#Time2MeetYourMaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
D

Deleted member 467

Guest
Is this going to be an update or a whole new program that we must download? And if it is a new program will we have to buy professional version again!? :/
new program

we dunno about them prices.
 
D

Deleted member 467

Guest
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!?
 
D

Drewster

Guest
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

Redemption Seeker
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 :)
 

Nallebeorn

Member
Because one of the images had the tag of "November". So tomorrow is very hopeful, but I will just be glad if it is any time in the next couple of weeks.
Also, all the previous images have posted every Tuesday and Friday so there probably will be another tweet tomorrow. And since it's November now, they can't just keep saying "November" -- so at the very least we should get a proper date.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Also, all the previous images have posted every Tuesday and Friday so there probably will be another tweet tomorrow. And since it's November now, they can't just keep saying "November" -- so at the very least we should get a proper date.
Thats a good point. Though i would expect it to be later, say, on the 15th. YYG wouldn't miss GM's birthday. Would they?
 
L

Lgmsfan

Guest
thats cool if game makers birthday is the 15th i didnt know that are we talking gms birthday or legacy the start of all things gm
 
C

CedSharp

Guest
I might be completly wrong, but from what I can see, the interface completly changed and some cool new features seems to have been added.
Based on that, we all can agree that this won't be a small update to gamemaker, but a major huge one. ( if it is still studio ).

Based on that, I think it is fair to assume this means gamemaker will finally reach version 2. So it doesn't fit in the 1.x range.
It doesn't show on the current website, but on a previous website from yoyogames, it said that you woud get only modules from version 1.x

Proof:


( last line )

Based on that, if the new GameMaker does indeed allow us to have the new version, we won't on the otherhand be able to have
the new modules ( if there are any ).

I also think that the new GameMaker, supposedly being rewritten in a complete different language, will be a different software,
and hence it will not be an update to the current GameMaker studio.

Again, all of those are suppositions of mine based on facts that I've read and saw.
Let's just not expect too much from the new version in regards of those points

CedSharp
 
A

AnonyMouse

Guest
Maybe I am the only one who is not in big excitement. Maybe because I understand the new version will not make the game itself. And I am still rewriting my game from Gamemaker 8. The only thing I miss seriously in GMS 1.x is good and easy group pathfinding for noobs :)
 
N

NPT

Guest
Maybe I am the only one who is not in big excitement. Maybe because I understand the new version will not make the game itself.
You're kidding?

That's some disconnect, inferring that you're one of the few not showing exitement because you understand the new version won't make the game itself.

Calm down everybody. Contrary to popular belief, GM:S 2 will not make your games for you. Despite the teasers suggesting it will. Move along, there's nothing to see here. You will have to continue making games yourselves.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
You're kidding?

That's some disconnect, inferring that you're one of the few not showing exitement because you understand the new version won't make the game itself.

Calm down everybody. Contrary to popular belief, GM:S 2 will not make your games for you. Despite the teasers suggesting it will. Move along, there's nothing to see here. You will have to continue making games yourselves.
Actually I here it will even make you coffee in the morning. I'm pretty excited about that!

Seriously though, I think there is a lot of improvements to be made over GMS:1.4 and therefore, a lit of excitement to be had over whatever is to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top