Technically, yes I’m sure they could, but there’s no way they would. Imagine the Blender-fan gloating! 
Seriously though, there’s not enough call for it. Most users don’t feel strongly enough about it. Max doesn’t have nearly as much presence in the games industry anymore, and for look dev people will just use Arnold GPU interactive(which now runs in the viewport rather than locked to a floating window)
Eevee is GPL, they can’t directly copy the code without the requirement that they start shipping the source code with purchases (which will then lead to a version of Max coming online as a FOSS project).
What Autodesk can do is take a look at what the algorithms are doing and essentially treat Blender as a whitepaper for their own features. Even if they copied today’s Eevee, they will soon be behind once again because of the ongoing overhaul
Then, it looks like it was a right decision for them not to listen to your call for new viewport renderer in the end.
Adesk devs have a very strict roadmap, goals, deadlines, and resource allocation. There’s a whole process involved. Max devs can’t just work on whatever feels good.
But no, in the long run, I don’t think it was good at all. Adesk always find themselves about 2 years behind industry trends and eventualities. They should have started working on a modern PBR viewport renderer 5 or 6 years ago.
@Metin_Seven could you split off the discussion about object editing to the new Object mode thread?
I think it would be more helpful there.
Done, but I don’t know for sure if all posts / replies I moved belong there. In case one or more posts should be moved back, just let me know.
Seemed to be okay on first glance.
Ok, so I got a 10 million polygon model I have to wrangle in Blender (it imported at 12.5 million, but I added detail via Dyntopo and got it down to 9.5 million)…
But here’s the kicker:
I created a mask in sculpt mode, then used an add-on to transfer it to a vertex group (because that’s apparently not built in 
). But weight painting apparently needs another Pablo Dobarro, because in a 10 million polygon model, the difference between painting a weight and painting a mask is literally several seconds per stroke! Like, why hasn’t the optimizations made for sculpt mode made it into weight paint mode? Why wasn’t the code written modular enough so both features can share it?
Similarly to the above, when you circle paint a selection in the UV mapping mode, it takes about a second per stroke. However, if you enable X-ray, which in my mind would disable z-order occlusion testing we’re up to 3-4 seconds per stroke which just isn’t usable at all! Even if you power through this, then “completing” said selection (by right-clicking) takes several minutes of Blender just freezing up while thinking…
I had ample time to write this post during work, because I’m still waiting for Blender to finish thinking about that selection in the background… and then I have to project the UVs from it and move and scale them and I know that’s also going to be disasterously slow. 
AFAIK, there are initiatives for improved technical paint modes (IIRC, weight paint improvements from Animation module, technical/attribute paint from Geometry Nodes team). Don’t know when they will come though.
For the moment, you can use sculpt paint mode to paint a color attribute and transfer it to a vertex group using Geometry Nodes.
That is also bothering me a lot.
Even though they have now a lot more resources, they still don’t have funds to even implement everything right away that is obvious to do.
If you consider that most Blender users don’t usually weight paint meshes with millions of vertices, I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t on their TODO list at all.
They experimented 1 paint brush, in Sculpt mode, derivative from a sculpt brush.
That would be weird to have only one 3D surface brush in a paint mode.
All current paint modes have 4 or 5 brush types.
They released paint brush experiment in official release, immediately ; because every user knows, it was successful.
But for paint modes, they produced a vast design thinking all implications of change, and how painting workflow could be improved. They thought about merging all the modes, what brushes will be needed for an unique mode, how they will be improved, what selection keeping, how it could be improved, what filters could exist, etc…
The unified paint mode will be a big task. It will be about texturing, rigging, viewport display.
It requires the developers from different modules to be available.
There was a lot of stuff in stand by in those areas. Painting is same module as Sculpting.
And since introduction of color attributes in 3.2, we observed sculpting improvements, rigging/animation improvements, Viewport performance improvements, in following releases.
In announcement of next Open Movie and roadmap for Spring and Summer : the targets are about something else than direct painting.
Viewport performance, Viewport Compositing, Advanced Rendering, Simulation Nodes, Grease Pencil 3.0, Sculpting, UV Improvements, Brush Assets.
So, be ready to deal with that frustration during at least, one semester before an experimental branch, and probably more than one year, for official release.
No matter what kind of functionality we are talking about, there are going to be some people using it 
As @sunkper and @zeauro pointed out, there are going to be huge changes in the foreseeable future. Even though there are always going to be some adjustments in the planning, I would be surprised, if there wasn’t lots of development going on regarding textures and painting in general within one year.
