OFFICIAL New, More Affordable Pricing For Sharing and Publishing Games

Let me help them:
- sprites: as flash is dead, instead of SWF support we should get SVG import instead (even if that still means vertex models); mesh morhping (among with Spine support for it); sprite attach points
- tilesets: 47 tiles generator of big tilesets from 9-tiles/5-tiles images
- paths: bezier splines
- new resource: polygon shapes definition for room editor to detect if we're inside/outside of it on runtime (for AI, defining areas, collisions maybe)
- new resource: particles + editor
- fonts: singed distances fonts, so we can scale them up with nearly no pixels visible on edges
- rooms: ability to add text on layers; universal layer (so every type of resource can be placed there - that's possible at runtime already); ability to put "markers" on room, to mark/name places which x/y we want to access later at runtime so something might happen on them (teleports, npc waypoints, ai etc.); polygonal areas mentioned earlier
- new resource: data sources, for csv, json, text files, which can be accessed at runntime, but aren't exported from executable like included files, and are embed inside game (could be used for languages, levels generations, dictionaries, configurations)
- gml: data structures as references, so we don't need to care anymore about memory leaks with ds_xxx as GC will flush them
- support for game translations

Now they have my feedback, and we can talk about future plans 👺👺👺👺
A lot of those things you mentioned are things that Godot has. So imo and I think I mentioned this before in an earlier post; they just need to reach feature parity with Godot 2DengineWise because programming/workflow is still much easier in GMS2 than Godot. Also GMS2 will have 1 thing that Godot will never have, Console exports. (yes I now you can hire a third party to export your Godot game but thats probably going to cost way more)

One other thing they need/should add is basically yellowafterlifes GMlive extension (build in that functionality into the engine by default, Godot already has this functionality as well) I dont really see Unity or Unreal as gamemakers direct competition to be honest. I think its closest competitor is Godot in case that wasn't already obvious :p

I could go on but youve already covered a whole bunch that needs to/should be done
 

COWCAT

Member
I forgot about it! They actually mentioned it could come one day.
Yes please.
It's very useful but the fact you have to anticipate and add lines specifically for it in EVERY script of the game (and different according to number of arguments) makes it harder to use. If this was integrated this would be a dream.

Also, I bet everyone has seen the news now but the free version now has ONE available export! The Opera GX Browser. Better than nothing for hobbyists!
 

drandula

Member
Wow Finally it looks like they will be providing some sort of export option for the free version that is tied to the OperaGX browser itself somehow. View attachment 42307
Yup

Edit. I think this is better solution overall for public image, than having export with splash screen. Splash screens can lead up to negative association with engine, as better ones most likely use paid export and won't have same "hey this is made with X!". So player would only know it was made with X when it is free export (novices and non-commercials, I would assume lower quality). When you meet these kind of games few times, player can generalize engine resulting bad games.

Now even though OperaGX exported games would have splash screen, it has main difference: player knows all these games are made with GMS2! So if player meets bad game, it can quickly see other ones which are much better. And most likely there fill be filters for top-rated etc. So it can see what engine is capable of.
 
Last edited:
As some people predicted, a new and free export for Opera GX.
( It's confusing, if they only provide a free GMS2 version but it can't export anything, or give a way for sharing the game. )
But because of the past experience of using the web export, i would be worried about its stability for now.
 

Alice

Toolmaker of Bucuresti
Forum Staff
Moderator
But because of the past experience of using the web export, i would be worried about its stability for now.
Hopefully with the free web-like export becoming more prominent, the "for now" will soon become outdated. After all, it's already quite a brave move from Opera to put up the successor to YYG Sandbox, with likely lots and lots of very amateurish games. No need to make these games look even worse by bugs specific to GX export.
 
I am really excited for built-in live coding such as GMLive, but as COWCAT said, I don't like how you have to add a line on top of every script. It be nice if there was a live code play button, and then the server for GMLive would start up automatically (if the server is even needed anymore, idk)

Does the new free export to Opera GX browser fall under HTML5 but just packaged differently? If it is still HTML5, then this should help stabilize HTML5 which I would be super happy about.

Edit: Not HTML5 export.
 
Last edited:

drandula

Member
Oh wow, that's interesting 👀
We all just assumed it was based on HTML5 because GX is browser, but given piece of information does sound exciting :D
 
Just another point of view to add to my previous comment on this subject.

YES: It's cheaper to pay a small amout for 1 month to export as a Desktop executable or whatever other systems. But here is the thing. When creating games and testing them, I may want to hand this over to a tester who does NOT have GMS2 installed because I am the one programming. I may also want to publish on Steam or other places as Alphas or Betas without yet charging anything.

Creating a game takes months and even years with lots of testing. NOW, with the subscription, I need to pay for everytime I want to export OR I am limited in time for the export unless I pay continuously. The point of owning a perpetual license is to NEVER depend on a subscription AND more-over, NEVER depend on INTERNET to make the app work. If I want to export as much as I want to send to my testers, I can, without any additional costs.

So yes, the subscription model for me is just nonesense and useless and makes me want to drawback from YYG. What will happen in the futur? Will my licenses not activate anymore because GMS will be outdated and require online activation via subscription for new version ONLY?

I still own Game Maker 5.3, 6, 7 and 8.1 licenses which I can all activate offline and very easily program a game with it. That's the beauty of perpetual licenses. Yes, they don't have all the engine GMS2 has, but I can still make very good games with these apps which open up almost instantly compared to the long delay before GMS1 and 2 open up and the additional clicks required to create a project.

I am NOT against subscription models, I am against pushing everyone to a subscription model to continue using the futur versions of the app. I just think it would be VERY logical to AT LEAST give us the DESKTOP version as perpetual license, keep the rest as subscriptions. But again, some people might program for Android or iOS, the same story repeats where testing requires a subscription to export the game package.

I really think that perpetual licenses should stay and use your subscriptions more wisely. For example, Office 365 users have the opportunity to test the new Office comming out this year while as the perpetual owners cannot yet. You could have major releases available as perpetual licenses but anything in between, Alphas, Betas and anything not yet official released could then be available ONLY to those with a subscription model.

The subscription model would let us have a word on versions or upcomming versions while as perpetual licenses just give's us the app without much saying for currently tested versions. I would understand THAT mentality.
 

Ricardo

Member
Its not the HTML5 export! that is all I will say just now....

It is compatible with the standard VM C++ runner and we are still sorting out some edge cases around network, audio and window size etc... but it is exciting...

Russell
Sounds like WASM is finally coming... Awesome!
 

XanthorXIII

Member
Even though I am on an Indie Sub and have everything(aside Console Exports), I do appreciate the moves that YoYo is making for the Free Version of GMS2. I think this just goes to show that we haven't heard of everything yet and that YoYo is working behind the scenes to make this product even better for everyone. Thanks guys!
 
Wait, what??
I tought someone said here that permanent licenses change back to permanent after the free months expire?? Thats the whole reason i converted my licenses 😅
I was talking about versions after GameMaker Studio 2. Version 3 or afterwards would probably require subscriptions.
 
Just another point of view to add to my previous comment on this subject.

YES: It's cheaper to pay a small amount for 1 month to export as a Desktop executable or whatever other systems. But here is the thing. When creating games and testing them, I may want to hand this over to a tester who does NOT have GMS2 installed because I am the one programming. I may also want to publish on Steam or other places as Alphas or Betas without yet charging anything.
This post basically shares my exact thinking on subscriptions vs a permanent license.

But for a moment, I'm starting to see what people are saying about "subscribe for only a month to do your exports, then cancel". But let me explain the potential problems with that sort of thinking.

What if I did subscribe to the Enterprise license for the first year for $800, and I released a game on console, than after the year license had run out, I want to release an update or DLC, but, for some reason, the monthly subscriptions of $80 were canceled. I would then basically be forced to pay another $800for an entire year, just to release an update or DLC. This type of thing makes the future of using GameMaker unsteady and not being able to trust whether the monthly subscriptions would always be available or commercially viable for YoYo Games.

Also, let me state that I, myself, am not opposed to paying a subscription to use GameMaker. But here are the things that I wish were different:

  • Still pay the initial first year of $800, but pay afterwards out of what developers have already made or pay a royalty (although, not many would like paying royalties).
  • Subscriptions could be for developers who want more dedicated support, like one on one, faster ticket response, not having to pay from revenue made or other Subscription only extras.
  • Like David Richard said, the current model is dependent on Subscriptions and internet login authorization.
  • Also like David Ricard said: "I really think that perpetual licenses should stay and use your subscriptions more wisely. For example, Office 365 users have the opportunity to test the new Office comming out this year while as the perpetual owners cannot yet. You could have major releases available as perpetual licenses but anything in between, Alphas, Betas and anything not yet official released could then be available ONLY to those with a subscription model."

The main reason, this type of Subscription, could get costly is that it's an "upfront" Subscription. I would have no issue with paying from what I had already made. Even paying $800 a year from what I made. This type of model would make GameMaker even more accessible to even more developers and would give them access to console if they were approved for them. I'm a single person developer, and I'm approved for Xbox and PlayStation. So console are very much approachable for one man studios.

From my perspective, this change would only take two subscription models:

  • Full Support with Extras - Flat Monthly/Yearly Cost
  • Threshold/Royalty - Initial First Year of $800 - Paying additional subscriptions from revenue earned, while Console exports remain permanent.

The Threshold/Royalty model may not seem like it give much revenue to YoYo Games if a game doesn't sell well, but, it would also mean that I developer doesn't have to keep paying monthly or yearly if their game doesn't sell well. But in the long run the Threshold/Royalty model has the potential to earn YoYo Games a whole lot more than $800 a year from Enterprise subscribers.

These are just my personal thoughts and opinions of, people are free to agree or disagree. But, think of this all in the long run and from a non biased perspective.
 

Roldy

Member
- rooms: ability to add text on layers; universal layer (so every type of resource can be placed there - that's possible at runtime already); ability to put "markers" on room, to mark/name places which x/y we want to access later at runtime so something might happen on them (teleports, npc waypoints, ai etc.); polygonal areas mentioned earlier
- new resource: data sources, for csv, json, text files, which can be accessed at runntime, but aren't exported from executable like included files, and are embed inside game (could be used for languages, levels generations, dictionaries, configurations)

I like your list but these are the ones I like the most. I've been thinking about what I would like to see in GMS2 and besides better shader models, I think extending the capabilities of Asset Layers is at the top of my list.

One of the most significant areas that GMS is lacking is IDE extension and custom editor support. Even without Editor Time scripting, there is alot that can be done currently with the Asset Layers and the layer elements function library. With just a tad bit more functionality the usefulness of GMS would increase dramatically and allow for much more data driven design and data manipulation within the IDE.

  • Assets on the asset layer 'element names' need to be accessible at runtime
    • Currently only one function deals with element names ' layer_sprite_get_id ' and that is it
    • Need to be able to access (read only) name field for all elements
      • Currently creating elements at runtime have no name. It would be good to be able to assign at creation
    • Like Instance Names, Element Names are also colored 'red' as a constant when typed in gml scripts. But they are not constants.
      • It would be nice if these feature actually worked (even though exactly how is questionable. How to distinguish between element ID, Object ID or Instance ID)
  • Simple Struct asset
    • Similar to the Object Variable Definitions we can have a struct asset that we can assign variables through the IDE
    • Then these struct assets can be instanced and placed on an asset layer, and like instances the Variable Definitions can be changed per instance
    • If not a whole other asset then allow sprites assets put on an asset layer to have a struct data attached to them
    • You can get similar functionality currently by using Sequence on an asset layer and querying the sequence structures
      • But this is a little klunky and it would be very useful to have this feature directly supported
    • You can get similar functionality currently by using object instance for the sole purpose of data layout
      • Again a little klunky
  • Bug Fixes
    • Currently the ' layer_set_target_room ' are completely broken on HTML5, being able to access layer meta data in other rooms is very powerful
      • But if you plan to support HTML5 you currently have to avoid this functionality
 
Last edited:

kupo15

Member
I know I asked this before but I'm still confused. I have 40 some months of subscription for free or 6 months enterprise free. I plan on saving the subscription for the console stuff when that happens. I know they gave us free months until Jan 1 that are counting down. My question is this:

After Jan 1st 2022, will all of these free subscriptions I have start counting down or only if I activate my subscription? Regardless if they countdown or not, what is the point of me subscribing right now instead of when my permanant license goes away due to 3.0?
 

Sad

Member
I know I asked this before but I'm still confused. I have 40 some months of subscription for free or 6 months enterprise free. I plan on saving the subscription for the console stuff when that happens. I know they gave us free months until Jan 1 that are counting down. My question is this:

After Jan 1st 2022, will all of these free subscriptions I have start counting down or only if I activate my subscription? Regardless if they countdown or not, what is the point of me subscribing right now instead of when my permanant license goes away due to 3.0?
I wish they can give official answer for this in FAQ, whether we can hold on that 6 months enterprise free subscription and use it when we feel like it, or we are forced and will start counting down at the beginning of 2022.
 

BenRK

Member
An export for the free version is a step in the right direction and makes a sub less of a problem. I'm not sure I'm a fan of it being played through OperaGX, BUT I don't know any more then anyone else, so I can't give any more opinion then that.

Regardless what I think, being able to share what you make with the free version is the right direction and I give a thumbs up. Shame there's no thumbs up emoji.
 
Yes please.
It's very useful but the fact you have to anticipate and add lines specifically for it in EVERY script of the game (and different according to number of arguments) makes it harder to use. If this was integrated this would be a dream.

Also, I bet everyone has seen the news now but the free version now has ONE available export! The Opera GX Browser. Better than nothing for hobbyists!

Huge step in the right direction to balance what they want to do with the subscription system with keeping the software inviting to beginners like it was intended to be at inception, hopefully they talk it out behind the scenes and provide some kind of TOS limited Windows/VM export on the free version with something like a baked-in splashscreen and agreement not to sell games compiled with it

That would do a lot to calm people down and to bring casual users into trying game development
 

flashice

Member
Hi, I noticed offical change to subscribe mode ,Does that mean when GM2 upgrade to GM3 , all the permanent license will turn into subcribe mode?
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Hi, I noticed offical change to subscribe mode ,Does that mean when GM2 upgrade to GM3 , all the permanent license will turn into subcribe mode?
First, who said anything about a GMS3? :)

Second, the EULA for GMS2 is very clear that the permanent licence remains permanent, and even if you subscribe to GMS2 then cancel the subscription, you retain the previous permanent licence if you had one. It is also very clear that the licence covers only GMS2 and all updates to GMS2. IF there is a new version later, it will not affect any previous licences. When GM:S 1.4 had it's support ended, all permanent licences were maintained and you can still use it to this day without any licencing issues, regardless of whether you own or are subscribed to GMS2.
 

flashice

Member
First, who said anything about a GMS3? :)

Second, the EULA for GMS2 is very clear that the permanent licence remains permanent, and even if you subscribe to GMS2 then cancel the subscription, you retain the previous permanent licence if you had one. It is also very clear that the licence covers only GMS2 and all updates to GMS2. IF there is a new version later, it will not affect any previous licences. When GM:S 1.4 had it's support ended, all permanent licences were maintained and you can still use it to this day without any licencing issues, regardless of whether you own or are subscribed to GMS2.
I guess if one day GMS3 come out , there must be one way that is only be subcribed for the exporter .
 
First, who said anything about a GMS3? :)
[snip]
🙈🙉🙊.

Historically, when someone acquires Gamemaker they release a new version.

It happened in 2007 when Yoyogames first acquired GM (GM7, which was just a slightly bug-fixed GM6 was released with softwarewrap)
It happened in 2016, a year after Playtech acquired YYG's.

While this might not be the case this time around, It's not unreasonable for GM users to speculate that now that Opera has acquired YYG's, that a new version is released. In most people's experience (myself included) this is very typical behavior; the parent company.. for various reasons which are generally well understood, and certainly not hard to imagine, wants to release a new version of the software they just invested a chunk of change into. It's just good business.

But yes... GM3 who indeed, as they say. :)
 

GGJuanPabon

Member
My whole discussion was about how GameMaker can still remain competitive with other like game engines who have much better pricing.
Which? leave me a small list to expand my knowledge please.
Developing games is not entertainment for me. I don't make a living on entertainment. I'm not going to subscribe to a game engine just for entertainment.
You don't think that, if developing videogames is part of your profession, you should invest in good tools? If you were with Game Maker alone and solely because it was free or cheap, you were misdirected. You must be with the video game engine that lends you great tools for your project, it costs $ 0 per month or it costs $ 1,000 per month. It depends on the benefits it brings you.
 

kraifpatrik

Member
I'm compiling this into an image for better clarity.
compile0.png
Please, let me know if I got something wrong, thanks!

EDIT: There are people who haven't made tons of money as game developers, so there's a chance you won't either. Anyways, the investment is 2 burgers per month, so just give it a try!
 
Last edited:
I'll add a small note for the Opera GX export. I have used Opera GX and I resigned from it also. My needs for a web browser is......suspense....BROWSING. Google, DuckDuckGo, YouTube and Netflix sometimes when they release good things for French Canadians. I dropped Firefox because it does not permit you to load unsigned extensions anymore even when enabling the dev options. I dropped Chrome years ago because Google. I dropped Opera because it just looks like Chrome with tag Opera on it and I dropped GX because of the useless stuff they integrate such as messenger, discord and other forced extensions. I use a browser to simply browse, I don't need anything else.

So, that being said, I am pretty sure I am not alone thinking this about browsers. SO, the idea of SHARING YOUR GAMES ON OPERA GX fro free users is not a solid selling point AT ALL. It requires my other fellow sharers to use Opera GX. So, what is the next move? GMS2 will ship with Opera GX in the futur adding extra bloatware to the installation? (I'm pretty sure they won't do it, but just for the sake of talking about possibilities).

The point I am making is that I understand that the free version has to be limited. And I totally DO agree to the fact that the free version cannot export and simply let you create your game until you can buy a subscription model or hopefully if the devs realise it's needed, a permanent license. But selling the Opera GX export in this world with a plethora of browsers to choose from is not, to my eyes a good news. It's not bad, but it's not good. I just UNDERSTAND why they do it. Opera baught it and want to push users to use their own browsers and use their new aquirement to encourage people to use their own product.

I just don't like people hiding the facts. That's the truth to the bare bone. If they would have announced it this way:

Hello fellow present and futur game creators. We are proud to announce that the FREE version of GameMaker Studio 2 will now be completely unlocked. The FREE version of GameMaker Studio 2 will permit you to develop your games without any restrictions and when you are ready to export, we have opened up a new subscription model for your favorite game creating software. You can choose from various models to export to Desktop, Mobile and more. To underline Opera's recent aquirement of YYG and to celebrate the new FREE version, we have enabled 1 export option for the FREE version. We announce the new Opera GX Export option for the FREE version of GameMaker Studio 2. We hope you will discover the new potential of our Opera GX Browser which we specifically made for game enthusiasts and now, for you, game creators. Follow this link to discover Opera GX, the browser for gamers!
With that type of announcement, it's much clearer about the intentions of the new company and feels less of a "We want you to use our browser but don't really tell you clearly but you should understand in between the lines". I just find it boring to see a new export option that I will never use because browsers these days are all the same. They offer a start page I never use which I need to install an extension to permit Google.com or DuckDuckGo.com to appear instead of tiles of useless links. AND on top of this Opera GX does not even permit to change that page in no way, so I got tired of this too.

But yeah, I am happy that the free version is now unlocked and that the price to pay for a free game creating app is to install Opera GX to play your exported games, I think it's a good alternative to what intially was not free. It's much better than an ad version with annoying banners and popups or locked sections of the program.

The last GM version I used free was version 4! So that's been a while. Back then, I was still in highschool with no cash, it was perfect for me. GM was the very first app I baught online through Internet. I had never purchased any apps online before GM. So this is why I kind of close my fists on the forced subscription models but I also am happy about this free version move because I started as a kid and I think many kids can become the next popular game creators of their own and make us, old people, play their creations and lose ourselves in their wonderful worlds.
 

K3N_

Member
Subscription model sucks. Don't try to change my mind, i'm not democratic.

What are the limitations of perpetual licences now? I can use all IDE features like: Functions, Structures etc?
What about exports? Can i export to PC or only to OPERA's ****?
 

Sad

Member
Subscription model sucks. Don't try to change my mind, i'm not democratic.

What are the limitations of perpetual licences now? I can use all IDE features like: Functions, Structures etc?
What about exports? Can i export to PC or only to OPERA's ****?
No changes on existing perpetual licenses, it just unavailable for purchase. (Though the Steam store version of perpetual version still up till now at time im writing this).


The subscription model is always a little concerning, you never truly own a 'version' of the software right. However, consider this. When you have a single payment product with free updates forever, you are buying into a dying product as soon as it is created. The market for a particular product is fixed in size, it may grow and shrink over time but it will never be in a constant state of growth. This means that the funding for that product will run dry eventually, at which point the company will have to create a new major version or a new product. Take a look at TGC products, they have that very business model, can you be sure that AGK will be getting bug fixes in a couple of years if you develop a great app using it? Sadly this is the case... AGK: Studio is already basically in a maintenance release. With new features last added in February.

The June update fixed Android issues because Android changed things and a few bugs

The subscription model provides income continuously, sure it may shrink and grow over time, but it is still income.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
What are the limitations of perpetual licences now? I can use all IDE features like: Functions, Structures etc?
Why would it have limitations? As has been explained in numerous posts throughout this topic, AND in the linked FAQ in the first post, nothing has changed for permanent licence holders. ;)
 

Kevin K

Member
I'll add a small note for the Opera GX export. I have used Opera GX and I resigned from it also. My needs for a web browser is......suspense....BROWSING. Google, DuckDuckGo, YouTube and Netflix sometimes when they release good things for French Canadians. I dropped Firefox because it does not permit you to load unsigned extensions anymore even when enabling the dev options. I dropped Chrome years ago because Google. I dropped Opera because it just looks like Chrome with tag Opera on it and I dropped GX because of the useless stuff they integrate such as messenger, discord and other forced extensions. I use a browser to simply browse, I don't need anything else.

So, that being said, I am pretty sure I am not alone thinking this about browsers. SO, the idea of SHARING YOUR GAMES ON OPERA GX fro free users is not a solid selling point AT ALL. It requires my other fellow sharers to use Opera GX. So, what is the next move? GMS2 will ship with Opera GX in the futur adding extra bloatware to the installation? (I'm pretty sure they won't do it, but just for the sake of talking about possibilities).

The point I am making is that I understand that the free version has to be limited. And I totally DO agree to the fact that the free version cannot export and simply let you create your game until you can buy a subscription model or hopefully if the devs realise it's needed, a permanent license. But selling the Opera GX export in this world with a plethora of browsers to choose from is not, to my eyes a good news. It's not bad, but it's not good. I just UNDERSTAND why they do it. Opera baught it and want to push users to use their own browsers and use their new aquirement to encourage people to use their own product.

I just don't like people hiding the facts. That's the truth to the bare bone. If they would have announced it this way:



With that type of announcement, it's much clearer about the intentions of the new company and feels less of a "We want you to use our browser but don't really tell you clearly but you should understand in between the lines". I just find it boring to see a new export option that I will never use because browsers these days are all the same. They offer a start page I never use which I need to install an extension to permit Google.com or DuckDuckGo.com to appear instead of tiles of useless links. AND on top of this Opera GX does not even permit to change that page in no way, so I got tired of this too.

But yeah, I am happy that the free version is now unlocked and that the price to pay for a free game creating app is to install Opera GX to play your exported games, I think it's a good alternative to what intially was not free. It's much better than an ad version with annoying banners and popups or locked sections of the program.

The last GM version I used free was version 4! So that's been a while. Back then, I was still in highschool with no cash, it was perfect for me. GM was the very first app I baught online through Internet. I had never purchased any apps online before GM. So this is why I kind of close my fists on the forced subscription models but I also am happy about this free version move because I started as a kid and I think many kids can become the next popular game creators of their own and make us, old people, play their creations and lose ourselves in their wonderful worlds.
I agree with much of your sentiment regarding browsers. I have never downloaded Opera GX and I'm in no rush to do so, but given that it's the only free export available I'm sure I'll give it a try at some point when I'm forced to subscribe or lose the ability to export. To be fair, while some people may not be interested in yet another browser (even with a focus on gaming) I'm willing to bet there are quite a few that are. Opera is making a bet on this segment of users growing and who knows it may turn out to be a fantastic bet. It's hard to blame them, the company needs to find a pathway and trajectory towards growth. It won't happen with standard browsing, too many better products from competitors.

My hope is that GMS survives and continues to develop regardless of what happens with this Opera GX venture. It has a very special place among the competing options. No engine provides quite the degree of low level access without all the bloat of the larger commercial engines and the bugs of the FOSS ones. Having spent the last few weeks learning other engines and even some frameworks, I've come to the conclusion that GMS definitely has a place in the industry for 2D focused game developers. More features does not equal better, free does not equal better, and by extension more features + free does not, in and of itself, make an engine better.

For those who don't like the new pricing model (I am not a fan but perhaps it's a necessary evil), try the other options out and see for yourself what works best. I have and honestly, no other option is a clear winner over GMS for me even with the cost of the new subscription factored in. Though I will say, if the new cash flow from the subscription model doesn't result in a better product I won't be able to recommend it anymore as a worthwhile investment for 2D developers. However, I think as it stands it is worth giving yoyogames and Opera a chance to show what they are capable of.

Hopefully this is helpful for anyone on the fence. I came to the conclusion that if I wanted what GMS offers without using GMS, I'd have to build my own engine (with an existing framework or FOSS project). And my time is worth more than the $100 USD a year I'd have to shell out to use a commercial tool that does what I need it to do (for the most part).
 

Chaser

Member
i Have the opera gx browser, and it’s not that bad, In fact it’s pretty good.the only trouble I have is I can’t get used to it and always hit my chrome button,lol.:)
I like seeing the games on display, especially the GM featured ones. Hopefully one day il be on there! I mean, being featured on a front page on a website such as itch, gamejolt, steam etc is pretty good going and to have another that is actually focussed on GM games would be great publicity.
As a user of OpenGameArt, a site which has its issues and maybe a little dated for some, despite this, it’s still a fantastic resource and you cannot under estimate the traffic that it generates for its members. The Opera GX has a massive user base, ok maybe not as big as some browsers, but for GM games it will be massive exposure which can only be a good thing. :) we as GM users are now relying on Opera to work with YoYo to push GM through to great things for the future, so we should do what we can do to help them, if that means using their browser, then I’m up for it. My friends and family want to support me and my games, I’m sure they will have no problem using the Opera GX browser, even if it’s only once now and again. :)
 
Why would it have limitations? As has been explained in numerous posts throughout this topic, AND in the linked FAQ in the first post, nothing has changed for permanent licence holders. ;)
I think that would be a valid question since command line building is now a "enterprise" only tool.
Now, in which subscription category will permanent licenses be assigned?
Will there be more tools assigned to certain subscription tiers?
Will license owners receive this tools without moving to subscriptions?
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
@brice_platinum : the command line building being enterprise isn't anything new. Ultimate licence holders have always had access to additional tools and support. They had/have access to functions for video, for example, that the regular licences don't have, as well as hundreds of functions dedicated to console support that aren't publicly documented. That won't change and is no different now. The EULA says that permanent licence holders will have updates for the duration of the gms2 lifecycle so anything added to gm for windows, android, etc... In the future will be applied to those platforms regardless of whether they are legacy permanent licences or subscription.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Why other licenses didn't get such a great feature then ? Even as paid extension on marketplace! :D
Afaik, it's because the console ports have native video support as part fo their SDKs, so the YYG functions simply hook into this.
 
After thinking about this more and actually seeing what could be done with the new subscriptions, I've decided to go ahead and give it a try.

During all of the commotion I was only seeing the negatives about the price change and I apologize for that.

However, these are now seen as being positive:

The Ultimate/Enterprise License did lower inn price from $1,500 to $799.
The Enterprise does have a monthly subscription of only $79.
Exports I once had to pay for are free for around 2 1/2 years, since I did purchase permanent licenses.
I can work on a Xbox game using UWP.

Myself, along with others, may not like everything about the new pricing model, but there benefits to it. But, as long as there is subscription model, I do hope that the $79 a month option will continue, or something comparable in price so I wouldn't need to continue the $799 a year.
 
Last edited:

clee2005

Member
I am enraged against the new subscription model! Yes, I own a permanent license, but I was saving money to get that permanent mobile export module and now that it's subscription model, I'm out. This is selfish and totally user unfriendly to push people from permanent licenses to subscription models. You have just announced me that as of this time, I will no longer be buying any further versions of Game Maker and will need to stick with V2 and lower.

I DO NOT BUY SUBSCRIPTIONS!!!
You likely have Netflix, Spotify or any other number of subscription services. Software like Gamemaker is a service too. It's ever evolving and so requires a lot of upkeep. The fact that it hasn't been a subscription until now is surprising. As a business they are going to make the decisions that make the most sense from their perspective in order to continue functioning. This includes making you and others that share your opinion happy. I understand they may not have done that here, but it's not because they didn't consider it and were out to screw you guys. It's just a matter of business and the very minimal subscription model they have chosen is to bridge the gap with the indie community and hobbyists which they knew was going to create backlash like we are seeing in this thread.

No one likes to pay for things, but I think looking at what you are getting for your money should be the focus, rather than what you used to get. Things change, and prices go up over time. Why would we expect anything different with Gamemaker?

I wish I didn't have to pay for Netflix each month. Why can't we just pay $100 once for Netflix for life? (just so I don't have to defend this - I'm being facetious).
 
You likely have Netflix, Spotify or any other number of subscription services. Software like Gamemaker is a service too.
One of the key differences here is in the wording; you obviously view Gamemaker as a service; and rationalize as such. All good, and I'm happy that the new pricing scheme works for you.

Other people view GM as a tool, or like any other software they own on their pc. And most developers are very reluctant to lock themselves into using proprietary software to begin with; let alone one that has an ongoing cost. It's not very hard to understand this.

For people mocking 'cheap people who don't want to pay a subscription'; please stop. It isn't helpful. While I'm happy that for you the subscription just means skipping your Starbucks for the month, many people are in very different states of financial wellbeing; such subscription plans are the bane of most people in a bad financial place. Please respect people who have no desire to sign up for a subscription model; even if you can't understand it.
 

drandula

Member
Just to say, usually hobbies do cost something and you don't expect to get paid from them. Many hobbies have equipment and membership costs etc., and if you think that way, GMS isn't that expensive 🤷 but gamedev as hobby, you might actually get something back, but that should be taken just as extra. If you are instead doing it for business, then again it shouldn't be that big of price or something is wrong 😅

TLTR: think subscription as membership cost
for a hobby.
 
Top