Unity Multiplayer UNet Deprecation Thread

Unity's "support" for Unet is really no different today than it has been since 2016. No feature improvements, no one assigned to even working on the HLAPI, don't expect any bug fixes. Nothing has changed other than being upfront about the situation.

 

I confirm Mirror is really great. It's even better than UNet, strong community, strong support. Nothing to worry about, the rightful successor is here.

 

Where is the documentation for the new tech stack? I'm having trouble finding it. Same for server authoritative code. I was hoping for some help in figuring out what to use instead of UNET like what my options are. I dont have release planned for another year it was less time but still over 6 months.
I'm completely unsure what to do due to the lack of real visible options at the Moment. Some of the pages I've read about it all either refer to UNET or it has no real replacement for the time being.

 

Been a while since I bothered to naysay Mirror...

It'll take you longer than you think, so you have time. Use UNET or Mirror, they're both terrible. Don't believe the hype about Mirror. Fixes some bugs that you may or may not run into, but does so while rewriting the code very poorly. Use either one. It's prototype code that you'll have to rewrite for production, but will save you a ton of up-front development frustration. Both libraries will do server authoritative. It's a matter of configuration.

If/when the new stack becomes viable, you can switch out the networking for your working game pretty easily if you take any care at all to keep it abstracted.

 

Agreed, always better to try for yourself first

 

If you need the architecture and features powered by the new tech stack or you wish to roll your own solution out. I totally agree. They are the best options for the "high tier" networking.

If you wish an alternative to UNET, you should check out my MLAPI project. It shares the same architecture with UNET. Which means it has many of the same principles of UNET but also allows you to build all in house. It doesnt force ANYTHING on you, everything is optional and can be used together with every other feature. Say you want your own spawn system, you can easily replace MLAPIs system and write your own while still getting the features of the MLAPI such as serialization, encryption and much more. It's a more layered approach that works if you want something super high level such as UNET and also if you want to roll your own solution out all together but just have some barebones stuff to help you.

 

Fair, my apologies. Comment was edited.

What angus wrote down below is about what I tried to convey. The comment was not pure humorus, it had a underlying point / implication. But my wording might have been unfair.

 

Software is not something you "try", unless trying means actually testing its suitability for your use cases. Testing, let alone integrating, a networking library is not something to be done on a whim. Please don't imply that just because something doesn't fail an immediate smoke test one should make the leap to using it.

 

Why not keep UNET and improve it, and keep it free?

 

It is a little late for that question, but here's their answer from a little over a year ago.

https://support.unity3d.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001252086-UNet-Deprecation-FAQ

 

Ironically, the current implementation provides nothing of this while it's in development for more than a year. It's almost the same traditional networking abstractions that were available for decades, just done from a bit different angle, suboptimal in several aspects, lack of many essential features at each layer, and evolve very slowly.

The ambitions of people behind management and marketing at Unity surprising me every time. So many promises and loud statements while there's so little actual progress.

You have invested in Multiplay with infrastructure, why you don't invest in the engine's network subsystems respectively? I only see some internal reshuffling since Alexey Abramychev left the company in April, but those people who are working on the new stack now are really can handle it? Because for now, it doesn't seem so.

 

Why not mark something as deprecated only when you have another production ready alternative available?

 

Are you complaining or asking a question? It's already been answered, just like your last question.

 

Where has it been answered ?
Does it matter if it is a question or complaint, e.g. is this only for your own info / knowledge?

 

Hello again new friend.

Sure, let's pretend you do need this spelled out in detail? Complaining would hopefully just be ignored. An actual question someone might be inclined to answer (by needlessly quoting this very thread for you again.) Either way, it's been covered extensively quite some time ago, which should also not need to be explained.

I don't actually care if you're complaining or not, you busted me. Just wanted to point out that you are not adding anything useful here. I'll simply un-sub from the thread, problem solved from my end. Please see https://github.com/angusmf/HLAPI-ex for an example of how you can at host your own forked version of the HLAPI package and fix things like the deprecation warnings if you like.

Goodbye sweet deprecation thread! I'll miss those exciting early days, the snarking, sniping, the woe! Vis and 210, hugs'n'kisses...see you on the next one!

 

Sorry if I am late to the party... thanks for the information.
Did not intend to rain on your parade, but your tone to me sounded a bit abrupt initially, let's move on and be civil to each other

 

It's frustrating that all of the LLAPI classes are marked as Obsolete and have had their documentation stripped out, without a native alternative in place. Despite this I went to use the LLAPI today for a quick UDP+WebSockets prototype (which LLAPI is perfect for) using Unity 2019.2, but NetworkWriter and some other important low level stuff has been entirely removed. I'm having to roll back to 2018.4 LTS so I can just get some simple networking done. How did Unity's multiplayer support end up in shambles like this? Is nobody making multiplayer games using Unity these days?

 

People are making but using 3rd-party software, many alternatives to LLAPI are available on GitHub.

Lack of proper leadership and investments, lack of competence in the field, the keyword here is lack.

 

NetworkWriter and such is distributed as a package for the newer versions of Unity. You can still grab it.

 

Hey folks, I'm trying to understand something. I'm new to networking and know very little about it works. If I run an old version of Unity that still has UNET, will it still be okay to create a simple multiplayer game that doesn't use a dedicated server? (and players can just host and connect to each other directly) I understand UNET has been deprecated but the code will still work right?

 

To be honest I am not sure what is going on, other than UNET seems to be made deprecated while there is no suitable replacement. Others , please correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you want to make multiplayer games and still (basically) use UNET, I recommend Mirror. It's basically UNET with fixes. It will be easy to get into due to the similarities with UNET and all the UNET tutorials that are already out there.
Personally, I don't have any experience with MLAPI but it seems promising. Maybe you could give that a try too.

 

MLAPI is also very close to UNET but has many more features, and is a much more modern and feature rich alternative.

 

That is right. You may want to go back and read the first 2 or 3 pages of this thread. Your's and many other questions have been asked and answered.

 

Ok, thanks for the info

 

I try implement new Multiplay from github

I have this error
Assets\sampleproject\Samples\Ping-Multiplay\Client\MultiplayPingClientUIBehaviour.cs(4,19): error CS0234: The type or namespace name 'Ucg' does not exist in the namespace 'UnityEngine' (are you missing an assembly reference?)

Assets\sampleproject\Samples\Ping-Multiplay\Server\MultiplayPingServer.cs(8,13): error CS0234: The type or namespace name 'Ucg' does not exist in the namespace 'Unity' (are you missing an assembly reference?)

and other 11 errors like that

Ucg what is that ?