Why We Switched From Godot To Unity - 5 Hard Lessons

Q: Is it worth switching from Godot to Unity?

Yes — if your project requires advanced 3D workflows, mobile-ready exports, or a mature asset/plugin ecosystem. Unity offers better support for cross-platform publishing and tooling. Godot is ideal for 2D, prototyping, or open-source-first teams, but its 3D and C# support in version 4.x may not meet production needs.

Q: Why do developers return to Unity after trying Godot?

Common reasons include limitations in Godot’s 3D capabilities, unstable C# integration, and a lack of asset store depth. Many devs appreciate Godot’s speed and simplicity but return to Unity for production-grade tools, especially in 3D or commercial mobile projects.

Q: What does Unity offer that Godot doesn't?

Unity offers polished 3D rendering, an extensive asset store, a stable C# workflow, native terrain and lighting tools, and better mobile/export tooling. Godot 4.x is improving, but still lacks production-level parity in several of these areas.

Q: Is Godot good enough for commercial game development?

For 2D games, prototypes, or solo projects — absolutely. However, for mid to large commercial 3D games, teams often face limitations in tooling, asset pipelines, and performance. Many studios wait for further improvements before adopting Godot for production-level 3D development.

Q: Why not just stick with Godot and wait for updates?

While Godot is improving rapidly, our project needed stability today. Godot 4.x's 3D engine, asset workflows, and C# integration weren't reliable enough. Switching to Unity gave us the tools and workflow we needed to keep building without blockers.

Q: Will Godot ever catch up with Unity?

Possibly. Godot's open-source nature, rapid community-driven growth, and ethical design make it a serious contender for the future. But as of 2025, Unity still leads in production features, mobile/export support, and third-party tooling.

Introduction: A Tough but Thoughtful Switched from Godot to Unity

When we started Cosmic Trinity Games, we dreamed of building our games entirely on open-source tools. Godot was our first love — lightweight, open, beginner-friendly, and philosophically aligned with how we wanted to run our studio.

But as our projects matured, the trade-offs started showing. Features we needed for smoother production, faster prototyping, and long-term support weren’t quite there yet.

In this post, we’ll break down exactly why we switched from Godot to Unity, what lessons we learned along the way, and what you should consider before making the same leap. We never expected to switch from Godot to Unity, but looking back, it shaped our pipeline for the better.

The decision to switch from Godot to Unity wasn’t easy, but it was necessary. If you’re wondering whether to switch from Godot to Unity, these lessons might save you weeks of struggle.

First-time here? We’re a tiny indie studio making mobile games that are snack-sized and seriously replayable. Think: quick sessions during a bus ride, but polished enough to keep you coming back.

A small indie game studio’s workspace representing the journey as they switched from Godot to Unity, reflecting the challenges and lessons learned.

Why We Chose Godot First

When we began prototyping games at Cosmic Trinity, Godot felt like the perfect fit for a small, unfunded indie studio. Its open-source MIT licence meant we didn’t have to worry about surprise fees or legal fine print. The editor loaded fast, even on modest laptops, which made development feel snappy and responsive.

We also loved GDScript — it was lightweight, clean, and easy to pick up, especially coming from Python. With tiny build sizes and a simple export process, we could quickly test our games on real devices. And the engine’s node-based scene system gave us a modular way to design reusable UI and gameplay elements. At that stage, Godot wasn’t just a tool — it was a way for us to move fast and build confidently.

For a small team with no funding, Godot felt empowering.

The Cracks That Started to Show

After building three or four prototypes in Godot, things began to break down in ways we hadn’t anticipated. What started as an empowering toolset soon became a bottleneck — not because Godot failed us, but because our project scope and expectations started to evolve.

The first major pain point was asset integration. Coming from Unity’s streamlined FBX workflow and native Blender compatibility, we found ourselves doing a lot of extra work in Godot. Importing rigs, animations, and meshes often felt like a guessing game. Simple tasks took longer, and without built-in tooling like Unity’s ProBuilder or terrain system, we had to build too many things from scratch just to test ideas.

Then came the 3D struggles. Godot 4.x promised big things in this space, but in practice, we constantly fought with lighting, physics bugs, and unpredictable collider behaviour. Even though our goals weren’t AAA-level visuals, we still needed a baseline of polish — one that Godot’s current 3D stack just couldn’t support without heavy lifting.

C# support was the final straw. Debugging was hit or miss, and larger projects triggered strange errors we couldn’t easily track down. We love working in C#, but in Godot, the language felt like a second-class citizen. The lack of robust mobile export for .NET projects made the entire pipeline feel fragile. It wasn’t one single issue that made us switch — it was the accumulation of little cracks that made forward progress feel harder than it needed to be.

Why Unity Made More Sense (For Us)

Benefit	Why It Mattered
Massive Asset Store	We saved dev weeks by using plugins, packs, and UI kits.
Better 3D tools	We got baked lighting, real-time shadows, and URP performance.
Smoother C# workflow	Easy debugging, stable builds, mobile-ready.
Mobile support	Unity’s Android/iOS pipeline is battle-tested.
Console-ready	Future-proofing for potential ports.

Unity isn’t perfect — it’s heavier, more corporate, and had its own drama (runtime fees cough cough). But for the kinds of games we’re building, it delivered where we needed it most.

Mistakes We Made (So You Don’t Have To)

Switching engines mid-way through production isn’t fun. But here’s how we handled it — and what we’d do differently. If you’re considering whether to switch from Godot to Unity, here’s what our journey taught us.

Rushing to Commit

We chose Godot too quickly, without prototyping in Unity first.

Lesson: Always prototype your mechanics in multiple engines before deciding.

Not Accounting for Team Growth

Godot worked when it was just one dev. But adding a second developer exposed weaknesses in workflow and asset syncing.

Lesson: Choose tools that scale with your team size.

Underestimating Support Ecosystem

Unity’s huge community saved us countless times. With Godot, we often hit dead ends.

Lesson: Factor in support, documentation, and plugin ecosystem — not just engine features.

We finally switched from Godot to Unity because the 3D pipeline and mobile deployment weren’t production-ready and One major benefit we found after we switched from Godot to Unity was stability in mobile exports.

Disclosure Use

All engine comparisons in this post are based on our hands-on experience with Godot 4.x (4.0–4.1) as of late 2024. Features may improve in future releases, but the limitations described reflect the state of the engine at the time we made our decision to switch to Unity.

Final Thoughts: Choose Tools That Grow With You

We still love Godot. We still support the open-source movement. And maybe someday we’ll go back.

But right now, for where we are in our game studio journey — Unity gives us the toolchain, stability, and scale we need to get our games into players’ hands.

Want to follow our journey?

Subscribe to our updates or follow us on social media for future posts like:

How We Built Our Studio with Free Tools
Which Type of Custom Unity Editor Tool We have Developed in Cosmic Trinity Studio [soon]

Your Turn

Tried both Godot and Unity? What pushed you to switch (or stay)?

Let’s build better games — together.

Is it worth switching from Godot to Unity?

Yes — if your project demands advanced 3D tools, better asset integration, or robust mobile/export pipelines. Unity’s mature ecosystem, larger plugin library, and production-ready tooling made a major difference in our workflow. That said, for smaller 2D or solo projects, Godot remains a great choice.

Why do developers return to Unity after trying Godot?

Most who switch back cite Godot’s immature 3D systems, unstable C# support, and limited tooling. We’ve read dozens of stories where devs hit issues with lighting, physics, or large-scale project organisation and found Unity’s editor and asset pipeline more reliable.

What does Unity offer that Godot doesn’t?

Unity provides a stable C# workflow, baked lighting, advanced terrain tools, and a huge asset store. It also supports 25+ platforms with streamlined mobile export. Godot, while powerful in 2D and great for learning, doesn’t yet offer the same breadth of commercial-ready features — especially in 3D.

Is Godot good enough for commercial game development?

It depends on your scope. Godot is excellent for indie 2D, mobile, and web games. But for commercial 3D games or team collaboration, limitations in physics, lighting, asset pipelines, and third-party integration can be dealbreakers. Many devs still support it philosophically and hope to return as it matures.

Why not just stick with Godot and wait for updates?

That was our plan too — but real-world deadlines don’t always wait. Bugs in Godot 4’s 3D engine, missing mobile .NET export, and limited plugin options added too much friction. We needed a tool that scaled with our needs now, not “someday.”

Will Godot ever catch up with Unity?

It’s very possible. The Godot community is active, transparent, and making fast progress. But as of 2025, Unity still holds the edge for larger, high-performance projects. Godot is the better choice for learning, prototyping, and open-source-first teams — but it’s not quite industry-standard (yet).

Why We Switched from Godot to Unity – 5 Hard Lessons