3 ms·

> They didn't ban Unity. The legacy NPAPI extension format (which the Unity web player plugin was built on) was deprecated in favour of PPAPI. Which had the ef

> They didn't ban Unity. The legacy NPAPI extension format (which the Unity web player plugin was built on) was deprecated in favour of PPAPI. Which had the effect of banning Unity. I understand that this was a good move from a general security standpoint. I'm annoyed that Google has done their best to make it impossible for a power user to override it, just as they made it unreasonably complicated to install non-Google-approved plugins. By all means, set your softwares' defaults for general security. Don't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with my own computer "for my own good." We don't accept that when Microsoft or Apple does it. > All that would be needed for Unity web player to work out-of-the-box in Chrome again is for it to be ported to PPAPI No. All existing Unity apps would have to be recompiled. Making legacy games harder to run leaves a bad taste in my mouth, even if it's for good reasons.

wyqydsyq 10y ago
They wouldn't have to be recompiled. Unity apps running via UWP don't execute directly in the browser document context, UWP is it's own stand-alone plugin which is then embedded where needed in the page (similar to Flash and Java), this is why you have to download the UWP executable in addition to the browser plugin. The browser plugin is merely a wrapper for the UWP binary. Unity apps compiled against the UWP runtime should run all the same regardless of whether UWP is wrapped in an NPAPI or PPAPI plugin, unless the wrapper plugins themselves and/or how they call the UWP runtime are implemented differently.