Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Death of Unity

gamedeveloper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 242 posts

Re: The Death of Unity

#21

Post by kaibee »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

> yes it absolutely is the engine.

As someone who has used Unity a lot, it really isn't the engine. You're only noticing this is the whole "no good toupees" thing. The thing is, the Unity Assetstore makes it very easy to hack together something that kind of works, but because nothing will quite fit together it'll be a janky mess.

Re: The Death of Unity

#22

Post by kkukshtel »

pjmlp wrote: post #3

The biggest issue, unfortunely is that all the other engines that offer C# support as the main language, lack the AOT compilation toolchain (including game consoles), the graphical tooling including debugging and profilers, asset store with people living from it, and above all, being fully endorsed by all major game platform owners and VR/AR hardware. So anyone that wants to replace Unity, despite their missteps, has…

The .NET ecosystem has recently added "NativeAOT" compilation as a first class feature, and Unity's gall-bladder relationship to Mono (instead of migrating to Dotnet Core, they continue to work off their own Mono fork) has opened up a space where anyone programming C# now has the once-hard-to-reach AOT holy grail for consoles now just behind an XML flag.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

Re: The Death of Unity

#23

Post by bjord »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

Do you think Rust and Escape From Tarkov are janky? (just off the top of my head)

https://rust.facepunch.com

https://www.escapefromtarkov.com

Re: The Death of Unity

#24

Post by ianlevesque »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

I don’t take it to that extreme, there’s great Unity content (walkabout VR mini golf comes to mind), but recently when I really played an Unreal Engine game again for hours (Satisfactory), I was floored by just how much better optimized it was. A similar, arguably simpler, game in the genre (Oxygen Not Included) is Unity and famously terrible on performance. I had just sort of accepted that was how it had to be. It’s not.

Re: The Death of Unity

#25

Post by educaysean »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

Having played a lot of games isn't really much of a qualification, is it? I'm curious about your claim that Unity games "always feel janky". Which games gave you this impression?

Re: The Death of Unity

#27

Post by emptysongglass »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

Haven't experienced a single issue playing BattleTech, which is Unity. Based on the sheer number of games built on Unity I'm sure you'll find plenty of games that are janky because they weren't made well. That's not the engine.

Re: The Death of Unity

#28

Post by [deleted] »

TylerE wrote: post #17
spinningD20 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a negatively charged take. Vampire Survivors could have been made in a ton of different engines that are far far less capable that Godot, for example. The engine is not the thing that holds back a product from succeeding. This is the same as saying "no FAANG company uses X language/platform so X is a toy", it's far too reductive and not actual reality.

As someone who’s played a lot of games… I disagree. These days I specifically avoid Unity games because they always feel janky, and yes it absolutely is the engine.

[deleted]

Re: The Death of Unity

#29

Post by unleaded »

Thaxll wrote: post #16
all2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Godot is a "mature" toy engine. This does not seem to be related to this: > There is not a single quality / money maker game that shipped on Godot. There's some missing context in the middle. I'm curious how one implies the other? I'd be game for chains of logic going from first -> second or vice versa. I'm specifically curious, what is Godot missing?

Godot is missing the game that shows this engine is a viable alternative to Unity at large. I mean look at the showcase: https://godotengine.org/showcase/ It all looks amateur. All the mobile dev work on Unity so you better have good reasons to change the entire pipeline.

so nobody wants to make a fancy looking game because nobody's made a fancy looking game... hmm...
Post reply on HN