D
Drenathor
Guest
Hi YoYo Staff,
Is it possible to get some official responses that explain why Studio 2 is so much more restrictive than Studio 1? I’ve seen a number of questions about this on other sites but without knowing of any official posts on this topic I haven’t been able to point them to any useful information on this topic.
I think we all know that you guys need money to continue making such great software (and it’s only fair considering the hard work you all pour into this project day in and day out), but I wonder if putting these restrictions on Studio 2 will actually hurt your business model in the long run. I’m sure you all have given this some considerable thought so I’d love to hear your reasons, but without knowing them here’s why I think this might not be a good model.
First, lots of people out there are interested in programming and I think we can all agree almost nothing teaches programing quite like game programming since it’s fun, rewarding and instantly engaging. Additionally your DnD system offers a unique way to make everything far more accessible to people wanting to learn but feel learning to program is something reserved for brilliant individuals who have computer skills far beyond theirs. Putting these restrictions into Game Maker Studio 2 means that a lot of tutorials and classes that have been very well received over the years for Studio 1 can no longer be completed in Studio 2. I’ve seen lots of comments on Udemy classes for instance from students really excited about Studio 2 but frustrated when they run into all the road blocks only to find that they either have to pay $99 or start the class over in Studio 1. Sadly in many cases these people just give up in frustration at this point. I feel like this approach cripples the ability to learn for people interested in game design which is a shame since even in its beta state Game Maker Studio 2 is the best programming studio in the world for 2D Games IMHO. It feels bad to have to preface tutorial videos now with a disclaimer to students that they either need to pay $99 to be able to finish this lesson or downgrade and not use Studio 2.
Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t think you should give your hard work away for free but perhaps you could offer similar functionality to Studio 1 but make it impossible to export your games for Windows or any other platform unless licensed to do so. In other words, people have to pay you to make money, but not to learn.
The second group of people that this model seems like it potentially hurts is market place content creators. Lets say that an artist wants to create tile sets to sell on the market that are already fully set up and configured, or an individual would like to release a new shader etc. Some people like to create a single aspect of game content and have no intention of actually selling full games. Forcing these users to buy a $99 license and then have perpetual royalties collected from them in makes them seem like 2nd class citizens of YoYo Games since someone like Toby Fox could pay $99 and sell millions of copies of his game without owing you another penny, but someone selling a shader for instance has to pay $99 to program it and then a percentage of every single sale from that point on. If there’s one group of people that you’d like to offer a deal shouldn't it be the ones who a) make you money on every sale and b) offer resources that increase the functionality and selling point of your software? I.E. a thriving market place full of incredible resources is a HUGE selling point and fostering that seems (to me at least) like a good idea.
Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to pay the $99 for the ability to export to Windows. I think it’s only fair and will likely be back to purchase additional exports once they are available. But telling students they should downgrade to Studio 1 so they can learn to use Game Maker and make an informed decision, seeing content creators for your market place indicate that they may not release versions of their shaders for Studio 2 because it’s not worth the $99 up front investment to them (since they will never export a game to Windows), and seeing some educators on YouTube torn over whether to continue teaching Studio 1 since it’s more accessible to their viewers or limit their audiences by moving to Studio 2 is a shame.
Anyways, that’s just some initial thoughts that I had as well as my limited experiences talking with educators, students and content creators (for whatever it’s worth). I’m sure your market research is far more complete than my small circle of friends, but like I said at the beginning I’m mainly posting this so I can find out what the official reasons are so that I have something to share with people who ask me why they have to downgrade to Studio 1 other than "I’m sorry, I don’t really understand that decision either".
Thanks so much for your time. I love Studio 2 and would like to see it have far more adoption Hope it’s highly successful for you guys in every way!
-John
Is it possible to get some official responses that explain why Studio 2 is so much more restrictive than Studio 1? I’ve seen a number of questions about this on other sites but without knowing of any official posts on this topic I haven’t been able to point them to any useful information on this topic.
I think we all know that you guys need money to continue making such great software (and it’s only fair considering the hard work you all pour into this project day in and day out), but I wonder if putting these restrictions on Studio 2 will actually hurt your business model in the long run. I’m sure you all have given this some considerable thought so I’d love to hear your reasons, but without knowing them here’s why I think this might not be a good model.
First, lots of people out there are interested in programming and I think we can all agree almost nothing teaches programing quite like game programming since it’s fun, rewarding and instantly engaging. Additionally your DnD system offers a unique way to make everything far more accessible to people wanting to learn but feel learning to program is something reserved for brilliant individuals who have computer skills far beyond theirs. Putting these restrictions into Game Maker Studio 2 means that a lot of tutorials and classes that have been very well received over the years for Studio 1 can no longer be completed in Studio 2. I’ve seen lots of comments on Udemy classes for instance from students really excited about Studio 2 but frustrated when they run into all the road blocks only to find that they either have to pay $99 or start the class over in Studio 1. Sadly in many cases these people just give up in frustration at this point. I feel like this approach cripples the ability to learn for people interested in game design which is a shame since even in its beta state Game Maker Studio 2 is the best programming studio in the world for 2D Games IMHO. It feels bad to have to preface tutorial videos now with a disclaimer to students that they either need to pay $99 to be able to finish this lesson or downgrade and not use Studio 2.
Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t think you should give your hard work away for free but perhaps you could offer similar functionality to Studio 1 but make it impossible to export your games for Windows or any other platform unless licensed to do so. In other words, people have to pay you to make money, but not to learn.
The second group of people that this model seems like it potentially hurts is market place content creators. Lets say that an artist wants to create tile sets to sell on the market that are already fully set up and configured, or an individual would like to release a new shader etc. Some people like to create a single aspect of game content and have no intention of actually selling full games. Forcing these users to buy a $99 license and then have perpetual royalties collected from them in makes them seem like 2nd class citizens of YoYo Games since someone like Toby Fox could pay $99 and sell millions of copies of his game without owing you another penny, but someone selling a shader for instance has to pay $99 to program it and then a percentage of every single sale from that point on. If there’s one group of people that you’d like to offer a deal shouldn't it be the ones who a) make you money on every sale and b) offer resources that increase the functionality and selling point of your software? I.E. a thriving market place full of incredible resources is a HUGE selling point and fostering that seems (to me at least) like a good idea.
Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to pay the $99 for the ability to export to Windows. I think it’s only fair and will likely be back to purchase additional exports once they are available. But telling students they should downgrade to Studio 1 so they can learn to use Game Maker and make an informed decision, seeing content creators for your market place indicate that they may not release versions of their shaders for Studio 2 because it’s not worth the $99 up front investment to them (since they will never export a game to Windows), and seeing some educators on YouTube torn over whether to continue teaching Studio 1 since it’s more accessible to their viewers or limit their audiences by moving to Studio 2 is a shame.
Anyways, that’s just some initial thoughts that I had as well as my limited experiences talking with educators, students and content creators (for whatever it’s worth). I’m sure your market research is far more complete than my small circle of friends, but like I said at the beginning I’m mainly posting this so I can find out what the official reasons are so that I have something to share with people who ask me why they have to downgrade to Studio 1 other than "I’m sorry, I don’t really understand that decision either".
Thanks so much for your time. I love Studio 2 and would like to see it have far more adoption Hope it’s highly successful for you guys in every way!
-John