"Do not block Unity plugin" Petition at change.org

Hey guys, we need your support

https://www.change.org/p/google-inc-do-not-block-unity-plugin-in-chrome

 

It's not like they're singling out Unity. No plugins will be allowed. That makes the entire internet more secure.

Besides that, this has been on their roadmap for over a year, and the team at Unity is prepared for it. WebGL exports are going to reduce the barriers to new users playing Unity games on the web, because not everyone trusts Unity Tech (as most of us do) to not be malware.

 

I don't think 100 People will really convince Google to not drop the Web Player Plugin at all

Google is deprecating the NPAPI (Blogpost) by the end of the year, which means that all Plug-Ins based on this API will get blocked - including the Unity Web Player. But not Google alone is blocking Plug-Ins, Mozilla is doing the same with their Firefox: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Plugins/Firefox_Whitelist

 

I have little doubt that Apple will follow shortly, too, they just won't announce it on a roadmap as far in advance as the others do. Apple does love obsoleting old stuff. A dollar says that Safari in OS X 10.11 doesn't support plugins.

 

I don't agree with the petition. It's a good thing plugins are being blocked from the web. There was never a good reason to have plugins to begin with.

 

@freeger I have spent way to much energy being upset about the fact that Chrome was wiping out NPAPI... while it may be a big pain in the @$$ now for us Unity Devs who were hoping to build a game for Unity Webplayer (NPAPI version), I think in the long run it will be to our advantage. We won't have to worry about losing potential new users due to them walking away because they didn't know how to install a Browser Plugin, or Schools and Company IT Departments Blocking Plugins, or they simply don't trust installing a Browser Plugin due to possible virus they are afraid of. There are probably many other factors as to why Browser Plugins would cause us to lose potential new users.

Although it seems like it will take my game much longer to launch now on the Browser Platform due to this change, I'm excited about what WebGL will do for the Growth of my game! Especially since I have a brand new game in the works already that is set for Browser Platform.

Freeger you also are working on an awesome Browser Game! It will be challenging for us both, but I think we'll find much success due to already working on a quality game that will soon come to the Browser Platform with WebGL.

I like to think of it as a new Gaming Console and We'll be among the first to publish a new Game to it! So look at it as a good thing and not so much a negative...

 

It's impressive that Unity is in some places able to squeeze out pretty much native performance.

 

No, just no.

WebGL will be better.

 

Have these petitions ever had their intended effect? I don't think I've ever seen a company cave in to one. Not that it actually matters in this case. Unity is ultimately going to abandon their plugin the same way they abandoned Flash. It is being replaced with WebGL which is already functional in Internet Explorer 11, Chrome, and Firefox.

Plugins are insecure. The API was created to make up for the limitations in browsers of the time period that were caused by Internet Explorer taking the lead. Now that other browsers are in control the majority of those limitations are gone. It is time to kill off NPAPI.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen any petition have any effect.

 

Bottom line is the best petition that always has an effect.

 

While this is a nice gesture, as mentioned, we have been preparing for this shift since it was announced. WebGL won't be fully featured as the WebPlayer straight away, but over time it will surpass it. Additionally, we won't be killing the WebPlayer as soon as Google flip the switch.

 

Better in terms of security. Worse in every other way imaginable.

(Maybe in another decade it'll be decent. But compiling huge C++ codebases to Javascript will still seem like insanity even then...)

 

The best solution is to force your audience to use standalone builds until everything is worked out ^-^

 

Agreed. For each plugin I needed to view certain content I usually spent hours of research whether the plugin was trustworthy at all to begin with. Then there's also the problem with how stable a plugin is and how it's supported in the future, very generally speaking.

And as Aurore said: Concering Unity the webPlayer won't simply vanish at the end of the year, either. So there still is a transition, if needed.

 

Oh, there was. Before browsers had any video support at all it was the only way. Fortunately they've caught up in that respect too, so now you can even watch Netflix without plugins in some browsers.

 

Well that's just it. That's not a good reason to add plugins, but to evolve browser standards instead glad they've seen the light - and I know what you mean

 

Back when they WERE necessary we didn't actually HAVE browser standards

 

I'm pretty excited about WebGL replacing Webplayer. People are more likely to play a browser game that doesn't require the installation of a plugin.

 

+1 Yep! very exciting times... can't wait!

 

Come on only 96 more votes before we stop google from taking over the world.

 

Plus those that existed were largely ignored by the dominant browser at the time - Internet Explorer.

 

They sometimes do, but it's for stuff like this, not trivial issues like browser plug-in support:
http://www.change.org/victories

 

Google doesn't care. Mozilla doesn't care. This petition is pointless.

 

I guess you missed the blog post....

 

I am in full support of this petition. This transition has been a constant struggle since it began in July. Revenue for Unity Indie developers has dropped by more than half since last year as a result of fewer sites agreeing to list Unity games, and the auto-blocking of the plugin. Unity Web Player was a ideal stepping stone for Indies to build their game from ground up in a small studio and earn some ad revenue and player feedback through the process. Devs now are forced to distribute via download .exe's .. (which in my perception is much less "safe"). So we now rely on giants like Steam to list our games in development, which must go through a greenlight process, etc .. and the ad-revenue-while-we-work potential is gone. My concern is this will negatively impact innovation in the art form, and the gaming industry as a whole as it discourages small studios to self-represent and self-publish and self-support.
-Steven-
Martian Games

 

You can use WebGL publishing in Unity 5; that's the replacement for the webplayer. It would be better if the plugin blocking was delayed for about a year...WebGL development still has a ways to go, which makes the transition rockier than it should have been. But it's not like web publishing in general is going away.

--Eric

 

Nice to see you on here Martian Games! We should chat, I have a new multiplayer browser game I think you'll love and will work great for your web portal. I have plans build for WebGL and I am part of the Photon Cloud WebGL early access group! So lets chat! But anway on another note, have no fear! WebGL will transform Gaming in the Browser Platform and i'm excited to be apart of that new wave incoming! Like Eric stated, Web Publishing is not going anywhere, we just have some growing pain ahead, but the future is bright I believe.

 

I agree it is very fortunate that WebGL is on its way. But just speaking from personal experience, my drive has always been to push the Unity engine to its full potential, and so my games just are not suitable for WebGL. Also it looks like Unity 5 has a ways to go to get WebGL operational as of this post. After about 120 hours of wrestling with it, I haven't been able to get the simplest interactions to work without endless Javascript errors. ;/
But I do have the highest hopes for Unity->WebGL. If one day in the future it actually works for very simple 3D games it will indeed have some benefit to Indies.

 

Awesome! (I sent you email)

 

It works for fairly complex 3D games right now. It's in the preview stage, so obviously not every project will necessarily work yet, but so far the few projects I've tried worked the first time. The only errors I've gotten are about shaders not compiling (but they seem to work anyway?). Although this is on Safari 7.

--Eric

 

No, but that's a different topic anyway. You can start a new topic about it.

--Eric

 

I signed it.

I'm all for making the internet a safer place, but the Unity plugin is not deleting anyone's hard drive. WebGL is a great step forward -- why shouldn't we be excited about delivering our content to web users without a plugin? But we will make the change on our own time, when WebGL is ready. Google is being overprotective. They are trying to force the internet to conform to its standards.

I say let the change happen naturally, not by force!

 

I felt the same before especially since I primarly focus on browser games, it's annoying to have to wait a whole year or more before Unity WebGL is bug free and performing at it's best.

But I think if Google still planned to support NPAPI for years to come, maybe the demand for WebGL would never get to a point where there would ever be a real need to support WebGL.

I'm pretty sure Unity already knew that NPAPI was coming to an end thus they began development on supporting WebGL a year or two before it was announced publicly by Google.

So I think google pulling the plug created higher demand for WebGL game engines, and will speed up the transition to HTML5 web standards all around.

 

It isn't merely Google. Mozilla will be doing it too.

Really it is senseless to keep NPAPI around. Yes, switching to HTML5/WebGL means higher resource overhead but it allows Unity to support any platform without the need to invest in porting the plugin. There are platforms that would never see Unity support otherwise due to low popularity or cost of porting the plugin. Not to mention platforms that never had NPAPI support to begin with.

It is a much better solution.

 

Sure, but it's not about "the Unity plugin". It's about NPAPI, and you can't keep the former around without the latter, which lets in plenty of stuff that potentially does delete your stuff or do far worse things besides.

 

Sorry for this offtopic, the Unity 5 webGL exporter export to standard Javascript + WebGL or export to Asm.js?

About the topic is very dificult that Chrome or Firefox step back in the decision of block the plugins, I understand that is not a complete block and the plugins will be can activate with a permision of the user, if is a complete block of all plugins almost of the users that use popular plugins as Fireshot protest for this and in next years will migrate to alternative browsers. I think that a better solution that a general block of plugins Mozilla and Google would be create a certificate system of plugins as the Unity web player.

 

However, this has already been done for Flash. Our hope is Chrome will create a "Pepper" sandbox for Unity as has already been done for Flash. (PPAPI) This will buy us developers, (especially Unity tech), time to make this difficult transition without meanwhile losing our lifeblood: (our games). The reason I sign this petition is to help give a voice to indie developers who have had to discontinue their work making great games and contributing to innovation in the art form as a result of lost revenue resulting from browsers forcefully yanking the only currently working solution away from us. My recommendation to "The Browsers" is to allow ample time for the transition, to not strip away careers from hard working game artists. Right now we are forced to convert our games to a "download-only" option.. (which has much greater potential for malware, security issues, etc). And with lost revenue, this negates our ability to contribute to the WebGL transition. Right now I should really be optimizing, testing, preparing for WebGL conversions, but instead I am taking on contract work with big-money companies again. I am 100% in favor of the existence and evolution of WebGL. I only question the forcefulness that browser companies are pushing Unity and Unity devs beyond our capacity to keep up. It is a lose-lose scenario in my perception. Just, please, give us more time. That's all I ask.
-Steven-
Martian Games

 

Might I recommend a petition specifically asking for that? The current petition, which is worded in a way that suggests no one signing it knows what is actually happening, is pretty worthless. I can't imagine it being taken seriously.

 

Yea, I can relate Martian Games... although my first game ever published "Apocalypse City" http://apocalypsecity.net was developed with Adobe Shockwave, I still suffered some lost of revenue probably due to Chrome blocking Shockwave Plugin. Players can still download and enable Shockwave but I think it's harder to get people to do so now than ever before. So all while I was wondering why are my numbers dropping, one of the reasons was probably due to Chrome Blocking Shockwave and I had absolutely no clue for almost half the year. Then I updated the webpage with text instructions linking to the download of Adobe Shockwave Plugin. What a Pain! I understand your pain... sadly the big guys don't care about the little guys... and at the end of the day it's all business... cruel business... but business none the less, we just have to try to keep up and play the game sadly to survive.

 

No, virus creators will make unity plugin malware. Most people wouldn't know the difference until it's too late.

 

As @Ryiah asks, then, why is what you're asking for different to what you want?

 

Will Unitys WebGL builds support InternetExplorer some day?
If yes, any ideas when?

 

Probably when IE actually implements all features. It already works if you disable the check and don't care for audio and some other things.

BTW best place to ask would be U5 beta section

 

Ok, cool, how to "disable the check"? What check?

 

the logic is in UnityConfig.js so you need to add IE there and/or remove possible checks vs it

 

Target taking GTA V off the shelves.

 

Which had over 48,000 supporters and in far less time. This one only has 350 at the time of this posting. Plus it isn't like removing a product from your shelves takes any meaningful amount of time and effort.

Oh and that post I made was prior to the petition you mentioned.

 

....but presumably results in the loss of potential sales of that game, which is just as big a deal to Target's bottom line.

 

No, it really isn't. It's one product from one department in one country, and it's one that's not particularly aligned with their brand positioning or market strengths. On the other hand, they got all sorts of positive attention by removing it from shelves...