• Hey! Guest! The 36th GMC Jam will take place between February 27th, 12:00 UTC - March 2nd, 12:00 UTC. Why not join in! Click here to find out more!

#Time2MeetYourMaker

Status
Not open for further replies.

kupo15

Member
Well if they keep up with there release pattern we should be seeing something new tomorrow or Sat at 10am est..then continuing that would fall on Nov 1! Hope to see something new tomorrow
 

hippyman

Member
I just acted like I didn't watch it. But I have to come clean...




Well if they keep up with there release pattern we should be seeing something new tomorrow or Sat at 10am est..then continuing that would fall on Nov 1! Hope to see something new tomorrow
Good observation. That would be super sick if they just straight up release it on November 1st.
 

Yal

GMC Memer
GMC Elder
It kinda feels like releasing it so soon would be too early, there'd be at least an announcement about what it would be, cost, and such in advance so people could allocate monies a while before release. Then again, if that happens on saturday... *keeps fingers crossed*
 

gnysek

Member
That was better than Dadio topic on previous community. I would give myself an gold medal for this :D

Btw. I noticed, that YYG is giving new screenshot every 3-4 days, so we should get another one soon (weekend or Monday).
 

Barvix

Member
Dangit Noc you beat me to it! :p

This looks like it could be a room editor, but I am honestly not sure. If it is the new room editor, :O this looks nice

I can see layering, the ability to show or hide certain things that look like backgrounds, objects, and tiles.

Quick, we need 4 more posts to get post 666 in this topic!
 

gnysek

Member
I wonder will it have some submenu on right click when there's several instances at same position overlapping, so you can choose which to select. I've proposed this in 2012 and it's still not in GM:S...

Also, are those layers, or just groups of instances?

btw. I was right with sceenshot :) next one around Thursday then! (and it will be already November!!!)
 
G

Greg Squire

Guest
Layers in the new room editor? Sweet! :) It's beautiful .............. <keyboard shorts out due to excessive drool> :D
 

hippyman

Member
Z

zendorf

Guest
Oh boy, I think this new room editor is going to be better than any of us dare dreamed! Damn, someone with some solid Photoshop skills needs to edit all these twitter UI snippets together into one cohesive image, and we could almost see the whole UI at once :)

Is it November yet...
 

m0zzy

Member
Just thinking ....
If there is a MAC Version, that would really help in the deployment of games to apple appstore, but .. would they
give the MAC version free with the PC Version. or would you have to buy one or the other ..?
 

NightFrost

Member
Looking very good indeed. I'm hoping GML is getting as good a facelift as the GM GUI as it still lacks some basic functionality. Off the top of my head, things like string explode/implode, string-in-string searching, everything regarding array manipulation, associative arrays and N-dimensional arrays & DSes where N > 2. (And of course OOP.) Hopefully we'll hear about improvements when closer to release.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Looking very good indeed. I'm hoping GML is getting as good a facelift as the GM GUI as it still lacks some basic functionality. Off the top of my head, things like string explode/implode, string-in-string searching, everything regarding array manipulation, associative arrays and N-dimensional arrays & DSes where N > 2. (And of course OOP.) Hopefully we'll hear about improvements when closer to release.
You can already have arrays of arrays (standard way to have n-dim. Arrays in many languages).
Ds_map instead of associative arrays.
And string in string searching is already here. (Check the string_* functions).

There is also an argument to be made against having OOP... But it would take too long to put it here.

Though I agree, a couple new language feature would be nice :)
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Source this claim.
I dont have sources, but i think it was already mentioned with the WiiU.
Developing exports is quite costly, and since its quite advantageous for console manufacturers, it makes sense to ask them to cover the development costs.
 
Source this claim.
Sure, let me just go muck around for an hour searching through old threads for some rando who doesn't even know how to say "please." Ah, wait, no.

If you're really curious, go look through the old NX module threads. Or ask Mike.

@Fel666: what are some of the arguments against OOP? That people new to programming might have a tougher time grasping it? The larger my RPG gets, the more often I find myself thinking "if this was C#....", haha! I know you know what you're doing, so I'm curious what you feel the downsides to OOP are!:)
 
Last edited:

GMWolf

aka fel666
Sure, let me just go muck around for an hour searching through old threads for some rando who doesn't even know how to say "please." Ah, wait, no.

If you're really curious, go look through the old NX module threads. Or ask Mike.

@Fel666: what are some of the arguments against OOP? That people new to programming might have a tougher time grasping it? The larger my RPG gets, the more often I find myself thinking "if this was C#....", haha! I know you know what you're doing, so I'm curious what you feel the downsides to OOP are!:)
It depends on how much OO you want, but...
Now you can just implement your player mechanincs and add it to the world, not needing to think about all the interfaces it may need, etc.
With full OOP, you would have to first design a player interface, then create an implementation of that player. Then you would have tp create a world class to interface with the player and call all the correct method to display and update the player. You would then need to design the event dispatchers to interface with the player input methods, and then you still woulnt be done as you would still need to implement a full enviroment and interface for the player to interact with...
Such is the nature of OO.

If you what you want are script unique to object. (user events with returns and names), then yes, i agree it would be nice to have, but still would not be OO.

More importantly, the very nature of GM is not OO. GM does not give you references to instances and data structures, it gives you handees. Much like C, you have your struct interfaces defined outside the struct.
So you can already define an interface for your object, but it is the users responsability to ensure that the id passed is valid.

Of course, you can always do some runtime checking to do indirection. In fact i mention it in my video on OO in GMStudio: https://goo.gl/IXmvWo
I explain how you can setup polymorphism in GM studio using objects and scripts. Really quite usefull if you want one method to have different behaviour based on the object type.
If you use something like this, you get pretty much all advantages of a tru OO language, at the cost of a little extra work.
 
Last edited:

NightFrost

Member
You can already have arrays of arrays (standard way to have n-dim. Arrays in many languages).
Ds_map instead of associative arrays.
And string in string searching is already here. (Check the string_* functions).

There is also an argument to be made against having OOP... But it would take too long to put it here.

Though I agree, a couple new language feature would be nice :)
A true 3d+ array (and ds) would be much more simpler to use than fighting against the system and implementing an array-in-array scheme. DS map is 1d; I'd like assoc arrays because I could then make them N-dimensional with the 3d array change. String in string search... seems I had a brain fart when I last looked for string manipulation and equated it with string_char_at (probably due to the code example).

And while we're on data structures, more ways of declaring them would be really good. It'd be nice to be able to create an array by saying Variable = array[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] instead of building it one by one, and the same with DSes. GML likes to play fast and loose though, so actual type declarations (array, int, string, float, etc...) are likely an anathema.
 

Nallebeorn

Member
And while we're on data structures, more ways of declaring them would be really good. It'd be nice to be able to create an array by saying Variable = array[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] instead of building it one by one, and the same with DSes. GML likes to play fast and loose though, so actual type declarations (array, int, string, float, etc...) are likely an anathema.
It's pretty trivial to write your own scripts to do that, though. Especially since recent updates removed the argument count limit on scripts.
 

NightFrost

Member
It's pretty trivial to write your own scripts to do that, though. Especially since recent updates removed the argument count limit on scripts.
True. I have my portable code "libraries" that I can pretty much just drop into a project and start using them (a menu system for example). But scripting such... low-level operations feels bit weird. I don't fully buy the "you can script it" arguments against implementing generic functionality. For a banal example, we can easily create a script to do multiplication, but that's not an argument against not having multiplication math in GML.
 

Barvix

Member
I really hope we do not have to pay again if we already paid for the first version... It would seem silly... :/
No, that's called business. A company would not make money by giving out a huge program like this out for free to people. Really though maybe people who paid might get a small discount but I'm not counting on it.
 
I

IndieCrypt

Guest
I really hope we do not have to pay again if we already paid for the first version... It would seem silly... :/
Also... How will the Steam version work? Is there going to be a Steam version for Game Maker 2.0? Will we have to purchase professional version again!?
 

Drewster

Member
I really hope we do not have to pay again if we already paid for the first version... It would seem silly... :/
lolol. Okay, not trying to offend, but we're all definitely going to have to pay again. I'd expect probably some sort of discount if you own the Studio 1.x. 2.0 has been a long time in the works, and thus lots of people's time, which means lots of cost. Pay once software doesn't work if you want a product that gets continually improved. I don't want to pay for a subscription, but I'd rather pay for a subscription or a periodic upgrade fee to have constant updates and new features. And we all want those things. Probably there will be a free tier to get ya in the door, and then, I'd guess, probably a subscription, or possibly two levels of subscription.
 
I

IndieCrypt

Guest
lolol. Okay, not trying to offend, but we're all definitely going to have to pay again. I'd expect probably some sort of discount if you own the Studio 1.x. 2.0 has been a long time in the works, and thus lots of people's time, which means lots of cost. Pay once software doesn't work if you want a product that gets continually improved. I don't want to pay for a subscription, but I'd rather pay for a subscription or a periodic upgrade fee to have constant updates and new features. And we all want those things. Probably there will be a free tier to get ya in the door, and then, I'd guess, probably a subscription, or possibly two levels of subscription.
Haha, no offence taken at all, I understand that what I said was obviously wrong as that is not how business works... I am just annoyed that I will not be able to get the new version for a while until I save up...
 
I

IndieCrypt

Guest
lolol. Okay, not trying to offend, but we're all definitely going to have to pay again. I'd expect probably some sort of discount if you own the Studio 1.x. 2.0 has been a long time in the works, and thus lots of people's time, which means lots of cost. Pay once software doesn't work if you want a product that gets continually improved. I don't want to pay for a subscription, but I'd rather pay for a subscription or a periodic upgrade fee to have constant updates and new features. And we all want those things. Probably there will be a free tier to get ya in the door, and then, I'd guess, probably a subscription, or possibly two levels of subscription.
Although I would prefer a one time payment, if a subscription means updates and new features then yeah I would definitely accept a subscription fee...
 

FrostyCat

Member
I wouldn't worry about pricing too much. YoYoGames should realize that their customers don't make high budget AAA games with their engine and should price it accordingly.
And don't you think continuing to accept that as gospel is a problematic business direction?

While it's true AAA games aren't being made with GMS and likely won't in the near future, studio-grade games made with GMS are on the rise. Yet GMS 1.x repeatedly made design decisions and mistakes that disproportionately hit mid- to high-tier users. Examples include:
  • An overly rigid file system sandbox
  • A source control mechanism that stayed buggy to the point of total unusability for 2 years
  • An extension mechanism that didn't come until the 2-year mark, and still doesn't expose enough runner-level resources today
  • The relatively slow response to API and store policy updates throughout its history
  • Repeated refusal to implement features requested by mid- to high-tier users because "they may hurt novices"
Novice-level users around here tend to be young with little to no disposable income. While the same can still be said for some users higher up, most intermediate- to advanced-level users can and will spend money to get stuff done right. Which of the two is likely more profitable?

It's the reason why the Marketplace has a tough time selling anything but free assets. It's the reason why questions considered trivial elsewhere sound like rocket science on the GMC. It's also likely the reason why Nintendo spurned YoYo last time and probably did again with Switch.
 

hippyman

Member
My guess is that they'll do the same thing that Studio and several other engines are doing. They'll have a free version with most everything included (minus custom splashscreen and some other minor things only a professional would care about and maybe something fancy to grab a free user's eye) and then a "Pro" version and an "Enterprise" version. That's just my guess, but it seems to be a pretty popular way to price software like this.

But one thing that is super sweet..... we might know tomorrow :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top