Gamescom 2024 | Read more Gamescom coverage from the Game Developer team right here, including interviews from the show, analysis of leading developer trends, and more.
Godot was a big winner when devs revolted against Unity's Runtime Fee: but its founders were worried about a surprise influx of users.
In theory, Godot founders and Godot Foundation Board members Rémi Verschelde and Juan Linietsky were in a prime position to benefit when developers erupted in outrage after engine maker Unity unveiled its planned "Runtime Fee."
As furious developers turned to look for new engines, many turned to the open-source engine named after Samuel Beckett's stage play. Wouldn't such a surge of interest be a boon for the two developers?
No. At least, not for the bulk of Godot's development. Verschelde and Linietsky (who also co-founded W4 Games, a separate corporation developing licensable porting and multiplayer tools for Godot users) had been leading community-driven development on the engine since 2014, and all the while they said they saw a backlash to Unity coming from a mile away. "Even before this happened, there'd been multiple warning shots from Unity," Verschelde recalled in a conversation at Gamescom 2024. And despite the boon that could come from an influx of users, the Godot team prayed Unity wouldn't make that explosion happen.
As the two tell it, Godot wasn't ready for primetime until just months before the Runtime Fee debacle—and as it exploded, they faced their first test on what would happen when a userbase used to Unity's tech and values would react in the face of Godot's open-source style. It's a case study in how any team can rapidly scale in the face of surprise growth—and how teams who espouse open-source values can incorporate input from new members.
Linietsky, a longtime technology consultant, told Game Developer that Unity's push to hit the stock market with an IPO was a ticking time bomb. Not necessarily because of the focus on stockholders, but the mission of acquiring technology companies to make Unity a larger tool. "They invested in so much technology that I, as a technology person, know is expensive to maintain," he said.
Rumors of Unity's IPO push began in 2019, and Godot had only hit version 3.0 in 2018. Even though the engine saw "steady growth" over the next few years, Linietsky and Verschelde didn't think that version of the tool was a worthy alternative to Unity. If dissatisfied users came their way, they might not find something that fit their needs.
Or worse—they might find a tool that almost fit their needs, but lacked key features from Unity they'd demand be implemented. But Godot's open-source nature means features can't just be solicited like they are from a licensed engine. They have to be voted on and implemented by the community. "We were just hoping Unity would keep doing a good job and keep users happy so people can willingly embrace Godot for what it is, and not try to change it to what it isn't," Verschelde said.
The pair said it was a major relief that the calamity came after version 4.0 of Godot was released in March of 2023. That version, they felt, was most ready for a sudden rush of new developers. That meant when the calamity came, the founders were more prepared to face the challenges of introducing developers to the open source model.
When the moment came, Linietsky and Verschelde said there were some user demands that risked running up on the engine's capabilities—but they were relieved to find "Unity refugees" were willing to compromise. Godot's community-first structure did a lot of the heavy lifting, with other Godot developers who'd worked with Unity ready on day one to explain how the new arrivals could replicate desired features with their new tools.
Additionally, they found that Unity refugees were surprisingly patient with Godot's shortcomings. Verschelde said users might be frustrated to find tasks they could do in Unity that they couldn't replicate in Godot—but then would uncover tools that existed in Godot they couldn't have used in Unity.
There was room for Godot's community to make some accommodations for the new arrivals. An option to move the file system window to the bottom of the screen, just as it's located in Unity, was a relatively easy lift.
What wasn't an easy lift? Unity's beloved feature that lets developers edit their game while in "Play" mode. The pair said it's one of the "top 5 most-requested features," but it's not one that can be added in a straightforward manner.
When Godot generates a playable version of the game being worked on, it runs separately to keep both functions more stable. Recreating the "edit while in Play mode" isn't likely to happen any time soon, but Verschelde said there's a proposal in the community for a smaller feature: the ability to click on objects in the game and see them in the inspector. "That can be done," he said.
Don't expect a C Sharp to C++ compiler any time soon though. Godot uses a more "modern" version of C Sharp maintained by Microsoft that has "other capabilities of optimizing performance."
Godot's limitations are fascinating in part because, as the pair stressed multiple times in our conversation, they're something technically savvy developers can solve themselves. Because Godot is open source, developers who want to add key features can fork the engine and modify it for themselves free of cost. That isn't possible with Unity or Unreal Engine.
Those open source values even extend to how you pronounce the engine's name. We asked if Godot is pronounced "Go-dough," like the play, or "Go-dot."
"It's open source," Verschelde said with a grin. "Pronounce it however you like."
You May Also Like
