It's all just subjective, nothing of this is proven by any research. From my experience from several game studios (I admit the sample is too small to be relevan

It's all just subjective, nothing of this is proven by any research. From my experience from several game studios (I admit the sample is too small to be relevant) quality of their games was inverse to quality of the tools. Stuff like http://www.geek.com/games/a-train-you-ride-in-fallout-3-is-actually-an-npc-wearing-a-train-hat-1628532/ http://www.geek.com/games/a-train-you-ride-in-fallout-3-is-a... is extremely common. > From a technical perspective unity's tools are nothing special, however they work well for non technical users. They are nothing special even from non-technical perspective. I'm not saying they are complete crap or that they do not work reasonably, in fact I think they are so successful because they are so simple/average. Of course constantly crashing tool is not boosting your productivity. But simple tools are. Look at old Unity UI - it was even worse than most open source UI. The new UI is a bit better but still there are open source projects at least equally good. Or animation graphs in Unity. They are quite simple and they have many issues, yet they enable users to do more creative stuff than UE.