Godot and Unreal aren't really competing in a lot of areas. No one's going to make movies using Godot any time soon, for example. Unreal's rendering is just so far ahead of the pack.
Nobody's forgetting about it. Godot is trying to be a competitor, but realistically they don't have nearly the funding or total manpower that Unity or Unreal have, at least at the moment, but at the same time, they're still making good progress on being viable for some things (they're already very viable for most 2D games, and 3D games with simple graphics).
Unreal for VFX is hard to scale, but have some interesting iterative advantages. If Godot is the alternative, VFX will likely fall back to path tracing.
Except that's always said when something bad for Bitcoin happens. The analogue here would be to say "this is actallg good for Unreal", as it's definitely good for Godot that a competitor started charging.
I can see a little resemblance in bringing up something that didn't need to come up, but a competitor raising prices is pretty relevant.
And that meme didn't really take off until it was about all kind of bad events, arguing that actually they were good things, and that's clearly not what's happening here.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but you've not engaged with the "intended usecases" part of the comment you're replying to. You both disagree on what "intended usecases" really are in this context so engage with that rather than replying with a bunch of videos.