In WebGL frameworks, Playcanvas is like Windows where Three is Linux. You can do the same things in both, it's a bit easier to start with in Playcanvas, but the cost and freedom of Three attracts lots of developers.
I agree to some extent, though I think PlayCanvas is more analogous to OS X than it is to Windows—partly because of the priority given to design and high standards for quality and partly because if you need to get lower level you can still do something like unix terminal access as with OS X.
But the analogy also falls apart in certain significant ways, e.g. PlayCanvas being open source and not actually tied to their servers or editor or anything (but don't get me wrong, it's not as easy to add into a standard project structure as `npm i three` either).
> but the cost and freedom of Three attracts lots of developers
There's definitely some truth to that, but I'd bet it's a very small fraction of three.js users who are even aware of PlayCanvas' existence, and that that lack of knowledge probably affects adoption ratios significantly.
Engine and tools features, are identical for free and paid users. Same complexity games can be developed by both types of users.
It is more direct support and quality of life features, related to larger teams and management are behind paid tier.
But as any other business, PlayCanvas has to feed their families too.
But the analogy also falls apart in certain significant ways, e.g. PlayCanvas being open source and not actually tied to their servers or editor or anything (but don't get me wrong, it's not as easy to add into a standard project structure as `npm i three` either).
> but the cost and freedom of Three attracts lots of developers
There's definitely some truth to that, but I'd bet it's a very small fraction of three.js users who are even aware of PlayCanvas' existence, and that that lack of knowledge probably affects adoption ratios significantly.