Discussion Unity is seeking a graphics development Manager

"The right person will help the team attract and retain high-quality engineering talent."
LOCATION: Montreal, Canada

https://80.lv/articles/graphics-development-manager-at-unity-technology/

Wanted to post this if anyone was interested. If anyone out there on these forums is frustrated with the render pipelines and has the chops, here's your chance!

Also I know that many of us are curious what the goals of a new reset Unity might be. According to this listing, they want to attract and retain talent. Easy to say of course, hard to pull off. Sounds like a really cool opportunity if helping others succeed , managing visual pipelines, and dealing with people is your thing.

Not going to speculate beyond that, but wanted to share the post, and who knows, maybe one among us sees this and something goes off in their head "Yeah, I could bust my behind to improve this engine." and a couple years from now we're all posting about how improved the pipelines and visuals are in Unity on all devices (ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE, DARN IT!).

Feel free to speculate how this is a great or terrible job listing spelling prosperity or doom for Unity.

 

Seems a huge shame to let go of a good chunk of long-term senior employees, including in Graphics, but then a week or two later be advertising for this role.

 

One could argue that someone with the leadership and drive to change these art pipelines for the better would have done so over the past several years within the company. I'm not trying to say these weren't quality employees, but maybe just weren't cut out for this specific overarching role.

 

Alternatively they could have been overqualified and too expensive.

 

It's surely going to cost them more now to hire/retain top talent now than it would have done 6 months ago.

 

I'm mostly thinking of someone like Tim Lottes. He's a former Nvidia engineer and a quick search came up with a figure of between $150K and $430K for their senior software engineers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+nvidia+senior+engineer+salary

 

There's also the issue of relocation; perhaps skilled insiders were considered but they couldn't/wouldn't uproot their living situation to move to Montreal. We just don't know. Don't turn this into a layoff whine-fest like the past six threads.

 

Hopefully they get rid of URP. Its a waste of time. My computer is ancient and I'm using HDRP, there's no reason to downgrade to URP. I can just toggle stuff off. (Specs: Generation 2 intel CPU from 2011, mismatched DDR3 from around 2011, and a Radeon RX 580 from 2017, which was a mid-tier GPU that I got on sale about $200. Its considered low end these days.)

The only reason URP exists, to my knowledge, was to have a pipeline that didn't rely on compute shaders, so it could work on old mobile (at the time URP was announced) and other ancient hardware (also at the time). Compute shaders can improve the speed of a rendering pipeline tremendously at scale, but, old phones don't support them. URP has nearly zero features compared to HDRP's huge amount of features. Even if we put all main features aside, even just HDRP's shader graph alone has like 50 extra nodes in it than URP's shader graph.

Mobile devices support compute shaders now. Get rid of URP, imo. Its essentially the "low end pipeline" that was designed with restrictions to allow it to run on absolutely ancient, deprecated hardware. Hence "Universal". But, people are even making mobile games in Unreal Engine 5 these days. Also the next generation handheld gaming devices are going to be nearly as good as a PS5.

Also; they should rename HDRP so its not so misleading. Its just... a modern rendering pipeline that's slightly behind Unreal's. You can disable nearly everything, and most things that can't just be toggled off can be scaled down, such as the buffer format, which is higher precision format in HDRP on the default quality setting, down to URP's format, etc, and its not "high definition" anymore. Once everything is disabled and settings are tweaked down, then its just a blank slate with the features you will need so you don't have to rely on third parties.

 

It's definitely awkward having three different, incompatible render pipelines. It causes issues across the entire ecosystem. Hopefully getting to just one customizable pipeline will happen some day.

 

Unless you need to target mobile, Switch, or the many Windows machines without a 'gaming tier' graphics card.

A single 'Scalable Render Pipeline' would be an ideal solution. But picking one of the current pipelines as a starting point seems an impossible choice. It feels like URP can't scale up enough for high-end, and HDRP can't scale down enough for low-end. And building yet another render pipeline would just be digging the hole deeper.

One part-solution I've suggested before is to begin by unifying the postprocessing/antialiasing/upscaling end of the render pipeline, so URP can scale up a bit more by using features previously exclusive to HDRP, and HDRP can scale down a little bit more (with the option of less expensive postprocessing effects from URP)

(Or maybe they need to build a 'Unity Next-Gen', a one-shot attempt at releasing a major update without backward-compatibility, where they could essentially start over and cull a whole load of 'legacy' systems (including entire render pipelines) all at once. But if they did something like that, they'd also need to commit to maintaining a 'Unity Classic very-LTS' pretty much indefinitely)

 

HDRP "could" run on lower end hardware, they just have to support compute shaders, that's really the only problem, since HDRP heavily relies on compute shaders, and that's not something you can toggle. But don't think of it as an always-high-definition pipeline, but rather, a pipeline that's capable of high-definition rendering. If you disable everything, scale everything down to URP's level, it should run on comparable hardware, as long as they support compute shaders. Not to mention that HDRP already has upscalers, such as FSR2 and STP in 2023 beta, that boost your performance by allowing you to render at a lower resolution.

If we look at the list of features, even just the ones that were released between version 2022 to 2023, we can tell which pipeline Unity has put the most work into by a massive margin. Screen space reflections is even still "under consideration" for URP. It barely has anything at all, even its shader graph and vfx graph are lacking by comparison. Meanwhile HDRP has been getting fun stuff like ocean & river systems, time of day systems with a sun & a moon, procedural skies & clouds that you can fly up to and fly through, etc, etc.

With that said -- Should Unity focus on ancient hardware in their decision making? I consider my computer to be "low end", and I'm using HDRP. The GPU is 7 years old and the CPU is 13 years old. People are starting to even make card games for mobile devices in Unreal Engine, using the same rendering pipeline that people are using to make "next-gen" "realistic" games.

 

It would be impressive if every post about positions available at Unity didn't turn into an unrelated thread about URP and stuff. Is this where I ask about the null reference value as well?

 

This is a position regarding building the foundation of the render pipelines moving forward to be fair.

One has to imagine their decision making concerning URP comes down to it being the most easily used pipeline (outside of BRP), most stable, and has the most adopters.
The #1 goal of Unity right now is to retain users and stem bleeding, while trying to create some semblance of an optimistic future.

If we're honest, it's hard to be confident right now things are going to go well because we're kind of in that same impossible situation we were in years ago. Unity is an engine that ports to everything. That's one of its core strengths. If they try to maintain that strength and double down on a single pipeline that ports to all devices they're hamstringing themselves in the future and Unreal will continue to eat their lunch, closing the distance in usability while extending lead in graphical bells and whistles. If they try to be everything all at once they just have the same problems they had before and everything gets in the way of everything else.

Put simply, Unity is playing it safe right now. And I guess that's fine, it'll be an improvement to the utter insanity of the past several years. But it also feels like it's they're going to continue to decay. It'll be a very safe engine that's easy to work in, but has no great aspirations to do anything better for the future. The likely scenario is at some point everyone in this forum will have to cut their losses and the longer they wait, the further users of other platforms will be ahead.

Truth is a lot of the negative buzz WILL have an affect on the quality of this product moving forward. They won't find those great creatives wanting to make awesome stuff. And truth be told that's what this engine deserves, this is Karma for all the insane self serving monetary BS the executive types have stirred with no care for the actual product. Shame the users ultimately pay the biggest price.

There's no energy here, no excitement, no optimism. It's too safe. But maybe this is the only play they have. Pretty sad to think about. The best way to solve this situation is to go back in time and listen to the quality hard working talent that was in this company years ago, before they were brazenly burned out work on hair brained tertiary ventures.

This is where we're left, an overcomplicated mass of tech with a slew of tertiary features built up by massive #'s of burned out developers who have largely left the company.

Ok, enough negativity. If they're able to really execute well this render pipeline and figure out how to make their engine better in this instance it will herald a new era. This is their biggest bottleneck. Lay a solid foundation here, figure out how to get the graphics expandable but universal while also figuring out how to properly put these features into the engine in a way that improves tools and custom inspector tooling across the board, then they'll be in a really good spot moving forward. Hopefully they're looking at every system as an opportunity to expand their core and improve pipelines.

They're still the only engine that uses C#, they're still by far the most easily iterated on platform. They just gotta nail this pipeline debacle and figure out how to build TOP QUALITY tools that improve their production across the board, rather than expanding the engine infinitely and making endless graph tools, custom inspectors with crap implementation, endless settings scattered all over the engine, etc.

 

Your computer is old but the technology is only low end within the context of standalone platforms. It's not low end for mobile devices.

 

Mobile having compute shaders, does not necessarily mean they are supported to the same level as desktop GPU's.

AFAIK many older devices ( and probably even modern low/medium mobiles) have limited number of compute buffers support in OpenGL ES 3.1 at the same time ( i.e across shader units ). Whilst that can be worked around it imposes a constraint, such that blindly assuming desktop levels of support will leave you with a broken project. Furthermore it wouldn't surprise me to learn that mobile devices have additional limitations to certain features such as Compute support that adversely affect either performance or capabilities or both to such a degree that simply switching to HDRP would be a terrible idea.

If you want to see the problems with even just URP on mobile check out the many threads in the forum such as urp-on-mobile-incredibly-slow, or compute-shader-support-for-mobile-in-2022

I've not been able to locate the presentation, but this type of issue is what I alluded to above.


Just because some developers might use high end features or Unreal 5 for mobile games does not mean that its supported on all devices, most likely at this point they are seriously curtailing the market reach of their products. This can be a valid business decision, but it does not negate the fact that for other products it would be a terrible option.

For projects I've been involved with, when going to mobile the biggest requirement is to maximize potential market reach, which means supporting the oldest devices and Android SDK possible, further more none of these projects would gain any meaningful benefit from using HDRP and even URP is somewhat doubtful.

Times are changing though, every year that goes by the lowest device/sdk moves forward, but its a very slow process and any changes to projects have to be carefully considered so as to not arbitrarily lose potential market reach just because as a developer I might want to use a fancy new feature.

I somewhat disagree with your premise here. Your computer is not ancient though, the cpu might be ( I thought my 2014 i7 5930k was bad ) but your GPU is far more modern, and while no longer 'great' it still supports dx12 (not sure about feature level so its likely missing some ). Granted any nvidia 2000's series will likely out perform it, but the fact that is supports dx12 means it perfectly viable, even if you have to run at lower resolutions and lower framerates and its still slightly faster than the second most popular gpu on the Steam survey ( GTX 1650).

All of which basically means it is still both supported and viable in most games ( though it is likely on the edge for a recent AAA - CyberPunk/Starfield/AlanWake etc ) and is the sort of level that a good percentage of gamers are still playing with.

 

There are at least half a dozen other engines using C#. To my knowledge every one of them is running a newer release of C# and .NET. Some of them even have hot reload that is fast enough that you can barely tell they did anything.

 

@Ryiah *only fully featured, fully viable 3d engine that uses C#

It's easy to think of this industry as this long, slow glacier that never changes like it hasn't for the past several years. But at some point things are going to shift fast.

Look at Unreal, they were able to be gatkept from various markets and their higher end tech gatekeeps a lot of teams from creating lots of different game types.

But look deeper into it.

You don't make it in gamedev by making one big safe bet. You make it by making LOTS of investments into really cool stuff.

Look at their humanoid tools, their incredible landscapes, the blueprints coming online more and more.

They already struck it big with Fortnite, in what ways will their other innovative and awesome tools create lucrative ventures in the future?

There is so much unexplored awesome stuff with Unreal. With Unity their strengths are seemingly more in tune with business alliances with Google, Apple and the like. That may serve you well in the short term, but at some point raw tech is going to eclipse you and almost overnight the entire Unity empire will just fade away unless they start giving a darn about the possibilities of the core product and empowering people to just make cool stuff again.

Forget about the tech for a second, there's an energy and positive spirit surrounding Unreal and Godot right now. That's where all the great talent is going to gravitate and that energy snowballs.

 

You're just adding to the incorrectness of your statement. For example Unigine added experimental DX12 and Vulkan support and then made it production ready in a fraction of the time of Unity.

https://unigine.com/news

 

That depends on the subjective definition one applies to "fully viable" and "fully featured'. Ok, "Unity is largely accepted as most feature complete C# 3d game engine"? Is that a passable statement to make?

 

Okay, what's your definition of it?

 

A fully featured engine with robust animation, particles, shader, cross platform features. As well as a toolset of robust and unique features that make creating games easier and more feature complete like prefabs, scriptable game objects, a slick UI, endless documentation and tutorial resources.

No other engine with C# comes close right now to being able to generate the full gamut of stuffs to make 3d assets interact with one another in complex digital environments. Godot might be on its way, but still severely lacking in key aspects like animation systems and portability.

I don't even know how one could consider any other engines in the same ballpark unless you think of other game engines as platforms to build your own tools.

 

Unity falls short on a few of these:

Old documentation is generally superior to new documentation, is often missing entries in the newer versions of a package forcing you to look at older versions, hope it's still mostly relevant, and what isn't that you can make work with the old info.

Tutorials are a mixed bag with the minigames that run in the editor almost always broken, videos often being outdated, etc. That I keep seeing people using Brackeys despite being years old now is pretty telling there.

Editor and runtime UIs are pretty average. UI Toolkit is very barebones. UGUI is difficult to work with but the most complete. I'm not going to count third parties like Noesis and Coherent as they're not tied to just Unity.

Cross-platform can be a mixed bag. Mobile is a real headache compared to other engines. I was able to get Android running within minutes of installing UE5 but it took considerably longer for Unity. Unity releases often didn't line up perfectly across the consoles forcing me to have different versions for each one.

Just to name a few.

Ignoring the limited platform support Unigine is pretty much ahead of Unity in creating complex environments as it's intended to be a simulation platform and thus very competent at that. Every update it has had has been a big one whereas Unity often does little things that never see completion (eg their now abandoned upscaler).

 

Agreed, if Unity came out and said they were going to tackle just these areas of weaknesses of the engine that could realistically be done without huge technical hurdles, improving documentation, picking a UI system and really polishing it up for prime time. It would demonstrate a level of sanity and a willingness to see the faults within their own engine and document them.

It's a theme with Unity we blather about all the time, they don't like their own tools, they don't look forward to their own tools, so they don't use their own tools, and they ultimately stagnate. Teams don't hold each other's feet to the fire. Engine UI and render pipelines go together, because whatever pipeline they choose to go with is going to need to live in the engine for users to use.

Would love to hear that they're EXCITED to be working on this render pipeline implementation, to tackle their own tools, to build things up from the foundation, get over this initial speedbump of setting things up to allow for streamlined future growth.

 

Well, many of us target consoles, which could be defined as "ancient" for much of their viable commercial life. Outside of that, plenty of projects done in Unity aren't aimed at core gamers, and have to be run on whatever hardware happens to be on hand. So yes, indeed, I'd say that Unity should definitely provide a significant level of support for what may be considered "ancient hardware" in some form or another.

And I'll also say that there's plenty of common hardware which is compatible with compute shaders and yet still comes to a crawl when loaded with a simple HDRP scene and slashed settings.

For plenty of projects that stuff may not matter, but for plenty of other projects it sure does. I'm not suggesting that split pipelines was the best approach, but I am saying that I generally want some form of support across as much hardware as reasonably possible.

 

The current generation of consoles, such as PS5 and XBox X, are now 4 years old. They can run some really high-end games. They're certainly not "ancient" yet, but consider that the PS4 was released 7 years after the PS3, and then the PS5 was released 7 years after the PS4. So, we've got about 3 more years of the PS5 era, 'til we're on to the PS6 era. We're also due for a new line of handheld devices. They could cram a lot of power into a handheld now, if the market is ready for it.

I think Palworld sets a good precedent. Its essentially made by indies. It looks indie, but it also looks AAA. Its using many of the latest features of Unreal. And it sold massively. Its higher end graphics were not detrimental to its sales at all, because consumer hardware is a lot more powerful these days than we're giving credit for.

Its possible that devs who get into mobile development, and especially with Unity, kinda start to get a sort-of... "tunnel-vision", and overlook how awesome hardware is these days, and how good modern games look while running on even just average consumer hardware. Or, really, we could say "budget" consumer hardware, considering that the low end Xbox and Ps5 would be considered your "budget" tier hardware, and they can run all the latest AAA games.

Anywho, I'm just leading into my point that I think Unity should focus on the future, not the distant past of hardware. How long before special requirements for mobile development are obsolete, anyway?

 

Your misguided ideas fall flat face first when it comes to handheld consoles and mobile-based XR projects in general. Especially Switch, which is an important market.

Today's hardware isn't "awesome", if anything, stock hardware is severely limited and underpowered in general. Since Apple always got away with it, other hardware-manufacturers realized they don't need to build their consoles and devices out of the best of the best parts.

 

Well, that's actually what I was suggesting that you consider. Also consider that games often release with support for previous gen consoles well into a new generation's release, so the support window is realistically in the vicinity of 10 years, and it's for hardware which is relatively mid-range in the first place.

 

Sony focused on and hyped up the storage of their console and that should tell you everything you need to know about the current generation. They're just AMD CPUs with integrated graphics.

 

I suppose its starting to sink in that my ideology aligns more with Epic Games than Unity's, or at least the community. The arguments I've received from Unity users since I started posting here have been very eye-opening.

 

I don't think any of us would not support an unified render pipeline which actually works on low-end mobiles AND high-end PCs and consoles at the same time (with settings changed appropriately), but Unity doesn't have that. HDRP is very far from that. URP is closer.
Your ideology-difference isn't with us, it's with Unity. But when we discuss ideas, we need to be realistic, otherwise it isn't worth discussing them.

 

Exactly. URP started life as a low-end pipeline thus the original name "Lightweight Render Pipeline" but they quickly shifted to it being a universal one. HDRP on the other hand has only ever been intended for high-end development as even if you can make it run on less it's still extremely slow compared to URP.

 

I disagree with that. URP is closer to supporting the oldest hardware, but much farther away from supporting all the cutting tech to their fullest extent. URP was built with massive restrictions. HDRP was built with no restrictions. They went all in on compute shaders and multithreading, and tons of preparation for scalable rendering, such as, one example, shadowmap caching.

Its becoming more apparent that the difference is with both. If Unity were to release their own Nanite now, much of the Unity community would complain that it doesn't improve their mobile game or their game that needs to run in a web browser.

If the users would rather take a step back to URP, than move forward with HDRP, then its clear that Unity's hands are tied.

 

We wouldn't be moving forward with HDRP. We would in fact be taking the step back choosing it in most cases.

Disclaimer: I have worked on paid projects involving both.

 

Yeah, I'd love a goldilocks renderer that does everything well and fast. Still, "everything" includes supporting that so-called "ancient hardware" as well as doing fancy new stuff.

 

IMO at some point Unity should just stop chasing Epic's tail and focus on mobile and indie market that doesn't need AAA features in their engine . That would probably let them focus more on important areas and deliver features fixes faster and be more optimized for those cases. Chasing every possible tail is stupid.

Instead of targeting general purpose engine IMO they could be more specialized engine in mobile / indie space.

 

Mobile/indie devs are getting ever more ambitious, though.

They might not have AAA-level asset production capabilities, but they do have access to asset stores, and it's not unusual any more to see indies trying to build games with large/open-world environments and/or online multiplayer.

 

Yet they don't have to chase cutting edge graphics for mobile or indie devs. World Streaming etc are good additions to the engine regardless if u do massive open world or not. I am more talking about dropping HDRP, focus on URP optimize it, focus on optimizing mobile platforms etc., there is where Unity can seek money. AAA segment is long gone for them, so they have to lock on what they are best in...just my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, the statements from other users that followed our discussion have kinda reinforced my point. The users would rather Unity focus on just running on low end hardware, so that's exactly what Unity should do, because they should please their users first. What their users want should be a priority. So, I can't fault Unity for that. (And as I've mentioned, it all makes sense now why Unity didn't implement their own Nanite. The users don't need it)

Personally, I would rather have an engine that makes my games look amazing. That is enormous value to an indie developer, especially a solo who doesn't have the funds to hire someone to solely work on graphics. When you can just toggle on all the bells-and-whistles and make it have AAA visuals, that's just, as I said, enormous value for an indie, especially a solo indie.

Even if you're just using some low poly Synty assets. You'd be surprised how amazing it can look with high quality lighting, shadows, some surbsurface scattering, clearcoat, some realtime global illumination to make the shadows look great, screen space reflections and planar reflections, etc etc. HDRP has all that stuff, but, if people just want URP, that's fine.

Epic's vision has always been very clear, I think that's why they're doing so well. They know what they want. And since they're working on new stuff, they can actually get excited about their work. When an employee is excited about their job, it makes a difference.

 

To me the problem is about workflow. I would like to be able to start a project and feel that I can at least make a build for any platform. Even if the graphics were broken because I still need to switch to the right "quality setting" and debug all of the pink materials to even render on that platform. I don't want to feel that a project is locked out from either, certain platforms, or certain features. I realize that a build for a certain platform might necessarily be locked out from having the cake and eating it too, but I don't think the project should be restricted from trying to render and build to any platform if it is configured properly to scale. Currently, it feels like you must make your choice when the project begins.

 

Why, though? Are you going to switch platforms mid-way through development? You should know what your project is going to target, and have that already sorted out before you even start. You'll be working on it for a long time, and you won't need to change platforms mid-development.

Imo, you should be focused on exactly what you want, and choose the engine that is focused on that. For example, Palworld didn't dick around with trying to release for mobile or care about maybe supporting switch in the future. They just went all-in on making it look great, in which Unreal basically did that work for them. And, guess what, the gamers love it. Its currently sold 19 million copies, and rising.

Unity could have had some of that money & publicity, too, but, it ended up being just more marketing for Epic Games, because the Palword devs openly stated that they switched from Unity to Unreal because UE has what they needed to make the game.

 

Wasnt it because they hired some senior guy who only knew UE? XD

 

Quote: "Yes, Unity has its benefits, and so does UE. I felt that, for making Palworld, Unreal Engine was a more suitable option. Unreal Engine has all the basic things for an open-world game covered, and I found it to be more suitable for a comparatively heavy game."

Its not like we see any news of big indies or AAAs switching to Unity because it has some feature that they're missing. I get it, though, especially after spending time in the forums. As I mentioned above. The users are holding Unity back with their demands of supporting "everything", including ancient hardware and the lowest end devices which aren't even really for gaming. Essentially, supporting an audience of non-gamers that just open a mobile app to kill some time while on the toilet or otherwise waiting for something and can't access their device that's for gaming.

 

I think it's really easy for western gamedevs in their cushy fifth-gen water-cooled mancaves to lose sight of just how much the Asian market runs on mobiles and ancient hardware. As many AA~AAA games come out of Japan for Sony and Nintendo, the actual userbase is ridiculously small compared to the number of office-workers who play games on their phones throughout their commutes. You see even LESS market penetration of consoles or PCs into China or India, where the mobile phone is the vast majority platform.

 

Indies can't sustain Unity, a single pro licenses or a few pro licenses do nothing for Unity in the grand scheme of things. Majority of their income comes from paid engine source access, success plan mercs, mobile specific services such as ads, digital twins commissions and the USA military contract. Unity is primarily sustained by multibillion mobile publishers and their massive workforce, not indies.

And even with the new runtime fees, there are very few indies who exceed million lifetime engagements and a million in revenue in a single year. Certainly not enough to sustain Unity.

Unity is not built for indies anymore, it's now built for studios. There is little incentive for a profit-driven company like Unity to concentrate on a market segment that is not financially viable and already under their dominance.

 

None of whom will be using HDRP.

Yes.

https://www.polygon.com/24048044/palworld-history

 

Yeah, its becoming very apparent that if anyone wants to make games that look great, and are on-par with what other great looking games look like today, even something like Genshin Impact, they should probably choose Unreal.

We could say, if your game has demands in the 0% to 60% range of "quality", you could use Unity. If your game doesn't need that low end, and is in, lets say, the 30% to 100% quality range, then use Unreal.

I think UE is in a much better position in that case. If you're in the middle, then you could choose Unity or Unreal. In most cases, might as well go with Unreal, because it has the most features, and you can scale up for, at least, awesome videos, if not more awesomeness for the gameplay for users with higher end machines.

And considering that tech is constantly progressing; What's at the 100% on that scale right now will slide down to the 60%. The old hardware will not just be deprecated, but obsolete. Unreal will always be supporting the new stuff, while Unity will always be deprecating the old stuff and tailing behind UE.

I suppose, if we're strictly talking about money, and not the thing that really made us all want to be game developers in the first place, then sure, talking figures of multi billion dollar gatcha game publishers is fine. Its not exciting, though. Where's the passion? Where's the awe over new and exciting advancements in gaming technology, like we all once experienced when we were younger and were just.. gamers?

 

Speaking of which I was just looking them up and they're using the built-in render pipeline.

 

Yep, but that's a different topic.

 

I'd argue that it's not as it's another example of a company preferring a pipeline that isn't HDRP.

 

Game was released in 2020, and began development in 2017. URP and HDRP were both extremely immature. HDRP was even immature in 2022 LTS. Its really shaping up in 2023, though.

Which statements from the previous couple of posts are you wanting to contradict?