A platform which takes input, which is participatory, is probably going to do much better about the core thesis (in bold on the article): > As impressive as UE

A platform which takes input, which is participatory, is probably going to do much better about the core thesis (in bold on the article): > As impressive as UE5 is, I don't think the technology has to do with its appeal as much as the long-term user experience. I agree there's not a ton of explanation & support for this point. The post does jump to a very specific topic, whether the source is open / takes PRs. For sure there's a lot more that goes into this question. The post explicitly says it leaves others to deal with a lot of the pain of the back-half of Unity development, so it's not even like there's a ton of winning moves UE has to play: they just have to not self-inflict grevious wounds. It is, however- unsaid in the article but clear- incredibly much easier to keep yourself in a respectable, easy to use shape when you are open source. The post talks about a specific bug, but just things like improving the build toolchain or adding support for some new developer tool: developers will happily improve their quality of life in a product, if you let them.