I'm afraid not. Its not as simple as that. We have a heavy competition in automobile industry but when it comes to gaming industry, it is(I mean was) mostly unreal or unity despite decades of technological advancement. The reason for this is because using a game engine to make games is no where as simple as driving a vehicle. It takes a lot of skill, knowledge(sometimes things are engine specific only to make things even more annoying) and the time to attain both of them with the engine they are working on to make good games.
You are grossly underestimating the complexity involved in game engines. It is not like a web app where devs don't have to worry about constraints like memory or frame rate and chill. Things need to happen in real time. A delay of even half a millisecond is not acceptable. And these "Things" involve changing of 3d objects' position w.r.t player's movement, calculating zero or tens or hundreds of NPC AI characters' position and finalizing their animation state, calculating the lighting on all the objects and a lot more. All this just to finally render and present one frame. Yes, hardware has gotten better over the years and memory constraints might not seem like an issue but that is not the case for games. Improved hardware only helps with improving the overall quality of the game. Game now will be able to afford to look better and do more things than games from 2003 and that's it. Games still need heavy optimizations.
Thanks for the better hardware, making 2D games now is neither expensive nor hard. So, Godot being more friendly than unity for making 2D games is quite possible to happen. But that is not the case when it come to comparing Godot with unreal. Unreal is already at a league of its own. I don't think Godot can integrate something like nanite or lumen inside its engine anytime soon. In the past few years, only unreal has been introducing ground breaking computer graphics tech inside a game engine. Unity is having a hard time to even keep up with unreal's tech like meta human. It doesn't matter how many google, amazon or apple contribute to godot, it'd be a big surprise if Godot is at least able to hold its ground against O3DE IMHO.
You are grossly underestimating the complexity involved in game engines. It is not like a web app where devs don't have to worry about constraints like memory or frame rate and chill. Things need to happen in real time. A delay of even half a millisecond is not acceptable. And these "Things" involve changing of 3d objects' position w.r.t player's movement, calculating zero or tens or hundreds of NPC AI characters' position and finalizing their animation state, calculating the lighting on all the objects and a lot more. All this just to finally render and present one frame. Yes, hardware has gotten better over the years and memory constraints might not seem like an issue but that is not the case for games. Improved hardware only helps with improving the overall quality of the game. Game now will be able to afford to look better and do more things than games from 2003 and that's it. Games still need heavy optimizations.
Thanks for the better hardware, making 2D games now is neither expensive nor hard. So, Godot being more friendly than unity for making 2D games is quite possible to happen. But that is not the case when it come to comparing Godot with unreal. Unreal is already at a league of its own. I don't think Godot can integrate something like nanite or lumen inside its engine anytime soon. In the past few years, only unreal has been introducing ground breaking computer graphics tech inside a game engine. Unity is having a hard time to even keep up with unreal's tech like meta human. It doesn't matter how many google, amazon or apple contribute to godot, it'd be a big surprise if Godot is at least able to hold its ground against O3DE IMHO.