[chess_horse_L]

Yeah, and everyone will be back to Unity in a month. People need to make a living, y'know. They need to make games/assets NOW, not in 3 years once those engines are ready.

For example, I see my Twitter timeline full of people slowly realizing that Godot is not Unity 2, and complaining about the UX, GDScript, C# and performance problems.

So, they either have to live on that hill and contribute to Godot (And sometimes these problems are by design! Godot is made to be slow so it can have more usability, just check out the creator's Twitter),

or, y'know, they can (And will) just go back to Unity and keep making stuff, even if they at any moment they'll put a knife on your throat.

[bootloop]

Look, Unity did have performance improvements in some aspects over the years but their output / productivity was really really really poor in the last 3 years related to their core product, the Engine.

This is the reason people were already fed up with it, this license change just pushed some over the top.

The trajectory of this project is not good at the moment and that is as much of a problem for users as the recent events.

I started a project 3 years ago and none of the features I based it on shipped with production quality in the meanwhile (and that was the assumption when going in back then, that this will eventually be fixed while development of the game was going on).

Godot is certainly not optimal, that is what people are discussing. The C# and expert userbase was missing. But the fact that people are raising these points meens that they see it worth to comment on. If Godot leadership takes the hint, they might bring their project to a trajectory which allows serious projects to give it a shot. So this time now will be critical. For both, Unity and their competitors.

I think none of the conversations and comments put out there are surprising. But I would argue that if people already had the motivation to switch, they might just go to Unreal if Godot gives them not enough performance. Or stay with Godot if their project is simple enough to be not effected.

[gmerc]

Unreal is a viable option for most people. Epic is the devil we know.

[chess_horse_L]

It's not. Most of Unity games are mobile games, or indie games that don't require the GPU usage bloat Unreal has in order to achieve better graphics.

If Unreal was ever an option, developers would've been using it instead of Unity in the first place.

[catapart]

In case anyone cares, this commenter is absolutely incorrect; Unreal does support mobile development, and it obviously uses a more lithe package than its full GPU stack. Using only the UI objects, 2D is pretty simple and I haven't had any major package size issues. Using a 3D context to render 2D as planes in the scene, I can still get a package down around 70MB with optimizations left on the table. It's harder to work with 3D-as-2D, but that's why I use the UI system. It's robust.

I certainly like Unreal, myself, but I can't say it's an easy move from Unity to Unreal. That aside, one of the very first options you see is whether to scope your game for mobile or for "desktop", so I'm not sure why this commenter thinks that Unreal would not be an option for mobile development. It sucked before UE5, so maybe that's the hang up, but so did a lot of things.

[hesdeadjim]

Yep, Unity wants 4% from me if that’s what they change? So be it. I can’t use Unreal for my studio and Godot is a pile of garbage for anything serious. Unity knows this.

https://sampruden.github.io/posts/godot-is-not-the-new-unity...

[asddubs]

even if 90% of developers giving godot a shot will go back to unity, this will be a very good thing for godot