3 ms·
Unity is itself a proprietary, single-vendor, closed-source plugin. Though I don't disagree at all, transitioning from one proprietary, single-vendor, closed-s
by fixermark 10y ago
Unity is itself a proprietary, single-vendor, closed-source plugin.
Though I don't disagree at all, transitioning from one proprietary, single-vendor, closed-source plugin to another isn't actually going to solve the problems that killing Flash is supposed to solve (apart from the one where Flash is also a gigantic legacy-code monument to all our sins, of course ;) ).
- mastax 10y agoUnity you output WebGl-based games, see http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl-building.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl-building.html From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin, so there's some work to be done on unity's end. Beyond that, if browser makers want to replace native code plugins they have to give a better alternative. WebAssembly might help, but since it's essentially running in the same vm as JS I'm not sure it'll be faster other than the parsing overhead.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fixermark 10y ago> From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin... ... two things that absolutely kill videogames, so it's more accurate to say "Unity you will output WebGl-based games" (at some indeterminate point in the future). Agreed that it's a step in the right direction over alternatives though.
- yaur 10y agoChrome already killed the unity plugin which is what really lit a fire under there ass to get WebGL working well. Its reasonable now, at least for some types of games.