That no longer meets my expectations of a "web-based game." I would consider my expectations fairly realistic. I also believe most have always referred to game

That no longer meets my expectations of a "web-based game." I would consider my expectations fairly realistic. I also believe most have always referred to games that use Flash as "Flash games." When Macromedia Flash originally became popular, it solved quite a few very real problems in existing browsers. SVG support was nonexistent. JS performance was horrific which prevented smooth animations. Browsers were VERY inconsistent about how input was handled, and CSS-assisted DOM rendering was extremely awkward, slow, and browser-specific. There was no real "video" or "audio" support. You embedded a video or audio object and hoped the user's browser had a codec available to decode it, and that was a whole world of WTFs indeed. It provided a means of DRM, which is apparently important to people who have too much money and still want more. Last, but certainly not least, there was no way to establish a real-time duplex connection with a server (full TCP access is still not possible without experimental flags, but WebSockets allow most of the needed functionality). Flash completely filled the multimedia-on-the-web niche. It was such a fundamentally missing piece that it would be eventually shipped with many browsers, and some (Chrome) even included their own Flash players. It became so fundamental, it was ported to almost every major platform. I'd argue it became a de facto, proprietary, web standard. In this case, Unity3D is a game engine that's meant to target many platforms. It isn't "web based," it's just something that happens to be running in a browser plugin. I thought for a moment that this meant Unity3D was building for HTML5, but alas, the plugin plague continues. And to be fair, Flash is almost completely obsoleted by current HTML5/CSS3 features, but will likely outstay its welcome in the name of backwards compatibility.