Unity is great and really took the mantle from Flash/Director back in the day. Unity is also a big part of why mobile games have taken off, that combined with the ability of anyone to publish to mobile stores and more.
The problem is definitely churn and shaky foundations.
Unity has a "version 2" problem, the "second-system effect" is a major tenant of Unity engineering which sucks [1]. I really wish they locked down features like they did back when the team was very small. Maybe that is the problem, too many cooks.
The "move fast and break things" has also made very unstable systems and updating a chore. I like moving fast, but only break things if what is gained is more than before, not back to the same footing.
I have been using Unity since 2008, shipped many, many titles on it but due to their churn and every changing APIs/libs/features, updating games is a major pain even mere months out.
Networking is a major problem, always in flux and Photon is still the best probably. There are other third party solutions to it but I don't know I'll ever trust a Unity networking library again.
UI is a major problem, again always in flux, from GUI, to UnityUI, and now to UIComponents. Unity loves to push off all problems with a shiny new future thing that never really solves much but adds more problems.
Everyone knows about IL2CPP, the animation changes, particle system changes, rendering pipeline flux and more so I'll spare you [2].
It seems much of what Unity changes is driven by announcements, marketing/finance over what engineers want. If Unity went back to just making it code based, THEN add on the editor tools to that lib/api then we'd be in a better spot. They seem to drive things through the editor first then allow code/api access. Libraries like particle systems, animation, ui and more all had editor access before code access and that is frustrating. Let developers make tools needed and start with a clean, solid, well designed API that isn't going to change every version, change the guts of that system abstracted to a clean, simple, atomic wrapper.
Unity is still the best multi-platform engine for mobile and other areas, but it is nice that competition is here with UE4, Godot and others. UE4 and Godot are focused on simplicity, UE4 is arguably more simple than UE3 and largely that is because you can take the C++ route, Blueprint route (which rides on their apis) or a mix. Unity's big selling point is their editor, but it clouded their engineering focus as editor first over code first.
Unity really needs to make games on their platform that they must keep up to date with every build like Unreal, that way the pain points hit them more as well, and they will smooth out that process of shipping, updating, actually making games on their engine.
Unity is pushing to be Unreal, Unreal is simplifying to be more like Unity, Godot is almost a better indie/small/medium engine at this point because they are limited by how much change they can make. Progression doesn't have to slow down, we just need cleaner, more well thought out APIs and wrappers for subsystems that can change. People use Unity, Unreal, Godot, others for an engine team to think about these things. I wish more of it was standard in game development so it was a littler harder to change surface level functionality, not to slow things down, but to make a more stable platform/abstraction/atomic surface where shipping games and updating games is easier.
I think overall software today is stuck in the second system effect too much. No one values clean APIs that the surface, signatures, and actions are in a clean wrapped, abstracted, atomic system that the inner workings can change more easily. There are too many leaky abstractions today or no attempt to create atomic/standard interfaces that allow "move fast and break thing" underneath, rather than on the surface.
I liked it when you could read the docs, use the tool, and code libraries, and much of it made sense, simple, good naming, discoverable. Now they rely on training, youtubers and so many other things, probably to create more marketing, that there is less incentive to make it simple again. Engineering is taking complex and making it simple, not taking something simple and making it complex, then another complex system on top of that, then a few to decide from all that are EOL'd in a year or two.
My hope is Unity slows down a bit, works on stability, and really makes locks down some of these libraries. Though I thought that Unity would do that when they went subscription over having to promote new features every year to get you to upgrade. Subscription should have made them focus on stability, it didn't. I am hoping going public will do so, but it could also spawn more of the same.
With that said I love Unity, dig Unreal and others. But I do see people going to custom engines again that are more standard just so that breaking changes are at the whim of the developer, not the engine team that you pay for which force these breaking changes on you at sometimes inopportune times.
> It seems much of what Unity changes is driven by announcements, marketing/finance over what engineers want.
That's my exact feeling about Unity, it reminds me of Windows, 3DSMax, and many other software where the mentality is basically : let's pile up every shiny features on top of each other to attract more companies & people.
Unity is a big mess. There is no coherence, no planning, no step back on what they are doing.
Sure on the short term users don't care. You can get the latest shiny features that will make your game look cool.
Unity is great when you have a deadline and you want to quickly get something working by throwing a few asset store components together and then adding nice looking effects on top of it. It's messy but it looks good and your boss is happy.
But building whole games on top of this Tower of Pisa gives a very unsatisfactory feeling of not doing clean code.
I think Godot vs. Unity is going to be the same story as with Blender. Short Term, marketing and shiny features win but on the long term doing your own coherent way without caring about the competition wins.
Uni / Work is forcing me to use Unity, but I'm going Godot whenever I am allowed to choose the engine
Very instructing résumé for Unity platform. Thank you.
As for the 'going public' side, I am not sure it will improve the actuals problems of the product : in my experience, going public is only here to :
1) Cash out the actual investors (in french we say 'des cigares vont changer de bouches')
2) Give many of Unity main developers a lotery winning ticket. This is NOT going to stabilize the team, for sure. Even less the product.
The problem is definitely churn and shaky foundations.
Unity has a "version 2" problem, the "second-system effect" is a major tenant of Unity engineering which sucks [1]. I really wish they locked down features like they did back when the team was very small. Maybe that is the problem, too many cooks.
The "move fast and break things" has also made very unstable systems and updating a chore. I like moving fast, but only break things if what is gained is more than before, not back to the same footing.
I have been using Unity since 2008, shipped many, many titles on it but due to their churn and every changing APIs/libs/features, updating games is a major pain even mere months out.
Networking is a major problem, always in flux and Photon is still the best probably. There are other third party solutions to it but I don't know I'll ever trust a Unity networking library again.
UI is a major problem, again always in flux, from GUI, to UnityUI, and now to UIComponents. Unity loves to push off all problems with a shiny new future thing that never really solves much but adds more problems.
Everyone knows about IL2CPP, the animation changes, particle system changes, rendering pipeline flux and more so I'll spare you [2].
It seems much of what Unity changes is driven by announcements, marketing/finance over what engineers want. If Unity went back to just making it code based, THEN add on the editor tools to that lib/api then we'd be in a better spot. They seem to drive things through the editor first then allow code/api access. Libraries like particle systems, animation, ui and more all had editor access before code access and that is frustrating. Let developers make tools needed and start with a clean, solid, well designed API that isn't going to change every version, change the guts of that system abstracted to a clean, simple, atomic wrapper.
Unity is still the best multi-platform engine for mobile and other areas, but it is nice that competition is here with UE4, Godot and others. UE4 and Godot are focused on simplicity, UE4 is arguably more simple than UE3 and largely that is because you can take the C++ route, Blueprint route (which rides on their apis) or a mix. Unity's big selling point is their editor, but it clouded their engineering focus as editor first over code first.
Unity really needs to make games on their platform that they must keep up to date with every build like Unreal, that way the pain points hit them more as well, and they will smooth out that process of shipping, updating, actually making games on their engine.
Unity is pushing to be Unreal, Unreal is simplifying to be more like Unity, Godot is almost a better indie/small/medium engine at this point because they are limited by how much change they can make. Progression doesn't have to slow down, we just need cleaner, more well thought out APIs and wrappers for subsystems that can change. People use Unity, Unreal, Godot, others for an engine team to think about these things. I wish more of it was standard in game development so it was a littler harder to change surface level functionality, not to slow things down, but to make a more stable platform/abstraction/atomic surface where shipping games and updating games is easier.
I think overall software today is stuck in the second system effect too much. No one values clean APIs that the surface, signatures, and actions are in a clean wrapped, abstracted, atomic system that the inner workings can change more easily. There are too many leaky abstractions today or no attempt to create atomic/standard interfaces that allow "move fast and break thing" underneath, rather than on the surface.
I liked it when you could read the docs, use the tool, and code libraries, and much of it made sense, simple, good naming, discoverable. Now they rely on training, youtubers and so many other things, probably to create more marketing, that there is less incentive to make it simple again. Engineering is taking complex and making it simple, not taking something simple and making it complex, then another complex system on top of that, then a few to decide from all that are EOL'd in a year or two.
My hope is Unity slows down a bit, works on stability, and really makes locks down some of these libraries. Though I thought that Unity would do that when they went subscription over having to promote new features every year to get you to upgrade. Subscription should have made them focus on stability, it didn't. I am hoping going public will do so, but it could also spawn more of the same.
With that said I love Unity, dig Unreal and others. But I do see people going to custom engines again that are more standard just so that breaking changes are at the whim of the developer, not the engine team that you pay for which force these breaking changes on you at sometimes inopportune times.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
[2] https://garry.tv/unity-2020