The people who hand write code for a game engine will beat the people who try to vibe code a game engine.

But they'll both be beaten by people using AI intelligently to generate code, but not letting it drive everything. Who look at every line and apply their experience to fixing what the AI generates until it outputs more or less what you would have, only more quickly.

The false dichotomy that some of you are trying to push between "just taking whatever the AI slops out" and "pristine hand-crafted code by dedicated, loving experts" doesn't exist.

By all accounts, with the current curve of model improvement, I don't see strong evidence that aligns with that belief. Perhaps with a plateau in model improvement or a saturation of the tech (a la iPhone 2020s), one could argue the lack of growth. But right now with evidence at hand? I wouldn't take that bet.

Godot has a few elements going for it.

GUI Editor is not one I'd list.

Internal tooling stood up a GUI Editor clone within a few weeks that was targeted towards our specific use case. Their editor isn't uniquely ergonomic. In fact, for about 3 releases, one of the highest requested objects was multiple tabs at the same time. A rather standard feature in an editor and especially a modern code editor.

My argument isn't totally about individual devs making engines (though it is actually feasible on a Max plan), I'm imagining a very small team competitor that embraces AI-assisted PRs, internally and externally, along with vibecoding directly baked into the app itself (MCP or more direct claude code scripting language integration). That would be able to match or exceed the functionality in Godot, probably with more common and performant scripting languages (Rust + Luau for example).

That's basically the same argument Unity made a few years ago.

There isn't, until there is. These things take time. The tech has to be adopted, the people have to integrate into game jams, indies percolate. Godot is young, my predictions are 3-5 years.

Regarding competition though, the question is about the unique selling points of Godot that would be hard to replicate. Before AI coding, there is a _lot of momentum_ for leaders in the game engine world. Everyone specializes and it takes many years of game cycles to make the switch to a new engine. Not anymore!

So we have yet to see a dog-eat-dog game engine world, and in that world, ejecting AI-coding could in fact be a net negative. That's what I am arguing at least.

Regarding the unique selling points of the engine: 1. Open-source 2. Node/Scene encapsulation design: Big! - Easily my favorite part of GDScript. Easy to replicate. 3. Scripting languages: GDScript, buggy C# - AI-coding doesn't care what language as long as it's popular

My suspicion: A competitor could use a known compiled language (Rust) and a scripting language (luau) and get the same mileage as Godot and replace every one of their selling points with more performant code. Because they waited so long to deploy a marketplace, they have very little sticky bits to their market share.

A wicked irony I didn't know!

Most likely then a team that builds on top of bevy as infra and not bevy team itself.

I don't know about large teams or companies. I feel more confident with the conjecture: Conditioned on small teams, a team of seniors with AI coding beats a team of junior with AI coding by a wide margin, in my experience.

When accounting for "coding taste," I think there is equal or higher quality output over small teams, and if there is a decrease in software quality, it's nowhere near the implied amount (5-10% at most) with a massive gain in speed (approx 3x? 4x? hard to measure). Those numbers net out positive in the end, especially as the team starts to understand and ship with AI in the loop.

Integrating AI-assisted PRs into an existing team is a skillset all in itself.

The team is taking a pretty strong stance against external AI-assisted PRs, which makes you think they'd take a weak stance against internal AI-assisted PRs? It's hard to draw the exact line, but maybe?

For our team, the outcome is the PR, and you have to set up _a lot of testing infrastructure_ to prevent regressions. It's a skillset like any other.

It would be consistent with their actions that my belief is they are slow to adopt workflows that will accelerate them. Thus velocity will decrease.

For many years, it's been difficult to build game engines. It's never been easier today. A half-decently funded startup team could get to Godot feature parity within 6-12 months. There's no VC in games anymore (especially not middleware), so it's less unlikely, but they don't have a moat on features.

When you go to invest in an engine. One with Claude Code natively infused and another that says "meh" to AI. Which would you have your small indie dev team choose? Smart money says velocity. I suspect the Godot-slayer I am imagining will start getting buzz in /r/aigamedev subreddit as the only way to quickly code a game. A little better design and 3D work from Anthropic, and we are off to the races.

Regarding game dev hatred of AI, I've been to GDC for the last 3 years for the explicit purpose of talking about AI in games. The wall of hatred isn't holding strong. It used to be universal. Now, not so much. People on their laptops claude coding during presentations. 20% of talks being about AI in games, and _sponsored (!!!)_ talks about AI are getting the largest crowds at GDC this year. The times, they are a changin'. This is only a clever marketing move for a certain set of developers, which I totally agree are the (maybe?) majority today. I said 3-5 years though, not 6 months...

AI-assisted coding is good for creators. It happens to be good for corporations because it reduces costs, but it's actually much more powerful for creators with imagination. I don't know where that argument comes from.

If AI-assisted coding can help corporations make AAA games with 1/10th the resources, then it would stand to reason it also helps indies make AAA with 1/10th the resources? I have never understood this argument.

Godot has no peers because for the last 30 years in software, it's been hard for people to make their own game engines, which made open source engines totally impractical. W4 is a non-profit organization that happened to get just enough resources and traction to make it. That underlying assumption is not true anymore, making engines has never been easier in software history. Unreal/Unity are not the competitors I'm talking about.

Monogame, Wicked, Defold, Gamemaker, Stride, Heaps, just off the top of my head

I don't know, once you ban AI-assisted coding outright, it's much higher likelihood this ban will cause the Godot team to spend time and energy being AI detectives, especially if they don't agree with the intent of the contribution.