Gnollrunner said:
I've seen quite a few threads on various sites asking for this

People keep thinking it will solve some imagined problem, and everytime it's tried, it doesn't. The people who actually have the “whole world” problem, are more likely to be transitioning from ArgGIS, than they are to be transitioning from Fortnite.

It's a bit like the whole “metaverse” idea :-)

hplus0603 said:

People keep thinking it will solve some imagined problem, and everytime it's tried, it doesn't.

It definitely solves a technical problem nicely. It's a big selling point for Unigine and lets them charge 6K a year for their engine, while there are many free and semi-free engines out there.. It's the prefect solution for implementing a large worlds. Arguing that a game doesn't need a large world is a different argument. IMO things are, and will continue to progress in that direction. As I said Unreal seems to be getting on board.

Gnollrunner said:
It definitely solves a technical problem nicely.

Game players / buyers don't have technical problems, though. That's my whole point!

Just run the napkin math: Assuming you have a 4km x 4km area to fill with compelling content, how many artist-hours does that take to build?

If you're building the next Microsoft Flight Simulator, then the game is of course different! They're sourcing geodata using satellites, very similar to the ArcGIS type people, except they put a flight simulation game on top. If that's your general approach, go for it!