Edit: Here's a weird theory, maybe Epic doesn't see Godot as a competitor to Unreal, but does see it as a competitor to Unity, and hopes it'll spell doom for Unity (which is Unreal's only real competitor)
Godot competes squarely with mid-market stuff: Indie, so-called "Triple-I" (high budget """indie""") and AA development, where Unity is the dominant engine. Unity has very little penetration share among the big AAA games.
Godot and other open source engines squeeze Unity from the bottom, and Unreal squeezes it from the top.
Epic dogfoods the engine with _real_ games. Fortnite, Paragon, Battle Breakers, Robo Recall are all titles written in UE4, by Epic, which have had active contributions to the engine in their development. Whether you like the game or not doesn't have much of a bearing on the impact the game has on the engine.
They did the same with older games too, and the remnants of games like UT and GoW are very visible in the source of the engine itself.
Unity, generally makes money by convincing more people that they could make video games, and keeping up that belief so they keep paying for versions or subscription fees.
Epic only makes money after games have actually shipped.
On the unity side, an increasing amount of their revenue comes from "grow solutions" [0] which is basically their ad networks. Game engine development is a funny business
[0] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/unity-posts-first-profitable-q...
"Contact Us" Licensing has always existed as you state, but has often included the possibility of royalties, and even when it doesn't it's always been at the price ranges where shipping a game was more likely than not.
And in-fact, a problem with early Unreal licensing has been Epic's approach to support of "If it's not a problem in an Epic game, it's not our problem" Which has improved dramatically since changing their licensing model.
And regarding Unity, yes, their ad networks are becoming more important, but that still doesn't do as good a job at aligning incentives, but more importantly, Unity has 15+ years of development in a model with unaligned incentives, which when you're talking about technical decisions, those are really important.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing against the point that Epic being a game developer first is an important factor, I think it very much is, however I'm suggesting there are also other contributing factors.
Sometimes the complexity of UE can be overwhelming. For example, if you're just trying to set up an AI-controlled actor to animate differently in some different states, you'll initially be frustrated by the gazillion bits of setup work you have to do. But in every case I've seen, that complexity exists to support the flexibility and richness needed by top of the line games.
Basically, for better and for worse, UE was written by and is used by people who have built, shipped, and supported AAA games.
https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times...
Studios have made some great games with Unity. But the company Unity themselves have no idea how to finish a game, or even make one using stock unity. Even if they can't use current stock unity, they never bring their custom code into the mainline engine releases...
And I'm making these complaints as someone who exclusively uses Unity for their own hobby games. I really ought to give Godot a try, I just have so much personal experience using Unity (and working around their engine) that the idea of learning a new engine is daunting.
Godot doesn't compete with Unreal. It competes with their largest commercial competitor: Unity.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And when they want to "upgrade", Unreal is right there, and they already have an Epic account.
Amazon will ditch Lumberyard for Godot. They have deep interests in games as a part of their vision. Twitch, Luna, in house game studios, prime gaming, etc.
Apple will absolutely do it. They're building their own metaverse and VR. Although I'd also gamble on them acquiring Epic Games. Apple wants to own the future of content creation.
Google's significant investment in WebGPU is going to make Godot a more attractive platform. Google is indirectly contributing to this.
As Godot gains more and more mindshare and economic activity happening atop it, it will achieve the activation energy required to take on AAA rendering and workflows.
Companies will see Epic as a tax. And the entire world will be submitting patches to Godot. Godot is already spawning an ecosystem of support companies and console SDKs.
This will never ever happen. Ever.
I think it equally unlikely that Apple would invest in/adopt something like Godot. Modern Apple has a serious case of Not Invented Here syndrome and despite Godot being permissive, I don't see them adopting that. Instead, I think we'll see more investment at ARKit and Metal, even though the only people that take Metal seriously are people who have a financial incentive to build iOS games (no one has a financial incentive to support Metal-based macOS games and there is arguably no financial incentive to make macOS games at all).
Given Tim Sweeney holds a controlling stake in Epic this seems like the least likely outcome.
They are using O3DE now, which actually seems better than godot for 3D at first glance. Only issue so far is there isn't much of a community.
Edit:
>Although I'd also gamble on them acquiring Epic Games.
That is never happening.
Why would that be a bad thing?
$250k for good PR and not being viewed as anti-competitive is an exceptional deal when you consider Google is doing the same to the tune of $400 million for Firefox.
Also in the short term Unreal's dominance matters, but in the long term it really doesn't. Epic has spent the absurd levels of Fortnite money trying to establish itself as additional integral layers for developers/creators so that even if Unreal stops generating any revenue it'll be fine.
I.e. people use Godot to get started and "learn" gamedev. Many will stop there and not progress beyond Godot, but some will want more/latest features or want to use a "proper" engine and so move onto Unreal.
The alternative starter-space is Unity, and that is more of a competitor for Unreal since there is a lot of starter materials and tutorials, and unity can make commercial quality stuff (three Unity games that come to mind are Two Point Hospital, the Outer Wilds, and Rust)
* Jump Rope Challenge (summer 2020, released as a digital only game on the Nintendo eShop originally planned to be limited release, but staying up indefinitely for now)
* Fire Emblem Engage (January 2023, developed by Intelligent Systems, so considered more of a 2nd party game)
One more example that is 3rd party published but Nintendo owns copyright on:
* Cruis'n Blast (September 2021, a port of an arcade game developed by Raw Thrills, who both developed and published this port)
One more example but using the Unreal Engine:
* Yoshi's Crafted World (March 2019, developed by Good Feel)
Despite the examples I listed, almost none of these games are ones developed by one of Nintendo's internal studios (Jump Rope Challenge being the exception, but it was never intended to be one of their big games), but instead are developed by another studio not fully controlled by Nintendo. For their big games developed by them, they still use their own bespoke, proprietary engines, which is likely a sign that Nintendo doesn't trust outside engines like Godot, Unity, and Unreal well enough to commit to using them for such games. Outside developers making games to be published by Nintendo apparently have more freedom to use their preferred engines, including the mentioned outside ones.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
However, Godot 4 still has a ways to go before it's competitive with Unity in the AA space (meaning, for example, games by studios like Paradox, Amplitude, or miHoYo). Mostly, the asset pipeline still needs a great deal of work. Hopefully the Epic investment will let them reach parity (or exceed) Unity on that front.
> introduce 3rd party exclusivity on PC
I don't think that's him sticking to a "certain principles", he's just doing whatever it takes to make people think Epic is the "good guy", as long as he's doing the opposite of the competitors.
For example, take a look into his take about blockchain games. At first he was against NFT games [1], then after Valve banned NFT games, Gabe Newell talked about it [2], Tim suddenly was OK with it [3]?
He fought with Apple because he thought he could win it, so his Fortnite could avoid 30% transaction fee. They clearly had a lot of discussion, strategies before suing Apple and thought it was a good idea, they could have won big. It's not a bad business decision if he can win, but they didn't so it looked bad.
[1]: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/144251952287594906...
[2]: https://www.ign.com/articles/gabe-newell-nft-steam
[3]: https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/144914631712989593...
I don’t really see the NFT stuff as relating to open platforms anyway. Certain kinds of software (the most obvious being viruses and scams) need to be banned from platforms anyway.
Sorry!
It’d be much more offensive to our sensibilities if it were like the situation on iOS where Amazon is available, but “no way will we let you buy a Kindle book unless you reopen the store in a web browser.”
(Because yeah… apple sells all the books I want to read, in their very cool bookstore that I haven’t seen in more than half a decade.)
At any rate. Anyone serious about godot is probably compiling it or getting the official release artifacts. This seems like something Epic probably couldn’t justify turning down as window dressing for the unreal store. I’m for it anyway.
Edit: more optimistically, if the GUI framework were slightly easier to use, Godot is a very attractive tools development platform. Maybe that factors in.
Perhaps for end-user tooling, like map editors. Obviously Epic is motivated to keep devs inside Unreal for as many internal dev tasks as are feasible.