0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm trying to create a release on Google Play.

I currently have Build App Bundle checked in the build settings, and it helps decrease the build size.

In player settings I've IL2CPP set as the scripting backend, and x86 + ARM32 + ARM64 checked as target architectures.

Once built it creates *-symbols.zip in addition to just aab.

My questions are,

  • Do I need x86 + ARM32 + ARM64 all checked? (I want to comply with Google's new 64-bit requirement)

  • Can I build split aab's similar to 'split APKs by target architecture'? If so can I have the same version code for aab's which targets different architectures? Is there any advantage of doing so?

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Google’s requirement is only for ARM64 support. You don’t need x86.

You do not normally split aab files. The aab has all of the architectures in it, and it is split into the correct apk by the Play Store, based on what device is downloading it. You can use bundletool to generate an apk to test with, or you can upload it to the Play Store and set it to alpha/internal testing to test the splitting when actually downloaded.

Normally during testing though, it’s recommended to just build an apk, as it is faster to build an apk than an aab and then an apk from that.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks. Again to clarify do I need to check ARM32 or ARM64 or both, when when uploading an aab to Play Store? \$\endgroup\$ – Gayan Weerakutti May 26 '19 at 15:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Both (if you want to support both architectures) \$\endgroup\$ – Ed Marty May 26 '19 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ I uncheked x86. But when uploaded to Google Play, this is what I get Deactivation of this APK will result in your app being available for new installs on fewer types of devices \$\endgroup\$ – Gayan Weerakutti May 27 '19 at 11:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Google does not require support for x86, but if you already released the game with support for it, there’s no reason to remove it, unless you are adding a native library which doesn’t come with x86 support. \$\endgroup\$ – Ed Marty May 27 '19 at 15:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, there's not a compelling reason to support x86 Android devices, but since Unity does it "for free" there's not a huge reason not to if you're using aab files anyway, other than the necessity for support if somebody on an x86 device complains about it not working. \$\endgroup\$ – Ed Marty May 27 '19 at 19:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.