This would probably drive all the hobbyist to learn something open source like Godot, wouldn't it?
This would mean Godot would be the thing worth investing for.
This would mean Godot would be the thing worth investing for.
Unless you mean, e.g., movie-making hobbyists where they go from never having to pay to having some (probably, as currently exists for games, based on a revenue threshold) some condition where they would have to pay, which might drive some of them to a different toolchain, though if it is setup similar to gaming, it won't affect most hobbyists unless they have way unexpected success, so probably shouldn't rationally affect hobbyiat choices much.
Lots of enterprise customer paid before already anyway for Epic's (questionable) support
I don't want the success of my game to ride on paying my game's protection/engine licensing fee. It's hard enough to make money with a game and Unreal makes it harder.
By all means, if you don't like the terms don't use the engine, but it's hard to take it seriously when you make it sound as if you're doing them a favor using their engine for free.
Businesses should study their markets. Sadly, many people in the market are completely fine giving away things to get shiny, even giving up revenue. So until standards of customer treatment rise, we'll be dealing with various levels of SaaS.
Except some of us just aren't buying anything, due to the terms and lacking perceived value.
If Unreal works for you that's fine. Why do I have to like or buy it?
Unreal is starting to get traction as a 3d model tool (free unlike the pricey: Cinema4d or Maya). It was used on set for "virutual rooms" used in productions like the madolorian. This use of Unreal wasn't being charged for.. But now it is.
But Godot seems to have a lot of traction for game dev anyway. It seems to be a lot of places.
Unreal is a big giant tool, with tons of leavers. They have a robust marketplace of assets and such that makes life easier for companies and such.