When I look at Godot, it use icons for each type, tilemap has tilemap icon, a 2d node has 2d icon… but when I look at Unity, it looks lame same icons… everything is a cube. It sucks and is frustrating, it takes a little bit longer to figure out what is what. I prefer Godot’s approach, where you can quickly visually click on the tilemap.
Cool, but currently user friendliness is our least important problem with unity.
uhhh… if you don’t find unity user friendly, Don’t use unity.
Unity has lots of problem for sure, but user friendly means more people indie or vibe coders can setup an Unity workflow and create games, this will eventually lead for higher revenue. Focusing endlessly on niche features and useless graphics output for GTX 7090 or GTX 8090 leads to nowhere.
- Userfriendly, requires a major overhaul in GUI.
- Store all configuration in readable text so LLM can work through it.
- Have feature parity with Godot, on ALL front.
Not really. Unity gets virtually no revenue from most indie developers and vibe coders, and from the small percentage that do generate revenue for Unity (something like 0.1%), the amount is so small that it makes no meaningful difference to Unity’s overall revenue.
To put it into perspective, even indie developers with successful games earning more than $200K per year pay Unity less annually than the monthly salary cost of a single developer.
You are right that Unity cares about its revenue, but that revenue is not coming from indie developers and vibe coders in amounts large enough to justify dedicating significant development time to them.
Vibe coders can create game demos not games and AI do not need user friendliness.
The major problems with unity is lack of important features, half baking other, incompatibility between rendering paths, discontinuation of features, breaking changes for unity asset store packages, regression bugs, etc. etc. list go on.
But I agree that clean textual format would be great for LLM especially in VFX graph department.
I agree that they do not generate revenue directly.
But at the same time, it is extremely beneficial for Unity that developers use their engine.
Good games are the best marketing for an engine.
Game developers create countless tutorials, videos, blogs, and other content around Unity.
Without all that visibility and community activity, Unity would not be nearly as popular — even outside of game development.
And the cherry on top is that indie developers are effectively doing free quality assurance for Unity by constantly testing and exposing issues in real-world projects.
Thia doesn’t make much sense in the context of Unity because in Unity, each game object / node can have multiple components, unlike in Godot. If a game object has both a renderer and an animator component, which icon would you want the object to have? In fact, Unity components do have different icons, but you’ll see them in the inspector instead of the hierarchy.
Every developer benefit from an easier, visually appealing, intuitive GUI. There is a reason why Unity is not a commandline tool, but a real graphically user interface application.
Unity needs to level up on that front, as Unity clearly lacks behind on GUI part.
Not only on GUI actually, but on all important front. When you ask Gemini, ChatGpt (which are legitmately consultants nowadays) what is the best gaming engine with AI support, they all say it is Godot.
Unity will be a tool for legacy games if this keeps on.
They need to be appealing again for the mainstream, this includes the Indie dev that pay Unity less than the overpaid single developer
I agree with both @koirat and @XalAtoh in principle, but Unity has been operating at a loss for many years and has effectively moved past its growth phase into a revenue-focused phase. During its growth phase, that approach would make sense, but currently Unity is under pressure to start generating revenue and stop running at a loss.
Until that changes, we can probably expect less focus on onboarding new users or improving the experience for indie developers through GUI changes, especially when they come with significant development costs. Instead, we are more likely to see changes aimed at reducing iteration time, along with services that drive subscriptions and revenue. The recent cuts, layoffs, and scrapped features all point in that direction. A GUI overhaul might attract some new users and help existing developers, but it does not generate immediate revenue for Unity.
If I had no prior opinion, I would rather evaluate the engines myself instead of relying on an LLM. This is a highly subjective topic, and critical thinking is an essential skill for developers. Developers who form an opinion about the “best game engine with AI support” based solely on what LLMs say are not really Unity’s target audience anymore. Possibly for Godot, but not for Unity.
That is surface-level user-friendliness. Yes, it sure would be nicer if Unity had a built-in way to show different icons for “different” objects. But such is the nature of a component-based game engine that any object can be anything - it only depends on the components (scripts) the object has.
Still, there’s Unity assets (free and paid) you can use to customize the Hierarchy view with colors and icons.
While Godot strictly limiting every node to a single purpose and a single script makes for an easier entry (think: BASIC), this does not scale up well to production or professional engineering.
That’s where Godot becomes rather user-unfriendly: everything is deeply nested in hierarchies, including the Inspector views. Plus an abundance of modal dialogs, a widely frowned upon UI/UX practice.
That’s easy to put to the test …
Prompt:
what is the best gaming engine with AI support
Gemini
The best game engine with AI support depends entirely on your project goals, but Unity 6 and Unreal Engine 5.7 stand out as the industry leaders, alongside highly specialized open-source and native-AI alternatives.
ChatGPT (shortened)
There isn’t one universally “best” game engine with AI support — it depends on what kind of AI you mean:
- AI-assisted development (copilots, code generation, NPC behavior tools)
- Built-in gameplay AI (pathfinding, behavior trees, ML agents)
- Generative AI integration (LLMs, voice NPCs, procedural content)
- Ease vs performance vs scalability
Here’s the current landscape in 2026: …
Best Overall for AI-Powered Game Development: Unreal Engine
Best for Indie + Fast AI Prototyping: Godot
Best for Machine Learning Research in Games: Unity
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. Unity is this close to being abandonware. You can literally see this by absolutely no user contributions anywhere. 90% of new tutorials are UE and Godot only. And so forth.
Unity as a software is not simply going to drop from > 50% market share to < 10% within a decade due to some perceived UI issues. This is figuratively the same as claiming that Unity’s inconsistently applied C# naming guidelines will make it a legacy tool in short time. Both are annoying to some degree, but really negligible in the big picture.
No, they don’t. And yet Unity is and remains appealing to the mainstream.
The mainstream wants to use professional-level tools, tools that carry their weight in terms of tutorials, documentation, and opportunities. To that end the mainstream is willing to accept some shortcomings. And given the alternatives, it’s really not like Godot or Unreal have zero shortcomings either.
Unity is a career-advancing software. It’s also the only engine that builds to every imaginable gaming platform, highly flexible editor scripting, and a ton of powerful features both for the game itself and during production and for live services.
Unreal is for educated developers, or masochists jumping at it too early in their learning process (doable but woah that’s like driving school with a Ferrari). Definitely a career tool for the AAA game industry, but also “less fun” industries like automotive, marketing and film.
Godot is for beginners and hobbyists and tiny teams. Their community polls clearly tell it does not have a significantly growing appeal outside that niche. It provides an easier “first contact” experience and the “guarantee” of being free. However, it’s a learning tool not a career builder, platform and 3d support is limited, productivity at scale lacking.
If anything, Unreal is what’s threatening Unity’s marketshare, not Godot. Godot is merely a catalyst with the potential of undercutting (accelerating) that transition to a small degree. What we’ve seen is that past the runtime fee exodus, the numbers have bounced back. Godot primarily has a retention/churn problem: it’s an on-off tool, a also-use tool, a transitioning-away-from tool. More users use it, but far fewer users stick to it for a long time or exclusively.
I’m not saying Unity doesn’t have issues but I don’t see any threatening problems except what UEFN will do for the entry-level users - those might start with UEFN and transition directly into UE, completely bypassing both Godot and Unity.