>>13813552
>its a paid engine/devtool
What's the issue here, that you have to pay money for something? That you have to pay royalties if you're using someone else's work for your own benefit?
You sound like a communist and not a very good one at that since Unity is free unless you're raking in enough profit it's price doesn't matter anymore.
>it was a shitfest to many games
Such as? Besides, the 32bit niggers need to be shot. They are the reason so many games currently run like shit.
>is manages that get really bad performance
Perhaps you're refering the garbage collecting, something that has been solved already? Or maybe you're referening to shit devs not understanding optimization and then blaming it in the tool?
I won't say it has that good performance, especially since Unity does hate notebooks, but it's nowhere near as bad as you make it sound like. It doesn't have to be optimal for OpenGL or DirectX, it only has to not be shit with them and it does so.
>it feeds off raw input on windows instead directplay
So it gets raw info instead of relying on Microsoft property and that's bad for some reason. Wew. Don't forget to buy your Xbox controllers since nothing else on their games anymore unless you use an emulator for the controller.
>all because of multiplatform
What a terrible thing, to want your games in more platforms than just Windows. Those Linux fags should just kill themselves, right?
>there can be many more points which I'm sure only the devs that actually work with it know about
Like I said, it's always complaints about esoteric shit like "garbage collection could be 1.5% faster!" that barely affect the average dev. Unless you're tapping directly into the engine itself using some API, you never encounter any of these problems and about 98% of their userbase fits this description.
>most of the shitty games comes from the free version of unity
Mixing things there, fam. Shit devs are not gonna invest time properly optimizing their game, why would they invest money in their tool?
Devs that bought it however get some neat tools to monitor performance and they often have in their interest to make sure their game runs the best possible in the most platforms to make their investment back at least.
But yet again, it's up to the devs how they use that tool, don't blame Unity for the amount of effort and money someone is or isn't willing to sink in it.
>there are opensource alternatives
That all are either missing one feature or another, have no documentation or don't achieve the same things. Unity is a full package with just about everything you need to get started and what you make with it will always be better than what you can make with any of those tools without heavily customizing them.
Whenever a dev picks a tool to make a game, he isn't looking for ArchLinux, he is looking for something that works and he goes with Unity because he can jump straight to work on his game.