I think the communication problem lay in the difference between: - this is what unity can do vs - this is where a team a specialist can push unity Book of the dead being the later. The obvious course of action is just a mere "framing" adjustment to avoid confusion. Ie present these demo by minimizing internal part of unity (as in they are not official presentation of given features) but emphasize inspiration for where unity will go by specialist. I mean when someone make a great game with unity, there is no confusion that's it's using "out of the box" unity features, we understand it's a mix of these features and the team ingenuity, ie their own specialist knowledge. And then the implementation of these specialist knowledge can be share by the benefice of everyone, with each people sorting how far they can push into that knowledge. I think a lot of confusion simply emanate from the fact that unity communicate on democratizing game development, but then present stuff that require specialized knowledges and skills, with no easy access to that knowledge, hence why people get easily confuse and why the communication need to adjust to balance these aspects. Spoiler: Shader knowledge is becoming obscure Especially in the realm of visual rendering, shader knowledge are becoming incredibly specialized and intricate, and access to the basics are obfuscated. This is not something that will be solved by shader graph only, when you look at paper and they start using words like "pdf" and have dialect shift like using either visibility and geometry, it become hard to catch up. Even now the use of words like "scalar" is moving stuff a bit further away from democratizing stuff. Especially when behind these concept are sometimes simpler that the naming suggest. I'm not blaming anyone with this observation, but it muddy the communication problem in regard democracy. Sometimes I ask question about term and I have no answer (not limited to unity), and these are for basic things if you are educated on the matter, education I don't have and tried to catch up. For example, I was confuse for a long time by "pdf", now I know it mean it's a probability distribution function and it's not a shader dialect like NDF (normal distribution function) but simply a statistical concept, but still has a proper shader context that the vanilla definition don't cover (the pdf is the probability that a unit volume of space will emit a given amount of light). Just pointing me it's a basic statistic term would have saved me month of detective mode and self training. But it's an example, and might be to specific (pdf is not widely use outside of paper), the point being is that, unlike pbr whose principle was hammered down with clear graphics, access to the knowledge these advance features are obfuscated, so it's not just a problem of code, UX. These type of terms are used when the features are presented to the public, it's in the blog and it's in the code and it leaves ambiguity to a class of users who can't define for themselves the boundary of what's being told and leave them to fantasize to fill the blank. The communication should not just be geared from specialist to specialist, especially when sometimes these terms can be replace by simpler one. Eventually that knowledge will be vulgarized and metaphor will trickle down, but it's messy.