GameMaker Studio 2 now uses a subscription model, at least for consoles

What if there is an initial one year subscription payment of $1500 dollars....then after that you can switch to a monthly plan.

That way Yoyo gets an injection of money, and also gives flexibility if devs need that extra month or two of dev time.
 

COWCAT

Member
Well, releasing on console doesn't mean you're automatically making a lot of money. I released on PS Vita (so far) and although the $800 would be covered by the sales, it's not negligible - it's a 2-digit percent of the sales.
Personally I can live one full month with that money...

What if there is an initial one year subscription payment of $1500 dollars....then after that you can switch to a monthly plan.

That way Yoyo gets an injection of money, and also gives flexibility if devs need that extra month or two of dev time.
That seems like a reasonable idea.
 

JeffJ

Member
As I said before, it's not the money for me, it's the support.

It crushes me, I love GMS and everything it does. But, I still have support tickets dating back to 2015. Some are trivial, some maybe not so. I hate thinking this way, but even I am in two minds as to how I will proceed with developing games in the near future. Not that I have a title ready to ship on XBox yet (soon), but the whole thing is a wake up call - in the aspect of support.

One of my recent support tickets is a one liner to fix and has been in the system since November last year. As a result I have had to delay one of my projects indefinitely.
This. When you actually PAY for support yourself, it damn sure has to be absolutely brilliant. So far it's been... Well, not that. Not $1500 worth brilliant at least.
 

Storyteller

Member
clearly it has been exposed in this discussion that:

A) the new pricing model is not liked
B) there is great fear that other exporters/modules may become subscription based
C) a LOT of people will leave this software for others if that happens
D) yoyo support is desired, but many feel it is lackluster at this point
E) there is a demand for:
--- i) monthly subscription after purchase of console exporters or beyond the first year
--- II) better 'premium' support
 

JeffJ

Member
clearly it has been exposed in this discussion that:

A) the new pricing model is not liked
B) there is great fear that other exporters/modules may become subscription based
C) a LOT of people will leave this software for others if that happens
D) yoyo support is desired, but many feel it is lackluster at this point
E) there is a demand for:
--- i) monthly subscription after purchase of console exporters or beyond the first year
--- II) better 'premium' support
Actually, for me, the most important point is that we want the option of paying for the support separately from the export modules.
 
7

7bones

Guest
So AGAIN
Why cant be paid monthly???????????????
I didnt find even 1 good argument for year payment here- there is any program using that system??

I think best way would be 1 year contract- with monthly payment.
 

FredFredrickson

Member
GMC Elder
So AGAIN
Why cant be paid monthly???????????????
I didnt find even 1 good argument for year payment here- there is any program using that system??

I think best way would be 1 year contract- with monthly payment.
There are a lot of reasons why they might have done it this way. One is that, having the dev put up the first year of payment up front creates a barrier to entry that helps them offset the cost of support and scale better, while limiting the flow of devs who jump onto the platform and need support.

If they just offered a monthly plan from the start, they could have a giant, unpredictable spike in potential support claims - an amount which they might not be prepared to handle. What if, from month to month, they go from supporting 100 devs to 50 devs? Then next month they need to support 200 devs? That would just be bad for everyone.

On the other hand, if they only offer monthly plans after the first year, they have kept the number of devs they're supporting from the start tempered, and they know roughly how much support they'll have to have ready for the entire year, plus the funding for it.

I don't know if this is why they chose to do it this way or not, but I would suspect this is at least partly why.
 
X

Xskode

Guest
Not going to go into this too much, but I just want to point a few things out.

1) The console exports have never been free. While developers have never paid for them, they were been paid for by platform holders. They are no longer doing this, so they have to be paid for by someone.
2) By comparison to desktop users, there number of console developers is tiny. The work required for each console export is significant - more so than for the likes of windows. The SDKs are upgraded all the time (and the changes can be significant), and we will spend huge amounts of time maintaining and upgrading these runtimes.
3) Console development is hard. While the games themselves usually "just export", that is a fraction of the work required for consoles. TRC requirements means users need significant hands on help from us. We spend a huge amount of time with console developers helping them with things like certification failures, performance issues, crashes and other issues that are usually time critical as they prepare for shows, demos and time slotted submissions. This extra level of support was again something previously paid for by platform holders, and again no longer do. However console developers need this level of support.
Because of this, a single, small, payment for a game that could take years, no longer works. Support is not "free", someone has to pay for it.
4) keeping all this in mind, not only are you paying for access to the module, but you're getting some extra support (beyond what desktop users get for example), especially through submission.
5) We consulted with many of our current console developers when trying to judge a fair price for the work involved.
6) If you are looking to start a console project soon, you should not even consider using 1.x as support for that will stop next year - as has been previously announced, and not only do console games tend to get updated a lot (so you need on going support), you will have to port and submit it long before this time.

No one will ever get the module, click export and put it on the store and be done. Console development is hard, time consuming, and costs. TRCs alone complicate things beyond what an new indie dev has ever come up against.
The truth is Game Maker Studio is hoping they wont drown in the competition. I will say this GMS 2 is pretty good. but your prices cannot be justified. now since Unity has greatly improved- allowing much easier use of combining 3D into 2D games, improve their coding, layout, functions, etc... and Unreal engine is pretty much free- yeah if you make over $5,000 you pay a 5% fee but thats nothing compared to what Unreal Engine can do with both 2D and 3D games.
There is a way of approach for everything. and when many (if not most) of your users are indie, then the only thing stopping them from leaving is your approach- especially when Unity and Unreal Engine is a click away.
I contacted y'all (and y'all did reply) about if I can keep my playstation export if I upgraded to GMS2 y'all said no. This makes no sense cause when any other game engine upgrade (unity, unreal engine, etc...) as long as you are the developer (like Playstation developer, which I am) you can export for console.

GMS2 is good but very very far from great- heck it's very far from just unity. so for you to come out and act like you're the next great thing (but y'all haven't even beat unity yet and unity is lower than 7th place), plus making us (those who brought exports) have to start from ground zero is wrong. these things are more than enough reason for someone to try something else.
there are a hand full of great game engines out there, and alot of them is not even as pricey as GMS 2

understand I not trying to hate. I just really like how GM was doing. but now since your focus changed to making money (unless it change back) you'll have great chance of failing like many other game engines before you. y'all are no where near the first 2d game engine to make a 'business' move like such.
y'all have great potential to be a great 2D game/app engine. (and 3D of course y'all will have to change and improve a lot before that happens. but the potential is there, I know it)

This project I'm working on will probably be moved to unity. hopefully when I come back, y'all would have made this engine (Game Maker Studio) something worth using.
 

Samuel Venable

Time Killer
@Seabass (The Human)

I'm not complaining here but if I read these threads right, no one is asking for free software. We want one of two things:

1) If YoYoGames expects to charge for the consoles like they are, they should really deliver a set of more features, fixed bugs, and so on if they want to stand a chance against competing software of lower costs and more features and better stability such as Unity and Unreal.

2) If YoYoGames can't deliver with a better overall engine to compete with bigger products, they should charge cheaper and cater to indies, since, as many have stressed, what makes up their entire userbase are indies. What was Super Mario Run made in? Not GameMaker. For those who weren't aware there are way too many reasons to count why Nintendo chose Unity and not an engine like GameMaker.
 
Last edited:

Ethanicus

Ethan L!
No matter what the YYG team says users of previous GM iterations will be mad that they aren't receiving free software.
No, I bought my copy. I'm mad because I feel like I'm being kicked out and forced to upgrade. Not entirely Yoyo's fault, but not even letting me redownload it is a bit of a shady move regardless of announced motives.

I'm just saying...not matter what they say I see too many coincidences.
Gamemaker picks up wire-connecting system. I see no reason why, but everyone else was doing it (Unreal).
Gamemaker's annual subscription: $1500. Unity's pro price: $1500.

There are more. I'll call them when I see them. I still stand by my opinion that they're trying to look more professional. To quote @Samuel Venable:
Indies [are] what makes up their entire userbase.
...and now you're taking moves that, at least on the surface? Look very anti-indie.

I mean it's understandable. Look at image results for "gamemaker games". Not exactly an alluring image.

I'm not trying to bash GM, I wouldn't be making games at all if it weren't for it. But that's likely just more reason I'm miffed about it.
 

Samuel Venable

Time Killer
Yeah I'm not trying to bash GM either. It's just unpleasent to see an engine with so much potential head south. If they spent less time on supporting consoles that nearly no one will use, there would be much more time to fix bugs for the other modules. But that's probably good for a separate topic...
 
Yeah I'm not trying to bash GM either. It's just unpleasent to see an engine with so much potential head south. If they spent less time on supporting consoles that nearly no one will use, there would be much more time to fix bugs for the other modules. But that's probably good for a separate topic...
You say modules that nobody will use yet you have never actually used Game Maker professionally. The people that really put money into YYG's pockets are the professionals. The people who are willing to pay $800 for an easy port to Xbox One/PS4. Not supporting consoles scares away professionals.

One of GMs worst issues in the past was its lack of compatibility across platforms. GM8 was purely for Windows OS and as a result nobody even bat an eye at it.

There aren't even that many issues with Game Maker (bugs and such). I've only seen a few serious issues with their Windows/Linux builds and even those were negligible. Just because YYG isn't catering to your needs doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong or cutting out indies. I live on income I've made using Game Maker. If and when I work on my next projects I'm excited to know that I can put said games on so many platforms.
 

Samuel Venable

Time Killer
You say modules that nobody will use yet you have never actually used Game Maker professionally. The people that really put money into YYG's pockets are the professionals.
It's funny, you speak as though GameMaker is among a professional's best choices in game creation software. Sure, some professionals buy it, but that is a vast minority. Are you suggesting the bulk of this community are all professionals?

Yes, console support is good. But a small team like YoYoGames needs to get their priorities in order. The engine is broken from top to bottom in half its exports. Console support should come after when they have the manpower and company size to make it financially worth while. They are rushing everything like there's no tomorrow, and it shows by how many times there's a bug someone reports and their usual answer is...
"if there is enough demand we will consider it."
How many times have you heard that one?
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not saying GMS is perfect or a perfect choice but a lot of people have adopted it as their tool of choice and those people are the ones they are going to consider when they make decisions.
 

Samuel Venable

Time Killer
I'm certainly not saying GMS is perfect or a perfect choice but a lot of people have adopted it as their tool of choice and those people are the ones they are going to consider when they make decisions.
Now that I agree with, but where you had lost me is when it seemed like you were saying professionals are the only ones who buy it. (and I'm not just talking about the Humble Bundle users). I think I misinterpreted you, so my apologies.
 

Ethanicus

Ethan L!
"if there is enough demand we will consider it."
That. That, #1, needs to stop. I'm not saying YYG can't be professional, but when they brush everyone off and -- as exampled through this whole thread -- make no attempt to even sound like they give a darn about people's concerns, it really contradicts that when people like Seabass here are making a living off of it. Imagine if you encountered a fatal error you can't work around and are just told "Eh, maybe we'll fix it. Thanks for the cash."
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Moderator
That. That, #1, needs to stop. I'm not saying YYG can't be professional, but when they brush everyone off and -- as exampled through this whole thread -- make no attempt to even sound like they give a darn about people's concerns, it really contradicts that when people like Seabass here are making a living off of it. Imagine if you encountered a fatal error you can't work around and are just told "Eh, maybe we'll fix it. Thanks for the cash."
You are twisting the words of the developers to skew the bias towards a negative opinion... NO ONE has ever said "if there is enough demand we will consider it" in relation to a crash or a game breaking bug. This reply has only ever been used in the context of new features, and implying otherwise is disingenuous at best. YoYo Games is a tiny company compared to those behind the other engines mentioned in this thread which means it has limited resources to throw around, which in turn means that they have to cherry-pick what those resources are put into. There is no point in them putting time and money into something that only 0.1% of the user base wants (which is the context in which that reply is used) when the same time and money can be used to develop features that 90% of the community wants...
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Moderator
I remember quite vividly them having that response for bugs as well, but I could be imagining things...
Maybe, but not bugs that cause Fatal Errors as the other user said.
Imagine if you encountered a fatal error you can't work around and are just told "Eh, maybe we'll fix it. Thanks for the cash."
Some bugs are very obscure and can be easily worked around, and to fix them may be a huge task since there is still a lot of legacy code in GM (which is slowly being replaced and updated, but some things require a lot of time and effort since a small change in one area could have big knock on effects in others). My reply was specifically relating to the insinuation that the devs would leave you in the lurch when a game breaking bug was found, which is just not true.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
On the topic of bugs: are you serious?
GMS2 is riddles with bugs!
HTML5 especially!
I can't even create instances by layer if! I have to use layer name! How did yoyo still not fix that!?! It unacceptable!

Not to mention buggy matrices, cannot modify layers across rooms, layer scripts end overwriting layer script begin, and more.
And all those I discovered in just one project I have been working on for a couple of days.

I mean come On! Why did yoyo pour resources into a console export if HTML5 didn't work yet?

My guess: appearances. Just like why there is a chain workflow, and still focus on IDE features when GML is what really needs working on.
All this because YOYO want GM to look good on the surface, not for it to actually be good. (Because we would have structs by structs by now. It's not that hard to implement. I would say a couple of weeks for yoyo, given how slow they are)
 
Last edited:

Ethanicus

Ethan L!
You are twisting the words of the developers to skew the bias towards a negative opinion... NO ONE has ever said "if there is enough demand we will consider it" in relation to a crash or a game breaking bug. This reply has only ever been used in the context of new features, and implying otherwise is disingenuous at best. YoYo Games is a tiny company compared to those behind the other engines mentioned in this thread which means it has limited resources to throw around, which in turn means that they have to cherry-pick what those resources are put into. There is no point in them putting time and money into something that only 0.1% of the user base wants (which is the context in which that reply is used) when the same time and money can be used to develop features that 90% of the community wants...
I wasn't only referring to bugs, I'm referring to the way it seems things are handled in regards to YYG to its users. I feel like I CAN'T use GM anymore for multiple reasons.

Not comparing the two in power or capability, but pricing, take Unity for instance:
Unity is nearly completely free to use and develop in. If you want to export to any platform, you can pay -- as I've just noticed it now uses -- a monthly subscription of $35 (or $420 annually). This, to my knowledge, does not include services to assist with publication.
GM:S 2 is paid for $100 off the bat. This includes exports but Windows, Mac and Ubuntu. If you want to get the rest, you pay $1,500 annually. You said you provide publication assistance.

Being reasonable and objective here: if you were to pay all at once for a year, Unity costs $420, and GameMaker costs $1,600. That's $1,180 more than Unity. So you're claiming a year's worth of support is worth $1,080 dollars, or $90 a month, am I correct? I'm not going to comment whether I think that's fair or not.

Side note: Sorry if I'm coming off as attacking, but you guys tend to get really overly-defensive and end up sounding rude. I don't want to see GM fail, I'm not wishing death on your heads. I said just above that I love it, I'm on your side and I want it to work, but I'm calling it like I see it. Lots of people are upset in here, the above is why. I'm no businessman but something just seems screwy, even with everything you and Mike have told us.
 

Tthecreator

Your Creator!
If they spent less time on supporting consoles that nearly no one will use, there would be much more time to fix bugs for the other modules.
The console export is expensive, and resources made by selling the export should be used for maintaining it. I can't imagine them pouring money from other sources into console. Of course they had to make an up front investment, but was talking about the long run.

All I can say is that coming from gms1, at this moment I really don't think that the difference between features is great enough for my money, YET.

@Ethanicus yea but unity is a subscription. All non-subscription game maker things costs $1050. For that you'd need to develop for 2.5 years. Not too bad.
Now when actually counting in the subscription, that's where it gets bad. The ultimate version costs $1500 for 12 months. That's only payed off after 3.6 years.
Now counting in the subscription of $1600 a year. (wtf the ultimate version is cheaper than both console exports combined??) it gives you an equation that cannot be solved for any number above 0.
Just weird and stupid.

I guess the problem lies with the size of the user base. An engine is an engine, and given the amount of users, the amount of effort it takes to implement something doesn't change.
If you want to implement something, it always takes roughly the same amount of money because it's just a programming job. This means that if you have more users (like unity has) you can charge less for your product. Of course there is still support that does scale with the amount of users you have, but that's only an amount of the price. This here is probably YYG's problem. They don't have enough users to compete with the big guys, thus they have to charge more, which doesn't lead to more customers. A circle of doom. (of course this is all speculation, correct me if I missed something)
 

Mike

nobody important
GMC Elder
No, I bought my copy. I'm mad because I feel like I'm being kicked out and forced to upgrade. Not entirely Yoyo's fault, but not even letting me redownload it is a bit of a shady move regardless of announced motives.
At no point do we stop you redownloading. If you bought your software, you can still get access to it and use it. The only one we don't list is 8.1, because its now 7 years(?) old. But if you own it, and wanted it, you can contact the helpdesk and they'll help.
Of course.... any software you buy online you should keep a copy of anyway. I never assume I'll get free access to the software in later years. Many folk selling software give you a link to download that's only valid for a few weeks. You buy it, you download it, you keep it safe - just like any CD you buy from a shop.

We've said this time and again. GMS2 is actually cheaper than 1.x. While we've bundled mobile, they are cheaper overall and it makes for a much simpler message - users often got confused with them before. We've also extended the upgrades, run a humble bundle where you can "buy" a 40% discount for £1.... Short of giving it away, I'm not sure what else we can do......

The console version was never free, the platform holders paid for it, and for the support that is needed to go with it. Virtually everyone who publishes to console comes in with support questions, or needing help to get through cert. If the platform holders are no longer paying, then that has to be passed on. But it was never free. While some users say they'll never need it, we can't operate on that assumption, and we are unable to offer paid for support at this time. You may not like this, but we have to do what is sustainable so that everyone will continue to enjoy the product.

I suspect most people getting annoyed about this will never actually get onto console, but just like to think they might. So for them, I'd highly recommend the windows UWP module, as it does let you do XBox for a fraction of the price, and you can sell on the store. if you want cheap console access - this is it.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
I suspect most people getting annoyed about this will never actually get onto console,
I'm probably never getting into consume with GM, yes.
I'm nor annoyed resources are poured into console export even html5 is so buggy and GML still do immature.

The pricing g of the console exports reflects the amount of work and resources that are going into them (hopefully). And meant people don't agree with yyg priorities.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Uwp apps on Xbox do not support full hardware access and have a bunch of format specific restrictions as well. Or at least that is my understanding.
But, does it even make a difference with GM? Can we make use of Xbox hardware in GM? (Pretty sure you cant).

Unless the GMengine makes use of the hardware, it's not really worth it.

Also worth pointing out Microsoft has a tool to wrap win32 apps as a UWP app. Not sure of the specifics, but what are the advantages of the UWP export over that when using GM?
 

YellowAfterlife

ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴍᴜʟᴛɪᴘʟᴀʏᴇʀ
Forum Staff
Moderator
- as I've just noticed it now uses -- a monthly subscription of $35 (or $420 annually). This, to my knowledge, does not include services to assist with publication.
So you're claiming a year's worth of support is worth $1,080 dollars, or $90 a month, am I correct? I'm not going to comment whether I think that's fair or not.
Spoilers! Unity Plus does not come with 1-on-1 support at all. You need Unity Pro for that, which is also $1500 a year. Or pay for premium support separately (but that won't be cheap either).

Side note: Sorry if I'm coming off as attacking, but you guys tend to get really overly-defensive and end up sounding rude.
I'm actually surprised that YoYo folks reply to most of this at all, because seeing people whine about console pricing while remaining blatantly ignorant of how much it costs to develop and publish on consoles is upsetting at best. Have now helped with multiple console games (latest is Nidhogg 2), and let's put it so: IT IS NOT CHEAP. IT IS NOT CHEAP AT ALL. IF YOU THINK THAT SAVING $1.5K-$3K WILL SAVE YOU, YOU ARE IN FOR A SURPRISE. Ahem.

But yes, personally I'm really tired of this mentality where people say that they want to work on a huge game for 3 years and release it on literally every platform but also act like they can't possibly make the investment back (be that directly via sales or indirectly via crowdfunding, should it really be that big and cool). How can you possibly have anyone believe in you if you don't believe in yourself
 
B

basement ape

Guest
I'm a bit baffled by these comparisons between Unity and Gamemaker to be honest. Yes. Unity is technically more powerful. Yes. You can pick up Unity and use it free of charge with all features available to you. That doesn't make a more suitable choice for small-time indies, or cheaper for that matter in my opinion.

GMS's main strengths are ease of use and speedy workflow, something Unity does NOT have. I've given both of em a good spin so I feel I have some idea. I'd say Unity *may* be the better alternative if you have a small to medium sized team with at least ONE dedicated (and competent) programmer. But if you're a one-man army or a team of two-three people, Unity will break your back and eat your soul :p

Fast development with minimum technical hassle is king. That's what GMS is for. And that's what we're paying for.

There are alternatives that are even easier and faster to use than GMS but they have their own problems. Construct 2 is very robust, bug-free and easy to use. But it's html5-only so apart from UWP, console support is pretty much a non-option. And on top of that, Construct 3 has gone with a subscription model for even the basic package so yeah...

When I made the switch from Construct 2 to GMS I was aware of the steep price tag for console support. But I don't care. At least the option is there. And I suspect that if console ever becomes a real possibility for me, 800$ a year will be the least of my worries. Console deployment seems like something you don't ever want to handle all on your lonesome.
 

hippyman

Member
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'd just like to point out this is kind nonsense, unless I'm misunderstanding it. What makes the other languages impossible to change?


Jesus, I didn't realize how far behind I was in this thread! lol
 

Mike

nobody important
GMC Elder
Uwp apps on Xbox do not support full hardware access and have a bunch of format specific restrictions as well. Or at least that is my understanding.
UWP does have access to "most" of the machine now. Not all... but most. However, they are different stores (by default) I believe, and in terms of sales exposure etc. being on the official XBox one is a lot more desirable.
Microsoft can probably promote a game over, but it's not the norm. So console devs usually just prefer to use the normal SDK and get on the proper store from day one.

I'd just like to point out this is kind nonsense, unless I'm misunderstanding it. What makes the other languages impossible to change?
Jesus, I didn't realize how far behind I was in this thread! lol
I can't actually remember much of this conversation it was so long ago now!

However... C/C++ and C# are committee driven and any change will take years to come through. We can change GML far quicker.

I "think" that's what I was getting it......... but I could be talking bollocks :p


EDIT: Also just to say. We're putting more effort into fixing and updating HTML5 runtime. The next upcoming one has a lot more fixes again, and things like the multi-colour text (specifying 4 corner colours) now works, and text rendering is identical to native.
I've also updated it so that it plays much smoother (if your game has a frame rate that is a divisor of 60 - 60,30,20,10 etc..) This makes this much better looking.
We'll keep pushing this as I want to have HTML5 as seamless an experience as possible, and while I was pushing to get the new 2.0 IDE done, it didn't get the focus I think it needed. This is now changing. I've put a lot of effort into it so far, and will continue to do so.....

I like HTML5, and I think it's an amazing tool for indies to promote and share their game, so I really do want it to be as simple as possible.
 
Last edited:

Juju

Member
Compared to the minefield that was GMS1, HTML5 on GMS2 is already substantially better. Good to see that the trajectory is up rather than treading water.
 

Edmanbosch

Member
However... C/C++ and C# are committee driven and any change will take years to come through. We can change GML far quicker.
Why would you need to change it though? Languages like C# are fine enough right now, and are perfectly usable.
 

hippyman

Member
I can't actually remember much of this conversation it was so long ago now!

However... C/C++ and C# are committee driven and any change will take years to come through. We can change GML far quicker.

I "think" that's what I was getting it......... but I could be talking bollocks :p
Yeah sorry about that.... Not sure how I got so behind on this topic :oops:

I see what you mean though. No worries :D:D


I'd also like to point out that I'm still a fan of GM. I've been a little disappointed at the start of 2.x but I turned into a huge fan of 1.x and I'm almost positive I'll be back to that once editor plugins are finally a thing. I really feel like that will be huge for the editor itself.
 

Edmanbosch

Member
My only problem with all of this is that now to get all the exports in one is more expensive than just buying them separately. There should be version without the console exports.
 
G

Guest

Guest
My only problem with all of this is that now to get all the exports in one is more expensive than just buying them separately. There should be version without the console exports.
You can't buy all the exports in one. The closest thing to "buying" "all the exports" is the $1,500 annual license, which gives access to all platforms for one year. If you want to "buy" all the non-console exports, it'll cost you $1,050, but you'll be able to use the exports for the duration of the useful life of GMS2.
 

Edmanbosch

Member
You can't buy all the exports in one. The closest thing to "buying" "all the exports" is the $1,500 annual license, which gives access to all platforms for one year. If you want to "buy" all the non-console exports, it'll cost you $1,050, but you'll be able to use the exports for the duration of the useful life of GMS2.
Wait, where did you read that the Ultimate Edition only lets you use the non-console exports for one year?
 

JeffJ

Member
Spoilers! Unity Plus does not come with 1-on-1 support at all. You need Unity Pro for that, which is also $1500 a year. Or pay for premium support separately (but that won't be cheap either).
That's exactly my point; at least there, you have the option of paying for support separately.

This whole "we're not allowed to do pay support because of reasons" is frankly quite lacking of any reasoning whatsoever.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Wait, where did you read that the Ultimate Edition only lets you use the non-console exports for one year?
Before I posted, I read several pages. Here is the Get GameMaker page: https://www.yoyogames.com/get

This page says that the $1,500 purchase has a "license type" of "12 Month" rather than "Permanent," which is listed for the non-console exports. It also says this on the "My GameMaker Licences" page.

I also clicked the "Find out more" button, which leads to this blog post: https://help.yoyogames.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000414352

That post doesn't say that the non-console exports are available permanently. It's not a very clear blog post, but it does say this:

When choosing to develop for console, you now have some choice of how to license also: you can purchase the export module for a single console (PlayStation 4 or Xbox One) or, particularly if you plan to target more than one platform, you may want to purchase GameMaker Studio 2 Ultimate for a lower yearly cost.

The single console licence contains only that export and the standard Windows or Mac test run capability. If you require additional licences you can purchase them separately.

The Ultimate licence contains all licences (Desktop, Web, UWP, Mobile, etc.), but will only contain the console export(s) that you are registered for.
Please note: Whilst this is a 12 month licence, it is not a subscription per se and requires you to manually purchase again at the end of your 12 months, as we do not auto-renew for you.
This implies that the Ultimate license lasts 12 months and must be renewed.

I'd be happy to be wrong.
 

Samuel Venable

Time Killer
Before I posted, I read several pages. Here is the Get GameMaker page: https://www.yoyogames.com/get

This page says that the $1,500 purchase has a "license type" of "12 Month" rather than "Permanent," which is listed for the non-console exports. It also says this on the "My GameMaker Licences" page.

I also clicked the "Find out more" button, which leads to this blog post: https://help.yoyogames.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000414352

That post doesn't say that the non-console exports are available permanently. It's not a very clear blog post, but it does say this:



This implies that the Ultimate license lasts 12 months and must be renewed.

I'd be happy to be wrong.
It seems to be implying the 12 months to the consoles. Since the others are permanent, it would be weird to say both "Permanent" and "12 months" under the same cell of that chart. Anyway that's just my impression. You could be right. I honestly don't know after reading what you quoted. If some staff could clarify that would be appreciated. :)
 
Last edited:
M

Me Myself and I

Guest
We've said this time and again. GMS2 is actually cheaper than 1.x. While we've bundled mobile, they are cheaper overall and it makes for a much simpler message - users often got confused with them before. We've also extended the upgrades, run a humble bundle where you can "buy" a 40% discount for £1.... Short of giving it away, I'm not sure what else we can do......

The console version was never free, the platform holders paid for it, and for the support that is needed to go with it.
And that's the tone deafness. NOBODY is demanding free software, they're asking for better value for their money.

Look, business is business and it's clear that your initial business model failed: the low entry point (i.e. FREE) set the expectation and built a community of hobbyists and small shop indies. What you're seeing now is sticker shock because the entry point of the product has increased significantly -- no, it's NOT unreasonable, but it's also a bit of a stretch to say the product is "cheaper"....that's only true if you go "all-in" or develop full-time. I suspect most of the sticker shock is coming from the "tweeners" who are more than hobbyists but not quite professionals yet - that's the group that's being squeezed out by the new pricing model. For full-time developers, it's not a bad deal.

If that's your target audience, that's fine - just have the decency to acknowledge as much and don't try to bamboozle us over it.

In other words: don't call your users crybabies or skin flints, just say "we had to go in this direction to keep the product sustainable" and leave it at that. Snarky comments just make you look unprofessional.

Just my $.02. I still like GM:S and will use it for as long as it works....otherwise, it looks like the Unity Personal license is the way to go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike

nobody important
GMC Elder
I disagree.... from the very first page of this topic:
In GameMaker Stduo 1.x the console exports were 100% free. It's ridiculous the leap they are taking, and the product hasn't even been improved or changed that drastically in 2.x...
As I then said above - the console exports were NEVER free, they were paid for - along with support, by the platform holders.
And as to saying we've not been changed anything, or you aren't getting value for money, I'll then point out again this is in relation to the fact that 2.x has introduced lots of new things,performance increases, not to mention a totally new IDE that's been around 3 years in the making. This stuff doesn't come out of thin air.

The number of people actually using the console export is minimal compared to desktop and mobile - which isn't surprising. But it also means the cost of supporting this module (and it's ongoing support cost) is not shared by tens of thousands of users, meaning the "support" cost which goes into the per-module cost, will be much higher. This is again (obviously), the basic economics of writing and supporting any module. If it were a simple case of write it once, release and never look back, it would be much cheaper. If we had 50,000 console developers, then this ongoing cost would me shared over all these developers, and the cost much lower. We don't however have anywhere near that number, and so the cost has to be higher.

While most games will "just run" with deployed to a console, developers need ongoing help in not just moving to console and understanding the new ecosystem, but also understanding and implementing TRC's for each console. This isn't just us guessing, this has been a reality since we released the console version, so we know these costs HAVE to be covered. We have never called our users crybabies, or skinflints - please don't put words into our mouths. But there is a misconception that the console exports are free, and that they are entitled to them. Consoles are an expensive undertaking - go and find some of the bigger devs and see how much effort and cost goes into them (and I mean GM devs, not AAA). The Hyper Light Drifter guys have some good talks on the effort of doing big games that you can watch, and we've helped a lot of these devs get onto console - and continue to do so.

Lastly... for those who claim - I don't need support, then great. But! you do expect APIs to be upgraded and maintained, not to mention more expedited bug fixes which you need to hit your submission slots, something desktop users don't really experience. An API upgrade can be as simple as recompiling, but other times it can be months worth of work. Again, on modules like mobile, this cost is shared, on console - not so much. Console APIs also change much faster, and more radically than all the others combined.

These costs aren't just made up, they are there for a reason. And while we would love the platform holders to shoulder these costs again, this isn't currently the case.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Edmanbosch @Samuel Venable So I went ahead and contacted YYG. All licenses through the Ultimate License are valid for only 12 months, including the non-console exports. Permanent licenses must be purchased separately.
Hello,

The Ultimate licence as a whole needs to be renewed every 12 months and this includes all platforms within it. You can purchase other licences platforms outside of the licence and they will become permanent though.

Let me know if you need any further information.
Kind Regards,
Richard
YoYo Games Customer Support Technician
 
Last edited by a moderator:

COWCAT

Member
Oh! Does this mean each console export purchased separately becomes permanent?
This would be a great news!

EDIT : Nah, just checked the buy page and it's clearly mentioned "12 months". Too bad.

Personally for my next game, I'll just get each console module and focus on each separately so the 12 months limit isn't too much a burden. GMS 3.0 might be out by then, anyway :p
 
C

CursedToast

Guest
I called this sort of thing would happen about a year ago. I'm so glad that I took the time to learn a different engine. The push was when there seemed like no interest to support the Nintendo Switch, while other engines supported it day 1. Came back to this storm. Sadly can't say I'm surprised.

I'm relieved I took the time to actually learn something that's actually used in the industry, too. It really wasn't nearly as bad taking that step away from GM as I thought it would be
Next other modules will be subscription.

Not expecting to see YoYo around in 10 (maybe even 5) years, and that makes me sad as someone that's spent thousands on GM software licenses over the years across different accounts and as gifts.

I don't expect anything free. I didn't mind when there was an upgrade fee. It makes sense to me. Yoyo needs to eat. I'll throw money every couple of years for major version upgrades like 1.x -> 2.x without question. Don't even need a discount.

Subscriptions that are so costly when there's superior engines that are used massively in the professional field available for much cheaper (and even free)? Can't back that, man.

My genuine best to YoYo. Thanks for the years, and stellar documentation that helped me learn programming. I wouldn't be where I am without your tool and documentation. But I have to pass on your products moving forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top