Feedback Please Consider Monthly Subscription For GameMaker 2...

[Roman Richter]

Maybe go with both if sub is in plan(if), and have one time price like now for separate modules (for example for hobbyists) and sub for accessing them all, regardless of owned modules (full time developing). (badenglish)

 

[Lerner]

Hrmmm, well... I'm about to pay for a monthly $35/mo for Unity plus and so I have to change my initial opinion about a monthly GM:S fee

So, maybe if GM had a monthly fee of $4-9.99 or so that wouldn't be so bad...

I was against monthly fees at first but I am going to the darkside guys!

The price of the desktop edition of GameMaker Studio 2 would be equivalent to 3 months of Unity Plus. Think about it.

 

[Roman Richter]

Maybe wait for YoYo answer to prevent speculations from nowhere?

also, why GMS counts my time in IDE?

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I'd like to see a hybrid approach kind of thing. Let users pay for a lifetime license, or let them pay in monthly installments (something around the license price/12). Cap the total cost to subscription customers to the price of a lifetime subscription * 2 or something. I think that'd be more than fair, and YoYo might get a steadier cashflow that way.

Then maybe they can update a bit faster....
.....or add the console exports all the other engines have had for months now....

 

[Hyomoto]

I know for people who might not be able to afford more expensive software it's a better option than no software, but subscription models are basically a digital Rent A Center. They are largely worse than traditional digital models because if you stop paying you have literally NOTHING to show for it. The argument could be made that you could 'use it and then stop paying for it'. Still, I'd rather own an easel and both use it whenever I want, or sell it if I so choose. The 'as a service' model is a scam.

What I would be fine with is if they offered a subscription model but also allowed you to purchase outright.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I know for people who might not be able to afford more expensive software it's a better option than no software, but subscription models are basically a digital Rent A Center. They are largely worse than traditional digital models because if you stop paying you have literally NOTHING to show for it. The argument could be made that you could 'use it and then stop paying for it'. Still, I'd rather own an easel and both use it whenever I want, or sell it if I so choose. The 'as a service' model is a scam.

What I would be fine with is if they offered a subscription model but also allowed you to purchase outright.

Yeah, totally a scam. Just like renting an apartment - if you stop paying for it, they take it back! What's up with that?!

Something is only a scam if what you're getting yourself into is misrepresented. Software as a service is a completely fair business model, just like leasing or renting anything else is. I'm with you in that I'd like both options, though.

 

[rIKmAN]

also, why GMS counts my time in IDE?

This is so they can bill you at the end of every year to cover the cost of IDE upgrades and repairs, based on how much time you have used it.
I know personally, my "Compile" button and the headings for "Sprites" and "Objects" are quite faded now from continual use, so I'm looking forward to having those replaced when I pay my bill.

Spoiler

 

[True Valhalla]

The only scenario where I would willingly pay for a GM subscription is if YoYo introduced unique cloud features like Unity has. Analytics, multiplayer, collaboration -- Unity justifies their subscription model with unique high-value features.

 

[Ruimm]

with a subscription model, after some months you will eventually pay more that the upfront cost yet you still don't own the software. If you quit paying you can no longer use it.
I'd rather have a fairly priced software that you pay once and own forever.

 

[Kuro]

tldr version:
I don't mind as long as perpetual pricing is still available, but will drop companies so hard the second perpetual pricing disappears for any of their products (and continue to avoid them like the plague even if perpetual pricing reappears).

long version:
I have a friend who uses Construct 2, so earlier this year out of morbid curiousity I was strongly considering picking it up so I could dabble in it and experience the workflow. Before I got around to purchasing it Construct 3 was announced; described as subscription only (with the admittance that they might "consider" offering perpetual licenses again at a later date as a concession if backlash demand was high enough). The second I heard that I dropped them like a sack of [insert colourful imagery here]. Even if they later reintroduce perpetual pricing the damage has been done. They aint ever getting my business.

I don't buy into the 'software as a service argument' that publishers spout when trying to justify subscriptions. The surest way for a company to drop off my radar is for them to remove perpetual licensing options completely. I don't mind publishers providing subscriptions as an alternative as long as perpetual licenses are still available. Choice is good. And, there are pros and cons for each approach. I may dislike subscriptions, but I still make decisions on a case by case basis, so if a subscription is compelling enough i will consider it and compare against the cost of buying it. Buying it ususally wins.

I don't entirely dismiss the value of the rental/subscription model. If there's a large flow of files between users then there can be a certain convenience in always having the most up to date versions of software even if its only for the sake of a peaceful life. Due to the nature of game engines, I usually find myself with compelling reasons to upgrade to the latest versions far more regularly than any other class of software I use. For that reason I am a little friendlier towards game engine publishers offering subscriptions than I ordinarily would be, so long as they continue to also offer perpetual licenses of course.

That said, I realy take a strong dislike towards companies who go 100% subscription only. Even if they backpeddle later they will always be radioactive to me the second they try to force that crap on their customers.

 

[Roman Richter]

This is so they can bill you at the end of every year to cover the cost of IDE upgrades and repairs, based on how much time you have used it.
I know personally, my "Compile" button and the headings for "Sprites" and "Objects" are quite faded now from continual use, so I'm looking forward to having those replaced when I pay my bill.

Spoiler

AHA! I Knew that! xD

 

[RobbSnow]

GMS just isn't expensive enough to need subscriptions. I imagine keeping track of contract lengths, penalties, collections, etc, would not be worth the hassle when you are collecting $2 or $3 a month from all your desktop users.

I don't even see any possible advantage to the customer.

Also, I would expect releases to occur on a more frequent basis if I was paying a subscription.

 

[Kuro]

GMS just isn't expensive enough to need subscriptions. I imagine keeping track of contract lengths, penalties, collections, etc, would not be worth the hassle when you are collecting $2 or $3 a month from all your desktop users.

I don't even see any possible advantage to the customer.

Also, I would expect releases to occur on a more frequent basis if I was paying a subscription.

You say that in a universe in which Autodesk, a much larger company who presumably need $3 bucks a month even less, go to the 'hassle' of offering a monthly subscription option for their $30 a year paint program.

 

[stampfer]

I'm personally against subscriptions. There is one scenario that I would consider (a famous texture generation software does it like this), they call it "subscribe to own". You basically pay your subscription until the upfront price is met, then the payments stop. At a new major release (like gms 1.4 to 2) it starts again, until the update price is recuperated.
Insofar it's more like paying off a car than a software as a service subscription.

 

[RobbSnow]

You say that in a universe in which Autodesk, a much larger company who presumably need $3 bucks a month even less, go to the 'hassle' of offering a monthly subscription option for their $30 a year paint program.

They have all the subscription infrastructure in place because they are already doing that for their far more expensive products. What I am saying is that I don't see how a company could justify the expense in putting that in place for what the subscription price would be for GMS. Yeah, if it was a far more expensive product or they were already doing it for other products then it is much more reasonable.

 

[izark]

If Gamemaker had a monthly subscription, I would have never even tried it.
With a subscription you don´t own the software, If you stop paying that´s it. (And Gamemaker is not that expensive compared to other engines)
After a few month or several months you end up paying much more money than if you had just purchased it as standalone.
However, if they decide to create large improvements, like Gamemaker 2, or massive updates, I will be willing to pay to get them, and support devs in this way.

 

[DividingByZero]

Terrible idea - the only people that benefit from models like this are the companies implementing, not the end users.

 

[Kuro]

They have all the subscription infrastructure in place because they are already doing that for their far more expensive products. What I am saying is that I don't see how a company could justify the expense in putting that in place for what the subscription price would be for GMS. Yeah, if it was a far more expensive product or they were already doing it for other products then it is much more reasonable.

Fair point, Autodesk did already have the infrastructure in place.

 

[Hyomoto]

Yeah, totally a scam. Just like renting an apartment - if you stop paying for it, they take it back! What's up with that?!

Something is only a scam if what you're getting yourself into is misrepresented. Software as a service is a completely fair business model, just like leasing or renting anything else is. I'm with you in that I'd like both options, though.

While I'll admit maybe it's a bit facetious to say it's a scam, there are important differences between renting software and renting a house. Most importantly: you can buy a house. You aren't limited to only being able to rent one. You can choose, and if you choose to give up owning a house you can rent for the various benefits it may confer. Subscription software doesn't generally provide both options, and like I said, I'd be fine with it if it did.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

While I'll admit maybe it's a bit facetious to say it's a scam, there are important differences between renting software and renting a house. Most importantly: you can buy a house. You aren't limited to only being able to rent one. You can choose, and if you choose to give up owning a house you can rent for the various benefits it may confer. Subscription software doesn't generally provide both options, and like I said, I'd be fine with it if it did.

While you can buy some houses, you can't buy all of them. Some places are only for rent. It's exactly the same as software, hahah!
Again though, I do agree with you that having the choice to buy or rent is best, especially with software. I'd rather buy anything I can afford. =)

 

[samureuth]

I would chance to SDL2 and C/ C++ and create my Games independent of Yoyogames

 

[Marcus12321]

Wow, is this the zombie thread where Rick Grimes leaves??

 

[Steevo]

I would chance to SDL2 and C/ C++ and create my Games independent of Yoyogames

That's the decision you have to make for yourself. If you are capable enough, go for it.

 

[Rukiri]

Like others I'd walk away, the reason I still use Game Maker is that it fully supports consoles which is why I don't fully invest my time with the Godot engine which has a lot of great things going for it...
$99 is not a large asking price, $1500 for Unity (per version btw) back in the day was insane... that was basically an entire paycheck for me.

If Game Maker did go with a monthly subscription I'd go with Unity over GM any day.

 

[Evanski]

Like others I'd walk away, the reason I still use Game Maker is that it fully supports consoles which is why I don't fully invest my time with the Godot engine which has a lot of great things going for it...
$99 is not a large asking price, $1500 for Unity (per version btw) back in the day was insane... that was basically an entire paycheck for me.

If Game Maker did go with a monthly subscription I'd go with Unity over GM any day.

technically they do, Its a 12 month license, but I see what your getting at, but whats stopping you from hashing together a game in 3 months then canceling the subscription, Its a lose lose for everyone