Well, this has all gone up in smoke with Unity management effectively outing themselves as being out of touch with reality. Since posting this video over 1 year ago, Unity management has made one poor decision after another. With the latest per-install pricing changes announced by Unity, and the way they've gone about (mis)communicating that (including trying to sneak TOS updates for already released games), I'd say we're well at the point where it makes sense to start looking at different engines. I stand by the core premise of this video that the choice of engine does not dictate the quality of a game. My one regret, and I regretted this as soon as I posted this video one year ago, is where I said "never switching to Unreal" which has caused a lot of (justified) negative comments over the last year. That was way too strong a phrase at the time, and certainly too strong now. Mismanagement by the company aside, you should absolutely be re-evaluating your tool choices on a regular basis, but it needs to be done with an objective mindset and not simply chasing the latest trends or shiny new feature. That was the purpose of the video, and I feel that my mistake with that one line has skewed the response. The Unity engine itself is still plenty capable and Farewell North will continue in Unity, but I'll be looking to different engines including Unreal and Godot for future projects due to the decisions made by the company management.
Hopefully, the recent resolution has made you feel a bit less worried. I think they really just botched the rollout and messaging of a necessary change to move towards sustainability. Farewell North is looking magnificent BTW.
It really is all about just picking something. I remember when I was first learning to program and constantly switching between languages after reading articles and forums saying "Use this!" or "No, use this!". Try whatever and see if you like it. Don't think that much about it. Pretty much everything can be done with anything nowadays.
@@hubiguschti5867 Maybe they don't need to add million polygons for their game? It is not black or white, I'd choose one engine over the other depending on the game I want to make. Would you do a 2D game using UE? Good luck. Sometimes it is even better to write your own engine if you need very specific features. I find this arguments about Unity/UE quite childish and unprofessional.
@@hubiguschti5867 Here is a video of a guy implementing an equivalent to Nanite in Unity: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P7mUuCSAX0A.html The beauty with Unity is that it's a decent general purpose game engine you can easily build upon to achieve equivalent results if you know how to do it. The reason Unreal, a game engine mainly aiming for high fidelity is able to afford making and pushing all this fancy tech themselves is because Fortnite and their game store provides additional funds for developing the game engine. Unity is a lot more restrained in their budget. Unity has far better 2D capabilities than Unreal and the HDRP renderer (the one with all the fancy bells and whistles, URP is when performance is more important) is generally able to look visually on par with Unreal. Most of the time, it's more about what tool you are more comfortable with using. Unity may not have Nanite or Lumen now, but it is something that will be available eventually and even then, those features are not needed for all games. I am working on a game with low poly pixel-art visuals, I don't need Nanite as it would be overkill and while Lumen would be nice for a few edge cases, I am able to do without it.
While I do agree with a majority of what you said and your reasoning, I would advise against the staying with one software solely because it is what you know. I am primarily an artist, and for many years Maya/Max has been the standard, but in recent years Blender and Houdini has made leaps and bounds in features and improvements that Maya/Max are lacking. Learning new software from the ground up sucks, but sometimes it is worth it in the end. I am not anti-Unity. I do projects for my job in both Unity or Unreal depending on the needs of the project. For a majority of things, it comes down to what you prefer and are more comfortable working in, but both Engines have some features that are undoubtedly more suited for certain projects than others. If one engine continues to make major improvements, but the other stagnates and falls behind, it wouldn't be worth sticking with the stagnate one just because it is what you know better. That's just my perspective, and again, it comes down to the developer's needs and what the project is, so sometimes just being comfortable with your tools is enough.
Well said. There will come a point where either engine (or both) falls behind the times, and then it's important to adapt. My point is more about not chasing short term trends, but on a longer time scale things are different for sure.
exactly, i was working only in Max and didn't want to even try blender ... now i am saying in my head ..... if i switch to blender sooner i would be on a higher skill level ... I tried both Unity and Unreal. It seems to me Unity is considered more professional ( like max was before against blender ) . The problem is when that 2nd software starts to be better in mind it isn't. Unreal started to be more connected to other things, metahumans, lumen, nanite, quickel bridge .. even if you could do that in Unity that extra work to do that is still extra work ... UE is definetly more begginers friendly and dumb friendly meaning that even if your skill isnt that high you can create something what is still good looking ( even if that background is based on bad work ) from my point of view Unity is perfect for 2D or low poly projects ...for 3D mid and high poly projects now with UE5 there are so many tools in that engine and what you can do in UE in a while do you really want do that extra work to be at least possible in Unity only cause you like Unity ... i know that experience in some soft can be drawback to learn in new soft i still hate some shortcuts and ways how blender behave against Max but i learned that if you are really good on bicycle and somebody offers you motorbike with even better price your answer shouldnt be nah i am good on that bicycle. ( sorry for my english btw )
@@filipkral4540 Unity is the beginner friendly engine, not Unreal. Unity has always been the indie-friendly engine, starting with a simple game engine for MacOS only. Unreal on the other hand started as a private engine that AAAs could licence. Unreal is more powerful but the learning curve is steeper, from my experience with both. Unity is pretty laissez-faire, and the C# scripting is more forgiving than C++
There is no more contest, Unity under an ex-EA CEO leadership have merged Unity with IronSource, a malware company. Unity suffers a low blow on this one.
Epic also has dangerous ties with the PRC because Tencent owns too much stock, so CryEngine or Godot is better as Epic games software may have PRC spyware added in the future.
@@AbleistSLOwning a minority stock does not equate to getting Unreal to implement spyware; stop trying to spread misinformation, also CryEngine is even more proprietary than Unreal, since the source code isn't opensource, and it is no where near as developed or feature rich as Unreal, same goes for Godot, which is really only good for 2d games.
@@AbleistSL Epic made that deal back in 2012 with Tencent to gain access to the Chinese Market, not to implement "spyware" into their engine, don't know where you get your facts... also even if they did the engine is completely opensource, which can be modified, compiled, and rebuilt unlike proprietary closed source engines like CryEngine and Unity.
@@griefy4555 Bla bla bla what you said is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the issue, the issue is that TENCENT COULD FORCE THEM TO EMBED PRC SPYWARE INTO ANY PROGRAM THEY MAKE AS WELL AS LEAK ACCOUNT INFORMATION TO SAID HOSTILE GOVERNMENT.
I normally love your content, and the contents of this video is great. However, please avoid such blatant clickbait Edit: what I mean, is when I saw your video I expected it to contain and explain your reasoning behind switching to UE4/5 and discussing how you refactoring everything, learning blueprints and c++ etc. Only to find out that your title was just a lie and that you aren't switching from Unity. Ultimately it's a matter of falsely representing what your video contains. It would have been much better to title it "Why I'm not switching..." etc etc.
RU-vidrs use clickbait titles to get new viewers (its effective advertising). The platform encourages the use of clickbait, for him to be a successful youtube channel. click bait is pretty much required. Having said that. Just because a title is click bait doesnt mean the video is garbage. complaining wont do anything in this scenario. maybe try to change the way you consume media if clickbait annoys you so much. maybe use rss feed or page filtering apps. unfortunately I don't think its gonna take away from the power of the "algorithm" though.
@@BenColwell951 ah fair play when you explain it. It makes sense that way. Even if the title is clickbait. It should at least adhere to the truth. Something I do very much agree with.
@0Jebus0 What if one bush allows more customizability and has a larger community to help you with issues. what If one brush runs on low end pcs. What if one brush will soon get assets from movies? What if one brush gets koru, Manuka, Barbershop and soo much more?
When I first started using Unity I was like “Ahhhh, my games look horrible. I need to switch to unreal” but after over a year of using Unity I don’t regret it because I now know that both engines can have good graphics, and it’s up to the budget and experience regardless of the game engine. I’ve gotten pretty used to Unity now and I don’t want to switch because I’ve gotten so good at it. (And yes, I can get good graphics. It just takes a bit more work)
That and learning to get post processing from Unity in the asset store/another download feature in later versions. Or just play with the lighting such as baked lighting and light probes.
I was dj for over 20+ years and its kinda similar. I was having record players that werent as good as the ones used in most clubs, but that actually in the end makes u better. Playing in clubs was everytime so much easier afterwards. Ull learn more in unity cause u have to do more by yourself. Still i am goin with ue for my project, as single dev its rly faster i believe ;)
A bit more work is a magik !! i have 5 years of Unity XP, a bit is a great lie, but i understand your soft comment, doing same (high) graphics in both engine, take maybe 1 week more for unity, in term of PBR's colors and high definition meshes, but i agree for stylized and soft core process, unity is fantastic for tiny studio, and mobile game dev, in fact unity is more expensive financialy cause of "time to do" as unreal is cheaper, but non efficient for 2d and mobile game. {Financial & time terms are the keys to compare, the result is not important, as a Studio point of view}
I used Unity for over 4 years and it was the engine I started with when I first got into game development, but then I had to switch to Unreal Engine due to my new team using that. At first, it was hard to get into but after using Unreal Engine more and more I started to learn all its features and how every system works together in a nice and coherent way. After reaching that point it was really hard for me to go back to Unity because once I got over the learning curve of Unreal Engine I just can't deal with all the shortcomings of Unity. In my opinion, I feel like the programmers over at Epic Games making the engine really understand what game developers want in the engine and it makes sense because many of those programmers are game developers who worked on games before or are currently working on one of Epic Games' games. Whereas Unity doesn't make any games and so I feel they don't always understand what we game developers need from the engine. I also feel like many features in Unity are glued onto the engine due to them buying some company who was developing a plugin for Unity and then decided to make it part of the main Unity features without it fully working with everything else in the engine. On the other hand in Unreal Engine almost everything in the engine was developed internally and is made to work with all the other systems in the engine in a clean and coherent way. I'm not trying to hate on Unity or anyone using it, if you feel comfortable with it then go for it. I just wanted to give my opinion on the two engines from my years of experience in using both.
most people commenting have not seriously used both. Including author of the video. it's a lot of words to explain, "I dont want to lose time learning new skills." You can bet anybody who has a defensive approach to the subject isn't trying to understand the truth - they just want to feel good about their decisions.
This is exactly how I felt when I was learning Unity in University and then used Unreal for work, then I tried to go back to Unity and doing basic things in Unity just felt super tedious and annoying.
Currently in my last year of game design uni as well and we were all taught how to use unity only. Being someone interested in VFX and particles I noticed lots of people used unreal for their particles so I decided to teach myself unreal. After switching to unreal everything felt organised and placed perfectly to where I’m never stressing on something I’m trying to do/ find
I agree totally. I was in the same boat. once you know the ins and outs, unreal is just faster and simpler to work with, and now with better c++ integration, nanite, lumen, and megascans, I see no reason to even look at unity anymore. I believe the only reason I would is if I was designing something that used thousands of low res animated items. Unity seems to handle better in that unique case.
I love your comment. Most people who weigh in on this topic either crap on Unity without explaining why, or take this really wishy-washy stance where they're like "well....they're just tooolsssss...." (I've always hated the "just a tool" analogy because there are tools that legitimately suck and tools that are well-made that are in a different class. They're not all equal). You should really consider making a video on this with your experience. The thing you said about Unity tacking things onto the engine that other people made really resonates with me. I would also add a similar issue that I've heard, which is Unity relying on other people to create assets for the engine through the asset store to fill the gaps between it's features and Unreal's features, while Unreal has way more built in features out of the box. What's your opinion on this?
Here's my 2 cents, having experience in both. Unreal's lighting engine is far superior, even Unity's HDRP doesn't get nearly the same results for shadows. Unity is faster for prototyping, and has a much more forgiving workflow, while Unreal can get you better performance and visuals. I recommend Unity for smaller teams.
Yeah. unity: have fun with Work. unreal: have a Nightmare, and every small step takes 20x so much time like Unity evere needet. indeed: if you have Tools in Unity doing things in Secundes ? you will need Years in Unreal, to have the same Result. just : material: Click, Schader, Texture, Finish. unreal: .... first open the Schader Graph..................................................................................................................
@Pablo__4567 No one talks from Shadows. i am talking from Workflow. And: The Lightning in Unreal, looking better. EVERYONE knows this. This is not the Point. The point is: i need just 30 Minutes for things, you need 4 - 8 Hours. with the same Mechanic result. *And this is truly a huge difference* if you need to design a whole World. 1 hour more here, 1 day more there.... and at the end: all always talking from "+ AAA Graphics" The most at the end, doing some simple games, not other than Unity. Did you ever try to *HOLD* your +AAA Graphics, for truly a bigger Project ? In this case you will learn really fast: That the best Engine, with the best possibilitys for +AAA graphics, helps you - nothing - if you cant hold this alone. That is a really interesting Point. So: Stop this "Fanboy s...t" All 2 are Game Engines. Unity, may not have the Lightning what Unreal have. unreal, will not have the fast Workflow of Unity. but at the end: all 2 doing games! and all games need work. There is no need for Fanboyism.
@Pablo__4567 I'm a Unity dev by profession, I make simulations for a small military contractor. Basically video games, but small scale. And I'll have you know that getting the shadows right requires a great deal of tweaking and knowhow. It *IS* possible. You can check the shadows in Genshin Impact, for an example. That's a Unity made title, with good shadows. But it's often not just difficult to get right, it's also performance draining.
@Pablo__4567 Yeah, Unity is lacking in performance when it comes to lighting and terrain. The source code is available (if you pay lots of money), and it's still much better than most engines. Unigine and Unreal are better in that respect, by far. Thankfully what I do needs a more dynamic workflow, and graphics don't matter much. Unity is perfect for that.
I've shipped 4 games with the Unity engine. Became disillusioned with it when multiple features remained "experimental" for over 5 years. I strongly disagree with the statement that the engine does not determine the quality of a game. In addition to Unity never actually polishing and finishing major features, Unreal's rendering engine is far superior than the renderers found in Unity. And those nice looking techdemos? Unreal does that with the tech directly available to you. The Unity tech demos are highly customized versions of the Unity engine, because the built-in features are so incredibly useless in an actual production environment that they have to create new tools to make those demos possible. Let's face it, if Unity did not have an asset store so 3rd party developers can build plug-ins for features that should be part of the engine, then very few developers would choose Unity.
I spent 6 months with hired help trying to make a project in unity, only to not be able to overcome performance problems. Within 2 months I learned enough of unreal to rebuild from scratch, get further than I was with hired help, and now in about 1 year total development am nearly ready to publish my first Unreal game. Simply put, it could not be made in unity without a legit sized team and probably a million dollars. In unreal I did it all alone in less than a year. I say engine choice matters and if author of video did remake this fine looking game in unreal - and was earnest in learning - I think they'd cut dev time in half plus have a better product.
@@agj383 Honestly If there isn't any feature in your game that would easily eat up performance(huge number of enemies, huge number of bullets, very expensive graphic or special effect etc), having performance issue means you or the person you hired added stuff that unnecessarily eat up performance. Unity is quite convenient for programmers to work on(unreal is more convenient for artist). I spammed lots of code in my game, there is destructible environment and enemy ai and bullet hell and weapons that you can edit any time, even blood leaves a mark at the environment, but it is still running smoothly at my 4 year-old laptop.
@@TeppuTeppu this was an open world game with realistic graphics. The specific issues I had were related to dealing with large number of instanced actors. It's a taxing game to make for any engine, but unreal allowed me to do it, whereas with unity the only way was to spend at least a year creating tools and doing serious under the hood stuff with the engine. Technically, theoretically, both engines might do the same thing, but with unity it cost significantly more time and money. Thats just one sort of game of course, most games won't go near those same problems.
@@agj383 you have a misconception, you think you need to spend a year creating tools and stuff, but the truth is if you know how to do it, you could fix performance very fast, like within a week or even a day. For example, you could disable the game objects that are not visible in the screen, this is very simple and would most probably fix your issue. You can also combine multiple 3d objects into one big 3d object and remove the unnecessary triangles, or use simpler collider instead of mesh collider, etc. If you want to go deeper, you can use gpu instancing. Well, you might not be able to do it if you use some crappy assets that might make environment creation or enemy creation very simple but greatly affect performance and very inconvenient to modify, well, if you use lots of those assets maybe you are not the person that made the game, the asset did all the heavy works.
Imo, it all started going downhill when the package manager was implemented. And yeah, I mean even the input system. Why is that not default. It's been many many years. vfx graph for urp has been "coming" for years also
Both engines have strengths and shortcomings. The real trick to proficiency is learning both to an extent where you are familiar with those strengths and advantages to the point where you can look at a project plan and say "This will be easiest to build or most effective if we use X". I actually enjoy using unity more but recognize that something's are just easier to make with unreal.
yeah. most strength of Unreal: - needing 100x so much time for every result like unity" is the biggest Strange of this engine. Not matter WHAT you doing. *everything* needs 100x so much time.
We've used a slew of engines, including both Unity and UE4. Earlier on, Unity was invaluable for its approachability, especially with Typescript and C#, while UDK was an absolute UX nightmare. Now, UE4&5 have such clean and clear design sensibilities and *cohesive* systems, while Unity is 50% optional beta tools stacked atop each other and 50% deprecated limited versions that everyone uses because the cutting edge beta stuff doesn't work broadly enough for any game. Obviously a game of any quality can be made in both engines, and we don't like that UE4 games are inherently more bulky than Unity or Godot games, but for ease of use and maintenance, UE4 has a huge upper hand. And while yes, there's value in working with an engine for a long time, there's also value in diversifying your skills across multiple engines, both so you have options and to broaden your understanding of how systems can work. Definitely makes no sense to switch a project from one engine to another unless you find the engine you're using is simply lacking features you need. But for beginners, or people starting a new project, we'd always recommend either UE4 or Godot as a starting point, with Unity being the backup that will work if the others don't.
@@blitzfyre669 Oh, sure. I'm used to recommending UE4 because UE5 was still in beta for a while - I understand there's still some things that are a bit wobbly or incomplete but you're right, for a beginner it's better to learn UE5 now.
This is what made me switch over to Unreal as well. It was a few years ago (around the time they started to introduce ECS and their new dependency manager thing), so maybe things have improved since then, but I felt Unity had become over reliant on plugins, third party tools and beta stuff. You needed plugins to manage your plugins, all of which was in various states of "beta" (i.e. none of it working properly) and it just felt like Eclipse all over again. As much as I appreciate an extensible tool, I think there is value in a vendor actually trying to provide a complete solution with proper releases, where all those tools are somewhat guaranteed to work together. Unreal does all that, which allows me to spent much more time actually worrying about my game instead of constantly tinkering with the engine.
I'm strongly disagreed with the ease of use. I remember I picked up Unity and Godot and made something work in a matter of hours. For Unreal? It took me weeks before I could work on something on my own without going back to consult the doc. Partly, because the documentation is horrible. The tutorials were too hand-holding and always skipped the details explanation (or any reference) as to why we need to do this and what's the alternative. The API documentation? That's no better than reading the comments they left in the source code (maybe because it actually is). I don't know why they even bother creating that, really. Most of the time, I found better tutorials from RU-vidrs and not from Epic's official channel. That says a lot.
I find really curious that I've seen more than once people posting videos about why they switched from Unity to Unreal or why it's a good idea to stay using Unity, but it's very rare to see people in the Unreal community justifying staying or switching from the engine. I guess if you are confident with the tools you've chosen to use, you spend more time making games than struggling with these issues.
@@Kednems Yeah, I agree with what you wrote and I'm on the community that uses whatever tool is more suitable to a job. I'm mainly a Unreal developer now, but I still publish games using Unity. If you're making mobile games, there's no pointing in arguing, in my opinion, what engine you should use. Use Unity. But, what I was trying to point out is that it still surprises me that people in the Unity community return to this subject of comparing tools that you don't see in any other community (as far as I can tell). Kyle, what I wrote was not directed to you personally. Your game looks really amazing and it proves that you know the tool you've chosen to use. It's just that I felt the need to express this opinion of mine about this subject.
The reason for that is there is the perception that Unreal is the tool to use if you want to make impressive games, since AAA studios use it. So Unity users are in a position to answer. I use Unity, wouldn't change it for the world. But I like to code, and unity Gameobject system makes sense to me. those unreal cards look like a nightmare. For anyone who wants to learn to code games I would advise unity. And there is literally no scenario where in a small team you will come to the limits of Unity. Plus asset store is just amazing. There's so much more material out there for Unity.
@@Taunt61 you must not be aware that unreal gives you access to the entire megascans library for free. There is a store for unreal too, unity asset store isnt quite the revolutionary thing unity people treat it as.
i stay @ unity. but not @ the stupid new Input System or HDRP or URP. just unity 2019, built in. it s great. Unreal i try. i was out after "Retargeting". This is a thing you can do in Unity to, yes. but.... think about you have 10 different rigs. You will need 4 - 6 Hours to retarget it to 1 Charakter. After this, you can do charakter 2 and if you have finish this, you can start to build slow motion workflow "animations montages" what takes you years even for 2 Aktivitys. no thank you.
I agree with that. Although i have been programming for more than a decade, ive only been in game development for about two years now. And each day im getting more and more familiar with unity and it also makes me confident in my self. I think thats the key to mastering any kind of tool. Getting familiar with it and becoming confident in your ability to use it.
I originally thought Unity would be the choice for me, but now that they've merged with IronSource - I'm concerned. IronSource seems to have a negative reputation having been an adware company. I have no idea how this will affect using Unity, but since I'm at the beginning of my game dev journey I don't want to put a lot of effort into an engine that could change it's user policies in some unfavorable way.
I literally added this same comment on codemonkeys channel, I'm new and all this stuff going on with unity atm has made me want to try unreal instead. And not to mention unity's CEO calling is users "fucking idiots". No thank you.
Ironsource in as much as Weta, Ziva or others merges won't impact the engine anytime soon. I believe Unity will rather sit on their patents and swallow their markets.
It should be fine. the adware the company had was not their doing. they created a system that was abused for adware. That would be like accusing banks of credit card fraud because someone found a way to use their system for illegal purposes. The mistake people make is conflating the download software idea,which is what IronSource used to allow users to download a bunch of apps at once usually because they are dependent on one another, with people taking the software and adding malware in the mix of apps in the download. You wouldn't say Gmail is responsible for your malware because you opened up an email that contained malware.
IronSource has the negative reputation because of their software that let people make installers for their software. The problem was that they were able to have options that affected things to include in the install. Basically, people would cleverly add little options to install adware on their users computers and people would just check every box with a blind faith that everything was what whey wanted to install. People just had too much freedom, but IS didnt make the adware themselves, they just had either faulty licensing agreements or bad enforcement of it. IronSource cancelled that software, and I am pretty sure that the merger only affect mobile game devs who want to monetize their games. So it isn't too big a deal for Unity users, but it is still a REALLY BAD IDEA to merge with a company with a bad reputation because it will destroy your own company's reputation. (like it obviously just did)
"game engine doesn't determine the quality of a game " This is so wrong. I recently permantly switched to unreal from unity. The primary reason being unity's animation system was just not adequate for the game I was making. I wanted to have crisp openworld parkour. I tried kinematica, i tries motion matching from animation uprising, i tried animancer. Tons of errors, jitter and the code base was a royal mess. Switched to UE5 and with tools like motion warping , orientation warping, full body IK, its a night and day difference. I can pretty much make a parkour system thats almost in the ball park of AC Unity. Dont get me started with the whole HDRP, URP mess. UE5 has one single rendering pipeline that you pretty much dont have to touch and you get state of the art graphics. after 4 years with Unity switching to UE5 is the best decision I have ever made and i wish i had done it sooner. If you are conflicted between Unreal or Unity i think what you should do is just spend one month with Unity and one month with unreal. learn about them as much as you can. Make games in both then choose for yourself. Choosing and engine is a big decision, dont rush it. Unity is easier to learn than UE c++ but UE has way more jobs out there than unity. Next witcher is being built in unreal 5. This was also one of the major factors for me switching to unreal. I didn't feel comfortable with the direction unity is heading into and id rather not bet my career on it.
Yeah.. its honestly a bit unfair to compare Unreal and Unity. Many of the tools and features you'll find in Unreal are best in class, and not just across freely available engines, but across the entire industry, period. The amount of money and expertise Epic has poured into their engine is unmatched. Chances are even the Assassins Creed developers wished they could just use Unreal instead. Now do you necessarily need tools that good? Maybe not, but.. certainly doesn't hurt to have them available.
@@apomk2 Yeah, I mean, Its funny. People say that oh you need a AAA team to work in unreal, If you dont have the team then stick to unity. Its like epic is not holding a gun to you head every time you open unreal asking for a AAA team haha. If you dont need something dont touch it storage is cheap. Also its ironic because unity devs have to jump through so many hoops just make basic tools. take character controllers for example, In UE you have access to a built in character controller which was used in FF7 remake, batman and gears of war 5 and has swimming, flying, walking etc all just built into the engine and you cane extend from that for any unique mechanics. also along with mixamo epic games give you free access to thousands of animations so like, if anything, unity is the one that needs a bigger team.
@@pewpew518 Your kinda touching on the main core difference, to me Unity seems alot better for people wanting to make stuff from scratch while Unreal is better for folk wanting all the tools already there for them. I hate using pre-made controllers, I want all the control I can get over it and make it the best fit for my vision. Same concept with SRP in unity, it's made that way for users to customize as much as possible. Also I think you missed the point with "game engine doesn't determine the quality of a game" it's true, it just simplifies things for you, if the animation systems are bad in Unity then you can make a new one, if you don't like the physics in Unreal, then make a new system. Engines are essentially just a collection of tools
@@zombieguy Ok lets start with writing tools from scratch. I think you would have a easier time doing this in UE because the whole engine is open source and literally on git hub. Also i am not the only one have issues with SRP. I have spoken to some of the top asset developers and they all just hate what unity is doing with SRP. I think this is because most of us aren't engine programmers and something like graphics engineering is a specialized field. If you have two programmers on your team and half their time is spent on figuring out SRP then who is going to make the game? also by Controller I mean the built in character controller equivalent in UE, not lyra or ALS. Theres a class in UE similar to unity's built in character controller. It handles stuff like collision, and the underlying movement of character, state change etc. animations, acceleration, deceleration etc is all up to you and you can tailor make the controller for you game. I don't see the point in rewriting the underlying standard stuff like collisions. Also you cant just rewrite whole animation pipeline and physics engine. These are monumental tasks that take years to develop by big teams, especially not in unity because you don't have access to source. Even unity didn't write their own animation system, they bought a company that originally made it. any animation or physics assets that you might know of probably use unity's implementation in the backend.
@@pewpew518 You are missing every point, you argued engines can determine the quality of a game, they really don't tend to though. Everything you have listed as an engine issue could be resolved in that engine or are mainly just down to your own implementation. Yeah SRP was a mess for many developers since it increased their workloads mainly due to the lack of a standard surface shader, reliance of shader graph and how unfinished it was when it originally came out, shaders are an issue everywhere though Unreal is horrible to implement them in, with ugly macros and interfaces taking hundreds of lines of code to setup and the need to create engine plugins for them is stupid. Also your physics asset thing makes no sense, programming can be super extensible, in Unity or Unreal you can use the built-in PhysX, official Havok plugins or even open source implementations of Bullet3, the sky is the limit to stuff like this. If you are only ever using stock engine stuff and no plugins or assets then ofc there will be a differences but I wouldn't say that is controlling the quality of a game.
It is a sensate analysis. I used Unity for 4 years, and of course, I would like to have the rendering power of UE and online services, but I do not like to code through visual scripting, I do not like C++, and I prefer to have control over the code and I invested a million kilos of effort in learning Unity professionally, so I remain using it, and if want good graphics I would use HDRP. That's all as I am an indie developer.
Back a bunch of years ago, I bought into the hype one more time about 'linux on the desktop" and decided to convert from windows. I setup a dual boot, installed the os, fuxored around for a weekend getting video drivers setup, and got some nice things setup and installed. I felt good to have completed the setup. Then all I needed to do was . . . find replacements for the music and art software that I used. Fuck that. I watched about half of this vid and stopped when you made a universal point: if you want to get shit done, use what you know.
nowadays Epic says 8GB Vram is not enough for UE5 , wonder if Unity would follow this same path, if not it could be its opportunity to really optimize the engine so it could be better visually and run on low end hardware to attract more developers
People talk about Unreal as if its magic and will automatically make a game super amazing.. EU5 has been out for some time now and how many actual games have we seen with the amazing graphics they have in their tech demos ?
The only reason I'm gonna try switching to UE, is because of all the drama going on with Unity atm. Between their merge with IronSource, pushing microtransactions, the cancellation of Gigaya, the CEO calling the users "fucking idiots", it just seems like the company doesn't care about it's users and cares more about money. And because I'm so new, I don't know enough to have a specific reason to stay (technology wise) Although unity has more tutorials, learning UE is more industry standard nowadays anyways, so that's that.
I like both game engines and have used both, but the new Unreal Engine 5 is just way better for big games. indie games are probably the same but going past that Unreal 5 is just better.
even for smaller games, is just faster and easier to do 3d stuff in UE5 then ever before, regardless the artistic level of detail or any other engine(including ue4).
What do you think UE5 does that makes it that much better? Most of what I've seen from it has just been a standard update beyond Nanite and the large World partition system. Even then a similar setup to Nanite has already been made as a plugin for Unity. Like don't get me wrong it's impressive some of the tech but nothing that fundamental has changed tbh.
Switch to CryEngine or Godot, Unreal engine may become a security risk in the future if it's not already thanks to PRC company Tencent owning shares in Epic.
People who have strong adherence to tools is extremely annoying because most people actually don't have a deep understanding of the subject, but want to feel a sense of community by joining an annoying tribalistic battle that serves nobody
I started with UE but i'm starting to prefer Unity for its performance. The same exact assets run better in Unity for me just because i'm not planning on rendering lots of static meshes but moving characters lol
I agree with the premise of this video. I would add that looking at the roadmap of an engine is also important, in the sense that if the one I am using is consistently looking like it is falling by the wayside, then it is better to start looking around.
They're both free to try. If you have the time, just give both a shot and see which you like more. I've got years messing around in both and now that I'm focusing in on actually making a finished, commercial game, I chose Unity since I found my workflow in it was FAR faster than in Unreal, the C# programming experience was far more enjoyable to me, and some of the tools for using Vroid models were more developed in Unity than they were in UE4 or UE5. If I wanted to make a beautiful, photoreal world and had a huge team to work with, UE4/UE5 would be my first choice. Big note here as well, but it's worth evaluating your personality and history when it comes to development in the choice here as well. UE has so many toys to play with that can be pretty polished that it, that I found myself feeling that every part of my own work had to live up to that same level of polish. By comparison, the relatively slapdash, imperfect nature of Unity at times made me feel like putting in exagerated degrees of effort on polish early on was meaningless. The former approach usually lead to a bunch of non-interactive levels and basic tech demos that use nothing but the built in assets while the latter lead to a finished project for my game jam team, tons of close to finished personal projects, and at the pace things are going, my first finished commercial game project. My case won't match up with everyone elses, but I think this only makes just downloading both and trying them all the more important in the scheme of things.
I tried Unreal and I love the UI layout and flipbooks but I hate the blueprints. Such a mess of wires and boxes. I would do actual code with it instead because I know how to code but C++ is a whole other beast compared to JavaScript or Python which is what I know well. I'm liking Unity so far though. Maybe I'm not a huge fan of the interface and layout but the scripting is so straightforward and trivial.
The personality/polish aspect is a practical one as well. Low-fidelity graphics (stylized or not) are much cheaper/faster to produce than tech-demo quality photorealistic graphics. So many folks think that if they drop a high-end character model in their game, then that will automagically elevate the quality of everything else. Except that you have to build and/or buy *everything* else up to that same quality. Crops up more often among Unreal folks, but you see it in some Unity circles as well - champagne dreams on a beer budget.
I have used GameMaker for 9 years now, and continue to use GameMaker every day. when people constantly ask why i dont switch to other game engines, i have to constantly repeat similar points: "i know how to use gamemaker, and i like using gamemaker. and if my goal is to make and release games, then the engine I am most familiar with, that has the capacity to make complex games, is the fastest and most efficient way for me to reach that goal." rather than continuously learning new and evolving tech/engines, in which i have to start my mastery and efficiency over again, I would rather keep creating games and systems. awesome video, and excellent points. I will probably be directing people to this video often when the topic comes up
@@everything-has-a-handle-now The title I was referring to was different than it is now ("Why I'll never use Unreal Engine... | Unity vs Unreal"). This title reflects the content reasonably well. The previous title was something along the lines of "Switching to Unreal for better performance," implying he was going to make the switch, when the actual video content was about why he wouldn't switch.
Hearing gamers say this game sucks cause unity is a huge pet peeve of mine. Like that's not how it works haha. Like the only reason I picked ue4 over unity was I thought the ui for unreal looked better. Like that's it haha
Man I gotta agree with you :) That is something hard to admit sometimes, because even tho you spend a long time learning an engine you can still get frustrated with a lot of things and think that "maybe IF I switch engines I could develop this particular thing better", and that of course is almost never true. I also played with other engines like godot, unreal itself, custom engines, cocos2dx, love2d, sdl/opengl, glfw, directx, etc etc (I probably made about a dozen custom engines) but in the end, as you said, what really matters is how good of a workflow you have with the skill you developed over the years, otherwise you're just spending time building tools and learning stuff and never getting to the point, which is: finishing a game. I also have been using Unity for last 8 years and can say it's the thing that I'm the most familiar with
Small nitpick on the oven/cake analogy: a game engine is not just the oven it is also the ingredients, the cutlery and sometimes even the kitchen... also while the brand (hopefully) changes nothing, the "kind" of oven can make a difference in the result.
The reason that I probably won't use Unreal is it takes about 18 gigabytes to use. it's SUPER bulky and it clogs up my computer. I use Godot because Godot only uses Megabytes; I do a lot of 2D games anyway, and if I want 3D, I'd still use Godot with low-poly and it's great for that. Games could look stunning with just low-poly. Plus, I think that Godot has a great future too; especially after Godot 4 comes out. Thus, this is how I picked my favorite engine.
I've had comments saying they're surprised when I say I made my game in Unity cause they thought it was in Unreal. I explained my characters will largely look the same whether I place it in Unity or Unreal. Maybe some subtle things like shading and lighting will look different, but the 3d model won't suddenly become more handsome/beautiful just because it's rendered in a different engine.
It makes me so happy whenever I see a video like this, where the person talking spreads the correct message about choosing a game engine. 🙂 The only wrong choice, is thinking that a particular game engine is superior to others.
"The guy who only used unity tells you how it's the same as the engine he's never used" It's also not like different stove brands, it's more like trying to cook cake in a toaster oven or a real oven. Every game I've played in unity has similar bugs and optimization problems when it comes to looking ugly but loading like it's loading a lot of graphics. Unreal is a better engine, it's not just graphics. Unity is easier but not having the experience in the other means talking about how it's the same is not a compelling argument. But your main point of just picking one and going with it is a good point. Switching engines for you would also be dumb. If you built a game in one, it wouldn't make sense to move.
I've been a professional Unity developer for 13 years. I still don't feel like I know everything about it because the tech has grown so much, and continues to. There are tools in Unreal 5 that look amazing and I would love to give them a try, but until they have a scripting language with a comprehensive API it's just not an option I can take seriously. Forking the engine source is not comparable to the scripting extensibility you get with Unity C#.
finally someone addressed this I ain't a game dev but I have spent a long time with 3d workflows and lots of software and my finale conclusion is unless there is something actually stopping you from realizing your project there is no difference between different software it's all about the artist
I am just here, and there is a lot to love about Unity but unfortunately this video also comes up when searching for the Unity acquisition of Iron. Rip to Untiy
Well NO!!!! 1. Code is the case. In Unity I had many problems on compiling C# and also this "Code is obsolete" message. 2. NO. In the UNREAL ENGINE 4-5 you can create cartoonish and low budget games. Unreal is not meant to create only batman arkham and mass effect games. It is for indie to. 3. AND YES and here is a BIG YES. royalty!!! Please dear Unity users, You know that If you want to use unity with core features you must pay from the beginning and it does not matter did you reached 100 000 or not (or 200 000 I don't know exactly). Unreal is giving you all the features for free with lument, niagara, physics and anything you wish and It is free till 1 000 000 $. did you hear it one million!!! 4. Please. You are talking about visual scripting in unity? which is not developed by unity. NOR unity visual scripting and NEITHER c# can compete with Blueprint and modern and polished C++. 5. Unreal Engine is ease to use than unity. You need to setup many thing in unity to get up and running. Unreal can be hard because of its ubiquity of use case That's all.
Didnt know unity had visual scripting like unreals blueprints. Blueprints are why I chose unreal over unity, I've stuck to 3D modelling but as I still want to make games using unreal with its blueprints just made that easier, with the unreal market place having loads of free assets and 5 monthly free assets its just great for newbies to get into. I'm not one of these people who think one is insanely better than the other with the other being terrible, but UE5 does have a slight advantage going ahead with the new nanite and lumen systems, so hoping unity has something like those coming soon.
well for visual scripting alone, stick with Unreal. so far the visual scripting in Unity is incredibly basic and inefficient, and i'm not confident it will ever improve past a certain point. at the very least it will take several years before it's useful and based on a lot of combing through comments on the visual scripting releases there are significant elements who believe Unity made a substantial error buying Ludiq's Bolt v1 codebase for their VS system, and not using the better designed (but still at that time in development) Bolt 2. it reminds me of the Final Cut Pro / Final Cut Pro X split where half of the FCP community went to Premiere rather than use something looking like iMovie Pro. in terms of Unreal they actually hire people who are Blueprints programmers, but that's not true for Unity (and may never be).
3:23 *"Why I never switch to Unreal Engine: That's because I use Unity"* For me, it is the other way around ^^ Unreal Engine makes so much fun to me :)
I totally agree with what you said. Great video. Been using unreal since about '16 and just go with the one that you feel most at home with. I tried Unity, couldn't get into it, was hard to use for me personally but still, it's a great engine too. I just prefer the blueprint coding setup rather than the c sharp method, it works better for my style of gamie building. Keep up the great work!
@@kylebanks Mathew Wadstein is Unreal's Brackeys. Also Here my story. When I start, one of Brackey's videos convinced me to Unity can par width UE4 (which is blatant lie). After 1.5 years when my game mechanics, characters, environments are complete, I give up the Unity and move UE4 because, I can't polish GFX to make good enough. When I load my assets to UE4 under default map. Everything much better. Sure if you after simple game with stylistic environment (like your game). Unity was good enough. Combining with C# bingo, job well done and I do not have any problem with that. And Unreal has lots of features, even Unity does not have any concept about it. Sure for realistic 3d content you need assets, lots of assets (That's why quixel was free and Epic pumping lots of assets each month for free) and with Ue5, game is not same. Everything was going to change. Plus Ue was battle tested in Fortnite. After 2.5 years. I almost complete with my pipeline and after getting good with blueprints I can do anything. Of course after 20 years of coding C# may be better choice. Difference between Unity vs Unreal is. When you hit limitation in Unity, you are done. Unless you had lots of money for engineering team you are dead even if you spend time and money you are dead too. Unity is for certain games. In Unreal only limit is your knowledge, you just don't know what you can do with the engine. Unity is your friendly salesman. If you are after simple things it will help you. Unreal is the Karate Sensei. it knows how to generate good AAA game, and until you see the right path, he will beat you to improve.
with the latest merger i just hope unity doesn't turn into garbage. but if i did pick unity, i'd be regretting it right now. same way i regret picking 3dsmax over blender back in 2011
That isn't true at all... With megascans, nanite, and lumen, my current game design looks amazingly life-like and runs fantastic. You can find almost literally anything on the unreal store. No AAA team required. There is no comparison. I really did try to like unity, but it just felt too clunky. Now with a better C++ integration in Unreal, I see no reason to even look at Unity. Unreal is just faster to work with and Graphically superior right out of the box. If I was planning on working with lower res items, and thousands of moving objects, I MAY have used unity, it's only advantage as far as I can tell is in mass replication of low res animated items.
When i first started using unity almost 3 years ago, this was my exact thought process, that i cant compete with unreal games. But i am a solo game developer, and i will never be able to compete with all these bit studios working in unreal, and i took me a long time to understand that
I strongly recommend starting with Untiy to learn about scripting components, game objects and making a first game. Later, switch to Unreal when you understand how to make a game. I started first using Unreal, and after a year, I went to Unity because C++ was complex. However, Unity API and C# are much simple to understand. Now after ten years, I-m switching to Unreal 5.
The same with programming. Some People say that C++ is Better than C# others say the opposite. True programmers are not the ones who only know syntacs of one language But know how to solve problems using algorithms with every programming language. Sorry for broken english, it's not my first language.
Right before UE4 came out, Unity was the go-to solution for me when I started to think seriously about games, but I know C++ and didn't bother to learn C# I so struggled with it for the simplest tutorials. I would even prefer doing my own OpenGL routines with SDL. When UE4 came out with the promise of using C++ directly, a major change from UE3 that used UnrealScript, I immediately switched. I hardly use blueprints myself. My skills in C++ proved invaluable in a team that wanted more connectivity with plugins. So I became a "systems" guy, not a gameplay dev and I'm fine with that.
If i bake a cookie, the oven is not becoming part of the cookie. If I make a game, the engine is an integral part of the game and will be part of the product. Of course the engine (to some extent) influences the outcome of the game, it is undeniable and much bigger of an effect than what type of oven you use for your cookies. A better comparison would be tools to make games, tools are not part of the final product, but an engine is. An oven is a tool.
I admit this is a early comment, but I already take issue with the opening argument metaphore. The quality of oven and cooking ware you use can make a huge impact on your end result. Its true that better tools wont make a master chef, but master chefs dont chose shoddy tools. The fact they are trying constantly to get every advantage they can get to make a better product is what makes them good chefs and what makes their food better, and thus the better tools and specificity worth it.
As a game developer, unreal does alot of stuff you have to code yourself in unity. Also, to do any real work in unreal requires working in c++. This means alot of less professional work never gets to the publishing stage in unreal. As a result, the average unreal game will be higher quality than the average unity game.
Unity has great features, but as a VRChat world maker, I'm stuck with Unity 2019.4.31f1 and the Legacy Render Pipeline. While UE5 demos talk about hundreds of millions of tri and real-time lighting, a VRChat avatar is considered 'Very Poor Performance' when it goes above 70k, and for worlds I'm stuck with re-baking lights for hours on end.
As more of an artist, I'm definitely drawn to Unreal. Between Lumen and the absolute mountain of film-quality assets they give away, it's just exciting. I love learning to use it, even if the documentation is sloppy.
If you like Nanite and Lumen, Metahuman and other tools then basically Unreal Engine 5 is the only choice atm. No other companies are even remotely attempting to compete with next gen technologies such as those. ONE example watch?v=JsQo13cPIkg this can't be done in other engines to anywhere near the detail or ease. (and at 60fps+ on a 1080TI)
PS. Not saying all other engines are shit; just saying UE5 is the first to make a revolutionary jump in how computer graphics _(and other things)_ is done (outside of Euclideon that is, lmao) Additionally your example is not very comparable since its not trying to push the boundaries of anything in particular, instead just making a good simple game that works. Which makes sense.
I once met a great unity developer who told me tryo out UE4, you will find some usefull tools there. Find your workflow and define your toolset, don't be a fanboy. Good point of view, i enjoyed the video
Im just sick and tired of unity half baking ideas in their engine and ditching them to add more ! Half baked content ... heck their latest glorified change was the partnership with iron source. Malware is fun!
I've been full stack dev for hospital systems for over 20 years. What I've found is often by the time you actually get to mastering a technology, it's obsolete. I agree with Kyle here, it's better to stick with what you know and build on that knowledge.
I got into Unity before unreal was free too and have been there since. I think unity has a better asset store and since I'm not an artist it works for me. However if I had a team and budget and I wanted to make a higher visually quality game I would look into unreal. I do dislike unities terrain system it leave a lot to be wanted.
Great video! I have also been through a bunch of engines, from a now gone Multiverse MMORPG engine (Be real, we all started on an MMORPG back in the 00's) to Torque Game Engine and XNA. Back in those days, I found Unity, however, I'm pretty sure it was for Mac only (?) and I didn't have a Mac :P Now I'm in Unity and have been for many years and I intend to stay - because it's totally right what you say - just pick one that suits you and stick with it. Unity keeps evolving and iterating on their engine and are very transparent and it all makes it better and better. Is it perfect? No! No engines are :) Keep up the good work! :)
I disliked this right after the comparision with the oven... remember engine is not like the oven, it will dictate everything.... you can take a cake and put it into another oven, result and process will be pretty much the same... try that with the game engine...
6:27 I totally agree! Ive been creating music in garageband for over 2 years now and often thought about switching to fl studio… But after downloading flstudio i came to the same conclusion: that experience is the most important factor👍🏻
Bingo! Unity initially won me over with the UI/tooling extensibility - the best tool is the one that gets you to the goal. Also, two decades plus in software dev has taught me that visual scripting is too fragile for long-term or complex projects. I shudder to think of how one might onboard new team members, or handle proper source-control, with a Blueprints-primary project.
I like your approach on this topic, and for some reason (not sure why) its a touchy subject for a lot of folk. Its down to preference of the individual. For me I spent quite a lot of time ( 6 Years ) using Unity. I was already semi trained in C# and Unity's ease of use for beginners is amazing. And most my contract work ( C# ) comes with Unity. But i found myself aiming towards Environment Art / Level Design for games. My creative mind just came to light. But with this direction i was heading i soon noticed flaws in Unity. And that was its limitations. And limitations in environment art and level design are not there with Unreal engine. In unreal engine you can create massive open worlds with high fidelity, which simply can not be done in Unity. If your are new to game engines Unity is the one. But if you have experience with engines you will find yourself using Unreal Engine. Unreal engines learning curve is real hard compared to Unity, but there is a reason for that. My channel is full of tutorials on Unreal Engine with regards to environment are and level design. And that is because i know how hard unreal is to learn. This is just a preference. Great video BTW.
I don't understand this. I coded a world streaming system for Unity that just loads the nearby terrain in under a week. I would say you can only not do these things in Unity if you don't know how or if you're not really a coder. My game is looking amazing. The only thing I'm jealous of is Nanite, but Nano Tech is coming for Unity, so... just a matter of time and Unity will catch up or even leapfrog. Meanwhile my game is 350 sq miles and I don't see a problem with building a huge world in Unity. Access to those megascans trees might be nice, though ;)
I've been using both engines for quite a while and have things that i love about both, but the thing that bothers me most about unreal right now seems to be the problem unity had c. 2018, where anything epic is not currently using suddenly gets worse and worse compatibility and gets replaced every other year. In ue4, i feel like I've been abandoned, as tesselation, lightmass, seamless travel all have major issues that have to be fixed in source. This combined with bad docs is very fustrating. That said unity has only recently begun to get away from this approach, and i remember similar issues trying to decide on which input system, graphics pipeline, ecs/gameobjects to use as unity released galf finished tech demos every other month. Unity figured out that doesn't work and i hope unreal does too. Edit: it really is about the tools and less about the tech
*Shade vs. Chillin* Every time a Unity Vs Unreal comparison video comes out. Most of the time it’s Unity people throwing shade at Unreal and being salty. In comparison, I don’t think I have ever seen a video from a dedicated Unreal user throwing shade at Unity. Instead, usually the Unreal users are too busy having fun with Unreal and showing off what it can do. That pretty much sums up the choice for me right there. 🤷♂️
It's actually the opposite of what you're saying currently. Take a look at how much unreal vs unity videos and they will all come to conclusion that they rather pick unreal over unity because of (insert many reasons). Even the unity forums are filled with that alone.
I think I will be using unity for super stylized games or to emulate older graphics, and unreal if I want to make something close (as I can) to AAA graphics. I will be using Unity for simpler projects and 2d games, and Unreal for bigger projects. Basically I will stick with Unity AND switch to Unreal at the same time to cater to different projects.
Although I think so many people are switching to Unreal because of Unity's public image that I am seeing UE5 tutorials where I saw Unity tutorials 2 months ago. So I think it would be smart to switch to Unreal because, despite the fact that some of the things happening to Unity aren't as bad as the media says (still a little crappy but the media hyperbolizes things for clicks most of the time), I think that the reputation of Unity might just be the thing most likely kill it off if it does.
Honestly, I think the best advice on picking an engine is the one you told too: - Unity for most programmers - Unreal for artists I've been using Unreal for only 3 years and chose it for the same reason you picked Unity: Unreal is free, while Unity had a subscription (to be able to use it in dark mode, which is so ridiculous, that I still have a grunge against Unity to this day). Don't think I'll ever switch from Unreal anytime soon, mostly because I already feel comfortable enough in it. And the rest is on me, not on the engine.
@@Rgamesdev yeah, and writing there own engine, instead of making games. That's why I've written "most programmers". I thought to include exception, but than deleted it
@@Alex_Howe Indeed. And Unity overall became much better, as far as I know. And honestly, I would at this point prefer to use C# for most of my code, instead of Blue-spagetti-prints. But got to make use with what I got, no way I'm using C++. Still prefer UE4 (and soon UE5)
I'm using Unity but it is frustrating that UE is giving you so many things out of the box you have to reinvent or pay for by buying assets with Unity. Also, UE is superior not only with graphics but also with tools like terrain tools, procedural generation, animation blending, AI behavior trees, etc.
I 100% agree with you, I was from the guys saying: "Unity is better because simpler and easier to use", since the new Unity pricing changes I moved to Unreal Engine and oh myy... this is day and night, so much stuff are available without requiring you to buy assets or reinvent the wheel by yourself. Quixel Megascans is also a huge plus ! Obviously this is not perfect, some stuff are still easier to make in Unity rather than Unreal and vice versa, but Unreal I think is still a better engine overall ! Honestly, I should had go with Unreal years ago.
Totally agree with you, I too started using Unity and stick with it now because they are close enough to make the loss of knowledge and familiarity a bigger factor. When I started, Unity had a much easier and fair subscription model and Unreal had better rendering. Because both exist, each has closed the gap the other had a major advantage in and what we have today is two very capable products that are much better now because the other exists in that same competitive space.
You got me with the clickbait! I agree - use what you know, don't abandon all the knowledge you accrued. As a solo-dev I could never go to Unity, but I respect the engine, I just don't know it at all and don't want to step backwards. In a team environment I would be willing to learn simply because your tasks are narrower / more focused.
I been using Unity for 2 years and Unreal Engine for 4 weeks now. I must say with Unreal Engine things can be done very quickly. If you want to learn lots of programming then Unity is good for that.
@@kylebanks I would use both engine because I like Unity too. But now in Unreal can feel that progress is much quicker since it's not so much about coding.
i'm working with unreal, myself. i can definitely respect your reasoning though. neither one really does anything really better then the other. i've only just started, but unreal is the one i simply decided to drop time into learning how to use. keep doin you
If you've only just started, how can you say that no one does anything better than the other? I've used both for years as im an asset creator, and its always so much easier and faster getting the visuals to look good in Unreal. But everyone i talk to says programming is easier and faster in Unity.
@@justindavis2711 fair point, but allow me to ask you this: with everything said and done, and the project, what ever it may be, is completed, and no one told what engine it was made with, would you or anyone know the difference? sure a seasoned eye might be able to spot technical things or recognize assets or tools from the marketplace that are particularly distinctive, but so long as the end result is to the satisfaction of the target audience then it really doesn't matter what engine it's made on. all i'm trying to say, is that there's really nothing to be gained by pitting the two against each other.
The biggest and most helpful takeaway here is "Just pick one and start." We can debate all day which is the best engine for any given purpose, but as General Patton might have said, a good engine that you start learning today is better than a perfect engine that you'll maybe probably start learning next week, unless you change your mind again. Besides, you can always just learn Unity then learn Unreal (or vice versa). A lot of the general principles of C programming and "how to use an engine at all" will carry over, and then you won't have the FOMO because you're making an informed decision rather than a guess as to which you like better. But you can't even do that route unless you *get started.*
If you aren't picking tools because of their quality or use case, features etc then that can set you off to a bad start, i think both unreal engine and unity are just fine but, don't pick something completely randomly and then regret it a year down the line, do some research about them before you decide to jump in.
To make it very very simple:- Both Unity and Unreal are very very capable engines. Unreal has systems that already exist and they expect you to make your games a certain way. Unity on the other hand is very bare bones and they expect you to make your own systems and do whatever you want.
As someone that primarily uses Unity I'm skeptical of it's future. From what I've heard, their current CEO has an appalling history and track record for performance and their more recent behaviour (mass layoffs and purchasing an ad based company who's software has been used for installing malware onto devices etc) is fairly concerning. Not to mention their repeated habits of introducing promising features only to either abandon them or throw them on the shelves with constant production ready delays. I feel like Unreal has more mature management leading the company with a clear understanding of what their users want and a much more promising roadmap.
I started with Unreal 3 back in college just since that was what we used in an intro gamedev course. I became relatively proficient with it, and my RU-vid channel was originally only created to host the Unreal tutorials I made for the course. I've never really worked in game development though - really just a mathematician/educator who has consulted for others' projects - so I never really kept up with level design or with the RU-vid channel. I'm looking now to get back into it, as I'd like to start working on games for children (maybe educational?). The recent release of Unreal 5 makes me think it's the perfect time to dive into it, but every game idea I have feels like it would be better for 2d presentation on mobile and so maybe Unity is a better fit. I also don't really know how much my old Unreal experience is still relevant in this newer version. I installed both... but I've not gotten Unity to play nice yet with VSCode as it seems like the supporting tools are deprecated. I was also considering doing some kind of procedural level generation leveraging some Python libraries, and that seems easily manageable in Unreal 5's editor. I'm still not sure yet which way I'll go.
"Just pick one" also "I've spent 6 years in Unity and dont want to swap because I have invested so much time in it" I dont think people should pretend that choices dont matter. They're both as hard as each other. They both have thier plus/minus points. But if you 8nvest a sognificant time in 1 engine in particular you may unwilling to swap it later because of the time invested. As
Absolutely amazing video, I started with Unity, switched to Unreal pretty early on and it's been around 5 years now, recently I've really spent time trying to make my own game engine, but I couldn't even start, I've wasted a lot of time just thinking if I'm doing this the right way even though I knew there is no "right" way. After watching this, I've come to terms that my experience in Unreal is more valuable and the idea of a Custom Engine is not very realistic especially when I'm doing it all alone, I believe no one can master everything, but one can master a single thing instead. You just have to be comfortable with whatever tool you're using.
I use Unreal and have done since 2011 back when it was UDK and then UE4 in 2014 when it came out, this was mostly because at the time I was focused on the art side of games rather than the coding side and Unreal was the most useful to me at the time, however now I use blueprints to actually makes games. I also used Source SDK quite a lot before I switched to UDK, the reason I switched was because of various issues with Source SDK and while I've used Unity a couple of times over the years (mostly with gamejams where I was just doing art) I still prefer Unreal as that's what I've used to.
