Getting popular with outsiders and the alternative crew can become a challenge for an engine trying to keep itself as a competitive player in the market. There are plenty of "game snobs" in the specialized media - not to mention twitters, of course - who are ready to jump at the chance of criticizing Unity with claims that games developed with it are somewhat inferior to their counterparts.
One of the recurrent arguments is founded on a supposedly pasteurized look among Unity games, a direct consequence of its Asset Store and user-friendliness. Both of those resources, though deserving of merit for their inclusiveness, have been overly exploited by unskilled beginners and "pseudo-developers" trying to make an easy profit.
  The first group though enthusiastic and well-intended, create games that are still in need of work and heavily rely on what is found for free in the Asset Store.
  The second group, on the other hand, sews free assets together quickly and sell those Frankenstein games at Steam and other game hubs, which on its turns leads people to think that is all that can be done with Unity.

  Unity's answers to how they intend to fix those problems were dismissive, though there was an acknowledgment of the Asset Store's current use in ways that are less than ideal. Although there weren't clear strategies to deal with the prejudice those problems create, he engine has produced GDCs like:

and




which is a testament to Unity’s graphical capabilities when operated by experts, discrediting the hater-rhetoric that comes inevitably with having any relevance within the video game scene.
Based on what we have seen so far, we have gathered enough information to make a judgment for ourselves on the value of Unity, which is available at the Conclusion.