• Hello [name]! Thanks for joining the GMC. Before making any posts in the Tech Support forum, can we suggest you read the forum rules? These are simple guidelines that we ask you to follow so that you can get the best help possible for your issue.

Question - IDE Classic Style IDE

GMWolf

aka fel666
We have been asking this forever. And yet YYG claims that the complaints about the new GMS2 UI are from a minority of users.
Right now the best alternative is to open the project in something like Jetbrains Webstorm. (Or do away with GMS. Its more trouble that a solution for me due to GML being GML).
 

Jobo

Member
GMC Elder
Nope. Already been discussed (many times). If GMS1 was good enough, we wouldn't have made GMS2 - and now that we have, we are certainly not going back. GameMaker: Studio 1.4 is still there for you to use and is included with the purchase of GameMaker Studio 2, so can still be used and it is still supported. If you have any questions about GameMaker: Studio 1.4 I recommend going to the helpdesk on the website...
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Nope. Already been discussed (many times). If GMS1 was good enough, we wouldn't have made GMS2 - and now that we have, we are certainly not going back. GameMaker: Studio 1.4 is still there for you to use and is included with the purchase of GameMaker Studio 2, so can still be used and it is still supported. If you have any questions about GameMaker: Studio 1.4 I recommend going to the helpdesk on the website...
I dont think OP meant like GMS1.
I think we are all looking for something more inline with other major IDEs like Visual studio, Jetbrains, Eclipse, and so on.
Its a system that has proven very efficient in both space and time. Unlike the current GMS2 IDE which wastes time with animations, Workspace browsing, and clunky toolbars that stay open out of context...
 

Jobo

Member
GMC Elder
I think we are all looking for something more inline with other major IDEs like Visual studio, Jetbrains, Eclipse, and so on.
All I can say here is that GameMaker Studio is a game engine and not a code editor, so this is simply not possible. Look at Unity, Unreal Engine, CryEngine, Lumberyard (if that counts), Godot... None of them are like the editors you mention, because they edit wildly different projects. Visual Studio etc. are just text editors.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
All I can say here is that GameMaker Studio is a game engine and not a code editor, so this is simply not possible. Look at Unity, Unreal Engine, CryEngine, Lumberyard (if that counts), Godot... None of them are like the editors you mention, because they edit wildly different projects. Visual Studio etc. are just text editors.
Yeah, well, what we end up doing most in GM is coding.
If you look ad Unity, Unreal, etc, They will actually use an external code editor for that reason (Monodevelop, or VS).

I guess a good way to go for GMS would be to allow us to use external editors in a freindly way. Do away with a core project file that holds refferences to each resource and rely on the file system instead. Much more flexible, SCM and external editor friendly too.
 

orange451

Member
Really, the only thing that bothers me is the center area of the IDE; The visual representation of objects part. It provides exactly the same functionality as the old IDE, but now it is just much slower and awkward to use.

I don't see how a toggle would be so unreasonable. It wouldn't have to change much in how Game Maker operates. Just how the representation of your object is drawn on the screen.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Really, the only thing that bothers me is the center area of the IDE; The visual representation of objects part. It provides exactly the same functionality as the old IDE, but now it is just much slower and awkward to use.

I don't see how a toggle would be so unreasonable. It wouldn't have to change much in how Game Maker operates. Just how the representation of your object is drawn on the screen.
I think the problem lies with chains. They just use up space, and provide no useful information.
I have been trying really hard to like them. I just do not see what they are here for. 1/2 the time you could simply stick the two windows toghether, the other 1/2 it should "code flow", which is quite useless, as the code already does that...
I have already complained quite a lot about it and YYG promised some features to make it less annoying, but they are still not here, and GMS2 is still meh to me. I was excited at first but eh, GML is still GML, and the IDE is just trying to look cool...
Im probably not gonna rant about it much longer as i really dont see what GMS2 feature will keep me using it.
 
R

RobbSnow

Guest
I would just like to speak up and say that there are people like me that love the new interface. The IDE in GMS1 was a wretched piece of software that looked like it belonged on Windows 98. The way the tree control was utilized on the left side was incredibly awkward to use and got progressively worse as your project grew. The UI was sluggish to the point that you could actually watch the redraws occur.

The new interface is sleek, modern and very responsive. If fact the only complaint that I have with it is the double click event not always firing. But that is a minor bug and will probably be corrected soon.

As a professional software developer who spends 99% of my day in VS, I feel that it's interface works because it is used for general purpose development. I appreciate YYG creating a user experience focus on what we are developing, games.

I am not saying that if you have a different opinion than me that you are wrong, just a different opinion.
 

orange451

Member
I would just like to speak up and say that there are people like me that love the new interface. The IDE in GMS1 was a wretched piece of software that looked like it belonged on Windows 98. The way the tree control was utilized on the left side was incredibly awkward to use and got progressively worse as your project grew. The UI was sluggish to the point that you could actually watch the redraws occur.
No one is talking about that here; You are absolutely right, but I don't think anyone has complained about the fresh look that they've given the IDE.

I just cant stand actually modifying the events inside individual objects. It's so tedious now whereas before it was both faster and more intuitive.
 

Cpaz

Member
No one is talking about that here; You are absolutely right, but I don't think anyone has complained about the fresh look that they've given the IDE.

I just cant stand actually modifying the events inside individual objects. It's so tedious now whereas before it was both faster and more intuitive.
As someone who is on the fence with the new IDE's design. I can agree with both sides here.

Yes. Many of the things that were quick and easy before have before suddenly much more tedious.

But this new IDE has improved on so much more than it's screwed up. It's just what it did screw up, really threw legacy users for a loop.
 

Cpaz

Member
We do have some more tools for the fullscreen code editor coming. Allowing you to open up all the objects events into a dedicated tab, and being able to add new events via the right click menu. This should help those who want a VS like experience.
That sounds exactly like what we need! Looking forward to it!
 
Yes, I agree.

I mostly want to be able to move the windows around however I want, and not have them restricted to the work-space. Right now, it's very hard to look at two windows at the same time, and looking at more than two is near impossible without multiple monitors. (Bookmarks do allow me to switch quickly between windows of any type, and are probably my favorite new feature). In GMS1 I just drag two windows to the left and the right to have them split the screen, or have them overlap and click back and forth.

The UI does look much nicer and is more organized, and GMS2 has tons of good features that are just plain awesome. It's just rough when all of the optimizations I've perfected over several years are thrown out the window with the new system. It probably means that I just need to practice more and get used to it, but that's hard to do when I'm already basically programming in my free time anyways. I'm using GMS2 to remake my previous Jam Game and I'll be using it for future jams as a way to get used to it, so maybe I won't have any complaints after a few more months. Who knows?
 

Mike

nobody important
GMC Elder
There is a preference to allow for different chain views to overlap. ( General Settings -> Workspace -> Allow Workspace chains to overlap )
 

jcop

Member
There is a preference to allow for different chain views to overlap. ( General Settings -> Workspace -> Allow Workspace chains to overlap )
I changed this setting and even restarted GMS but I can't tell what it does different. Every object or script I open moves to a new area in the workspace instead of overlapping.

I really wish each object could be its own tab across the top so we could quickly switch between objects, like rooms are now. Basically a separate workspace per object. That would make it so much more usable. Also, when switching away from the room editor it would be nice if the room pane (with layers, etc.) would auto hide.

I really like GMS2 but I spend a lot of time using the right-click workspace menu to Close All then Go To when tabs would just solve it instantly.
 

jcop

Member
Something to remember... sometimes we developers fall in love with a concept. We really like developing it. We then become blind to the fact that the target audience using it just plain doesn't like it and it gets in the way of using the product. ;) Personally, the new workspace concept falls into that category for me.
 

jcop

Member
We do have some more tools for the fullscreen code editor coming. Allowing you to open up all the objects events into a dedicated tab, and being able to add new events via the right click menu. This should help those who want a VS like experience.
I missed this post. This sounds like a good step forward moving closer to what will help improve productivity in the IDE. Thanks!
 

rIKmAN

Member
I changed this setting and even restarted GMS but I can't tell what it does different. Every object or script I open moves to a new area in the workspace instead of overlapping.
It means you can now drag the object windows on top of each other so they "overlap", rather than auto-adjusting their own positions so they are in their own part of the workspace.
 
R

Roman Richter

Guest
Some suggestions:
Focusing on objects by double clicking on them not on their title names.
Pan by LMB if outside object window.

At this moment I switch between objects by selecting them from object list.
 

J_C

Member
I wouldn't make a toggle option between the old and new UI, but if that is not possible, please never go back to the old UI. Juggling all those windows was a nightmare, the dockable, scrollable, zoomable UI of GMS2 is like a dream compared to that.
 

JeffJ

Member
I must admit, after using GMS2 only for more than a year now, I can safely say I will never get used to it. My biggest issue is the chains - they take up way too much space for no reason, and there's absolutely no reason for restricting the modularity of the object windows. I also really wish that I could close the main "object" window (the one that contains object name, sprite, physics etc.) and just have events list and code. But if I close it, the whole entire chain closes, and I see absolutely no reason to enforce this behavior - why force windows on me that I don't need?

Also, I cannot drag a resource to another monitor without having the entire application wrap-around-border go with it, once again, taking up way more screen space than necessary. In GMS1 the window was self-contained. Come to think of it, in spite of its issues, the GUI in general was way more compact. Everything in GMS2 just takes up so much space on the screen. More than it needs to.

Another thing - yes, I may be able to overlap windows with a setting (which I use, otherwise I would go crazy), but that still doesn't change the fact that everything is literally chained together. Also, those completely unnecessary vertical "drag lines" at each side of a chain's window will overlap other things, like a code editor below. I wish I could remove those altogether. Why not just let the user drag by using the edge of the window like everywhere else? Those vertical lines are once again completely unnecessary and take up space and get in the way (seeing a pattern here).

There are some very good things about GMS2's IDE GUI too, but I've actually come to find that I worked much faster in GMS1. The workflow was just faster for me. And so much more compact. This isn't just a preference, this is a measureable fact - everything takes longer for me to do now, due to a worse workflow.

Removing the forced chaining would be a great first step in improving the workflow. Can we at least please consider that?
 

immortalx

Member
I've only been using GMS2 for a couple of months now, but I have to agree with what was said above. At first glance, the chained windows looked nice and sleek but they do get in the way when you're trying to be fast.
I guess it's a fact that people spend more time coding in the lifetime of a project and it's hard having everything many clicks away.
Code can be written in object events, scripts, room creation code and instance creation code. And each one of them is in a different place. If you close a code tab by accident, you'll have to do quite a bit of hunting to get it back.
It would be unrealistic to ask YYG to ditch all the work they have done in the IDE, so I can only see two possible solutions:

Leave the internal editor as is but make it possible to use an external editor, as @GMWolf has stated some posts above. All other game IDEs do just that. There's already a workaround by using @YellowAfterlife 's GMEdit. He has done a pretty impressive job and I would happily use it all day, if it wasn't for the fact that there's no official word about external editors working reliably with gm projects. I even asked if he could integrate room creation code in GMEdit and, yeap, he did it... Just hire this man? ;)

The other solution I can thing of is having a side-panel open alongside the code window, that would list all the possible "code blocks" of a project in a tree like structure. Again, look at GMEdit it does it just like that.
 
D

DovDubon

Guest
After i took a break from GM because the experience of game making turned from fun and learning to slow and frustrating, i decided to try again and go in deeper trying to make the best out of the new interface.
I realize that many features and functions has been improved, but the way that new UI is working is just unbearable, and i cannot use it on a daily basis.
I signed up here just to express my thoughts about it, apparently i am not the only one who thinks this way.
So much time i am wasting dragging the screen and navigating around these useless chains, they take so much space, and unlike a normal list which is used in any other engine including the old versions of GM, now you have to deal with this 'map' of things and you cant see the big picture unless you zoom out so much that you cant actually read whats going on, loose windows inside windows inside windows. seperating the DnD from the coding was also bad, i slowly transformed from DnD to code and i always had some things i prefer to DnD, it was no problem before but now if you work DnD the code window is just ridiculous, and if you go for code you can forget about the DnD...

I understand that among other things YYG is a capitalist company that works to maximize revenue, this is legitimate, but unfortunately, in this process you damaged the experience of many users who were with you since the earlier days.
I do not understand why the guys in YYG are so stubbornly insist NOT to provide these users with at least the option of viewing a more user friendly UI like it used to have.
I hope you will come out with a solution to this at some point.

Last this last, putting a limit on objects is so low...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ide of GMS2, just looks cool, but not useful for coding, even a little inconvenient. I'm wonder why they designed GMS2 like this, maybe for the COOL DnD in GMS2 ?
I hope they will improve something for coding, if they can. But, i don't think it would happen on GMS2, because the update features from 2017 to 2018 was almost do nothing with it -- the better ide and gml for coding. And the "UPCOMING" in roadmap doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, either.

The GMEdit made by YellowAfterlife is not perfect enough, howerver, yeah, it's still much more better than GMS2 ide for coding.
 
YYG team made stupid when decided to rewrite gms UI from scratch. You should have fixed your numerus bugs and leave like it was. I would never move to gms2 if gms1.4 support was still alive.
I'm begging yyg team. Please keep fixing 1.4 and everyone will love you. Your old users all hate gms2. Why dont you see this?

P.S. One thing you should have rewrite from scratch is IOS runner coz it crashes all games that use ads extension now and then. We have about 15 games released on IOS and they all crash sometimes even when we test it on emul. In most cases its runner using memory incorrectly.
 

JeffJ

Member
I think what he means is that so much of it seems completely unnecessary. While I realize that a business needs to sell a new product to its customers every now and then, the product should also provide something the customer needs. As for me, I would have actually been much better off just paying for another round of support for GMS1 - wouldn't have had to waste time bringing GMS1 source to GMS2, and more importantly I wouldn't have had a hugely negative impact on my general day to day workflow in terms of interface. Short of Switch support, I can name maybe four things that GMS2 does better for me than GMS1 - and on the other side, I can name roughly twenty that GMS1 still does better than GMS2, even several years after its launch.

Point being, in terms of added value for a completely new purchase, this seems like a product cycle that was more needed for YYG than their customers in more ways than one - the user interface just being the most obvious.
 

Pfap

Member
I think what he means is that so much of it seems completely unnecessary. While I realize that a business needs to sell a new product to its customers every now and then, the product should also provide something the customer needs. As for me, I would have actually been much better off just paying for another round of support for GMS1 - wouldn't have had to waste time bringing GMS1 source to GMS2, and more importantly I wouldn't have had a hugely negative impact on my general day to day workflow in terms of interface. Short of Switch support, I can name maybe four things that GMS2 does better for me than GMS1 - and on the other side, I can name roughly twenty that GMS1 still does better than GMS2, even several years after its launch.

Point being, in terms of added value for a completely new purchase, this seems like a product cycle that was more needed for YYG than their customers in more ways than one - the user interface just being the most obvious.
I may be wrong as I am a relatively newer user of Gamemaker (I started using Gms1 when 2 was in beta and quickly transitioned to 2 before getting too attached), but didn't they change the "under the hood" language to facilitate future growth?
 

JeffJ

Member
Yes, they did. The problem is, at least a dozen of the most basic issues that I reported more than a year ago are still not fixed, leaving the daily frustrations at exactly the same level as they were even in beta. The ability to more easily facilitate future growth does not help if

1) It's not used
2) The core issues are never fixed before adding said growth

For reference, here's a brief summary of some of the most basic stuff, and these have yet to be fixed. All of them.
https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.p...oved-over-to-gm2-yet.38689/page-3#post-269035

EDIT
But this is even besides the point. The point here is that the interface design is so fundamentally ingrained in GMS2 that I am very hard pressed to see it changing, ever. I would love to be corrected here. But the chained workflow seems to be here to stay. That's not something that can be fixed.
 

Pfap

Member
Yes, they did. The problem is, at least a dozen of the most basic issues that I reported more than a year ago are still not fixed, leaving the daily frustrations at exactly the same level as they were even in beta. The ability to more easily facilitate future growth does not help if

1) It's not used
2) The core issues are never fixed before adding said growth

For reference, here's a brief summary of some of the most basic stuff, and these have yet to be fixed. All of them.
https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.p...oved-over-to-gm2-yet.38689/page-3#post-269035

EDIT
But this is even besides the point. The point here is that the interface design is so fundamentally ingrained in GMS2 that I am very hard pressed to see it changing, ever. I would love to be corrected here. But the chained workflow seems to be here to stay. That's not something that can be fixed.

Well, I learned about ctr+t thanks :)

And I will agree that I prefer the script editor in gms2 over the object editor and also a bigger monitor would be nice. I'm going to start using f12 more frequently to get rid of the side and bottom docks. I need to get better at using keyboard shortcuts as I frequently click the room editor side dock closed, because there is not a lot of room if all the docks are open.
 

Pfap

Member
Yes, they did. The problem is, at least a dozen of the most basic issues that I reported more than a year ago are still not fixed, leaving the daily frustrations at exactly the same level as they were even in beta. The ability to more easily facilitate future growth does not help if

1) It's not used
2) The core issues are never fixed before adding said growth

For reference, here's a brief summary of some of the most basic stuff, and these have yet to be fixed. All of them.
https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.p...oved-over-to-gm2-yet.38689/page-3#post-269035

EDIT
But this is even besides the point. The point here is that the interface design is so fundamentally ingrained in GMS2 that I am very hard pressed to see it changing, ever. I would love to be corrected here. But the chained workflow seems to be here to stay. That's not something that can be fixed.

Well, I learned about ctr+t thanks :)

And I will agree that I prefer the script editor in gms2 over the object editor and also a bigger monitor would be nice. I'm going to start using f12 more frequently to get rid of the side and bottom docks. I need to get better at using keyboard shortcuts as I frequently click the room editor side dock closed, because there is not a lot of room if all the docks are open.
 

FrostyCat

Member
I think what he means is that so much of it seems completely unnecessary. While I realize that a business needs to sell a new product to its customers every now and then, the product should also provide something the customer needs. As for me, I would have actually been much better off just paying for another round of support for GMS1 - wouldn't have had to waste time bringing GMS1 source to GMS2, and more importantly I wouldn't have had a hugely negative impact on my general day to day workflow in terms of interface. Short of Switch support, I can name maybe four things that GMS2 does better for me than GMS1 - and on the other side, I can name roughly twenty that GMS1 still does better than GMS2, even several years after its launch.

Point being, in terms of added value for a completely new purchase, this seems like a product cycle that was more needed for YYG than their customers in more ways than one - the user interface just being the most obvious.
And on a finer scale, are you sure this is a product cycle more needed for YYG than for Mike specifically?

Here are a number of Mike's pet policies and features, that were completely counter-productive and faced community resistance:
  • Implementing dot_product() as a NORMALIZED dot product instead of a straight dot product in GM 8.1 (he said he used the normalized product more often than the standard product, so his preference should be default)
  • The GMS 1.1.666 skull-and-crossbones DRM logic bomb (he said he wanted to share a joke with people who pirate GM)
  • The GMS file system sandbox (he said that the helpdesk would fill with ignorant rookies if it wasn't there to nanny them)
  • Removing local asset packages in GMS 2 (he said that the Marketplace should be where everyone shares assets, not knowing that local asset packages are often used to merge assets in private and carry helper objects for pure-code extensions)
  • High screen space consumption in the GMS 2 IDE (he assumed that we should all program on multiple HD monitors).
I'm sure that most of us with more than 2 years of GM experience have butted heads with him on other fronts, and the sources of the conflict continue to be daily pain points.

A common theme of all of the above was arrogance and pre-emptive assumption that he knew what we wanted. Having almost 40 years of programming certainly helps bring these attitudes out, but so can being too confident with telemetry data. I'm sure there's internal resistance to the above from those who still have a conscience at YoYo, but when Mike was the lead developer, none of that goodwill could come to fruit.

I hope now that Mike doesn't work at YoYo anymore, the rest of the team could finally be free to undo some of his policies and address our concerns. For example, I don't see what stake Playtech or the rest of the development team have in the over-enforcement of the file sandbox.
 

JeffJ

Member
I'd rather not partake in calling out any single individuals, present or past employees included, but I'll agree that many of us (myself included) butted heads with him on several occassions.

I was not aware that the he was an advocate for the removal of local asset packages, but that is something that has directly impacted my workflow in a major negative way and cost me a ridiculous amount of time, and is one of the most stupid and arrogant decisions in the design of GMS2, right alongside the omission of multiple asset importing.

The less said about the skull disaster, the better. That was and still is the most dangerously arrogant decision I have ever witnessed in software design and should have resulted in a class action lawsuit all on its own.
 

Dog Slobber

Member
I think what he means is that so much of it seems completely unnecessary.
A rewrite of 1.4 was absolutely necessary.

What you and nearly everybody seem to have forgotten was the IDE was extremely stale and stagnant. And it was written in Delphi. Because of that, changes were limited and nothing major was going to happen with it until a major rewrite happened.
 

JeffJ

Member
A rewrite of 1.4 was absolutely necessary.

What you and nearly everybody seem to have forgotten was the IDE was extremely stale and stagnant. And it was written in Delphi. Because of that, changes were limited and nothing major was going to happen with it until a major rewrite happened.
While you say that, the reality in practice is that we are still missing a dozen of the most basic features more than 2 years after launch. The reality in practice is that the workflow is still inferior for many users. What good is the ability to change if it's not used?

At the end of the day, what matters the most is the reality of the day to day use, and for the past several years now that has simply been inferior to GMS1, and we have still yet to get even and acknowledgement of whether or not this will change.
 

Dog Slobber

Member
As opposed to the current ide?
I don't know what your point is.

I'm not making a point in favour or against the new IDE.

The only point I'm making is the IDE needed a complete rewrite. Now that 1.4 is gone and resources no longer need to be wasted supporting it then maybe some well needed changes in 2.0 can happen.

So long as 1.4 was still around, being supported, changes in 2.0 was even more unlikely.
 

JeffJ

Member
1.4 was officially sunset more than half a year ago, and not a single one of the problems mentioned has been addressed.

Again, the potential that comes with a rewrite is great - on paper. But if it's not used, then it might as well have never happened.
 

Dog Slobber

Member
1.4 was officially sunset more than half a year ago, and not a single one of the problems mentioned has been addressed.

Again, the potential that comes with a rewrite is great - on paper. But if it's not used, then it might as well have never happened.
Yes it was.

Does that support your point that a rewrite was not necessary? Or perhaps you think that continued support for 1.4 would speed up 2.x development.

What are you trying to say?
 

JeffJ

Member
I'm saying two things, really.

First of all, while I agree that the rewrite was necessary, it was based on the fact that it would actually be used to make things better. If the choice was between no rewrite or a rewrite that made things worse, then I would take no rewrite any day.

Second, I'm saying that evidently it has made absolutely no difference whether the support for 1.4 stopped or not - since we're here, 6 months later, and nothing else has happened in regards to fixing those very basic issues.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, either. You're saying that the rewrite was necessary, and that things should improve with 1.4 support having stopped. At the same time, the rewrite has so far not been used in any way to address the workflow issues that a lot of users are reporting, and simultaneously, 1.4 support has not been a factor for 6 months, and it has made no difference. So, what is your point? That the rewrite was necessary? If that's your point, then what does the rewrite matter, if things are only worse than before, and not showing any signs of change?

Again, given the choice between what we have now (and have had for the last 2 years) and no rewrite, then yes, I would rather have stayed with 1.4. In a heartbeat.
 

Dog Slobber

Member
You keep saying 1.4 support has been dropped for 6 months you wrong.

The target for sunsetting was 6 months ago. In reality it was extended to August 30th. That's 4 months ago.

4 months is not a lot of time to transition the 1.4 team to 2.0, and implement the features you want. Expecting 1.4 to shut down and then 4 months later expecting to see all the benefits of no longer dedicating resources to 1.4 is unrealistic.
 

JeffJ

Member
I'm not expecting to see "all the benefits" - I am saying that we haven't even seen one single fix yet out of all the most basic issues that have been reported for more than 2 years.

It's bad enough that those things have been reported for more than 2 years to begin with without being fixed. Then the excuse becomes that they were focusing on supporting 1.4, which hasn't been the case in at least 4 months.

At some point, there simply are no excuses any more. I wonder when you will personally reach that point. When do you think it's reasonable to begin expecting results? Another 4 months? Another 6 months? Another 2 years?
 

Pfap

Member
I think my thought process is that I would rather have a clunky ide and really good support for third party Api's and exports. Stuff like in app purchases and all the complexities that come with cross platform development. I can deal with the ide; on the other hand, it would be significantly more trouble for me to learn objective-c and build extensions for developing for Apple devices or learning java for android. And the ease of building cross platform is Gamemakers best feature in my opinion. I guess, I am saying I would be more upset if they spent time on the ide when they could be adding more features to their exports. Stuff they recently did, like adding native keyboard support for mobile! NAT for ipv6 would also be nice... I could make a list of things I would rather have before they did any ide improvements.
 
So one of your premises is, had support for 1.4 still been available people would not have needed to buy 2.

And you think that's a good business model?
No. I believe switching to subscription model(like 1 year licence) and keeping gms1.4 updated is a good bussiness model Istead of creating some ugly unwanted application like gms 2.
 
Top