758
Unity May Never Win Back the Developers It Lost in Its Fee Debacle (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Unity May Never Win Back the Developers It Lost in Its Fee Debacle::Even though the company behind the wildly popular game engine walked back its controversial new fee policy, the damage is done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

2D projects also used Unity at a very high rate. Unreal has never really been considered suitable for 2D work. I'm not sure if Godot is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For general 2d development, Godot is much better than unity already. It doesn't have everything that unity does but what it has is much more efficient and easy to understand.

    Though the opposite is true for 3d.

    In short: Unity is a 3d tool where you can pretend one of the dimensions doesn't exist to make 2d games (but it's still running a 3d environment behind the curtains, you're just not seeing one of them), while godot is a 2d tool that gives you an optional third dimension for some stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wrong.

    Godot has fully independent 2D and 3D engines. Each one has it's own backend, that is specialized for that purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yes, but the general feel with the 3d stuff in Godot is that it's just an added dimension on top of things that were thought for 2d. In unity everything feels like it was thought for 3d. It's a bit hard to explain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent