Discussion in 'Community Chat' started by Mr. RPG, Jun 22, 2017.
I'm the opposite. I've been using Unity for years but now GameMaker 2 is superior in every way.
I would say that they are kind of even(at least for 2D).
Gamemaker wins hands down, just as soon as someone writes a GML plugin for IntelliJ.
I'm honestly ok with this. A small price to pay to get on a console and the porting support they offer with it I'm sure is super helpful. I'm looking forward to be able to give back to yoyo when its time to port to consoles for everything they've done. I think GMS is such an amazing product and the work they put into it is astounding. I hope they continue to be around for a long time and the market starts taking them more seriously instead of people thinking Unity is the only way to go.
And now, you can export to Xbox console without subscription, through UWP.
Did they end up fixing that big ass cursor thing that follows the gamepad that you couldn't get rid of on XBOne?
That was a certification killer right there.
Wonder if they'll mark my two year old ticket solved now
Put in a feature request for resolving old tickets ;D
I don't get all the criticism around this. With console exports, we are most likely talking about a small fraction of the total user base, but most important of all, the target is very specific. You can't simply wake up one morning and decide "hey, let's develop / port a game for the console market!". In my opinion, if your target is the console market, you'll have to consider your business choices very carefully. We are not talking about pacman clones or hit the ball here.
Developing quality games has a price, and although you may not consider your time as tied to money directly, you probably should in this case. There's a reason for all the games you find on crowdsourcing platforms. The price of the subscription for the modules should just be seen as a cost you add to the business plan, and as many others said, it does make sense from a business point of view. The alternative probably is not having the exports at all, which is far worse.
I have to say though that the criticism related to a few major bugs (especially in the HTML5 platform) has solid ground in this context, but it's difficult to tell if having to maintain the console modules has an impact on that or not. I've seen a lot of improvements recently in this aspect, and as long as the trend is positive, I'm not really worried
That's all fine and dandy. Once again, however, I ask: why not offer to pay for the support separately?
I really, genuinely and wholeheartedly disdain the extreme lack of transparency since the Playtech acquisition. It makes debates like this literally impossible. You can't really debate with "we're not allowed to do this very logically and reasonable thing that our customers are asking for because of reasons". Ok great.
And once again I'll say...... Virtually all devs who have a console license have asked for support - and not just about console matters, but other things to help[ them get the game out the door.
If you've ever had 1:1 support about an issue that effects you, then this is where this comes in.
So it's not like it's so "out there" when virtually all pro-devs expect this anyway.