• 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.

 Excited but upset

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CoderJoe

Guest
I don't want to be "that" guy but:

Studio 2 looks really cool. However, I feel like a lot of these features should have been implemented to Studio rather than making a whole separate program. Not to mention that I now have to pay a ton of money to get all the licenses for Studio 2 that I already own for Studio 1 (basically all of them except the console versions). Just seems like a money making plan rather than a move forward to me. Not trying to just rage here but I'm genuinely disappointed there in no free upgrade for those who have put money into Studio. I'm probably just gonna move to Unity since all their export options are free and you can literally make games with it without spending any money at all.

Anyways, I really like the new image editor since the old one was close to useless. Not sure how I feel about node system and workflow but might need some time to adjust.

[Edit] Also is support for Studio 1 going to be dropped or will we still see updates for it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Llama_Code

Member
Studio 1 will still get updates.

The reason all of these features are in a new version and not 1.x is because they could not implement them in to the code base of 1.x, so it requires a rebuild from the ground up. This has been said a thousand times but I'll say it again, 2 is a whole new product NOT an update. They didn't just a slap in some new features and release it as 2.0.

Thus the reason going pay. This program is years of work for the YoYo team. I mean, I have been buying Photoshop since version 5, I sure wish Adobe would just give new the newest version already.
 
J

JDSTIGER

Guest
I thought we would get free updates since Master collection was a big purchase... I don't really care tho, GS2 looks like Unity and I don't like that. The only cool thing was the UI graphics for me.
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
I get why they are selling it as a separate product I just don't see why they won't let people upgrade. I mean if I went out and bought the master collection a couple days ago before they launched Studio 2 I would be really upset that I would have to pay $500 more to upgrade to Studio 2. I haven't seen announcements anywhere that said there was even gonna be a Studio 2 and would have just assumed that new features would be added to Studio 1. The least they could have done is said somewhere that Studio 2 was in the works (and maybe they did on twitter or something that I missed).

The solution to not wanting to be that guy is not to be that guy.
Lol, yeah probably, but I thought I should at least point some things out. Trying to do it here in a nice way without a bunch of caps and raging.

Studio 1 will still get updates.

The reason all of these features are in a new version and not 1.x is because they could not implement them in to the code base of 1.x, so it requires a rebuild from the ground up. This has been said a thousand times but I'll say it again, 2 is a whole new product NOT an update. They didn't just a slap in some new features and release it as 2.0.

Thus the reason going pay. This program is years of work for the YoYo team. I mean, I have been buying Photoshop since version 5, I sure wish Adobe would just give new the newest version already.
I have to add that some people have also been using Gamemaker for many years as well so there should be some loyalty to customers. I know there was an upgrade cost from 8 to Studio but I believe it was cheaper. If they do another humble deal or something like that is the only way that I'll be able to pay for Studio 2. Anyway I'm probably done discussing this. Sorry to get on anyone's nerves. Just hyped for Studio 2 but to broke to buy it :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Llama_Code

Member
I have to add that some people have also been using Gamemaker for many years as well so there should be some loyalty to customers. I know there was an upgrade cost from 8 to Studio but I believe it was cheaper. If they do another humble deal or something like that is the only way that I'll be able to pay for Studio 2. Anyway I'm probably done discussing this. Sorry to get on anyone's nerves. Just hyped for Studio 2 but to broke to buy it :p
Well you do get a 40-50% discount if your already own GMS, I would say that's a significant discount.

The response from Russell on updates for 1.x was this :

Support for GMS1 will carry on for some time yet and we will be upgrading SDK's and fixing bugs just as the announcement and FAQ said -

That said, just because 2 comes out doesent mean you can't continue to use 1. Even after official support ends you can still use ut until the platforms change enough to make it obsolete. For mobile this will be more of an issue obviously .
 

Hyomoto

Member
I've bought every version of GM since 6, and while I don't relish shelling out again, at the same time I'm an avid user and to say I've gotten my money's worth is an understatement. Pricing is still tentative so we have no idea if this is set in stone or not. I'll admit I'd have liked a deeper discount, but the only lingo that bothered me is the limited time for upgrading. There's no firm date given, but the idea that being able to get an upgrade at a reduced cost is a limited time thing does come off a little crude. That said, the desktop version is very competitively priced. It's the mobile, UWP and console versions that have a hefty price tag. The pricing scheme is pretty close to what GM:S asks though. I paid something like 250$ for the android module when it came out.
 

kupo15

Member
At the moment it doesn't seem like much has really changed, just a pain to port over 1.x projects for a new ide and some speed increases right now, but I'm hoping that this is just the start. Sounds like the plan is to start with a fresh base and expand from there like studio did so I hope more new features will come to make studio 2 hands down the better choice
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
I'll admit I'd have liked a deeper discount, but the only lingo that bothered me is the limited time for upgrading. There's no firm date given, but the idea that being able to get an upgrade at a reduced cost is a limited time thing does come off a little crude.
I agree. And like Llama_Code said there is a discount, (though the prices are very high to begin with). And who knows, maybe they will change things with the actual release?
 

RangerX

Member
I don't want to be "that" guy but:

Studio 2 looks really cool. However, I feel like a lot of these features should have been implemented to Studio rather than making a whole separate program. Not to mention that I now have to pay a ton of money to get all the licenses for Studio 2 that I already own for Studio 1 (basically all of them except the console versions). Just seems like a money making plan rather than a move forward to me. Not trying to just rage here but I'm genuinely disappointed there in no free upgrade for those who have put money into Studio. I'm probably just gonna move to Unity since all their export options are free and you can literally make games with it without spending any money at all.

Anyways, I really like the new image editor since the old one was close to useless. Not sure how I feel about node system and workflow but might need some time to adjust.

[Edit] Also is support for Studio 1 going to be dropped or will we still see updates for it?

And this is where you answer your own question. Yoyo games is a business, not your "provider for a great life". They owe you nothing, you buy their tool when you need it and you do your things. They have the right to present multiple products, offer multiple different things. Even if GMS2 is the successor of a previous product it doesn't mean they owe you. You buy the new product or you don't. You should actually be grateful there's a discount for GMS users because there sure wasn't a discount promised for futur new products in the contract you engaged into by buying GMS originally. And the situation with Yoyo games here is quite good. Do you seriously think they are at odd with the industry? Buying new tools all the freaking time is the life of publishers and dev teams out there. Stuff happens, new tools comes, new generations come. That's how it is. Actually Yoyo is quite the odd ball to give you this discount.
 
And this is where you answer your own question. Yoyo games is a business, not your "provider for a great life". They owe you nothing, you buy their tool when you need it and you do your things. They have the right to present multiple products, offer multiple different things. Even if GMS2 is the successor of a previous product it doesn't mean they owe you. You buy the new product or you don't. You should actually be grateful there's a discount for GMS users because there sure wasn't a discount promised for futur new products in the contract you engaged into by buying GMS originally. And the situation with Yoyo games here is quite good. Do you seriously think they are at odd with the industry? Buying new tools all the freaking time is the life of publishers and dev teams out there. Stuff happens, new tools comes, new generations come. That's how it is. Actually Yoyo is quite the odd ball to give you this discount.
Companies *do* owe their customers things, though. I could have sworn they were talking about fixing the room editor and stuff years ago for 1.x, and then plans changed, after some people bought 1.x on good faith that the updates promised by YoYo for 1.x would actually be coming. I have no list of what promises were kept and which were broken, because the roadmap conveniently disappeared years ago, but it really feels like a lot that's in GMS2 was supposed to be in 1.x at one point or another to me, too.

I'm not complaining, though, because I never dropped a grand on Master Collection back in the day. And GMS2 looks like a real bargain for how little they're asking. I hope it does well for them, and we see faster growth in GM's features from here on.
 
R

renex

Guest
Good thing the mobile APIs have been moved to extensions, so after support ends people can just manually update them.
 

XanthorXIII

Member
With what GMS 2.0 is, it is worth the price. What is it you may ask? A new GameMaking tool. I think what they're going to be able to do with this hasn't even scratched the surface. Take what works, fix what is broken and combine the two together. Then later on really add the spice to the recipe.
 
T

Toppu

Guest
Agree with everything the first poster said.

Moreover, when I first heard about GMS 2, I thought it will be a completely new engine that will incorporate all the modern features like real 3D support with bone and shape animations, terrain editors, virtual reality support, etc. Basically everything Unreal and Unity engines offer since long ago. Instead we got the same old GMS with polished interface and some cosmetic changes. All the 3D stuff is still rudimentary and done through archaic d3d_ functions and without any 3D scene editor. This functionality is completely outdated by modern standards of indie game development. "GMS 2" should have been next update in GMS 1.x series, not a separate product with a separate price tag.

Waiting for GMS 2 was the last reason for me to stick around, hoping to give this engine another chance. But now that we got this after years of waiting... Moving to Unity once and for good.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
All the 3D stuff is still rudimentary and done through archaic d3d_ functions and without any 3D scene editor.
Ummm... 3D has actually gotten more advanced with 2. Whole load of matrix functions, proper cameras, better lighting, proper vertex buffers, and there are NO D3D calls anymore (you really should check the helpdesk articles and inform yourself of the changes). That has all been ripped out. As for a 3D room editor, why? GMS has never been aimed at making 3D games, and has ALWAYS been sold as a 2D game dev tool. Even the devs have said that it should be used to enhance 2D games (making 2.5D stuff) rather than to make full 3D environments, etc... (not that it can't be done. Look at projects like TerraBlox by @JackOatley).
 
T

Toppu

Guest
and there are NO D3D calls anymore (you really should check the helpdesk articles and inform yourself of the changes).
Okay, my bad, I didn't read articles carefully enough. The functions have been renamed, like d3d_set_culling() became gpu_set_cullmode(), etc. But changing prefixes for those outdated 3D functions is not exactly what I expected from a new engine.

As for a 3D room editor, why?
Because in two months it will be 2017 already. With all those nice and shiny interface updates, GMS 2 still feels like an engine designed ten years ago for hardware popular ten years ago. Indie game development is moving and changing very fast, and full 3D functionality is a must now. Even developing for smartphones (which become more and more powerful every year and now come with gigabytes of RAM) one won't get too far making only 2D games. Virtual reality have been making huge progress during last few years, too. But the new GMS does nothing to take these technological advances into account and stay competitive in the modern game development world. Every other modern game dev engine can do everything GMS 2 can and a whole lot on top of that. Since many years ago.

So when a while ago I heard about GMS 2 being in development I thought it will include all those modern features that will bring it close to Unity/Unreal technological level. But it doesn't. Hence my disappointment.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
I repeat... GMS has been marketed (and is continuing to be marketed) as a 2D game engine. You don't expect a screwdriver to also be a hammer do you? So although you could use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail if required, it's not really designed for that and will be difficult... GMS is the same. It's DESIGNED for 2D development, but can do 3D if required. Like you say, there are other 3D engines out there far superior to GMS, but how many 2D engines are out there that are superior? Imho, none... ;)

Use the correct tool for the job at hand...

PS: it's not just a "name change" on the functions. The renderer has now been updated to DX11, which means a few other changes to how things work in the render pipeline.
 
T

Toppu

Guest
I repeat... GMS has been marketed (and is continuing to be marketed) as a 2D game engine. You don't expect a screwdriver to also be a hammer do you? So although you could use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail if required, it's not really designed for that and will be difficult... GMS is the same. It's DESIGNED for 2D development, but can do 3D if required. Like you say, there are other 3D engines out there far superior to GMS, but how many 2D engines are out there that are superior? Imho, none... ;)
How many modern computers there are out there that can compete with PDP-1 in the punched card input reading department? Imho, none.

Computer technology is changing and evolving very fast, and software or hardware that don't want or cannot keep up with it will end up in museums. That's how it works.

If GMS was getting more features to stay competitive for modern game development, it would keep its customers, and get new ones, instead of forcing them to leave for other engines. If GMS developers are satisfied with their current niche market of simple 2D game development, that will inevitably decrease in the future, so the more power to them. I guess I have nothing else to say.
 
G

Galladhan

Guest
How many modern computers there are out there that can compete with PDP-1 in the punched card input reading department? Imho, none.

Computer technology is changing and evolving very fast, and software or hardware that don't want or cannot keep up with it will end up in museums. That's how it works.
Stretched analogy. Are you suggesting that 2D games will soon disappear in favour of 3D ones?

The first time i heard this "forecast" was 1994 :p
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
How many modern computers there are out there that can compete with PDP-1 in the punched card input reading department? Imho, none.

Computer technology is changing and evolving very fast, and software or hardware that don't want or cannot keep up with it will end up in museums. That's how it works.
Computer technology hasn't really evolved notably lately, we've been stuck in a pattern of making things smaller to be able to squeeze more parts into the same space. CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray disks are all based on the same technology, just smaller, more densely packed grooves. Them being marketed as completely different technology is just a marketing ploy. You've apparently fallen for it.

I still have a floppy disk drive installed in my computer, I might add. :p
 
Okay, my bad, I didn't read articles carefully enough. The functions have been renamed, like d3d_set_culling() became gpu_set_cullmode(), etc. But changing prefixes for those outdated 3D functions is not exactly what I expected from a new engine.


Because in two months it will be 2017 already. With all those nice and shiny interface updates, GMS 2 still feels like an engine designed ten years ago for hardware popular ten years ago. Indie game development is moving and changing very fast, and full 3D functionality is a must now. Even developing for smartphones (which become more and more powerful every year and now come with gigabytes of RAM) one won't get too far making only 2D games. Virtual reality have been making huge progress during last few years, too. But the new GMS does nothing to take these technological advances into account and stay competitive in the modern game development world. Every other modern game dev engine can do everything GMS 2 can and a whole lot on top of that. Since many years ago.

So when a while ago I heard about GMS 2 being in development I thought it will include all those modern features that will bring it close to Unity/Unreal technological level. But it doesn't. Hence my disappointment.
Are you seriously suggesting that 2d games are going anywhere?
 

RangerX

Member
How many modern computers there are out there that can compete with PDP-1 in the punched card input reading department? Imho, none.

Computer technology is changing and evolving very fast, and software or hardware that don't want or cannot keep up with it will end up in museums. That's how it works.

If GMS was getting more features to stay competitive for modern game development, it would keep its customers, and get new ones, instead of forcing them to leave for other engines. If GMS developers are satisfied with their current niche market of simple 2D game development, that will inevitably decrease in the future, so the more power to them. I guess I have nothing else to say.

First of all, you're wrong. And if you doubt, you're wrong again. In this day and age, videogames evolved and people realised (not you) that "3D" or "2D" is a stylistic choice. A design choice. 2D isn't "the ancestor of 3D and we should move on", its just an approach with visuals and gameplay. Both approaches are making perfectly modern and valid games sorry. When you get that, you will realise that GMS2 is having its place on the market and can totally be what its meant to be. Lastly, you are the customer so you do your shopping job and buy the products that are meant to do what you want. If your aim is 3D development, what in the hell are you honestly doing here? Now open up your eyes my friend.
 
J

JackOatley

Guest
Thanks for the plug @Nocturne, lol. Anyway, my 2 cents on that is I agree with you that GM should remain geared towards 2D games, that is what it's best at and will remain so. It should improve on it's 3D functionality where it can, obviously, but it doesn't need to be tied into the IDE, the functions give you so much alone. I don't like when people say GM's 3D isn't capable or isn't fully functional because it's just wrong. To date, I can't say I've really seen any 3D GAMES made with GM that actually take full advantage of what is there now. There's been tech demos and what not, but minimal else. Yes, admittedly it can be difficult to make a 3D game, depending on the scale of it, but GM is certainly capable. If you know what you're doing you can render ridiculous amounts on screen, with all kinds of effects, same sort of things that even Unity or Unreal would struggle with out the box unless you knew how to optimize. If you need tools, make them, hell I'm building my dev tools into my 3D game so that users can create their own content (modelling and animation).

GM's 3D is bare bones, but it's in a language that's so easy to use it in you really don't need more help from the IDE. IMHO.
 

FrostyCat

Redemption Seeker
I repeat... GMS has been marketed (and is continuing to be marketed) as a 2D game engine. You don't expect a screwdriver to also be a hammer do you? So although you could use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail if required, it's not really designed for that and will be difficult... GMS is the same. It's DESIGNED for 2D development, but can do 3D if required. Like you say, there are other 3D engines out there far superior to GMS, but how many 2D engines are out there that are superior? Imho, none... ;)

Use the correct tool for the job at hand...

PS: it's not just a "name change" on the functions. The renderer has now been updated to DX11, which means a few other changes to how things work in the render pipeline.
What I'm really concerned with YoYo in general is this insistent "line-in-the-sand" tendency.

While mainstream competitors are 3D-centric, none of them make the same kind of exclusivity statements to the other side of the 2D/3D divide --- in fact they leverage extensibility to reach across it. Unity has been particularly proactive in reaching out to 2D, in fact they even have a version dedicated to it. Unreal has a third-party library and UI integration that fill a similar role.

Let's name some 3D-friendly features that can easily be added into GMS 2 (or even 1.x, for that matter):
  • Built-in quaternion math functions
  • Built-in support for vector and matrix types
  • More complete set of vector and matrix operations (e.g. adding/subtracting/transposing/inverting matrices, manually building matrices entry-by-entry, adding/subtracting/projecting vectors), instead of just what you believe we'll need
  • Setting values for a created instance before its Create event (e.g. for the z coordinate)
  • Ability to bring up third-party applications from within the IDE (e.g. modeler, 3D room editor, etc.)
None of these touch the bottom line of GM's design, yet YoYo has left them off for over 4 years. And it's not like these can't be applied in 2D either, especially the linear algebra functions.

As long as you play with the Open-Closed Principle in mind, the only thing you'll get from expanding into new 3D/API functionality is new audiences. Potentially expert audiences that GMS 2 sorely need for industry acceptance.
 
Last edited:

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
@FrostyCat : None of what you listed is off the table... Just a 3D room editor, which is what was being discussed. My replies apply only to that discussion, as the devs have made it very clear that a 3D editor will not happen because GMS is primarily a 2D tool. However better FUNCTIONS have not been crossed of any list, and the current Beta has actually taken steps down that road (as I also stated).
 

FrostyCat

Redemption Seeker
@FrostyCat : None of what you listed is off the table... Just a 3D room editor, which is what was being discussed. My replies apply only to that discussion, as the devs have made it very clear that a 3D editor will not happen because GMS is primarily a 2D tool. However better FUNCTIONS have not been crossed of any list, and the current Beta has actually taken steps down that road (as I also stated).
Check: I did not ask for a 3D room editor to be developed. I asked for the ability to open resources in external programs, which can include but is not limited to a third-party 3D room editor.

Another feature that goes with this well is an API (perhaps via TCP or a RESTful interface) for third-party editors to report file changes back to GMS 2, so that the main project resource index can be dynamically updated without re-opening the project.
 

XanthorXIII

Member
GMS excels at being 2D so why change now? I'd rather see YoYo put more effort into being an Excellent 2D GameMaker than fracture and make Subpar 2D/3D Toolkit. By far the new editor is vastly superior to Unity's. To be honest, I've never seen an editor like it at all. Maybe they add on 3D later when they get into a position to do so?
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
Wow this thread took a sharp turn to discussing evolving technology and 3D vs 2D. I'm gonna chime in a little: Obviously Gamemaker is aimed twoard 2D and is probably one of if not the best at making 2D games. If you want to make games in 3D try Unity. Gotta use the right tool for the right job, right? Also, 2D is definitely not going anywhere anytime soon. Just look at the mobile app stores and see how dominant 2D games are. Even many console and PC games are 2D.

However, I am interested in Studio 2. What new features are planned for it besides the better UI, room editor, and sprite editor (lets face it, the old sprite editor was kinda trash)? Or are these the only new features, just trying to decide if I want/need to upgrade.
 
R

renex

Guest
If you know what you're doing you can render ridiculous amounts on screen, with all kinds of effects,
I can absolutely confirm. Currently working on a 3d room editor / rendering tech.







Game Maker is very powerful, but some people just don't bother delving into the tools at hand and working with them. I'm not one of these people.
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
I was just thinking about the changes from 8 to Studio to Studio 2. From 8 to Studio we got:
-Shaders
-Dark themed UI but no real UI improvement
-Better sound engine
-Some 3D changes which aren't super useful since not many people use GM for 3D
-A bunch of export modules that cost $200 dollars a piece
-An increase of $50 to buy pro (remember 8 only cost $50 for pro, YoYo games changed that to $100 as well as putting limits on the free version for a significant amount of time)

From Studio to Studio 2 we got:
-A real UI change
-A better sprite editor (which I am almost positive was promised for Studio 1)
-A better room editor (which I also thought was promised for Studio 1)
-Some other small features like sound changes and tile sets

There are obviously changes in the engine behind the scenes but these are things that are expected to be updated and made better. When you look at it though, most of Studio 2 seems like it should have been put in Studio 1, but instead was marketed separately to make more money. No one has to agree with me, this is just my personal opinion as I look at things from my (probably flawed) perspective.
 
R

renex

Guest
From 8 to Studio we got:
You forgot some things.
  • better variable declaration and actual memory management
  • array by reference and nested arrays
  • macros and enums
  • networking sockets and http requests
  • data structure accessors and proper saving methods
  • middle level access to the rendering pipeline for application surface, VBOs and texture management
  • steam integration
  • buffers, base64, md5, sha1, json, unicode strings
  • the glorious yoyo compiler
  • source control
 
J

JackOatley

Guest
-Shaders
-Some 3D changes which aren't super useful since not many people use GM for 3D
Actually, in combination with shaders, the 3D changes ARE MASSIVE, despite being few. And they are not exclusively 3D, all the changes can be used in 2D as well for the same benefits. Having control of vertex formats and buffers and all the things you can do with shaders is a big deal. I'd say of all GM 1.x's updates, the vertex buffers and shaders were the biggest. They put GM's speed/optimization capabilities in general up to competitive standards. Unfortunately there's still a majority of people who don't even realize it, partly because YYG don't promote it. There was almost an attempt to promote it with the YoYo Labs project: Your World which was based on a project Mike started to port GTA1 maps into GM, and I worked on it till it was just kinda ignored.

When you look at it though, most of Studio 2 seems like it should have been put in Studio 1, but instead was marketed separately to make more money. No one has to agree with me, this is just my personal opinion as I look at things from my (probably flawed) perspective.
The new IDE isn't a money making scheme. Look at it from the truth perspective; the old IDE was, funnily enough, OLD and an unwieldy behemoth to maintain. There was many attempts to improve the old IDE, but it's codebase was inherited by YYG, not created by them, and was years older than YYG itself. And it was in a language that otherwise wasn't being used. Nobody wanted to touch it with a barge pole. Basically, it had to be changed some time because it was not realistic to move forward with it. Put things off and they just get worse, right?
 

Lewa

Member
What kinda disappoints me the most with GMS 2 is the language itself.
I hoped that there will be complete revamp of GML to support true OOP programming. (Classes, Methods, proper polymorphism, access modifiers, etc...)
The point is that the current way in which GML works makes it unsuitable for bigger projects. In my case (i'm also developing a 3D game in GMS) it makes it extremely hard to do proper code and data seperation because every variable is practically globally accessible from anywhere (provided you have the instance ID) and without any methods (and access modifiers) it only encourages you even more to write your games in that way. (Because hey, it's easier and faster am i right?)
This in turn can quickly result in a mess of a codebase where variables are accessed from all over the place. (Makes it hard to debug and do changes afterwards.)

In my case i have seperate systems (player object with its own logic, collission world, meshes, multiplayer logic, singleplayer logic, a replay recording/playback system, leaderboard synchronisation via HTTP requests, a whole built-in map editor with its own logic, etc...) and i ended up at a point where those systems are connected with each other in such a way that it is hard to do any kind of modifications.
One example is the lack of getter/setter methods for variables.
You can as an example call a setter method which does specific checks (like if the parameter is in a specific range or if some other specific conditions are met) before you set the variable or execute other processes.
Instead we have to access them directly by using "instanceid.variablename" which is really a bad way of doing this. (I also can't restrict access to those variables from other objects. >> Access modifiers.)
Same goes for methods.
If you have a maploader which distributes your load throughout multiple steps and you want to check if the maploader finished loading the data, you either have the options to:
A) set a variable (like loadingFinished = true) which in turn will be checked by other objects
B) create a script which checks the conditions in the maploader object and returns a true/false boolean variable (essentally a script which acts as a "getter method")

Both have their pitfalls. A) doesn't restrict access to the variable so you can't be sure if some other object "accidentally" modifies it (normally you would make this variable only modifieable inside the object and only readable for the outside > "private modifier" with public getter method)
B) on the other hand has the problem that you have to keep track of your scripts and make sure that you call it appropriately.
In other languages if you create an object you can call it simply by using its reference:
Code:
Entity e = new Entity();
boolean isReady = e.isFinished();
In GML you would have to do something like this:
Code:
e = instance_create(0,0,obj_entity);
var isReady = scr_entity_get_isReady(e);
... which also isn't optimal.

You can't be sure if the parameter passed into this script is actually an obj_entity instance. (If it's not it could crash because it tries to access variables which don't exist.) >>> TYPE SAFETY!!!
And god forbid you try to refractor your code... (i didn't bother at a certain point anymore.)

Of course you could try to circumvent this by being careful about how you write your game (from day 1) and "recreate" all that OOP stuff with scripts (which has its own problems as shown above) but this really isn't the solution.
There is a reason why OOP with all that nifty stuff exists in the first place.

/Edit: But i have to say that all this stuff only becomes a real problem if your codebase becomes extremely large/complex (which unfortunately for me is the case in my project.)
 
Last edited:
M

Me Myself and I

Guest
Just because you buy a house doesn't mean the landlord is obliged to add extra floors every year.
If you buy a house, then there is no landlord.

If you are renting, then yes, the landlord is required to maintain the property as well as provide you alternative accommodations if they DO decide to add those extra floors.

...and if you're going to throw shade, at least come up with an appropriate analogy - like a car with a new model year....
 

hippyman

Member
If you buy a house, then there is no landlord.

If you are renting, then yes, the landlord is required to maintain the property as well as provide you alternative accommodations if they DO decide to add those extra floors.

...and if you're going to throw shade, at least come up with an appropriate analogy - like a car with a new model year....
No the landlord is required to pick up rent.

These analogies are getting annoying. So let me tell the upset folks how it is.
YYG made a new product. They set a price that is very close to the price of the previous product but with improvements across the board. They HAND OUT FREE BETAS so people can test the product, FOR FREE. But for some reason, a lot of you STILL feel like they owe you an arm and a leg. Stop acting so entitled and just be happy GMS2 happened at all. They give us a bunch of stuff we asked for, and a bunch of you b*tch about not getting everything else. Being a spoiled brat just makes you look like a spoiled brat. It doesn't get you more things. YYG isn't your daddy.

Sorry if this seems mean, but get over it. I'm getting super irritated with some of you.
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
Yep, it's the pattern we see time and time again.

"When invited to a free lunch, don't complain about the quality of the caviar"
Lol. I like your analogy. And yeah I realize Yoyo games bought the old gamemaker and that the ui needed change, just why didn't they put it in Studio 1 annoys me.
 
C

CoderJoe

Guest
You forgot some things.
  • better variable declaration and actual memory management
  • array by reference and nested arrays
  • macros and enums
  • networking sockets and http requests
  • data structure accessors and proper saving methods
  • middle level access to the rendering pipeline for application surface, VBOs and texture management
  • steam integration
  • buffers, base64, md5, sha1, json, unicode strings
  • the glorious yoyo compiler
  • source control
This is what I meant when I said other stuff behind the scenes. I knew there was quite a bit of stuff changed with the coding in Studio 1 especially with networking and data types.
 
M

Me Myself and I

Guest
Yep, it's the pattern we see time and time again.

"When invited to a free lunch, don't complain about the quality of the caviar"
But is it really a free lunch if you paid retail for Pro and/or Master Collection in the last 6 months when a release date for this product was probably already set internally? Those people have a legitimate gripe imho - they're looking at putting out up to $1300 in less year to buy GS:1 and GS:2. In addition, the entry point for the product went from free to $100, so you could make a point that casual users were uninvited to the free lunch.

No, that's not too bad by commercial software standards, but it ain't exactly pocket change either.

The only ones who truly have nothing to complain about are those who bought the Humble Bundle - they get most modules for a pittance and upgrade for less than first time purchases.
 

hippyman

Member
Those people have a legitimate gripe imho - they're looking at putting out up to $1300 in less year to buy GS:1 and GS:2.
No there is absolutely no obligation to buying GMS2 right away. It's not even planned to release for another couple months. It's been confirmed OVER AND OVER that GMS1 support is not going to stop anytime soon and it's just feature complete. So GMS1 is only going to become more stable as they apply fixes to existing features. In the meantime, they'll continue making GMS2 even greater than it already is since this is still in beta. Many sales are sure to come since that is a pretty normal thing from YYG and I'm sure a year or two along the road another Humble Bundle will pop up and you can get it for pennies on the dollar.


The only ones who truly have nothing to complain about are those who bought the Humble Bundle - they get most modules for a pittance and upgrade for less than first time purchases.
Don't complain about something and then try to invalidate somebody else's complaint just because they got a better deal. That's just rude and a bit hypocritical imho.
 
M

Me Myself and I

Guest
LMFAO -- I never claimed anybody was obligated to buy anything, just questioned as to whether it really is a "free lunch"?
 
N

NPT

Guest
But is it really a free lunch if you paid retail for Pro and/or Master Collection in the last 6 months when a release date for this product was probably already set internally? Those people have a legitimate gripe imho - they're looking at putting out up to $1300 in less year to buy GS:1 and GS:2. In addition, the entry point for the product went from free to $100, so you could make a point that casual users were uninvited to the free lunch.

No, that's not too bad by commercial software standards, but it ain't exactly pocket change either.

The only ones who truly have nothing to complain about are those who bought the Humble Bundle - they get most modules for a pittance and upgrade for less than first time purchases.
Under what authority are you able to say that a release date was probably known six months ago?

It was no secret that YYGs was working on the replacement, there were numerous posts and even and official announcement from Playtech that they were. YYGs were clear they were working on it.

Anybody who claims they weren't aware that a replacement was coming was willfully ignorant.

Lol. I like your analogy. And yeah I realize Yoyo games bought the old gamemaker and that the ui needed change, just why didn't they put it in Studio 1 annoys me.
Because in the early days of YYG, they didn't have the talent, resources or time. They had to gradually grow the product. GM8 would not have paid for the year plus down time to rewrite it from scratch.
 
M

Me Myself and I

Guest
What would you like to call it?

As @NPT says, it has been common knowledge that GMS 2 was on its way for several years now.

You could have waited those six months (plus the three to four months left until actual release). Not sure why you feel hard done by here.
I would like to call it a new product. I don't feel "hard done" at all...just wondering how you came to the conclusion that a commercial product is a "free lunch"?

There's no such thing as a "free lunch"


If you are a decent coder, you should have made your money back ten-fold in that time (I did ;)). GMS 2 will effectively be a free upgrade to me as far as I am concerned.
Gratz! :banana:
Some of us already have jobs and just do this for a hobby. We'll either choose to spend our leisure dollars on this or on something else. That's how freedom works. Not all that complicated to be honest with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
I have to say I agree with the idea about allowing external editors for all resource types (if it's feasible to work it into the new workflow where everything is open all the time), it could allow users to basically extend GMS2 in any way they require and cut down on the work needed to accomodate both casual, professional, and "XOMG WUNITY IS BETTAR" users with the same workflow. :p

Even if those changes to the workflow wouldn't allow synchronous editing of resources, documenting when GMS2 accesses resource data from the disk (both loading and saving) could go a long way, letting users edit the files "behind the back" of GMS2. Just a right-click--->"update"/"reload" in the resource tree to detect changed files, and a "warning, file has been updated since last saved. Overwrite?" prompt if you try updating a resource that has been changed behind the back would go a long way to allow for external extensions to GMS2's functionality (like a 3D room editor app).
 

Mike

nobody important
GMC Elder
Okay....again, turned into flame war. A new product is coming out, yes you'll have to pay something for it...if you don't want to - don't, 1.x is still supported ...... yady yady ya...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top