Any News on Unity Webplayer?

Has there been any news or updates on what Unity is going to do about Unity Webplayer Plug-in Support being pulled from Chrome and Firefox?

I've just realized why revenue has been down lately from one of my most profitable browser games which was built in Adobe Shockwave. Chrome no longer gives you an option to even download the Plugin Required, here is a screenshot of what it looks like when you don't have Adobe Shockwave Installed:



Right now if you Uninstall Unity Webplayer from your Computer and go to say Kongregate.com and try to Play a Unity Game in Chrome or Firefox you get different results... Chrome seems to display and lets you Download the Webplayer Installer from the Clickable "Download Unity Button" provided by Unity with their Webplayer HTML Embed Scripts, but Firefox gives you a Java Error or Does not Download at all...

This really Sucks!! especially for me since my primary business is Web based.

Any News or Updates on this???

 

I guess not... no update from unity.... sooo damn sad!

and check it out! Chrome is already blocking Unity!!

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1247383?p=ib_blocked_plugin&rd=1

What happen the to damn White-listing? So much for that... Unity the clock is ticking what are you guys doing about this?

 

Hmm..I think that only means google just want to ask user if they want to install plugin, not really block it. At least webplayer works in chrome for the time being, that won't change... hopefully!

 

Well here is the thing, previously before blocking Plugins as they are doing now, the browser would popup a message saying do you want to install this Plugin, and kinda showing that it was Safe to Do So.... But Now you don't even get a Prompt at all if you don't have Unity Webplayer Installed.

You have to click on the Unity Install Button, and it Downloads the Webplayer EXE, but thats it... im not 100% sure but I thought that before the Browser would actually Run the EXE for you via Javascript if you were missing the Plugin. Now it does not Prompt you at all to Install it.

You need to Download the EXE! Click Run, Install, then Refresh your Browser. Before I don't think it was that many steps...

either way, if you see my sample screenshot above, Chrome now doesn't even offer you the ability to Download the Adobe Shockwave Plugin at all, or tell you what kind of Plugin it is... as it's totally blocking Adobe Shockwave. You have to just guess by looking at it that it's Adobe Shockwave and go to the Adobe Site URL to download Shockwave. Before you use to get a Popup saying "Hey do you want to installed Adobe Shockwave, Click Here" Not anymore...

Firefox and Chrome are truly on their way to Remove Plugins from the Browser for Good!

I have lost a substantial amount of Revenue due to this... as one of my most profitable games was built in Adobe Shockwave! It wasn't until today I realized the Users are not even getting the prompt or option to install it anymore.... So I had to add some Text Instructions telling Users How to Install Adobe Shockwave and Provide the Direct URL, we'll see how that works... but for the most part I think it's all Down hill from here as far as all Browser Games are concerned that are Built to Run on anything Except Adobe Flash at this Point.

 

DAMN... I see the complication. This sounds like a big headache, considering the amount of time and work you've invested already in browser.

Hopefully there's something Unity can do... maybe they can arrange something with google chrome, maybe Google guys can make an exception for unity plugin. Unity is getting big, very freaking big, they should do something to help.

 

Doubt Google would be ready to arrange anything with anyone as there are more widely used things in blocked too and by bigger companies. They want to get rid of the unsafe stuff and force move to their plugin platform or html5 just like firefox.

In the end this means current webplugin will die anyways. Only widely supported things seems to html5 in future which means due its limitations and stuff Unity would have to use a lot of manpower to get even limited export done for it and make it its own paid module for Unity just like Flash was.

 

Basically since 4.3.3 more than half the webplayers i try on various sites including kongregate stopped working.

One of two things happen now (for me)

1) Nothing appears, just a white square or nothing at all - then "after loading of the scene" the actual player appears.
2) Nothing happens at all, even check my download rate, nothing is downloading and well i move on.

Current webplayer installed 4.3.3 - did not have these problems before.
However it's BS. reinstalling the webplayer on Win8.1 I have to uninstall in safemode because is... well idk why.. buggy i guess.


Anyway, i think this is what is happening to a lot of people right now. Hence the drop in webplayer usage.
Using : Unity Player- Version: 4.3.3.96362 - Unity Player 4.3.3f

 

This is very worrying as unity webplayer was a big draw for a lot of people.

I'm curious about something is there any way not currently but is it possible to develop a html5 way to run unity games? Without using a webplayer or a least an integrated webplayer inside your webgame that is run or activated by html5?

 

You can't activate a browser 3rd party plugin with HTML5. That's not how HTML5 works.

Unless I've been hiding in a cave for the last 5 years and about to get my mind blown.

 

Nope but you can use Ajax - as very beautifully demonstrated here.

http://www.allegorithmic.com/products/database

run the player, now simply selected the mats below,,


BTW- one of the only webplayers that work as intended for me at the moment.

 

It's not really AJAX that is used, is just SendMessage via js on the web page. It's pretty straight forward, I just don't we see it in use often because it is really not something that is needed except in a few specialized cases.

 

Hi I mean more like rewrite the webplayer in html or partly in html5.

I know you can do 3D stuff in html5 without the need for an independent plugin so I was wondering if unity could utilize that.

The only other option is to make and release games that everyone wants to play and when lots install the webplayer it catches on to be a standard if you want to play the games.

 

That's not something that can be done; HTML is a page markup language. You're probably referring to WebGL, but that's only for 3D graphics and Unity needs more than that (sound, input, etc.). There currently isn't really any good standard for that, plus WebGL itself has a ways to go yet.

No, because A) that already happened to some extent, but B) plugins are going away, as in the web browsers that most people use will stop running them at all, so it doesn't matter how awesome the games are if nobody can physically run them. That's the issue that this topic is concerned about.

--Eric

 

At this point i don't really have any other choice other than to start preparing my game to be a Desktop Downloadable Game, but I did not want to do this because now it will cost me more time and money, and now i need to redesign my monetization strategy which really sucks because that also effects the game design i originally intended for...

I do hope Unity + Firefox + Chrome can come up with something, but i don't have time to wait around for them to figure it out...

 

What exactly does Google and Firefox want Unity to switch too? It doesn't make sense to drop plugins unless there is a better standard being pushed.

 

I assume:

1. sound = music

Lights

2. input = keyboard or mouse

Cube Slam

There are much more complex examples.

But maybe my assumptions are not correct.

cheers, gryff

 

He was just clarifying the semantics. Those examples (and any for that matter), are not technically speaking written in (or run using) HTML5. HTML5 has a canvas element and a set of APIs that allow you to interact with that element. Javascript is the logic and controls elements like sound (and other data), gets input from the user and communicates with the renderer (webGL).

HTML5 itself doesn't know anything about 3d or the logic to use it. It just provides an area and standard way to communicate with that area. If the browser and hardware/OS support standards like webGL and JS, then you can make a game (or whatever) for that target.

That is what he was pointing out.

 

Their goals aren't support to Unity (or anything). They are just attempting to provide more user-centric experience and use of open standards. Also, Firefox is NOT dropping plugin support. They are just letting the user decide whether or not they want to run a plug-in. And even with chrome, they are not dropping plugin support, just getting rid of NPAPI support. NaCL is the tech that will be used going forward with these types of plugins.

It isn't that they are getting rid of plugins like Unity, it just means that if a company like Unity wants to have a plugin for chrome, they will have to create it using their supported standards.

 

yea but the problem with this is say Unity wastes a S*** load of time and money to invest in creating a Unity Webplayer using NaCL or Pepper, what about Firefox, or other Browsers? Even though Firefox may not have announced they are Dropping Plugin Support they are still Blocking Unity by Default right now, so if you don't have Unity Webplayer installed you'll have to go through a number of Steps to install it, which the average user will probably just say "F#@!" this... and move on to some other content or games that don't require the hassle to play.

The primary reason to Publish anything to the Browser Platform is so that anyone can access that content across all Browsers easily, not just one. But seems the future of publishing Games to the Browser with Unity will be a lot more like Publishing for Mobile now. Having to publish different builds to work specifically for different browsers and meet their standards....

So F#@1NG Annoying...

 

Firefox has actually said that they are "not interested in supporting Pepper at this time". So yea, at the very least Unity will have to support 2 plugins if they go that route.

True, but it has always been that way. That is why Unity has such a low penetration rate. Very few people will bother.

It's not just the future, it is the past as well. It has always been that way with the exception of Flash. Rarely have browsers been in sync with each other. Even with rendering a JS, there have been and are differences. It is just that third parties have made it appear seamless. (Jquery, greensock, conditional code/style sheets/etc.). As long as there is more than one browser and one version of a browser, there will be incompatibility on some level. That is why I have little faith that HTML5/webGL will ever become very big for publishing games. By the time browsers are all on board and/or third parties have created solid libraries that handle all the differences, tech will have moved forward and will all be waiting on something else newer and better.

Without a doubt, as developers we see and encounter the fantasy of cross-platform publishing. And it is a lot of work and duct tape to give the illusion to users that it "just works". Even with flash, though the front end was solid, backend communication was still a challenge.

As much as it does suck, if you look at it from the end user experience it is a little more understandable. Most people don't play games in a browser, or if they do, it isn't what they do all the time. Most people don't want to bother with updating/installing software, they just want to use the web. And most importantly, if security isn't addressed, there are plenty of people out there who will take advantage of exploits. If unity had deep penetration, and it always ran, it would crap up the web just like flash did in it's early days. The folks who make browsers are primarily concerned with the experience of the users of their browsers, and certainly will always choose that over making our lives easier.

Users and casual gamers are migrating fairly quickly to mobile. Even apps like facebook and twitter are seeing more and more usage shifting from the web to mobile. And even though sure, there are multiple builds and considerations when publishing to devices, it is still is less effort than the web, and it is a much more frictionless experience for users. And it is quickly overtaking the web in terms of revenue generated by online/social games.

Yep, that is a perfect description for publishing games. But just wait, give it a couple of years, there will certainly be some sort of fresh new hell that will make things a pain in the ass in new and exciting ways.

 

ZG: I appreciate that fact and that there was confusion by previous posters on this threadabout HTML5 and WebGL. However,

as I tried to point out the second part of that statement is not correct (underlined part) though the current WebGL solutions may not have as detailed a functionality as Unity.

Can't disagree with that. Infact, going back 10 years to VRML plugins for browsers, there were at least 4 plugins (Cosmoplayer, Contact, Cortona and Worldview) for browsers that claimed to meet the public standard but infact only 3 did, and two of those added their own additions which, if used, would screw up the other viewers. And these plugins had mixed sucess with the different browsers.

The very recent win by Verizon over the FCC could lead to carriers giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service (eg. Netflix, YouTube etc.). Fees that will ultimately be paid for by the consumer.

I recently watched an interview with Aaron Levie (CEO of Box) where he claimed that changes/innovation "over the next 5 years will exceed everything from the past 40 years" - so you are probably dead right when you say "make things a pain in the ass in new and exciting ways."

cheers , gryff

 

No kidding. In fact the only "standard" thing about standards, is that they aren't. I realize that the people that develop/create/push for standards in technology have the best intentions. It just never works out. Well, at least not well enough for those of us who are trying to build content.

In a weird way, I sometimes think it is only fair. I mean, for me, developing games is simply the coolest thing in the world. If the process were actually smooth, and I didn't have to deal with external challenges like multiple platforms, changes in tech and tools and all that, I would simply be happy all the time. The frustration provides contrast. ( At least that is what I keep telling myself to keep from throwing my laptop across the office. )