In which case, they have no real right to demand everything they use be free - unless they're doing it themselves.Or they could get a job outside the programming world and make money from that to put bread on the table and make software as a hobby.
Sorry can't comment.Was the decision to prioritise console exports made by your gambling corporate overlords?
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.Support or no support. Unity free and plus can still make console games. GameMaker free can't. GameMaker free can't even build a Windows game, (or anything, for that matter), and with limited resources. Unity has none of these restrictions.
^lol
^same link
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.Sorry can't comment.
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.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...
We've seen what happens to game engines when they are created as a hobby.Or they could get a job outside the programming world and make money from that to put bread on the table and make software as a hobby.
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.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?
@Hyomoto
I have the free version of the latest Unity and I found no major restrictions whatsoever.
^lol
^same link
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.
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.@Hyomoto
I have the free version of the latest Unity and I found no major restrictions whatsoever.
^lol
^same link
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.
GameMaker has been in development for nearly 18 years.Software takes time, Unity took ~14 years and GM has been what it is now for a mere 4. That matters.
The roadmap has a "minimap" for the workspace. If your programming IDE needs a minimap, you've ed 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.
Yes, but not as gimmicky as the Nintendo DS.it's really, really gimmicky?
You shut your dirty mouth!Yes, but not as gimmicky as the Nintendo DS.
$6000.Also, Switch export.
Also, better pricing scheme.
Err what? There is no console export for 2.x earlier than 2.0.7.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?
No worries. I was referencing 1.x to be clear. Thanks for the info!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.
Yep, unfortunately no longer supplied to us at no charge.No worries. I was referencing 1.x to be clear. Thanks for the info!
Nope, you only have to pay the once off fee.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 really hope that they're listening this time.I have passed on the comments given here already, so they are aware of the issue. All I can do right now.
The macOS IDE isn't out yet.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!!
@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...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.
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.@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...
@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...
Please read back over my previous comments, I've answered both of these in depth.So why cant be monthly paid ??
Bummer for you. I get Adobe CC for $1 per month.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.
Good for you?Bummer for you. I get Adobe CC for $1 per month.
AbsolutelyGood 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.Bummer for you. I get Adobe CC for $1 per month.
30% back at tax time, on a lost $600, is still a lot worse off than $12 outlay with no tax benefitI don't mind it. I make a decent amount of money with it, and it's a tax write-off for my business.
Haha, well... not when you're using it to make a lot of money.30% back at tax time, on a lost $600, is still a lot worse off than $12 outlay with no tax benefit