[Arelius]

One good reason is the Unity -> WebASM pipeline isn't well suited for the web. Firstly Unity is built as a more heavyweight monolithic solution, decreasing load times, additionally, it's not meant for more seamless integration into web pages.

[mrmaxm]

Indeed. But even more conceptually, web is very different platform. We don't download whole db of friends on facebook with their timelines to browse facebook. Why do we have to download all data from game projects, when we only need relevant one. So Unity has to provide way better solution for streaming content in order to compete with existing WebGL high-end projects, like Polaris vehicle builder.

And it's engine is way too monolithic indeed. WASM still feels like a big hack.

Epic recently admitted that experiments with WebGL and Unreal were fun, but they are not misleading customers that it is path they are going to go. They clearly stated that WebGL target for AAA engines, is not a way. And they are very right. Unity doesn't admit that. They know how big is Web platform. But they have to do something major to really get into web, as currently they only mislead customers with promise. But commercially, Unity WebGL - is not an option, 98% of time.

[codesushi42]

Huh? Unity integrates seamlessly into webpages just as well any other WASM target does.

[chungus_khan]

It works, it's just kinda big for a lot of things. If someone's making good use of the engine's extensive features then that's not a problem, but it's a bit too heavy for a lot of simpler (previously flash) games. To be fair though, flash was insanely cumbersome and dreadful to deal with, and people still used it, so I'm sure they'd put up with WASM Unity even for those sorts of cases.