You're presenting this with ironic swipes like "bad things like ask for more money", but it's hard to read this description as anything but straightforwardly more efficient.

If there are few downsides to centralizing game engines, and the need for engine work is inherently cyclical, why should we want engine work to be internal and non-cyclical?

I really don't know much about game engines so maybe there are real downsides to that approach, but the way you've laid it out makes it seem as if Microsoft made the right decision here.

▲

jacksnipe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are downsides, it’s just that it’s the best move from a business perspective. That doesn’t make it the best move from any other angle.

▲

pfdietz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It delivers more value to customers while consuming less resources. Why isn't that a better move than something that costs more and delivers less?

	▲	Karliss 5 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's a prisoners dillema. It might be best choice when viewed individually but when everyone does it, it's worse for everyone.
	▲	blanched 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What are you basing “it delivers more value to customers” on?

▲

zaptheimpaler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Try actually playing a modern Doom game and then a modern UE5 game or look at some benchmarks. UE games mostly run like shit, whereas Doom/idTech games are the smoothest in the entire industry.

	▲	tapoxi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Fortnite is UE5 and runs well on phones. There's a lot of studios who can use UE5 poorly, and not a lot using idtech poorly to compare against.

▲

dymk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Efficient for who? The people who lost their jobs?

	▲	FeepingCreature 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Game making.