Unreal is good if you want to work on big expensive projects at big companies. Godot is good if you want to work on your own projects today and potentially but not definitly work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized at small to middle-sized companies in the future. Unity is fine if you want to work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized companies now and potentially in the future.
Which sucks. There ought to be a clear and unambiguous path to chose for someone moving into game development today but since Unity keeps making weird choices that are hostile to developers whilst not continuing to improve at a good pace, it's hard to say for sure which engine will fill in the not-Unreal Engine part of the market unless you have a crystal ball.
Realistically the best thing is to have as strong a foundation in programming generally as you can so that switching engines is minimally disruptive (as there will always be a need to do so eventually. There's very little chance one single engine will continue to be the standard over the 40+ years of a career.)
I'm not so sure about that. Godot is fantastic for making the sorts of projects they are describing. But if the relatively minor difference between Unity and Unreal's workflow are a turn off for them, then the consciously different workflow in Godot is probably going to be a significant barrier. Personally, whilst I love Godot because it's FOSS and lightweight and a great platform for building smaller scale games: a big part of the appeal for me is that I find the Unreal and Unity ways of doing things stupid, confusing and clumsy and the Godot way clever, clear and elegant. I know lots of people feel the exact opposite.
I think the game "development" industry is run by people who don't understand the difference between a game designer and a game developer. As such there's lots of people who only know as much about game design as the average developer does being tasked to do game design work and vice versa.
The reality is that it's a lot of fuss for a game development company to switch engines but for an experienced individual developer it's not a huge deal to switch engines. If you learn game development and design today using Unity then 100% of the game design knowledge is exactly transferable and 80-99% of the game development knowledge (depending on exactly what you're doing) will transfer to Unreal or Godot or whatever else you might need to use later.
It's like a musician switching from one audio production suite to another. The musical theory stays the same and while the exact details of how to make each bit of software do stuff is different, the actual stuff you're making it do is broadly the same.
You're not reading it right. The bottom label says 6 feef. Clearly this is some sort of measurement of 4th dimensional movement that accounts for the other measurements.
Iirc the Russian military has a huge number of generals. This might be more like "random local council representative spouts off about national politics" than "senior military leader states top level policy."
It's because they don't have the skills to assess content critically enough to avoid being taken in by nonsense and projected that onto younger people. From their perspective somehow it's just ok now to expose yourself to media you can't safely navigate. From the younger perspective we were being told we mustn't consume media we had the skillset to safely navigate.
The difference is whether you are fundamentally upset about the unfairness of society or if you only care about whether you personally are being hurt by that unfairness.
Ports like a 3.5mm only really effect the minimum thickness though. The footprint of a phone is more about the size of the screen and battery. I'm not familiar with the relative thicknesses of different iPhones. Is that why you prefer the mini or is it the footprint? Is the mini a comfortable thickness to hold or too thick/thin?
I on the other hand don't want to mess around with an adapter I will break or loose once a year for the 1-2 times a day I plug a 3.5mm headphone jack into my phone. As for size... am I really the only one who thinks phones are too skinny now? My current phone is "thick" compared to what most manufacturers are shooting for now and I don't like holding it without the extra thickness from my cheap phone case. Like... it's an unpleasantly un-ergonmic experience holding something too rigid and thin. It seems like everyone else thinks we're nowhere near that point yet. Maybe I just have delicate sensitive hands...
Blizzard are still simultaneously making gross comments about how players are just too stupid to see that they are wrong about wanting to play 6v6 whilst not actually delivering on their previous claim that they would offer it as an alternative mode at some stage.
I can't see how it would be complex for them to do it. They already have a balance patch for multiple tanks and you can enable 6v6 in the workshop. It can't be very difficult for them to spin up a 6v6 quickplay. What do they have to lose if they are convinced that the playerbase doesn't realise how little fun they'd have playing it? Either Blizzard are right, people play it and say "y'know what? Their condescending comments about how 'nostalgia is a powerful drug' when we say we want 6v6 back like they promised were right after all! 6v6 does suck!" and then they can just take it down, or Blizzard are wrong and offering it as an option makes their players happy and excited to play more Overwatch.
It's a win-win so long as you're not making your decisions based on sheltering the ego of the individual developers from having to deal with being wrong about stuff. Multi-billion dollar businesses would never make silly self-destructive decisions based on something like that, right?
In the comment you replied to they meant video game development companies by "developers" not the individual employees at those companies who do the actual work of developing games. Typically the actions of video game development companies are driven by the MBAs who have most of the big picture decision making power rather than the individual employees who develop the games.
Everyone in this thread is failing to understand that "developers" in this context can mean both "people who develop videogames" and "businesses that develop videogames." As the people who develop videogames are not always the ones who make decisions like this at businesses that develop videogames those two different things that everyone is using the same word for often have opposing positions on the matter.
There's a little subgenre of podcasts with a similar vibe. Try "Welcome to Nightvale" and "Beef and Dairy Network". Though I'm sure there are slightly less weird options out there too.
In my eyes it's no different than a publisher selling a book that is in the public domain. You're not paying them for their copyright, you're paying them for everything else that goes into putting a physical copy of that text into your hands.
It had nothing to do with From Software but Elden Ring actually ran better on Linux than on any other platform shortly after release (there was a silly bug that affected performance on all platforms that Valve fixed within Proton.)
Unreal is good if you want to work on big expensive projects at big companies. Godot is good if you want to work on your own projects today and potentially but not definitly work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized at small to middle-sized companies in the future. Unity is fine if you want to work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized companies now and potentially in the future.
Which sucks. There ought to be a clear and unambiguous path to chose for someone moving into game development today but since Unity keeps making weird choices that are hostile to developers whilst not continuing to improve at a good pace, it's hard to say for sure which engine will fill in the not-Unreal Engine part of the market unless you have a crystal ball.
Realistically the best thing is to have as strong a foundation in programming generally as you can so that switching engines is minimally disruptive (as there will always be a need to do so eventually. There's very little chance one single engine will continue to be the standard over the 40+ years of a career.)