There are downsides, it’s just that it’s the best move from a business perspective. That doesn’t make it the best move from any other angle.
replyIt delivers more value to customers while consuming less resources. Why isn't that a better move than something that costs more and delivers less?
replyIt's a prisoners dillema. It might be best choice when viewed individually but when everyone does it, it's worse for everyone.
replyWhat are you basing “it delivers more value to customers” on?
replyCustomers are willing to spend more money on it.
replyHow else do you define value?
For a game a reasonable definition of value might be based on how well people like it or how much it entertains then (as if that could ever be measured).
replyThe way you measure that is by how much people are willing to pay for it.
replyTwitter must be the most entertaining video game ever. Someone paid 44 billion dollars for it.
replyThings get squirrely when there are small numbers of buyers and great inherent uncertainty. But for a market with many millions of buyers, yes.
replyTry actually playing a modern Doom game and then a modern UE5 game or look at some benchmarks. UE games mostly run like shit, whereas Doom/idTech games are the smoothest in the entire industry.
replyFortnite is UE5 and runs well on phones. There's a lot of studios who can use UE5 poorly, and not a lot using idtech poorly to compare against.
replyEfficient for who? The people who lost their jobs?
replyGame making.
reply