Discussion in 'Community Chat' started by Mr. RPG, Jun 22, 2017.
@Mike Was the decision to prioritise console exports made by your gambling corporate overlords?
In which case, they have no real right to demand everything they use be free - unless they're doing it themselves.
No matter how they make money to live, it's as if I came along and demanded they do it for nothing so I don't have to pay.
Lots of the things I do I give away free, usually for educational reasons, but it's a personal choice and not one I'd ever demand from others.
Sorry can't comment.
I' new here and I agree you charging that is too much I'll settle making my own for now
I'm not suggesting I agree with them on insisting everyone should do it their way. I'm just saying they aren't ignorant for having a preference. I for example usually don't charge for my extensions and usually make them open source. Aside from extensions, one of my most recent games for that matter is open source. But I'm not insisting everyone must do it that way.
I think I'm getting a little off-topic so I'll just leave it at that.
I see your point but while I'm not sure how restrictive early Unity versions were, Unity 5 was when the free version achieved parity with paid versions. Additionally, I used the GM2 'free' version when I participated in the Open beta and while it is restrictive, it's funny just how much you can accomplish with it. In fact, that would be an interesting 'Jam', to see what you can achieve within the free requirements. Still, I do think they could do something like limit the free version to drag and drop projects instead of crippling it.
Also, @FrostyCat, what I would add though is that Unity by version 4.1 or so had boasted 2.5 million registered developers worldwide. In some ways I agree with you, but in other ways I feel like you are putting the cart before the horse. Unity 2 didn't even have full Windows support until 2.5 and that was ~2009, four years after it was first released. Conversely, GM:S had Mac OS support and mobile support within it's first year. Really what it comes down to is GM didn't start trying to be a professional product until 2012 with the release of Studio, and given that Unity started with that goal back in 2005 I'd argue they have a 7 years and 3 major versions on GM. The other stuff, well, a lot of the time I think @Mike and @rwkay are quite honest, they are both veterans and the fact that they can post this openly in the forums constantly surprises me. That said, I know there are a few things on the roadmap that you personally have pushed for and that they originally said they didn't think was necessary. So it's clear that our dialogues also do not go unanswered. I have no idea how many people work on GM2 but sometimes I think the answer is four: Russell, Mike, Daniel and ... Robert? Sometimes when I submit a ticket I get someone other than Daniel Cleaton, and I think his name is Robert. Anyways, it appears QA is two people and development is two people. And for a measly four people, I think it's reasonable to expect it will take a while for GM to reach parity with Unity.
I have the free version of the latest Unity and I found no major restrictions whatsoever.
Mentioning Unity's past is irrelevant to the present state of the software. There are great benefits to using it now, regardless of what happened back-in-the-day.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure YoYoGames have more than four people working on GMS and especially now that they are owned by PlayTech.
Well either way, could you let them (the corporations, the lizards, or whoever they are) know of the terrible state GML is in please. I mean, no offence, but I would really like to see it get some attention.
I am saying this as someone who really like the game maker engine...
I assume you mean the "GML" language itself? As someone who has used lots of different languages from raw bytes, through assembler, basic, Java, C, C# etc.... I always find a way to do what I want to do. Could it be better? Sure. But then, so could C++ and C#, you use the tools you have.
.........but at least we can change it in the future (unlike the other languages).
I have mixed feelings about all this. My first go-round trying to make a game, I looked into GameMaker. It was plastic-toy beyond belief: scripting by burying "code snippets" inside a drag-and-drop interface straight out of the 386 days, and it was owned by a Hungarian gambling conglomerate with a forum dominated by 14 year olds? Well, it was my loss, but I moved on to Unity and C# because they seemed far less sketchy. Hitting C# and Unity for a 2D project just after Unity's 2D got out of beta, without a programming background... didn't go well.
This time through, GMS2 seemed much more professional, and the big hits (Hotline Miami, HLD, Crashlands, etc.) made it clear that it wasn't just click-together software for kids and gullible middle-school administrators. Now, two months in I've got $400 into a mobile license and have something approaching a legit game with novel mechanics that's 90% code, and so far so good. I've learned enough about programming that I could, at a cost of much time, learn enough Python or C# to try Godot or Unity. Where would I be if I'd tried hitting C# and Unity again from the get go? Not where I'm at now. So the comparison to Unity is bollocks, particularly when it's arisen by a niche business change that'll affect very little of the userbase.
But YYG still seems sketch as hell. The gambling-conglomerate ownership hasn't gone away. It's a far cry from by-gamers-for-gamers, at the corporate level. There are a lot of reasonable worries about YYG's sense of direction and its long-term future. The inexplicable waste of dev time into image and sound editors, a gimmicky IDE, and DnD (which should just be euthanized unless educators become a meaningful source of revenue within the next year). The officially unacknowledged parallel universe of YYC compatibility. The worrisome complaints about the extensions for advertising, Google Play, other Android stuff, and an apparent history of poor support for iOS. The brokenness of the HTML5 export, at least at launch. The embarrassing lack of marketing acumen; just hand the public face over to a 25-year old design badass out of San Francisco already, it's painful to watch. And now that I'm getting deeper into expanding the architecture of a moderately ambitious game, the more frequently I "get" some of the running complaints about GML and the datedness of some of GMS2's dev environment. Well... we'll see what the future holds.
While i can understand Yoyogames perspective on this pricing strategy (the fact that platform providers don't pay anymore and thus the costs have to be covered by someone), i still ain't keen on these changes as a developer.
As others have pointed out there are competitors out there who provide alternatives (which may even be more flexible/powerfull) which are much more developer friendly pricing wise (for console exports).
In my honest opinion: if you want to develope games with the intention to port them to console at some point in the future (after releasing the PC version for example) you test and debug the games on console from day one.
It's much more efficient time wise. (You test the game on multiple platforms, can catch bugs early and fix them. Otherwise you end up with a PC game which you then try to run on consoles only to discover that something doesn't work as it should and then spent the time to debug the game with a much larger codebase...)
It's often not practical at all.
And given that the pricing (due to the reasoning mentioned here by the YYG staff) which is targeted at those (relatively small number of) developers means that the console exports will not be used by as much GM devs as for example the Windows export.
> Less developers means that the console exports will not be as "field tested" as other platforms (like windows.)
So once someone pays this yearly "not subscription" to access the console export, the developer runs risk into running into a (game breaking) bug which stops him/her from publishing their game.
So now you have to debug your codebase (which should have been the case since day 1 of development), get into contact with YYG, maybe create a reproduction example of this bug and hope that they fix this stuff ASAP and wait for their response.
For me, that's quite a risky strategy compared to the alternatives (like Unity) where you can easily develope and test your games from the start on consoles (alongside your PC version) by simply registering as a developer and gaining access to their SDKs. Bugs can be caught earlier (less hassle) and the company maintaining the engine has time to react and fix them.
We've seen what happens to game engines when they are created as a hobby.
Are you saying @Mike should get a job as a car salesman and continue to develop GMS (and get endlessly abused by people) for the enjoyment of it?
No, I wasn't saying that. Can we get back on topic?
I think Samuel Venable's reply is for people who complain about the price of regular GMS 2 exports and uses affordability in every argument they make, not for anyone at YoYo.
Free and open source for extensions and small games is one thing, which I'm happy enough to provide. Making a game engine free and open source isn't always a good idea. It strongly depends on who's doing it and where the time and money is coming from. But in most cases, making money from huge software products is generally a good idea.
*Back on topic*
As much as I love all of the theoretical 'this will kill all indies' guff, I'm off to code for a bit. I have an XBox One title to ship
Like I said, we're talking seven extra years. So yes, it's entirely relevant unless your argument is that GM should have achieved whatever you consider to be parity in 1/3 the time. I hate a comment like this because now I feel like I'm cheerleading when in reality I'm just pointing out that some of the perception of what and where GM should be is a least a bit unreasonable at least by the metric you've chosen. Software takes time, Unity took ~14 years and GM has been what it is now for a mere 4. That matters.
As for the number of developers I don't really know, but as I've said I really only ever see evidence of four. And while I do know it's higher I'm also guessing it's less than the 300 Unity employed in 2012: seven years after it was released.
And lastly I said previous versions of unity paired down features for the free version. Unity 5, which is less than two years old, was when the free version became unrestricted. Once again, this matters whether or not you choose to ignore it. This doesn't excuse GM's choices but it doesn't exonerate Unity when it took them 14 years to do it. If you want to praise them, fine.
GameMaker has been in development for nearly 18 years.
YYG first got involved in 2007. Which is 10 years (if you want to 'reset the clock' and pretend GM started then)
^I was thinking the same thing, I just didn't know the facts precisely and I didn't feel like looking it up.
In addendum to my other post, a little off topic again...
I wasn't trying to come off as belittling, but can we just be honest and agree that whether you like the new GM2 interface or not, it's really, really gimmicky? GM does NOT have a programming style where little wires and such are gonna be helpful. Just watching videos my OCD was kicking in from it.
The roadmap has a "minimap" for the workspace. If your programming IDE needs a minimap, you've ****ed up.
Yes, but not as gimmicky as the Nintendo DS.
You shut your dirty mouth!
Maybe it's because I'm an artist, but I ****ing love GMS2's workspace set up. Feels like I have a big pile of papers scattered all over a big desk. I dunno. It's easier for me to think "My Player object is in the top left! Enemy A is to the right! Portal Object is down and to the left a little from that!" than it is to look at a big mess of tabs on top of the screen. Minimap will just make it even better! Bring it on!!
Also, Switch export.
Also, better pricing scheme.
Didn't you hear?
So is this premium charge only for version 2.0.7 or above and not earlier versions? Meaning we don't pay that amount for earlier versions if we want to go to Consoles?
Err what? There is no console export for 2.x earlier than 2.0.7.
If you are meaning for the 1.x family, then yes there is now a charge for these exporters too. YYG staff have confirmed they are no longer supplied at no charge to the developer.
No worries. I was referencing 1.x to be clear. Thanks for the info!
Yep, unfortunately no longer supplied to us at no charge.
So, for instance, let's say I'm done with my game. I would be paying $799.99 for a year of help and support so I could get my game onto consoles, is that correct?
What happens after this year is over and my game has already been released? Do I have to keep paying it?
I think the price is a little steep but if it's a definitive solution for getting our games onto consoles, I'd be more than willing - unless I was obligated to pay it annualy even when I'm not using it (like a year gap between games while I develop another one).
Nope, you only have to pay the once off fee.
But, however, if you want to update your game at a later date you will need to fork out again. This will also include things that are out of your hands. For example, Microsoft changes something on the console that breaks prior versions of your game. You'd then have to wait for YYG to patch their end with an update, fork out for a years subscription again, and re-release your game with an update.
And unfortunately this happens all the time. You just have to look at the history of iOS and Android. It will happen with the console exporters at some point or another.
If you choose not to issue updates and your game breaks at no fault of your own, your customers will be knocking on your door (not that of YYG, Microsoft, or Sony's).
Once you are in, you are in for life
as one of the biggest critics in the GM universe, especially in regards to YYG and making money, Im okay with this.
The reason and logic behind it are sound. Lest we all forget, there are sales and discounts. I expect a 'humble bundle' or a 'summer of games sponsored by sony' or any number of other price reducing events that might bring this in reach of less lucre-flowing budgets in the future. Whilst I do feel a bit of sticker shock, its not unreasonable.
As an attractive price point, I won't be paying that anytime soon:
--I am still getting used to GM again after several years away in other engines.
--I have several smaller projects far from needing console release, though that is a long term goal.
If I were to change anything, it would be to buy the console exporters permanently, and then pay annually for 'certification and testing support'.
I will point out that I returned to the GMC because of Unity switching to a subscription model.
Should GM in general switch to a subscription model, I would look elsewhere for a development environment.
Glad to see continued support for more platforms. I for one want to see improvements to GML and other core features now that console export has been achieved. Given that it is a very niche market with only a small percentage of GM users buying or needing it, it would be grand if the other items on the roadmap were now addressed.
Way to go YYG, making really steady progress on that roadmap, only out of beta a few months and you nailed MacOS IDE and now Console Export lickety-split!
Keep up the good work and I do hope you get a few console exporter sales, though I think personally, becoming THE software for microconsole, mobile and web development is going to be a more profitable and worthwhile path, with console export really showcasing the 'yearly award worthy games of mention' that are really ready for console release. Most people will never need console export, and those that do, probably arent complaining about paying for the exacting and complicated work making your software export to those consoles you do.
As for Unity, Im fairly certain they have 10x the staff and resources YYG does. Stay Indie my friends!
I wonder if Playtech was instrumental in Studio 2's development. How much support have they given YoYo Games since the acquisition? How important is GameMaker for them?
I really hope that they're listening this time.
The macOS IDE isn't out yet.
oh, was it just the runner thats out or the MacOS IDE in Beta?
couldve sworn I saw an announcement to that effect, either way, these guys are rockin' and rollin'.
YYG deserves strawberry milkshakes!
I'm a developer who have used all three export modules (PS Vita, PS4 and Xbox One) from GMS1.4.
From one side, I am VERY happy YoyoGames didn't decide to drop console exports at all!
From the other side, I can afford to spend $1500 for two consoles, it's not cheap but I understand the cost (not many people can do console dev as it's more complex, and thus it requires a ton more support from Yoyo Games - I must have made 20 tickets myself!) It's also much less than I would have to spend if I needed to switch to and master Unity...
HOWEVER, I am greatly disappointed by the 12-months model.
What if we need to patch a game later? What if we run into some development issues and need more time? (OK, I'll definitely make the PC version first but still, doing ports takes a lot of time! Maybe not a year, granted, although when you do several ports at the same time... it can!)
For an adventure game, you don't need to constantly be adding stuff, just fixing bugs once in a while. I can't see myself paying $1500 just for fixing a few things!
So... Yes to the consoles exports (still hoping for Switch!!!), OK with the $1500, but NOT OK with the 12 months limit. It should be permanent like all the other modules.
PLEASE change the 12-months model. You're only adding more stress to an already stressful job...
As I've said a few times, the cost is for on going support. Just because it's only an update, doesn't mean we won't get support requests. We get lots of folk asking how to patch their game, how to add new elements to a game, how to...well, lots.
A single cost export simply doesn't cover years and years of support costs. I'd love to say the cost will be picked up by someone else, but until that's the case.... this is what has been decided.
In terms of overrunning, or the game being late. Well, that's up to the dev/group/studio to schedule things properly and balance out a feature or set of bugs and the costs involved - just like everyone else.
Then... I guess our only choice will be :
- To make the PC version first, and iron out as many bugs as possible,
- To port to console versions as fast as possible so most bugs are fixed during the first year. Fortunately console versions don't need regular maintenance updates like Android/iOS for released games, which is a *really* good thing (AFAIK)
Because few devs will be able to pay multi-year fees anyway. I'm pretty sure folks using GameMaker Studio are very small studios, often just one person like myself, unlike Unity...
Still, I know I'm complaining, but I want you to know that I really appreciated your efforts to make it possible at all to export to consoles! Most of the hassle came from the submission itself, not the exports so... Thanks!
I'm just worried this will result in very few people using the console modules, which may render them more bug-filled and less documented. Hopefully you will adapt the price to the demand so this doesn't happen.
@Mike, if that's the case, like you've said a few times, why not charge a smaller one time fee for the export, and a larger subscription fee for support or whatever? This has been asked a few times already, but I'm going to throw it out one more time...
So why cant be monthly paid ??
I believe this might be because Sony and Microsoft are pushing (annoying) SDK updates regularly - and you always need a recent one to submit your game. So the GameMaker export needs to be updated as well, which has a cost.
Please read back over my previous comments, I've answered both of these in depth.
@Mike: Ah, yeah. My bad. You did say that you said you were told you weren't allowed to charge for support. I'm not sure that counts as an in-depth answer though, haha! I'm assuming you're not allowed to comment on why upper management passed that mandate to you, either? I mean, I could probably guess, but...
Ah well. I hope Playtech is giving you guys strong financial support, at least. I really miss the transparency YoYo had with its users before the buyout. I also remember YYG staff (and probably you, personally?) ensuring users that Playtech had full confidence in YYG, and that the buyout wouldn't effect GM in any way, because Playtech would continue to give YYG free reign in taking care of GM. It's unfortunate that that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. No offense to your parent company, but I think you and the rest of the YYG staff know what's best for GM.
Cheers, Mike. Thanks for answering as best you can, anyway.
When you're tempted to complain about how expensive software is, you have to stop and ask yourself how serious you are about using it.
Look at Adobe's Creative Suite, for example. Adobe charges $50/mo for access to the entire thing, which comes out to $600/yr. To many people, that may seem like a lot - but these are professional tools, and if you're using them for work, shouldn't you be earning more than $600/yr for your work?
I mean, for a professional designer, that's often less than one job's worth of work.
Most people don't know that console devellopment costs alot. Am not surprised by the price, I am surprised that its "per year" and not "per month". This doesn't offer much flexibility.
Seriously, this forces use to publish/finish a game right before the end of a cycle, this is like "anti indie" much. If I end in January but I suddendly need 1 more month of fixing some MF bugs reported by Sony during the subsmission, I don't want to renew a full year but a month.
Anyhow, don't think about going subscription based on us with the other modules like Windows and mobile. I mean seriously, that's where you'd loose me and alot of customer permanently.
(and I know that you can come up with "but but but... everyone is doing it. *cries*)
Bummer for you. I get Adobe CC for $1 per month.
Good for you?
I honestly don't mind it. I make a good amount of money with it, and it's a tax write-off for my business.
30% back at tax time, on a lost $600, is still a lot worse off than $12 outlay with no tax benefit
Haha, well... not when you're using it to make a lot of money.