Already, games use tools like Blueprints in Unreal to make games with limited to no coding experience, and I expect those tools will continue to get better and better over time.
It is important to understand the difference between parts of a game that are expected to be performant and parts of a game that are expected to be easily changed or modded.
In some sense blueprints are necessary because using CPP sucks. I can imagine that instead of Blueprints, Rust based engines will use some DSLs.
That said, I do feel most of the examples are not that. The old shareware scene was much closer to the spirit. Now that we are pushing winners only, feels more like corporate control than it does people control. :(
Even on the major platforms, you'll find stuff like Umurangi Generation, a game about taking photographs in a surreal autocratic environment. That game is not a 'winner only', but it's fascinating and only exists because people who want to make that experience had access to tools they could understand and use.
Democratic processes and tools are tools that are widely available to the public. It's not only AAA studios making games, everyone around the world is making games.
As such, I meant the winners to be the few engines that have remained. Feels like a smaller field, but with only bigger players.
The action of making something accessible to everyone.
‘the democratization of information through technology’
‘Kirk has contributed greatly to the democratisation of electronic music and helped it becoming a genre to reckon with.’
The printing press (and printmaking in general) are both examples of democratic art -- making art accessible to the masses.