Why You Should Consider Using an Open Source Game Engine – Even If You’re Not a Fan of Open Source

If you’re a fan of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), you probably don’t need convincing to use an open source game engine. But what if you’re not particularly fond of open source? You might think, “Neither GIMP nor even the highly praised Blender can truly compete with their commercial counterparts. So why should I use an open source game engine instead of opting for Unity or Unreal, relying on powerful companies that have the resources to deliver a polished product?” A crucial question arises: What exactly makes it particularly worthwhile to consider a game engine with a free license?

Solid Foundations

Let’s imagine for a moment that we are graphic designers. If the company behind the graphic software we use suddenly changes its policies drastically, switching to a competing software (including FOSS options) wouldn’t be a major issue. Sure, we might face some challenges in getting used to it, and we might miss certain features, but overall, migration is feasible and usually not too painful.

In game development, however, it’s a different story. Creating games is a process that can take years, and transferring a complex project to another engine is an incredibly difficult, sometimes even impossible, task. Therefore, when choosing a game engine, the license under which it is provided is of paramount importance. In practice, this often means we become dependent on the corporation that develops the engine.

Everyone is likely aware of the terrible ideas Unity had at one point. Many may have also heard about the The Machinery debacle, where the creators abruptly decided to shut down, instructing all users of The Machinery Game Engine to delete their copies of the engine.

With FOSS software (like Redot or O3DE) released under the MIT license, such things are not possible. The creator can be assured that the rules won’t change mid-game, and their work won’t go to waste.

You can’t win against corporations. As a creator, I want to ensure that I’m building on solid foundations. This also pertains to creative freedom: I don’t want someone to be able to criticize me for “inappropriate content” or for any political reasons. Choosing a FOSS engine guarantees freedom and security, which is much more crucial in the context of game engines than in other types of software.

Community Potential

The analogy of an open game engine to GIMP or Blender is not particularly fitting for another reason. Imagine a typical GIMP user encounters an issue. Regardless of what it is, since they are likely a graphic designer rather than a programmer, they cannot write their own code to solve the problem. They cannot create their own solution, nor can they share it with others, whether as an add-on or a contribution to the core.

This is where the difference lies when it comes to game engines: because it is software used by developers, they can continuously improve the tools they use. Hundreds of add-ons are created, forks emerge, and the software keeps evolving for the better.

With an open source engine, changes that enhance usability are much easier to implement. While Blender was a powerful program from the start, it was notoriously difficult to use for a long time; Godot, on the other hand, has always been praised for its ease of use, despite having fewer graphical capabilities.

The Ability to Stand Out

Using Photoshop doesn’t make someone’s drawings look like everyone else’s, thus making them less appealing. However, with Unity or – increasingly – Unreal, it’s entirely possible to be lumped together with clones and half-baked projects.

Game engines have an inherent flexibility that is not easily surpassed. At one point, the Unity logo was inextricably linked to subpar games. An increasing number of players express concerns that Unreal’s massive success might lead to a homogenization of games. (For instance, the AI weaknesses in the second Stalker are attributed to Unreal. After what Daniel Vavra said, worries arose about whether Unreal might harm The Witcher 4, etc.)

Of course, these concerns are largely exaggerated; both Unity and Unreal can be used to create great games, and the opportunities for diversification they offer are quite substantial. The problem is that especially when we are solo developers, but this also applies to larger teams, working in a complex commercial engine (like Unreal/Unity) strongly pushes us in a specific direction. There are patterns and ready-made solutions for many things, and free resources and mechanics tempt us to use them.

While using closed software in other fields doesn’t diminish the diversity of what is produced – whether we write a book in Word or LibreOffice, it won’t affect its content – when it comes to game engines, the strong position and widespread use of Unreal and Unity significantly homogenize games.

In this regard, FOSS engines are different. Due to their open nature, the degree of changes you can make to tailor them to your needs is much greater. There is also a wide array of forks and modifications, so the effect of mass production is not a concern.

Conclusion

When choosing a game engine, it’s worth considering various options. While commercial closed engines often lead in terms of quality, FOSS solutions also have their advantages. In this article, I aimed to highlight the unique benefits of using FOSS engines compared to other types of software.

As is often the case, every choice comes with its pros and cons, and this article was not intended to present them all. It’s hard to overlook the technological advantages that Unreal offers. Similarly, it’s difficult to ignore the numerous shortcomings of Godot…

However, if you value creative freedom, independence, and originality more, you should consider opting for an open source engine, which may better meet your needs in this regard.