I wouldn't be surprised if ambitious timescales for abandoning plugin support in Chrome also slip somewhat, but that only buys time. Unity can certainly work with Google and dedicate engineering effort towards using Googles modern plugin/native client alternatives, but that only solves the problem for one browser.
Similar issues apply to the art, model etc assets used in games, and we could look at licensing issues with web fonts for an approximate equivalent issue in the world of the pure web. As if the challenge of the languages they are written/runtimes they use in is not enough, there are also big issues with how the 'pure web' delivers these things to users in a manner that isn't locked down or at least heavily obfuscated. Let alone various technical issues, it seems to me that it will be a challenge to make this stuff work for a product like unity that makes use of important 3rd party licensed technologies. This doesn't seem to be a perfect fit for the likes of Unity though, for a number of reasons. And now a HTML5 DRM solution for video is well on its way.Īnd its certainly possible to see a time when a variety of games will be well possible using 'pure web' technologies. A temporary reprieve for plugins like flash for delivering video was only won because of squabbles over H.264 support in certain browsers, and even more importantly for commercial premium content delivery services, DRM. Mozilla love the pure web, and Apple and Microsoft are far more interested in their own app stores for delivering games.įor tasks historically done by plugins and not related to fancy games, HTML5, CSS3, WebGL, and other stuff including fonts, audio, local storage, streaming, etc are steadily coming of age.
It's certainly going to be an awkward period for games and other plugins in the browsers, they are caught between many forces.įor example Google are the only browser maker with a strong incentive to maintain alternatives, mostly because of Chrome OS.
0 kommentar(er)
