gives them the about the same game with a degraded overall experience.

3. User experience...
Growth of browser based games happened for a couple reasons. Basically FB drove it by putting games right where people were. It was easy to use, convenient and accessible. All things that were not the case with downloadable or shipped games prior to that. FB opened up both the web and gaming to a massive audience that wasn't there before. "Downloading" and "Installing" games would have prevented much of that growth.

FB/Flash/browser games radically changed the gaming industry. It set the stage for mobile gaming and massively grew the amount of people playing games. "Everyone is now a gamer" now as the mantra goes. Having built games my whole life, my mother, while supportive, never would have considered playing games herself. Today, she is an avid FB game player (and mobile/tablet).

Also it should be noted that this was really only made possible due to flash. But also in spite of flash. It wasn't till the peak of web gaming that Adobe conceded that developers primarily used flash for games. Flash isn't a "game engine", and it required a fair amount of knowledge to produce a solid flash game, but developers did so anyway because it was what was available to a wide audience.

With that massive growth, companies took notice and realized that it wasn't that some people just weren't interested in games, it was that games weren't being offered in a convenient way. Web games (via FB), were convenient and discoverable. And now that ease of consumption has been adopted by platforms and game distributors. App Store, Steam, Windows store, Google Play, Mac App Store, etc... And of F2P and trials have helped that as well.

These game stores have taken what was pioneered by browser games and evolved it. Finding/installing/playing a game is much more simple and convenient via the App store than would be in a browser on a iPhone. (or other platforms). Even if playing modern games in a browser were possible on devices.

Not only that, but the experience is much more enhanced. Real estate is limited on a device already, wrapping a game in a site in browser degrades that experience. (sure you could go full screen, but at that point you are just emulating a native app). A native app you don't have to "download" the game every time you want to play, and are subject to size and memory limitations of the browser. You don't have to be online to play, and native integration means benefits of the platform like saving game-state, platform game centers and device features. And not having to share/be limited by browser resources.

Basically, there is no actual/practical benefit to playing a game in browser today, and in many cases (especially with mobile and devices) there are limitations. The exception being FB games on a PC/Laptop, but the reality is those benefits are less about it being a browser game and more about the FB platform. But even so, this all assumes that it is possible to play modern/3D games in the browser that is convenient for the large portion of users, which there isn't currently. And as above, by the time there is, App Stores/Portals will have evolved creating a new target.


4. Developer experience...
Though highly dependent on the skill and area of interest for individual developers, broad market and multi-platform are available right now without having to wait for browsers or tech to catch up. Especially with Unity in the picture. But even outside of Unity software is becoming more multi-platform to some degree (cocos2DX for example, and even flash). And features like transaction ability and social hooks, visibility (and even ads) are often part of platform Store deployment. For web deployment, these are separate parts at best, with the exception of FB, but FB is a different beast, and a difficult market to succeed in unless you are already a huge developer in that market.

Additionally, developers always want access to latest features and tech. If you are developing native, you have that access as soon as it is available on a platform. If you rely on Unity or another tool, you have access as soon as Unity adopts it. If you are developing for browsers, you have to wait until all browsers integrate it. (usually years later, and after it has been replaced). Developing for the web means you will always be several steps behind on current tech.

Today, developing a game for web is much more limiting and more effort than developing for mobile. (at least in the mechanics of deployment). Less deployment effort means more focus on the game itself. And overall a smaller available audience (assuming you are not building a flash game). Developing a web game means two layers of tech to deal with the platform and the browser(s). And there is less visibility, a game in the app store is easier to find than a game on the web. (for the average user). And really even for the experienced user, given the amount of games. I rarely look for games on the web anymore. I figure the good ones will float to the top of the charts or be featured on game blogs or recommendations, then I check them out.

----

Again, those are just my observations/opinions on the state of web based games based on my experience in the industry, and the primary reasons I have moved out of that field into mobile/hybrid game development. I want to build games and get them to the largest group of potential players possible and not spend a huge amount of time fighting/waiting/being limited by tech. Mobile is overtaking web gaming, and there are less limitations to what can be done with the platform. And more importantly, it much more possible to make a small successful game on mobile than the web.

Just try and think about how many successful web games you know of the top of your head, vs the number of successful platform or mobile or console games you can name. Now repeat the process but thinking of indie games.

The reality is that successful web games are huge endeavors, with huge live-ops costs. Our top web games usually have 15-20 full time staff dedicated those games. Not to build (the team was larger pre-launch), but just to maintain. To have a successful freemium game, you have to have continual content. To be perfectly honest, as a developer, I get bored with Live-ops. (though it is our bread and butter).

In truth, our studio makes a ton of money on web games, I believe still a bulk of our revenue (division wise at least), but that is shifting. Not overnight, but quickly enough for us to grow our efforts on the mobile side. Which says something considering we are already one of the top mobile developers out there.

I am not suggesting that web gaming will ever die out, or anything like that. Just that as a major market it is on the downside of dominance/prominence. As games like CC and WWF have shown, it can become a key component of a social game strategy. And certainly for indie/experimental it is great way to deploy very small or in development or experimental games. I love the ability to deploy games via web browser, and am excited about what will come with HTML5/WebGL (and some of the other in-development techs) and whatever secret plans Unity has in the pipe. It will always be my first love. But as a large/significant segment of the gaming market, it is being replaced. (even though it pioneered that market in the first place.) But that is just how technology works. Think of the Cordless phone or Instant camera. Both vast, popular improvements to existing tech. Both short-lived as the underlying tech evolved.

-----

And just one last time, while the decline/shift in web gaming is known and measurable, my (long-winded) observations/comments on the state/future of things are just that, my opinions. Its not an attempt to convince anyone it is the gospel, or to suggest that anyone shouldn't make web games. (Follow your own passion). Or that they represent a clear picture of the future (anyone claiming to 'know' the future of tech is usually wrong). I have been heavily a part of the web/browser gaming industry since the beginning, and it is my area of expertise. And the one thing that my vast experience has taught me, is that vast experience doesn't mean you can't fail or be completely wrong. So make of it what you will, or just ignore it.

Cheers,
ZG.

tl;dr: Web/browser based gaming is similar to Cordless phones or Instant Photography or even Compact Discs. A significant and massive improvement to existing technology, but ultimately to be superseded by fundamental shifts in the core way that people interact with that tech. An in-between step/solution in a evolving industry.

 

With all the crap on the internet, people won't say yes. (they've already got one crapy toolbar, or their main page change by doing that, they won't do it again). Ask an everyday guys what is Unity, and what is flash.
Sure he will trust flash but not Unity (and don't even remember what it is)

But of course if Unity get a deal, it won't be a probelme anymore.

 

Very true, and sadly a name like "Unity" it would easy to assume that "Unity" is probably a just another crappy toolbar.

I would guess, that even with a pre-installed deal they would still require some sort of "is it ok to run Unity?" But I think/hope that if the dialog were done properly it could communicate well enough to entice a user to run it. (for example if was super clear what Unity is and what will happen).

---

Though it is sort of an worst case solution, Unity could build it's browser based on WebKit or whatever with the plugin builtin. Offer it as Unity content browser and even have a landing page with links to new games and Unity content. Regular browsers could use external request protocols, like "unity://someurl.com/some_directory/some_game" When clicked it would launch the path in the Unity browser. Like iTunes does or rss or ftp. May be an awkward process, and more to maintain for UT, but could provide a portal like service to the Unity content on the web. Dunno.

 

Well, the mothers (and fathers too sometimes) have mostly reconnected with old friends, weeded out the 'phoney friend requests designed to phish and collect social network data', and are now playing those FB games less and less. I've noticed they are personally tightening up security and now occasionally sharing their activities with friends mostly. That's what Facebook was meant to be anyway.

The 'frenetic gaming activity' you think you see are the gaming companies and Facebook autoposting on behalf of users. For a long time I weeded out all game posts, then Facebook moved all that to a separate feed, and lately I've seen Facebook mention friends play such and such games in the 'Group feeds' that have those friends although it could be the case they tried the game one for a few minutes and moved on. Oddly, for quite a few months, no 'normal comments' my friends would make showed up on my News Feed but suddenly this week they started showing up again. The 'commercial' likes didn't disappear ever from my news feed (that's any charity, movie star, sports team, university, yadyadayada - yes they are all commercial).

Facebook's aptly named if they mean the faces are George, Abe, Alexander, Andrew, and Benjamin.

 

@zombiegorilla Wow! man i think that huge post response to my post about web gaming should totally go on Gamasutra! LOL! Although long winded it was, it was a good read! and I appreciate you taking the time to write all that. Always nice to hear from someone with lots of real industry experience. I can totally see, and understand all of your points, and you could be totally right! but, as you said no one really knows what the future holds.

Thanks again, I will definitely keep all that in mind on my journey!

 

I think ultimately web browsers for uses other than text and raster images is doomed. PCs and Macs will be the domain of businesses again while locked tablets will be for home consumers. Apps for these tablets will have to be inspected earnestly before release into the stores. Even businesses will go back to a CICS / Mainframe / Thin Client (i.e. tablet) environment rather than continue to tolerate the constant disruptions to business and security that individual employee PCs causes and an overly public internet presence causes. Expose what you sell on the internet not HR or Accounting or Properties or IR&D. Apple's pretty good at that and even they've have massive security problems. Adobe recently had problems. on on. Productively and employee social adjustment should improve with such changes.

Yep, the browser's going retro to text and raster images.

 

i highly doubt that... but OK if you say so

 

I have yet to see Lynx user that isn't asking for help on setting up X Server because it doesn't launch.

 

It won't be me that decides it will be business security interests. You think the new plugin security measures are a whim from a Silicon Valley and Wall Street hyperbole engine that's been trying to push the web browser as an OS and the source of unending exponentially increasing earnings since the inception of Netscape? Massive security flaws. Business after business after business have had their security breached via http.

In addition, these forums aren't so well adorned are they and you're here?

 

Good post! Everyone should have a coffee break and read it.. and You should copyPaste this to its own thread, so ppl can find it. Too much knowledge to fall into oblivion..

 

PNaCl is coming... http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/portable-native-client-pinnacle-of.html
And Google adds asm.js to Octane, its javascript benchmark (not yet chrome but it's a sign...)

 

I don´t wanna be negative but for us architecture related programmers this statement is simply unacceptable since our clients are not comparable to gamers who can simply use another browser. Please be aware of this - thank you.

 

Any news on this? I'm about to start developing for web and would hate to see the support dropped..

 

Up for this thread.

Any releated question on browser about the plugin permission is very boring for many users, above all for the company that interact with non-gamers clients.

I hope there will be a fix for this issue

 

Can't really see any "fix" for the issue in the end. It's more like a new system would be required to be made with help of browser authors but its them already trying to kill or get rid of all "complex" plugin systems. All the talk about WebGL/HTML5/etc. just means Unity would have to be a pioneer amongst few others if any()?) in this area but then again who will pay for the work and it will it pay back in the end? They added Flash and after all it was a probably a financial disaster so I don't really think they will risk more with stuff thats not even close to what Flash was technically.

 

sigh... i am still waiting for an update too all... Unity, Unity... what's it gona be...

still waiting for some news on this on my end as i've had big plans to continue developing for Browser using Unity, but right about now i'm starting to feel very regretful of choosing Unity as my Game Engine for Browser Platform...

if Flash is going to be around thanks to being built-in to Chrome i'm considering Flare3D http://www.flare3d.com/ for Browser Game Development, also supports Desktop, and Mobile Platforms. Probably others should consider it as well if we go another month or two with no word from Unity on their Webplayer solution.

Flare3D has a pretty nice showcase of games created with it
http://www.flare3d.com/showcase/

and also has a pretty nice interface that looks and feels like Unity's so that's nice.

Sorry Unity, I hate to promote another Engine, but hey you guys aren't exactly giving us a hint of information as to whats going on, so i'll be looking into this engine in the meantime.

 

@Graham Dunnett

As you know Chrome stops supporting the NPAPI plugin at the end of 2014.
At the moment, however, appears an annoying bar at the top that requires permission to use the plugin for the website.

While Unity3D's staff working on solution to solve the problem of incompatibility with Chrome, in order to limit the inconvenience for users who are using or planning to use the plugin, you can know, through javascript, when the plugin is blocked?

Unity3d's developers can add, through unityobject2.js, the state "locked" to the list progress.pluginStatus?

 

Thinking about this again on some planning for web games this year. As soon as Unity does know it would be great to find out, I know they are working on something. Even if they can help clarify if Google is actually going to drop this end of year.

Seems these are the obvious or consensus directions it might go:

1) Update Unity to PPAPI, Work with Mozilla (seems unlikely they will integrate another Chrome native solution -- or they would drop one or the other)
2) Recommend Unity users to export NaCL for Chrome, Work with Mozilla for 2014-2015
3) Work with Mozilla and Chrome to have it included like Flash
4) New method, new launcher that can be used on web and play it if possible, if playback is not possible allow a downloadable webkit wrapper to play it that does keep NPAPI in control by unity with added stores/promotion/steam like web client (might be a nice community of gamers and another area to get games noticed)
5) Future method, WebGL/asm.js/emscripten, I'd be amazed if there is enough time for this, still a few years out due to same clustered cross-platform issues, WebGL is just now getting accepted and has a while before it is fast enough.

Mobile ignited Unity but also greatly diminished web gaming. Before mobile disrupted, web gaming was hugely the future. It still is, games are more connected than ever, html5/webgl/etc gaming on the rise. We are just in a bad valley where mobile and non plugin mobile browsers have changed the market significantly allowing this to happen and possibly changing the plugin to an app as mobile users don't use them. I still see browsers as a large part of gaming but it might be wrapped in apps for another round or two.

The Unity/Facebook partner helps to push adoption of web gaming, it has gotten more interested in it and drawn some attention. For game portals, a huge nuke is possible. I really like making the game work across everything including web but some speed bumps are ahead for that.

 

there is suppose to be a presentation by unity at GDC going over the future of deploying games to the web... so let see what they cooked up. Hopefully we can get a live stream feed or a youtube video of their presentations after next week.

 

Good to know @Kuroato and @Chariots and I agree on direction/support, I didn't think they could get there that fast on WebGL/asm.js/etc but I have been surprised before. Changes that massive can take a while to get it ready for use but this is definitely hopeful and a reason they would also be quiet on it. Very interested for the news at GDC and looking forward to performance and directions for the web with Unity.

 

Well, Epic Games used their big wallets to be ‘close friends’ with Mozilla and Unreal Engine 4 for web browser will be showcased on GDC Firefox’s boot;
What about Unity?!

 

To be fair, that was demo that was built in four days was just a proof of concept/tech demo and Citadel was a pretty minimal/optimized demo. While cool, a lot more work has gone into since then.

 

Indeed, in terms of development effort there's a *huge* difference between a proof of concept and a finished product.