Breaking game engine monopolies
Let’s not (just) wait for Godot
When it comes to video game engines today, two names almost systematically dominate discussions: Unity and Unreal Engine. These two tools, developed respectively by Unity Technologies and Epic Games, have become the pillars of the industry, used by AAA studios and independent developers alike. Their omnipresence is such that it’s hard to imagine a world where a project doesn’t start with the question: “Unity or Unreal?”. However, this domination raises profound issues, both creatively and economically, particularly for independent developers who depend on these tools to bring their visions to life.
Unity has established itself as the engine “accessible to all”. With its ease of use, numerous tutorials and flexibility, it is often the first option considered by those new to development. Unreal, on the other hand, is associated with raw power and photorealistic graphics, attracting studios aiming for high-quality visual experiences. These two engines have not only captured a huge share of the market, but have also structured learning and training in game development schools around the world.
However, this dominance is not simply a matter of technological preference. It also reflects a power dynamic in which these companies hold considerable control over creative tools. It’s a position that allows them to dictate the rules, often to the detriment of the developers who work with these tools.
The recent Unity pricing scandal is a perfect illustration of the risks associated with this dependency. By announcing a pricing model based on the number of installations of games made with their engine, Unity sent shockwaves through the developer community. This sudden, unilateral change caused an uproar: not only did it introduce economic uncertainty for many indie developers, it also called into question the stability and reliability of a key partner.
For many developers, this event was perceived as a betrayal. How can you build a project over several years, sometimes with limited budgets, if the central tool can change the rules of the game at any time? This crisis highlighted a fundamental problem: when a tool is controlled by a private company, the latter’s financial interests will always prevail over those of the users.
The domination of Unity and Unreal goes beyond economic issues. It also raises questions about the centralization of creative tools in the hands of a few large companies. This situation creates a standardization of videogame experiences, as the engines impose their own structures, workflows and technical limits. Games, though varied on the surface, risk following similar patterns dictated by the tools that shape them.
From a political point of view, this dependence strengthens the stranglehold of large technology companies on the creative industry. The decisions taken by Unity or Epic Games are not just technical choices: they have a direct impact on developers’ artistic practices and business models. By conforming to these tools, creators lose part of their autonomy, and with it, their ability to experiment freely.
Faced with these challenges, the need for independent developers to explore alternatives is becoming ever more pressing. Open-source engines like Godot represent a unique opportunity to regain control. Unlike Unity or Unreal, Godot is entirely free, open-source and supported by an active community. Developers can not only use it without restriction, but also contribute to its evolution, adapt it to their specific needs and guarantee that their projects will not be affected by arbitrary commercial decisions.
For those who have the skills and time, creating their own framework or game engine can also offer considerable advantages. It’s a demanding approach, but one that allows you to build tailor-made tools, optimized for specific projects, while offering total independence.
In this context, it is imperative to rethink the way games are developed. Independent developers, in particular, must turn to open-source solutions or consider creating their own technologies. These choices, while more demanding, enable them to regain creative and economic autonomy, while contributing to the diversification and resilience of the video game development ecosystem.
Why break free?
While Unity and Unreal Engine dominate the market, their popularity is not synonymous with perfection. While powerful, these tools impose constraints that can curb creative expression, increase financial burdens, and reinforce problematic political and economic dynamics. For independent developers, freeing themselves from this subjugation is not just a technical choice: it’s an act of resistance in favor of their autonomy and the sector’s diversity.
One of the major criticisms of proprietary engines is their orientation towards the needs of AAA studios. Unity and Unreal, despite their promises of accessibility for indie developers, prioritize the development of features adapted to massive projects. As a result, freelancers often have to bend their ideas to fit the tools’ limitations, rather than using technologies designed for their specific needs.
Take, for example, the workflows imposed by these engines. Unreal Engine is optimized for massive environments and photorealistic graphics, key features for games like Fortnite or The Matrix Awakens. But a designer working on a minimalist, 2D game may find himself juggling unnecessary features or hijacking tools designed for large-scale productions. This technical inadequacy can not only slow down development, but also detract from a project’s artistic vision.
Added to this is the problem of updates and policy changes. The recent Unity pricing scandal showed just how vulnerable developers are to the arbitrary decisions of proprietary companies. An ill-adapted update or a change in conditions of use can suddenly turn an indispensable tool into an unbearable financial or technical burden. These upheavals jeopardize the stability of ongoing projects and leave creators in a position of dependence.
Creativity, in such a context, becomes secondary. Developers no longer control their tools, but are controlled by them. The quest for technological independence is therefore a necessary step for those who want their artistic vision to take precedence over the constraints imposed by the industry giants.
Another reason for indie designers to consider alternatives is cost. Although Unity and Unreal offer free versions or “freemium” models, their costs quickly become significant once the game reaches a certain level of success.
- Unity imposes a royalty or paid subscription once a revenue or funding threshold is exceeded. With recent attempted changes, including fees based on game installations, the financial pressure on creators has intensified, particularly for projects with unpredictable business models.
- Unreal Engine, on the other hand, applies a 5% royalty on net revenues in excess of $1 million. While this model is more lenient for smaller projects, it quickly becomes costly for those that achieve commercial success.
By comparison, an open-source engine like Godot is entirely free and royalty-free. Creators can use it for an unlimited number of projects, whether they sell a hundred copies or reach millions of players. This “free and open” model not only reduces up-front costs, but also offers peace of mind: no unexpected costs are added once the game is published.
In the long term, the choice between commercial engines and in-house solutions can have a significant impact. Developing your own framework or adopting an open-source engine involves an initial investment in time and resources. However, this investment is amortized over the course of several projects. Every improvement made to the technology directly benefits the studio, without the need to pay recurring licenses or royalties. In other words, creators invest in their own future rather than enriching third-party companies.
Beyond technical and financial considerations, using tools developed by technology giants raises a fundamental question: that of cultural and political dependency. Unity and Unreal are products of American companies that operate according to a global commercial logic. By using their engines, designers become part of an ecosystem dominated by monopolistic practices and standardized visions.
This concentration of creative tools in the hands of a few companies restricts diversity. Engines like Unity and Unreal shape not only the way games are developed, but also the types of games that emerge. By imposing their own standards, these companies indirectly influence the creative direction of an entire industry.
What’s more, this centralization exacerbates inequalities within the global development ecosystem. Developers based in regions with unfavorable exchange rates and minimal profit margins are under increasing pressure to align themselves with business models designed in a Western context. The use of open-source technologies or the development of local frameworks offer an alternative to circumvent these imbalances.
Finally, diversifying and decentralizing the videogame development ecosystem is essential to guaranteeing its resilience. At a time when large corporations can change their policies at the snap of a finger, having access to independent technologies is becoming a matter of survival for creators. Engines like Godot or in-house frameworks enable developers to regain control, collaborate with open communities, and emancipate themselves from industry-imposed constraints.
Freeing ourselves from proprietary engines is more than a technical or economic issue: it’s an act of cultural and political resistance. For independent developers, it’s an opportunity to reinvent their practices, assert their autonomy, and help build a more equitable and diverse ecosystem.
The open-source advantage: Godot leads the way
The Godot open-source engine is increasingly distinguishing itself as a credible alternative for independent developers. Based on a philosophy of freedom, technical accessibility and collaborative innovation, Godot offers unique opportunities for creators seeking to regain control of their production tools.
Godot is based on a philosophy deeply rooted in the principles of freedom and collaboration. Distributed under the MIT license, one of the most permissive open-source models, Godot allows users to modify, extend and distribute the engine as they see fit. Unlike Unity or Unreal, it imposes no royalties, no subscriptions, and no restrictions on the revenues generated by projects developed with it.
For independent developers, often driven by values of autonomy and creativity, this legal framework is a real asset. It frees creators from the commercial pressures and contractual constraints that can hinder their artistic vision. Moreover, Godot’s commitment to community development reflects another key indie value: collaboration. The engine is not controlled by a profit-maximizing corporation, but by an open and diverse community, where everyone can contribute.
This collaborative model also enables us to respond rapidly to specific user needs. If a developer identifies a gap in the engine, he can either fill it himself, or propose an improvement that will be examined and, potentially, integrated by the community. This flexibility ensures that Godot constantly evolves to meet the needs of its users, rather than following a roadmap dictated by commercial imperatives.
Godot also stands out for its lightness and technical accessibility. Where Unity and Unreal often require powerful machines to run properly, Godot can be run on a wide range of hardware, including modest configurations. This small hardware footprint opens the door to use on less powerful computers, Chromebooks, and even Android devices, making game development accessible to a wider audience. Its ease of use is another key factor in its appeal. Designed to be intuitive, Godot’s uncluttered interface and logical operation make it easy to get to grips with, even for novice developers. The engine is based on a node structure, an approach that, while original, proves incredibly intuitive once mastered. It allows scenes and interactions to be modeled in a modular fashion, providing a clear, easy-to-understand framework for building games, whether simple or complex.
For experienced developers, this simplicity doesn’t mean a loss of power or flexibility. Godot offers an array of professional tools, from a powerful visual editor to robust scripting capabilities with GDscript, a lightweight language inspired by Python. And for those who prefer more familiar languages, such as C#, Godot also offers alternatives. This combination of accessibility and technical depth makes Godot an ideal tool for designers of all backgrounds.
One of Godot’s major strengths lies in its collaborative development model, which encourages and values contributions from its users. Unlike proprietary engines, where developments are dictated internally by closed teams, Godot benefits from the ideas, experimentation and feedback of a worldwide community of passionate developers. This collaborative approach has given rise to some impressive projects, demonstrating Godot’s potential not only as a game engine, but also as a versatile creative platform. Tools such as Pixelorama, a pixel art editor, or Material Maker, a procedural material generator, are just some examples of applications developed with Godot. These projects are not just proofs of concept: they are used by developers all over the world to enrich their own productions.
What’s more, contributions to Godot are not limited to external tools. Users can participate directly in the evolution of the engine by submitting patches, adding features or improving documentation. Each improvement benefits not only its author, but the whole community. This dynamic stimulates constant innovation and ensures that the engine remains relevant in the face of rapid industry change. This collaboration is not just technical: it’s also cultural. By using and contributing to Godot, developers are taking part in a wider movement towards an open, fair and decentralized videogame ecosystem. They are proving that it is possible to create professional tools without sacrificing their values or depending on industry giants.
Godot embodies a different vision of what a game engine should be: a tool that doesn’t just exist for the profit of a company, but evolves to meet the needs of a community. For independent developers, choosing Godot is a commitment to a future where freedom and collaboration are at the heart of videogame creation.
Create your own engine
While solutions like Godot already embody a powerful open-source alternative, some developers are choosing to take the extra step of building their own technology. This approach aims not only to gain total autonomy over the tools used, but also to open up unique perspectives for tailor-made innovations. Yet this path is not without its difficulties, and requires careful preparation and a clear vision for programmers.
The idea of creating one’s own engine is often born of necessity, when existing tools fail to meet the specific requirements of a project. Some games require new technologies or completely original approaches. Miegakure, for example, relies on complex mathematical concepts to explore additional dimensions, a mechanic impossible to implement with generalist engines. Factorio, another famous example, was designed around a highly specialized workflow to handle massive real-time simulations, an area where traditional engines would have introduced unnecessary constraints and layers of superfluous complexity. Similarly, unusual hardware targets, such as the Playdate console with its distinctive crank handle, illustrate the need to design adapted technological solutions, guaranteeing perfect compatibility.
One of the major advantages of this approach is the absolute control it confers. By developing a custom engine, designers can intervene directly in every aspect of their technology, from debugging to optimization, without being restricted by the opaque systems or “black boxes” typical of proprietary engines. This technical transparency offers total adaptability, which is essential if a project is to last.
However, the adventure of creating a game engine is not without its obstacles. First and foremost, it requires in-depth mastery of the technical foundations of development: graphics rendering, physics management, audio, and user input systems. For a novice developer, this learning curve may seem dizzying, but it also represents an exceptional opportunity to acquire rare and sought-after skills. What’s more, the initial investment in time and resources can be considerable. Unlike a commercial engine where the tools are already available, designing an engine means building each component, often from scratch. This effort may seem overwhelming, but it is offset by long-term benefits: fine-tuned optimization, increased reusability and total freedom in the evolution of the project. Another major challenge lies in documentation and integration. If the project extends beyond a single team, the internal engine must be accompanied by clear, exhaustive documentation to enable new collaborators to quickly get to grips with the tool. Striking a balance between ease of use and robust documentation is crucial to maintaining development continuity.
Despite these challenges, many independent success stories testify to the viability and effectiveness of this approach. Stardew Valley, created by Eric Barone, perfectly illustrates the advantages of a customized engine. The use of in-house technology enabled precise management of animations, interactions and simulation mechanics, contributing to the game’s unique identity. Shovel Knight, by Yacht Club Games, also relies on an in-house engine that recreates the aesthetics and mechanics of 8-bit games while incorporating modern optimizations. Finally, Into the Breach demonstrates how bespoke technology can enrich the player experience, offering exceptional visual clarity and meticulous management of strategic interactions.
These examples highlight an essential point in common: the engines were developed in parallel with the game, enabling the tools to be constantly adapted to the specific needs of the project. This approach, although slower and more demanding in its early stages, guarantees flexibility and optimization impossible to achieve with generic solutions. In a world where proprietary tools dominate, these success stories are a reminder that, with boldness, perseverance and a clear vision, it’s possible to build truly unique and sustainable projects.
Frameworks and libraries: an intermediate approach
For developers wishing to maintain technical control over their projects without having to design a complete game engine, specialized frameworks and libraries offer a pragmatic and effective alternative. By combining these proven tools, it’s possible to build a lightweight, flexible development environment perfectly suited to specific needs, while avoiding the complexity inherent in generalist engines.
Frameworks like SDL play a key role in managing fundamental technical aspects such as window creation, 2D rendering, user input management and audio. SDL is widely recognized for its robustness and simplicity, making it a cornerstone for many independent projects. For 2D games incorporating physical mechanics, Box2D is the natural choice, offering a high-performance physics engine capable of handling collisions, gravity and complex interactions with impressive precision. In the field of level design, tools such as Tiled enable the creation of rich and varied environments, thanks to their support for tiles and their compatibility with a multitude of formats. Combined with solutions such as TinyXML or JSON parsers (editor’s note: tools or libraries that read, interpret and convert data in JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format into data structures that can be manipulated by a program), it becomes simple to manage structured data, such as dialogs or dynamic parameters. Furthermore, to integrate scripting functionalities and facilitate rapid iteration on game mechanics, the use of Lua, via libraries such as Sol, offers appreciable flexibility.
The modular approach offered by these frameworks and libraries is a crucial advantage. Unlike general-purpose engines, which impose an often cumbersome predefined structure, these tools allow for progressive, personalized construction. A developer can start with the basics needed to display a scene and manage interactions, then add specific functionality as the project evolves. This flexibility ensures that each integrated technological element directly serves the needs of the current game, avoiding unnecessary overload. By adopting this method, developers also benefit from a significant reduction in complexity. Proprietary engines such as Unity or Unreal can quickly become overwhelming due to their multitude of integrated systems, much of which may be superfluous to a stand-alone project. With targeted libraries, every line of code and every feature is directly linked to the project, creating a more intuitive working environment that’s quicker to master.
Another major advantage is the ease of debugging. Unlike proprietary engines, where errors can be buried in opaque systems or depend on external updates, the use of libraries enables total transparency. A developer can quickly identify problems, understand their origin and resolve them without waiting for external intervention or having to navigate through complex documentation. This technical clarity improves not only productivity, but also overall understanding of the project structure.
Finally, the framework-based approach encourages innovation. By working with modular, independent tools, developers are free to explore bold ideas and unconventional concepts, without being constrained by rigid frameworks or directions dictated by market imperatives. Building your own technological toolbox with frameworks and libraries offers a powerful alternative to commercial engines. It’s an approach that combines technical autonomy, lightness and the possibility of innovation, while remaining accessible to independent developers. This intermediate method embodies a return to the fundamentals of creation: simple, effective tools, entirely at the service of the developer’s artistic vision.
Overcoming barriers to adoption
Despite the obvious advantages of open-source engines like Godot or custom solutions, their widespread adoption remains hampered by a number of structural and cultural obstacles. To enable a smoother transition and ensure their long-term viability, it’s crucial to tackle these challenges by strengthening available resources and cultivating a dynamic, committed community. One of the main obstacles is the massive imbalance in available educational resources. Unity and Unreal, as industry leaders, largely dominate academic curricula and professional training. Most game development programs taught in universities or by private institutions favor these engines, not only because they are robust and proven, but also because they have the financial and logistical backing of the companies that produce them. This has led to a vicious circle effect: students trained on Unity and Unreal then join the industry, reinforcing their dominant position and limiting the emergence of alternatives.
To counter this trend, it is imperative to develop accessible, quality educational resources for engines like Godot. This includes the creation of clear tutorials, in-depth guides, and even complete online courses that cover not only the basics, but also advanced topics such as optimization or artistic pipeline management. Initiatives such as the official Godot documentation or the educational YouTube videos are a great place to start, but they need to be amplified by contributions from the community. Complementing this, partnerships with schools and universities could help integrate these alternative tools into curricula, exposing future developers to more diverse solutions right from the start of their apprenticeship.
Beyond education, building a truly collaborative culture is essential if these alternatives are to flourish. Open-source software is based on a fundamental principle: collective contribution. Every user can participate in improving the engine, whether by fixing bugs, adding new features or translating documentation into other languages. However, this model requires an active commitment from the community, which is not always easy to obtain. Community events such as game jams play a crucial role here. These creative competitions, where developers get together to design games in a limited time, are ideal laboratories for experimenting with alternative engines. For example, initiatives such as the Haunted PS1, which brings together games created with a variety of tools in a retro aesthetic, perfectly illustrate how such platforms can promote solutions outside the beaten track. These events encourage exchanges between developers, enabling beginners and experts alike to share their knowledge.
The success of open-source engines also depends on how they are perceived by developers. Too often, these tools are perceived as less professional or less capable than their proprietary counterparts. To overcome this psychological barrier, it’s essential to highlight successful projects carried out with engines like Godot. These concrete examples demonstrate not only their technical potential, but also their relevance to a wide range of productions, from intimate narrative games to complex simulations. By investing in the creation of robust educational resources, strengthening links between developers and celebrating open-source successes, it is possible to reduce dependency on proprietary tools and pave the way for a more diverse and innovative development ecosystem.
A political and ethical plea for decentralization
The choices made by video game developers are not just technical or economic decisions. They are also part of a wider struggle for independence, diversity and resilience in the face of monopolies. This plea for decentralization in video game development goes beyond the simple question of engines: it touches on how we imagine the future of digital creativity and technology in general.
The video game industry, like so many others, is marked by an increasing concentration of power. The omnipresence of Unity and Unreal illustrates this dynamic. These engines symbolize a centralization that limits developers’ choices. They impose their own rules, whether in the form of changing pricing policies, license modifications or technological restrictions. The recent Unity pricing scandals, for example, have shown just how damaging this dependence can be, not only for small teams, but for the entire creative ecosystem. Developers found themselves trapped in a technological infrastructure over which they had no control, fuelling a widespread feeling of mistrust.
This situation is part of a wider debate on technological monopolies and their impact. The criticisms levelled at giants such as Google, Apple and Amazon are echoed in the field of game engines. The domination of a few proprietary tools limits innovation by concentrating resources and marginalizing alternative solutions. It also hinders cultural and technical diversity by imposing standards that do not necessarily meet the needs of all creators. By adopting a critical stance towards this centralization, developers can play an active role in building a more balanced ecosystem, where open and accessible solutions enable true autonomy.
This empowerment is not just an abstract ideal: it has profound repercussions on the way games are designed and the narratives they carry. Open-source engines like Godot, or custom frameworks, allow creators to free themselves from the constraints imposed by tools designed for AAA studios or specific markets. This freedom opens the way to truly experimental creativity, where developers can explore radically new ideas without having to conform to the expectations or limitations dictated by outside companies.
Beyond the creative aspect, there is also a cultural dimension to consider. By adopting open tools, developers are part of a wider movement to democratize access to technology. This means that small studios, independent developers and even amateur creators can access the same resources as large corporations, unhindered by financial or technical barriers. This equal access fosters a diversity of voices in the videogame landscape, enriching the medium and enabling the emergence of unique perspectives often absent in mainstream productions.
Technological decentralization is not just a question of economic resilience or technical efficiency; it also holds the promise of innovation. When developers free themselves from proprietary engines, they open the way to unprecedented technical approaches. History shows that some of the most striking innovations in gameplay or graphics have often come from independent experiments, where creators had total control over their tools. By freeing themselves from the constraints of centralized engines, developers can push back the boundaries of the medium and explore uncharted territory.
However, this transition to a more decentralized model requires a collective effort. This means not only supporting open-source initiatives, but also redefining the priorities of the industry as a whole. Educational institutions, distribution platforms and events such as game jams have a crucial role to play in encouraging the adoption of these alternatives. By raising creators’ awareness of the ethical and political issues involved in their technological choices, these players can help transform the way games are developed.
The video game development landscape is at a critical crossroads. While Unity and Unreal continue to dominate, recent scandals, unstable politics and the centralization of technological power have highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in this dependency. For independent developers, turning away from these proprietary engines is not just a technical choice, but a commitment to autonomy, diversity and innovation.
It’s time for developers to regain control of their tools and their creativity. In an industry dominated by monopolies, every choice in favor of technological independence is a declaration of autonomy. It’s an invitation to dream bigger, to experiment without limits, and to build a future where the diversity of approaches enriches the videogame medium.
To look away from Unity and Unreal is not to reject the advances they have brought, but rather to recognize that the future of game development lies in a decentralized, open and collaborative ecosystem. This is a unique opportunity to redefine the contours of videogame creation, by giving every developer, whether novice or experienced, the means to make their voice heard. The time has come to work together to build a new golden age for video games, one in which innovation and freedom are the watchwords.