OFFICIAL YoYo Games Round Up - Q&A and More

gnysek

Member
Unity hires about 2000 people, Epic got more than 1000 of them, YYG have less than 50. I know that most of them in two first companies aren't working on engines, but at YYG GMS is the only source of their profit, and we want to compare how much money each company can pump into their engine. Lot of big AAA companies pumps money into those two big engines, to get some new features, or their private forks of those engines much more optimized compared to public version. I don't know what money is that, but must be great to hire thousand people more. Epic also earns lot of money on their other divisions, so they can have biggest discounts in fact.

So, you're comparing totally different scales, and totally different targets. As target is different, pricing must be different. As I proved before, that license isn't at all expensive if you make a good game, as it requires to sell about 100-150 copies to compensate. You can release game on free platforms before getting another license, you can lean money, you can break your piggy bank, you can use kickstarter, you can have patronite, you can stream on twitch - there's a lot of ways to get those 800$ or even 1500$. I'm sure that there are people who already earned such money on YYG marketplace... (I'm closer to third of it). I'm surprised that you're not complaining about devkit/consoles prices too. I hope that you already started to think about that stage too.
 

gnysek

Member
Yep, it was on "future consideration" list (before they removed it). Sadly, except they gonna surprise us, we need to wait until 2022 for any totally new features, while 2021 will be focused on "polishing IDE usability".
 
Unity hires about 2000 people, Epic got more than 1000 of them, YYG have less than 50. I know that most of them in two first companies aren't working on engines, but at YYG GMS is the only source of their profit, and we want to compare how much money each company can pump into their engine. Lot of big AAA companies pumps money into those two big engines, to get some new features, or their private forks of those engines much more optimized compared to public version. I don't know what money is that, but must be great to hire thousand people more. Epic also earns lot of money on their other divisions, so they can have biggest discounts in fact.

So, you're comparing totally different scales, and totally different targets. As target is different, pricing must be different. As I proved before, that license isn't at all expensive if you make a good game, as it requires to sell about 100-150 copies to compensate. You can release game on free platforms before getting another license, you can lean money, you can break your piggy bank, you can use kickstarter, you can have patronite, you can stream on twitch - there's a lot of ways to get those 800$ or even 1500$. I'm sure that there are people who already earned such money on YYG marketplace... (I'm closer to third of it). I'm surprised that you're not complaining about devkit/consoles prices too. I hope that you already started to think about that stage too.
Well actually, you haven't proved anything.

Are you planning on always earning enough for the Console/Ultimate License from Kickstarter, Patreon or your own games? Because in order to keep your license active you will always need to pay the $799 or $1,500 a year. You could have a really successful 1st year, but the next few years could be slow and unproductive and the $799 or $1,500 a year price tag is pretty steep if you're not earning any revenue.

Kickstarter is a one time thing. You would need to raise thousands of dollars for a couple of years to keep paying the License fees (even though you will be paying them forever)
Patreon supporters may not be supporting you forever.
Games released won't always be selling at their peak
It's almost impossible to earn enough on Twitch, unless you're super popular.

You are the one saying you have so much to pay for with your game development that you say the Console/Ultimate License is not that expense in comparison. It would seem like it to me, that you are mostly the one who would want to pay less, instead of defending a high cost. Wouldn't it just be better if you had to pay less?

Also, no. I'm not complaining about devkits because I do believe they are priced well. In fact, devkits are actually cheaper than the Console/Ultimate License. I could buy 2 or 3 devkits for the price of the Console/Ultimate License.

Also, you seem like you're sure that you will always be making at least the required amount to pay for your $799 or $1,500 a year license. But I want to ask you, what if you're not earning enough? What if people stop buying your game or your assets from the marketplace? If you had purchased a console/Ultimate License how would you continue to pay?

My arguments are not based on someone who wants to take advantage of a company by demanding they charge me less.

My arguments are based on actually being able to afford to keep access to a module I had purchased for such a large amount and still being able to update/patch/add new features to games even when games on the specified consoles become not popular anymore and not earning enough anymore.

My arguments are also about YoYo Games/Opera actually having a competitive product by making console exports more accessible. GameMaker Studio 2, is already one of the best 2D game engines on the market today and if they had a permanent console export, it might very well be the best in the future to come. Since it would allow even the smallest of indies to be able to release on the consoles they are approved for.

What YoYo Games has written on their YOYO GAMES ROUND UP - Q&A AND MORE blog post is what makes me think they are in fact at least considering to lower pricing, as they said in an answer to:

We had a few requests asking us to speak on pricing going forward. Are we set on our current pricing model and are our current prices set in stone?

"We're always willing to listen as It's an important area for everyone. The general rule with pricing is that you can only charge what people are prepared to pay when they look at your product and other products that do the same thing."

The part here: "The general rule with pricing is that you can only charge what people are prepared to pay when they look at your product and other products that do the same thing" is what YoYo Games/Opera need to pay close attention to and consider.

This is a list of some of the "other products that do the same thing" and why YoYo Games/Opera should seriously consider all that I have been saying about pricing,
Some may think I'm trying to lead others away from GameMaker with this list, but actually it's quite the opposite. It's to show YoYo Games/Opera why they actually need to change their pricing structure and that I want to actually keep using GameMaker for current and future games for years to come.

Based on what the game engines I've listed included in features and pricing, I'm not "prepared to pay $799 or $1,500 a year" when these game engines can do the same and more for less. Some of the the engines listed do have mandatory yearly pricing, but I have included them or pricing comparison.

I have been a huge user of GameMaker Studio 2 for the last few years using it for all of my 2D game development even though I've gone though tons of bugs and unintentional engine behavior while using it. But if the pricing for consoles stays as it is, I will have to go somewhere else. As I have reached the end of the line as far as pricing goes in order to affectively release future games on next gen consoles.

Some of these game engines are small companies, open source, or foundations.

This list also for a comparison of other products that do the same thing [for less] in comparison to GameMaker. Again, this is not to lead people away from GameMaker. But to make the argument of lower pricing stronger, so that YoYo Games/Opera can gain as many developers as possible to GameMaker.

Stencyl
Costs either $99 a year (Web and Desktop) or $199 a year for mobile exports
Can be exported to Nintendo Switch by a third party for "Free". This Switch export was created either by a small team or a single person (I don't know exactly) But, I have spoken with the contributor on Twitter.
Has a no code interface.
Can be seen as a competitor for GameMaker.

Defold
Free for Desktop, Linux, Mac, Android, HTML5, Facebook Games
Switch export costs $25 a month ($300 a year equivalence)
Could potentially be seen as a major competitor for GameMaker

Godot
Completly free
Can be exported to PS4, Xbox One and Switch (cost varies as a third party may be required, if you're not wanting to code the export)
Godot has 2D and 3D support and is quickly becoming a well liked engine
Can be seen as a major competitor for GameMaker

Cocos Creator
Completely free
Can be exported to Nintendo Switch. I don't know exactly how, since the forum post said their publisher did most of the work.
Uses JavaScript (similar to GML)
Has 2D and 3D support

Unity
Free to start (and pay from what you earned)
Has numerous other exports that GameMaker
Has 2D and 3D support
 

gnysek

Member
I think maybe you either want to release free game, or you're confusing 1500$ with 15000$. Seriously, I'm spending yearly more money on lunch, which lasts only until dinner... but yeah, without joking - I can also imagine situations in which that sounds as expensive.

Go back to previous page and see what Juju wrote. License cost is only about 2% of his income, while as he works on programming or porting games, he was just one of many persons hired by original author (someone made graphics, someone made music, etc.). That means, his income was also just part of whole budged and whole income of those games, which leads me to a belief bordering on certainty, that license costs for those games was less than 0,1-0,5% of their BUDGET (not their income). It's even not noticeable among other costs, and it's a margin among them. In some cases it's possible that in such case programmer needs to have his own license, while original author needs to get his own too (EULA, point 3.2), and still that wouldn't a problem and fits in same margin.

I know that comparing those projects with one-person team isn't adequate, but... in some cases working alone could mean more savings than expenses (I hope).

what if you're not earning enough
Then doesn't support your game any longer. You assumptions should be: making console port only if you're sure, that game will earn invested money back, or you already earned money on desktop version and can take a risk / support it only when and as long it's worth (so let's have plan A for long-term and plan B for short-term) / if it sells bad, give up, go work on next project / don't test builds on consoles since 1st day of development, instead use gamepad on desktop version at beginning, work on console when it's stable enough and filled with enough of content.

I see no sense in further discussing this topic, as I believe, that all games released on consoles and made in GMS were either enough success to say that license cost was a margin not even worth mentioning, or if they failed then I believe that at least Desktop version covered all costs. If even this version was a big fail or game was released on consoles only - what I can say - gamedev is always a risk, as among thousand games sometimes it's not easy to be noticed even if game is really great - and it's sad that this happened, but that was also a lesson which have it's price too. That's a dark side of gamedev, but you'll never know what audience will like. Treat export license pricing as a tier, which says when you're ready to face all difficulties associated with it :) That's how I'm looking at it.

I'm pretty sure, that when you release your game, and notice how great it sells, you gonna think "why I was even discussing license price, I already have money for 10 years of it in less than week" :) And in few days from "too expensive" it will also go to "marginal" for you. At least that's what I wish you, and I believe that anyone is able to achieve that with bit of hard work.
 
See that is what I do not get. You talk about all of the expense that you already have, and you are trying to justify spending an additional $799 or $1,500 a year to export to consoles. Wouldn't it be better if you didn't need to have another expense?

Also, no, I'm not planning to release a free game and I am fully aware that I am talking about $1,500 not $15,000.

So by saying this:
Then doesn't support your game any longer.
Do you mean, that if I can no longer pay for the console licenses I should just abandon my games on console that so many people have bought and be labeled an "abandonware" studio? I think not. As I have said, I want to be able to support my game releases as long as I can, and the permanent license would allow me to do just that.

To add to the list of similar game engines, I just came access another Nintendo Switch accessible engine. It is the Esenthel Game Engine. Which is open source and free for all exports. Not sure about the Nintendo Switch export as it was just recently announced.

It seems like a recurring thing, that more engines that pop up, are "open source" and usually the community nowadays are creating their own exports or are having their publisher or a third party do it.
I am not saying that GameMaker should go open source, but the popularity of paid engines seems to be getting less and less and that is also why I believe YoYo Games actually needs to change the pricing on their console exports.

There are just a few upfront paid engines that I can think of.

Stencyl - $99 or $199 a year
Defold - free but, Switch export is $300 a year
Construct 3 - $399 a year for Businesses (don't know about console exports)
Fusion 2.5 - pay once for modules and can pay for an "console export service" with one year of support and patches.
Fusion 3 - said to have "out of the box console export" in addition to the "console export service"

Game Engines which are free to start

Unity - pay from what you earn
Unreal - pay from what you earn

Totally free game engines

Cocos Creator
Godot
Esenthel
Stride aka Xenko
Various other game engines in multiple languages and 2D or 3D capabilities

This is why I think YoYo Games would benefit from permanent licenses. GameMaker Studio 2 is currently the most expensive game engine on the market and with all of the available game engines, I don't think people will always be wanting to pay $799 or $1,500 a year to access consoles when there are so many others they can use or when they can hire third parties to do console exports for them in their current engine.

I think one of the two ways YoYo Games would benefit would to either do like Unity and have exports free to start and require either royalties or for users to subscribe to "GameMaker Pro" for instance, once they reach a threshold in revenue like Unity does.

Or do like ClickTeam does with Fusion 2.5 and is planning on doing with Fusion 3. Have permanent licenses for all of their exports and have out of the box console exports in addition to a paid support subscription for a year of so, kind of like a "managed release" where if developers are having issues YoYo Games can charge for an "export service" for developers who needs the guided support.

I think if YoYo Games continues to charge the way they are, they will price themselves out of the Game Engine market and be beat by the open source free alternatives.

I really want to see GameMaker Studio 2 succeed and I think this would be a way for them to get ahead of all these game engines that are so frequently popping up. Like I said, GameMaker is already a really good game engine. If they would just adjust their pricing to make it more accessible, I think it could become one of the most successful game engines on the market.
 

kburkhart84

Firehammer Games
I don't have a dog in the fight(as in I don't do anything with console so it isn't directly affecting me). But I will say...it seems to me that the pricing is fine. The reason I say this is that Yoyo has not lowered them(or made it a permanent license). In general, if a company has a product that they overprice, it doesn't sell well. There is always a sweetspot(basic economics) where you sell the most of a thing at the highest price you can. It is better to sell at the highest price possible, the highest copies possible. If lowering the price will not increase copies sold enough to make more, the price stays high. If lowering the price would make them sell more copies, then that would be the smart decision if the difference in copies sold is enough to overcome the loss from the price ending in higher profit.

My logic is simply that if Yoyo has not done this, they are likely getting enough sold at that price that they see no gains by lowering the price. It may be that they would sell more, but then if the amount more you sell isn't enough to overcome the difference, then it makes no sense for them to lower the price.

Another thing to consider...the price affects the perceived value of a product. If you go for lower prices, it makes your product have a lower perceived value. There are plenty of people who overpay for things due to this effect. Yoyo would not be well served lowering prices unless it makes sense due to the above detail I mention, as it would lower the value of the product for no real gain. At the least, if they got a sales increase that resulted in higher profit, it would indicate that the product was indeed overpriced, and so the lower perceived value wouldn't matter. As it is, they obviously don't see it that way and so are seemingly going to keep the prices there for the moment.

Final consideration...as a consumer, you have the right 100% to vote with your wallet. You also have the right to voice your opinion. If enough people see it the same way you do, then Yoyo will lose sales on the console license, and therefore would have to lower prices(or add some other value to it). That is also part of how economics works. The only catch is that I don't see enough people doing this. Otherwise, there are simply more people that think the other way and see value in the product worth paying that price for, which would explain why they are not going to lower the price at this time.
 
Well I'm not saying that if YoYo Games can't afford to lower the console pricing they should do it anyway. What I actually saying is that based on what the Game Engine market is shaping up to be, is that the "free engines" are becoming the most popular, and if YoYo Games wants to stay ahead of the game, they may need to change their pricing structure.

Like what would be wrong with a permanent module price like:

Prices are of course made up.

Nintendo Switch Export - $500 (Permanent license)
Xbox Export - $500 (Permanent license)
PS4/PS5 Export - $500 (Permanent license)

"Each console license comes with a year of support. You can purchase additional years of support by paying an additional fee or subscribe yearly for on going support."

YoYo Games is sort of a niche engine, really only being able to create 2D games, with the limited support of 3D. But these open source or free engines are taking the market by storm and usually have both 2D and 3D capabilities and some can do both very well and offer what GameMaker can do and more, plus offer console exporting for free. So it's not really about what seems "fair", but about what people will plan to use in the long run. Like, will people always want to pay $799 or $1,500 year after year? Even long after they have stopped using GameMaker.

Because for me, I honestly wont always be using GameMaker. As there will be a time when I will want to create Next Gen 3D games in an engine like Unreal. And if I had purchased a console license, even though I'm not actively using GameMaker at the time, I will still be having the pay the console fee year after year if I want to keep access the console modules.
 

kburkhart84

Firehammer Games
YoYo Games is sort of a niche engine, really only being able to create 2D games, with the limited support of 3D. But these open source or free engines are taking the market by storm and usually have both 2D and 3D capabilities and some can do both very well and offer what GameMaker can do and more, plus offer console exporting for free.
There is another argument to be had(and which may be why Yoyo sees no need to lower the prices). I personally haven't found any other engine that really offers what Gamemaker does. Yes, there are things offered elsewhere that GM doesn't have, but the extremely quick iteration and development, basically how easy it is(including GML), is just nowhere else to be found. Every other engine I've looked at has a higher learning curve, or is simply just offering much less. If you want 3d, of course, you go elsewhere. But with 2d, I have yet to find something that really compares(not in the final product quality, rather in the ease of development). That is of course my opinion, and obviously the opinion of plenty of other people who choose to pay the console price. If all these other engines are offering it for free or cheap, there must be a reason why Yoyo can still sell theirs at a higher price. And as I mentioned before, it wouldn't make economic sense to go lower unless the additional customers outweighed the price difference loss of profit.

Finally, I'm not 100% on where you get the idea of console exports being free. With Unity and Unreal, they aren't actually free, rather free up to a certain extent based on your earnings. Those two specific engines are simply big enough that they can absorb the people that don't pay, Yoyo doesn't have that luxury. As far as the other engines, I remember something about with Godot that the console exports had to be done by a third party and that detail isn't free(though the engine itself is of course). I don't know about the other engines, though I doubt they really give you the ease of development that GM gives you, or you would have jumped ship long ago.
 
That is why I say Unity and Unreal are "free to start" and in terms of "free console export" I mean no upfront cost. The license of Unity and Unreal are much more appealing than the license of GameMaker.

That is what I was saying about Godot, as well as it being a competitor. Because Godot itself doesn't charge for exports, people can either do them themselves, hire a third party or use a publisher.

I would would much rather purchase a permanent export for a high price, than pay a high subscription upfront. Unless, in the case of Unity or Unreal, where people pay from what they earn. Which ensures people have the revenue they need to pay for the license.

I agree that there really is no other game engine that has the ease of game development like GameMaker. Defold and Godot are a close second though. But how many people will always want to pay for convenience, when they could take the time to learn another engine?

I'm only talking this way because YoYo Games needs to stay on a competitive edge while all these other engines are popping up and all it takes is the next easy to use game engine, then people may just leave GameMaker.
 

gnysek

Member
I want to be able to support my game releases as long as I can, and the permanent license would allow me to do just that.
quote from license you're referring to:
gml said:
3.16 (...) YoYo Games may at its sole discretion and from time to time change, add or remove features and functionality of the YYG Property without any notice to you. YoYo Games reserves the right to discontinue some or all of the features of the YYG Property at any time at its sole discretion (including the provision of software updates).
None of GMS licenses are permanent in fact. GameMaker Studio 1.x was discontinued after 6 years since release, which means that console licenses support was available... for 4 years.

It already passed ~3.5 year since GMS 2 console exports are available (Switch is available ~2.5 years), which means that even if someone bought Ultimate license on first possible day, and is refreshing it every year - no one spend more than 6000$ on it yet (as price didn't changed), and don't need to extend it before July 2021. It means, that selling only 25 copies of game each month, and earning 5$ on each copy was enough to compensate costs of this license. To compare, Loop Hero released last week was selling in first 7 days in ~25 copies per 30 seconds.

I'm not denying that it's more expensive than in other tools (but in fact I also don't know details about how those exporters works, and I'm not sure that publicity visible prices are really the only cost). What I'm denying is that you're assuming that people need permanent license, or it would make a big difference if it's price is much lower.
Like, will people always want to pay $799 or $1,500 year after year? Even long after they have stopped using GameMaker.
Ouch... maybe your problem about prices lies right here. You only need to pay for console licenses when you're testing game on devkit, or exporting it so it can be uploaded to proper digital store. You don't need to pay for console licenses every year to keep your game available to customers. Consoles aren't working in same way that Android or iOS, where you need to update to latest API every several months. You're making a game, exporting it to console, maybe preparing 1-2 patches with bugfixes and players suggestions, and it's done. Your game will remain in digital store forever. And people can download your game even after it's delisted from digital store. Greentech+ released by YYG in 2011 still remains and is playable on my PS3 while all "minis" games were delisted by Sony :)

I'm not sure that YYG need to do anything to say on "competitive edge". Maybe prices of other 2D-focused exporters (including free ones) are lower, cause their biggest competitor is already YYG so they need to keep them lower to attract anyone? I don't see less games released on consoles after GMS2 changed pricing model for this exporter. It seems that console export pricing is the lowest priority factor when developers chooses in which 2D-tool they gonna make their game (for 3D games it's obvious what they are choosing).
 
I never said that developers wouldn't be able to keep their games on a specific console if they didn't pay the license fee. I said they wouldn't have access to their console exports anymore. In fact, how you are explaining GameMaker currently, doesn't make it look very good. It's of course a reality that software and licenses get depreciated. I know that buying a Windows 10 License is not technically "permanent".

My argument is no matter how skilled of a developer you are, your game is not going to be bug free and perfect the first or even 2nd year of release. You're trying to make the "12 Month License" look like a drop in the bucket, "one time purchase" only after a console release is ready. If someone, like me, is planning on maintaining games throughout several years, that would require a constant 12 month license.

I see that this topic has now turn into a back and forth opinionated argument. The best thing to do if I think a certain price is to high would be for me just to go elsewhere and learn a different engine. Which actually seems like what I will actually have to do. I have a very specific workflow and I've not been using GameMaker very much recently to have time to think about my options. In my research I have found a few.

This will be my closing thoughts in this topic. As I don't want to take over this thread anymore with posts about pricing opinions.
 
Last edited:

gnysek

Member
The best thing for to do if I think a certain price is to high would be for me just to go elsewhere and learn a different engine.
You don't need to buy every license before releasing you game on first platform (except you're thinking about consoles only), which gives a chance to self-invest. But yeah, if you're thinking about supporting game for many years beyond moment in which your game produce enough profit, which would make you the first and only GMS developer which does that for so long - yeah, another engine might be a better choice.
But don't forget to take into account that except engines which starts on letter U, some might be discontinued at some point, so no matter what you choose - maintaining game forever might be not possible, or you might need to rewrite it on another engine at some point. Still, you gonna save some dollars, that's true.
 
I think I understand where you are coming from, but the way the way I see it, the Console license price seems more geared towards larger studios or studios that have a publisher. Not small indie studios or one man studios.

I don't know why YoYo Games has priced the console exports that way, but it's current pricing does have the potential to exclude smaller indies from accessing it. When I first heard that GameMaker could export to Nintendo Switch, I got all excited and jumped on the hype train wanting to eventually release a game on the Nintendo Switch. But the further I got into development, the more I started thinking about if I wanted to actually pay the $1,500 a year for console releases. It has been a back and forth decision trying to decide if I wanted to stay with GameMaker or learn a new engine that could release to consoles cheaper. But it all comes down to that it's just not something that I could actually see myself paying. Again, the pricing seems like it's more for larger studios than it is the average indie. That's all I've been saying in these posts, is that since GameMaker seems like it's targeted to individuals, hobbyists, and people who have never coded before, I don't see why they have such an expensive console export.

It's not that I don't want to use GameMaker anymore. It's that I've reached a place were I don't see myself using it long term anymore if I want to release on consoles without having to pay $1,500 a year to be able to release an update. Because if I stick with GameMaker for only PC games, then I would have to use a different engine anyway to port to consoles. I'm not saying that I'm trying to force YoYo Games to fix the pricing just for me. But in my current workflow, it would be better for me to use a different engine that can do both PC and consoles inexpensively.
 

gnysek

Member
but it's current pricing does have the potential to exclude smaller indies from accessing it
Yes and no. That might be close to truth, if one is a one-person indie, is unemployed and is living with someone who pays all bills. Then, making everything in one's game - code, graphics and music, might mean cost of making game equal to 0$. But even releasing on Steam requires some investment - usually together with Steam fee and GMS Windows license it's around 200$. And releasing on Switch which you mentioned - if you add devkit price (it's about 450$?), then license shouldn't be more than 2/3. Some parts of PC used to make game might be more expensive than total costs of developing it. That would lead to conclusion, that devkit or PC price have potential to exclude smaller indies too.

the pricing seems like it's more for larger studios than it is the average indie
Not at all. I'm not sure what's your definition of "average indie", but even one person, which makes games as hobby and side-job (in fact this way it's easier to find funds than having no job), which in my opinion is far from "average indie" yet, is in reach.
I already mentioned few times many ways of finding funds in previous posts (saving own money, selling assets, tutoring, offering services, having patronite, making smaller game first, releasing games on cheaper platform first, walk with neighbor dog, getting loan). Saving weekly same amount of money, that some pays for two meals in fast-food or one dinner at restaurant is enough to not be "beyond reach" anymore. I wouldn't say that 100 burgers with cola, or 50 dinners is beyond average indie. Some indies are ordering pizza everyday :)
I know that in some countries daily wage is below those 2-3$ I'm talking about, but this doesn't exclude anyone rights to make a game and earn money on same global level. Maybe some are able to buy console license from their monthly salary, or maybe there will be a publisher which gonna pay for it, while other need to save for 1, 5 or even 10 years - I'm not judging, but both big studio and small indie have same chances to succeed and fail. Even if some can do some things in advance, and some would need to stretch it over months (one of my friends released his game on Switch 4 years after initial release on Windows...), we're not talking here about price of building a flat or getting a car, but about price lower than high-end TV, notebook or smarpthone. For average indie, avarage sales are enough to have average incomes ;)

I believe one day your hype train will arrive on destination, but there are other stations on it's way too, which are worth to be checked and visited first, they can have things needed to arrive to final station :) Don't give up! I'm sure that when your game will be ready, rest of your problems will solve automatically, and what seems to be beyond reach today, wouldn't be in several months :) Hard work always became rewarded at some point.

And remember that in long-term you may release more than one game, so all costs will divide, or new games may fund updates to those older ;) Selling somewhere between 10k-20k copies of game should be enough to support console exports for 50 years. Optimism is best way to solve issues!
 
Last edited:
If I was a big shot, I would still use GM for commercial 2D games, BECAUSE of it's price.
GM Ultimate = 1500$/year
Unity = 400$/year IF you earn 100k$+ with your game AND you're developing solo. Teams and commercial are much more expensive. (Unity Pro is 1800$ per seat)
UE = 5% over 1000000$, which can rack up to MUCH more than both previous options.
 
Last edited:
According to https://vginsights.com/insights/article/infographic-indie-game-revenues-on-steam :

While first one isn't optimistic, second one allows to believe, that releasing game on Steam is 2x more than enough to release same game on consoles later :) Even if that's far from becoming a millionaire, dreams for sure can come true.
Wouldnt say that, I think it's quite optimistic.
The median is so high in relation to the average (or the other way around? 🤔 ), that means if you manage to beat the "0-4000$-or-so-revenue", you have a nice shot at a very good payday, statistically.
 

JeffJ

Member
While first one isn't optimistic, second one allows to believe, that releasing game on Steam is 2x more than enough to release same game on consoles later :) Even if that's far from becoming a millionaire, dreams for sure can come true.
The problem is that the point you keep coming back to is all about breaking even. If you're developing commercially, you need to do a lot more than just break even and cover your own costs - you need profits beyond that. And for a single developer or a small team of two or three people, who work from home using their own equipment (which, lets face it, is the majority of even semi-commercial GMS developers), then the GMS license pretty much is the majority expense. I don't see any of all the other expenses you keep mentioning. And based on those figures you yourself posted, that makes one year of ultimate nearly 40% of the average indie game's total revenue. Then you have the store fronts, all of which takes 30%. On top of that, if you are so lucky to have a publisher (you mentioned Loop Hero - they published with Devolver, which may be a big reason for that commercial success, but I can guarantee you that Devolver takes at least 30% of that), that's another 30% off of those remaining 70%. Oh, and then there's taxes. Suddenly, you're lucky if you actually do break even, but again, in most cases - the majority, actually, based on your own figures - nearly half the game's revenue is gone on GMS alone. That's a steep up front cost that simply isn't a factor for any of the other engines mentioned.

But at the end of the day, I honestly feel like the discussion that's been going on for the past many posts is irrelevant, regardless of the side of the argument you're on - everyone's expenses and income is different. What we should be discussing is not really so much if the price should be lowered, but if the offered packages could be more flexible. I never once argued for bringing down the price - I'm also fine with it. Heck, make it $3000 if you must - but make it permanent, and give us the option to separate support from export modules. If the primary reason for the recurring cost is support, then make that what we pay for annually. The issue here is that it's forcibly tied to the module itself. All I'm saying is it should be possible to opt into that paid support (annually, monthly, or whatever makes the most sense). But no one is focusing on that point - the discussion keeps going back to price.

And on the subject of support, here's something to think about:
While most developers do indeed need a lot of support getting their first certification through on any console, the second time around is usually a lot easier. On top of that, what if you already did release a game on console, and 3 months after your license runs out, you want to push out a patch with some simple bugfixes. It's not going to boost your sales a whole lot, but it's still part of supporting a game post release. Now you need to drop another $1500 for a whole year to export one patch, even if you don't need to make one single support ticket for help. See the issue here?
 
Last edited:

gnysek

Member
Now you need to drop another $1500 for a whole year to export one patch, even if you don't need to make one single support ticket for help. See the issue here?
Yeah, that's true, with current model you need to plan in advance, ideally having nearly-ready game (for example on Windows), then start to work on console version, and it will be best choice to release game somewhere around half of license, to have some time for patches. So it's possible for bigger games, that they indeed might not fit into one-year window, or certification will take too long to fit into one-year license before you can work on next patch.
Of course two years could be included in business plan, but it's true that YYG could also offer some short-term (one month?) licenses for those who already at least once paid for Ultimate/specific console, if they don't need any new support from them, and it's just to run "export" button once.
I think it's not working that way cause Ultimate includes ALL exports, not only consoles - from that point having Desktop license as only one among permanent, and using Ultimate when game is ready to polish it on other devices (during one year period) seems like more than enough, and cost per device becomes low - but only if you fit in one year and I believe that was their assumption, that nobody needs longer periods. However, you still need to pay full price for Ultimate even if you already bought other licenses separately before - so some small discount here would be more than welcome.

Some bonuses/discounts for loyal customers after 1st year of Ultimate are a good idea and I like it.
 

Roldy

Member
So it's possible for bigger games, that they indeed might not fit into one-year window, or certification will take too long to fit into one-year license before you can work on next patch.
This seems like a reasonable option; shorter, less expensive extensions to existing licenses, with the longer license more cost effective. Fairly common in addition to reasonable.
 

JeffJ

Member
Of course two years could be included in business plan, but it's true that YYG could also offer some short-term (one month?) licenses for those who already at least once paid for Ultimate/specific console, if they don't need any new support from them, and it's just to run "export" button once.
And this is what it's all about, and all I'm trying to say - let's discuss options to offer more flexible and fair transaction models than what is currently available. Not saying the price is too high, I'm saying the offering is too rigid. Suggestions like mine or yours quoted above is what I would like to see more of, and most importantly, for YYG to actually seriously listen and consider.
 
The problem is that the point you keep coming back to is all about breaking even. If you're developing commercially, you need to do a lot more than just break even and cover your own costs - you need profits beyond that. And for a single developer or a small team of two or three people, who work from home using their own equipment (which, lets face it, is the majority of even semi-commercial GMS developers), then the GMS license pretty much is the majority expense. I don't see any of all the other expenses you keep mentioning. And based on those figures you yourself posted, that makes one year of ultimate nearly 40% of the average indie game's total revenue. Then you have the store fronts, all of which takes 30%. On top of that, if you are so lucky to have a publisher (you mentioned Loop Hero - they published with Devolver, which may be a big reason for that commercial success, but I can guarantee you that Devolver takes at least 30% of that), that's another 30% off of those remaining 70%. Oh, and then there's taxes. Suddenly, you're lucky if you actually do break even, but again, in most cases - the majority, actually, based on your own figures - nearly half the game's revenue is gone on GMS alone. That's a steep up front cost that simply isn't a factor for any of the other engines mentioned.

But at the end of the day, I honestly feel like the discussion that's been going on for the past many posts is irrelevant, regardless of the side of the argument you're on - everyone's expenses and income is different. What we should be discussing is not really so much if the price should be lowered, but if the offered packages could be more flexible. I never once argued for bringing down the price - I'm also fine with it. Heck, make it $3000 if you must - but make it permanent, and give us the option to separate support from export modules. If the primary reason for the recurring cost is support, then make that what we pay for annually. The issue here is that it's forcibly tied to the module itself. All I'm saying is it should be possible to opt into that paid support (annually, monthly, or whatever makes the most sense). But no one is focusing on that point - the discussion keeps going back to price.

And on the subject of support, here's something to think about:
While most developers do indeed need a lot of support getting their first certification through on any console, the second time around is usually a lot easier. On top of that, what if you already did release a game on console, and 3 months after your license runs out, you want to push out a patch with some simple bugfixes. It's not going to boost your sales a whole lot, but it's still part of supporting a game post release. Now you need to drop another $1500 for a whole year to export one patch, even if you don't need to make one single support ticket for help. See the issue here?
You just actually described basically what I've been saying. Also, I'm not saying that the "price" should be lowered per se, but like you said, I would pay $3,000 for a permanent license.

This line right here, is the part that concerns me:
what if you already did release a game on console, and 3 months after your license runs out, you want to push out a patch with some simple bugfixes. It's not going to boost your sales a whole lot, but it's still part of supporting a game post release. Now you need to drop another $1500 for a whole year to export one patch, even if you don't need to make one single support ticket for help.
This what I feel would be the case for me. As I would want to be able to release small updates, here and there, even after the one year license expiration. It could be to fix a typo in dialog, fix a GUI image or just something trivial. But as you said, even if it was 1 day after the 12 license expiration I would need to pay another $1,500 just to fix a "typo."

Also, what gnysek said here:
I think it's not working that way cause Ultimate includes ALL exports, not only consoles
Then why not have a Console Only License? That license could be permanent that includes a year of support, but if a developer needed extra support they can pay for another year. I keep mentioning the Ultimate License because it's currently the only one with all 3 consoles. Currently, if someone just wanted consoles, all 3 single consoles would cost $2,397 a year. Like me, if I did release to console using GameMaker, I would do the Ultimate License. Not because I want access to ALL exports, but because it's cheaper to access all 3 consoles. All the other exports would be no use to me. I don't plan on using HTML, UWP is hard to work with, and I already have the Desktop and Mobile export. As I've basically already purchased all other modules I would want to use and they are permanent and I can come and go to use them whenever I would and update Steam game without the additional yearly cost. The Ultimate License would kind of be wasted money for someone who had purchased a couple of the modules already. Also making the Ultimate License for a console only developer somewhat of an unnecessary expense. This is where I think permanent console only licenses with additional paid support would drastically help. In fact, just leave the single consoles at $799 but make them permanent.
 

JeffJ

Member
This:
Then why not have a Console Only License? That license could be permanent that includes a year of support, but if a developer needed extra support they can pay for another year.
And this:
This is where I think permanent console only licenses with additional paid support would drastically help. In fact, just leave the single consoles at $799 but make them permanent.
Would pretty much be the perfect setup as far as I'm concerned. And it would also still secure YYG's expenses being covered by yearly recurring payments - only difference being that it would be more fairly in line with the actual resources needed for the support load that comes with it. Everyone wins.
 

gnysek

Member
With yearly license it's easier to end support for current major version in advance and have no complaining from users - there are people who bought permanent license for GMS1 and a few weeks later GMS2 was announced, while they could wait few months for new product. With yearly licenses, news like this won't make you surprised, as license will always end before new product became stable and you gonna get support until last day. And I think that Ultimate have all exports instead only consoles to promote those others.
It would be easier to talk about permanent instead yearly if there will be official plans on how long GMS2 will be on market before GMS3 arrives. If they plan to release it in 2-3 years - permanent wouldn't be a loss on their side. If they would stick with GMS2 forever - permanent may not compensate costs of this exporter in long term. So they sticked with choice which is between those two.
 

JeffJ

Member
I really don't follow that logic. First of all, that will always be a factor no matter how you twist and turn it - same way you could buy GMS1 the day before GMS2 got announced, you could buy 12 months of GMS2 Ultimate the day before GMS3 got announced. Same difference. And no permanent GMS1 license, not even the old "Master Collection", was even close to the current ultimate. Even then, a permanent license can still be used long after sunset, so there's really no relevance to any of that.

Second, by your logic, none of the export modules would be sustainable with a permanent offering. Once again, if there was an option for a recurring subscription payment model for console support (or maybe even premium support for any module, who knows), that's still a recurring income - it's just not for the export module itself.
 
I don't think GMS3 will be announced anytime soon. Since if a version was going to support next gen consoles, I'd think it would be GMS3. But no, they choose to announce next gen beta support for GMS2. Also, the road map shows improvements to GMS2. Not GMS3. They just released GMS2 2.3, and it had launch day bugs, so I don't think they would be quickly going to a whole other version. Or at least they shouldn't.

Also, like JeffJ says, I think GMS2 would be supported even after GMS3 is released, just like how people still used and are still using Windows 7, even after Windows 8 and 10 were released.
 

gnysek

Member
I think GMS2 would be supported even after GMS3 is released
Yeah, when that day comes, I believe it will be supported for only about 1 - 1.5 year. That's how it was with GMS1, and that's why I'm connecting it with length of most expensive licenses - maybe I'm wrong. Btw. base Windows 8 support ended 5 years ago, that's not a good example ;)
At some point they need to cut somehow old functionality. Since GMS1 in 2012, some features (especially async events) started to use ds_maps/lists to provide event data. We now have structs which would be much better for it, also ds structures and resources could get real "references" type instead of integer numbers, and also a GC. But as this is breaking change, the best solution is to change version number. We see how many problems 2.3 causes - in fact it should already be GMS3, as for many those changes were breaking enough to not update 2.2. Now I'm not sure if there will be GMS 3 at all, in fact now there's a new fashion to put year number, so I'm expecting GameMaker Studio 2022.1 or something similar at some point, cause GMS2 for outsiders may sound like immature product having such a "small number" after it's name ;) And I believe that with this change, they wouldn't require to get a new license every time that major number changes, and that's when whole pricing model will change, not before. At least not this year. 2021 will be only about "polishing" IDE, and according to roadmap it will be calm and predictable, with nearly no new features. I don't expect any revolutions this year.
 
Yeah, when that day comes, I believe it will be supported for only about 1 - 1.5 year. That's how it was with GMS1, and that's why I'm connecting it with length of most expensive licenses - maybe I'm wrong. Btw. base Windows 8 support ended 5 years ago, that's not a good example ;)
At some point they need to cut somehow old functionality. Since GMS1 in 2012, some features (especially async events) started to use ds_maps/lists to provide event data. We now have structs which would be much better for it, also ds structures and resources could get real "references" type instead of integer numbers, and also a GC. But as this is breaking change, the best solution is to change version number. We see how many problems 2.3 causes - in fact it should already be GMS3, as for many those changes were breaking enough to not update 2.2. Now I'm not sure if there will be GMS 3 at all, in fact now there's a new fashion to put year number, so I'm expecting GameMaker Studio 2022.1 or something similar at some point, cause GMS2 for outsiders may sound like immature product having such a "small number" after it's name ;) And I believe that with this change, they wouldn't require to get a new license every time that major number changes, and that's when whole pricing model will change, not before. At least not this year. 2021 will be only about "polishing" IDE, and according to roadmap it will be calm and predictable, with nearly no new features. I don't expect any revolutions this year.
I just want to ask you one question. Why are your replies so cynical?

Just about every reply I have made, and even some of JeffJ's you seem to take great pride in replying with a pessimistic answer taking great detail to explain why you are right and acting as though you were YoYo Games themselves.

Don't you have any hopeful expectations that any aspect of GameMaker could get better? Or that indie developers aren't supposed to scrape save, ask for donations, take out loans or otherwise live in poverty and just say, "oh well, I'm already paying such amount, I'll just scape a few years until I can save up for this license". Or that indie gaming in general is not to bankrupt developers, but to be a sustainable career?

You answers have no joy or hope in them.
 

gnysek

Member
You answers have no joy or hope in them.
There's a lot of researches and interviews with developers, which says how gamdev is hard, and how random it might be to succeed. It's not like I have no hope, it's rather experience I gained during 18 years, which leads me to be careful in being too optimistic (do you know any of my games? I made several games with YoYoGames when they yet had publishing department. They didn't sold bad, but they were far from generally recognizable). If I wouldn't be optimistic, I wouldn't work on my own game. I'm trying to think that everyone should be prepared for two possibilities: that your actions will lead you to success, or that it will be a complete failure, and be prepared to randomly land somewhere between those two. But I also see, that those who worked very hard, usually are closer to "success" badge.
Also as for my expectations... after 18 years I would wish many things, but I see the pace in which things are developed, so I'm just not expecting them faster than they can be delivered :) It's not about YYG, but about software in general.
 

YellowAfterlife

ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴍᴜʟᴛɪᴘʟᴀʏᴇʀ
Forum Staff
Moderator
And probably that's solution we all need. With that redefining other prices should be possible.
I'm not sure it is - Unity had become increasingly known (and not in a good way) for support only being available for purchase after you have paid $1800/year/seat and not actually warranting that your bugs will be timely fixed for those thousands upon thousands of dollars.

I don't think you can legitimately sell software with no support without some hit to your public image - try finding a single game/software development product with this kind of pricing. At best you'll find "license lasts a year and then you keep that last update forever", but this wouldn't work on consoles - required SDK gets bumped every year if not more often, and requires constant work from YYG's end, which is likely the primary factor to subscription-based pricing (lest there be more cases like the PS Vita module)

A thing that strikes me as almost inconceivable about the rants that come up every time YYG mentions pricing is that people simultaneously want to release on all platforms¹ and expect zero success in doing so. Becoming an ultimate, irredeemable failure is certainly an aspiration to have, but you don't have to climb mt. Everest right away - certainly not with intention of dying while doing so.

¹ for point of reference - even large-ish games often release on Switch first due to how time-consuming porting and cert compliance can be
 
I'm not sure it is - Unity had become increasingly known (and not in a good way) for support only being available for purchase after you have paid $1800/year/seat and not actually warranting that your bugs will be timely fixed for those thousands upon thousands of dollars.

I don't think you can legitimately sell software with no support without some hit to your public image - try finding a single game/software development product with this kind of pricing. At best you'll find "license lasts a year and then you keep that last update forever", but this wouldn't work on consoles - required SDK gets bumped every year if not more often, and requires constant work from YYG's end, which is likely the primary factor to subscription-based pricing (lest there be more cases like the PS Vita module)

A thing that strikes me as almost inconceivable about the rants that come up every time YYG mentions pricing is that people simultaneously want to release on all platforms¹ and expect zero success in doing so. Becoming an ultimate, irredeemable failure is certainly an aspiration to have, but you don't have to climb mt. Everest right away - certainly not with intention of dying while doing so.

¹ for point of reference - even large-ish games often release on Switch first due to how time-consuming porting and cert compliance can be
Actually Epic does the very thing we're discussing on the forums. They provide console access without a paid subscription for support of the console modules. I can confirm this because I have been given access to Xbox One/Series X|S and PS4/PS5 with no additional cost.

Plus, Epic has a separate "Premium Support" subscription for people who would like the dedicated support at: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/support

"The Unreal Developer Network (UDN) is Epic Games’ premium fee-based support resource where dedicated Epic Games staff will answer your questions. The UDN is open to Unreal Engine custom licensees and participants in the Unreal Enterprise Program. Get in touch to find out about pricing."

All people are asking if for access to the console exports on a permanent basis and to have the option of paying for additional support. I don't see anything illegal about that.

My main issue with the current console license is what @JeffJ says here, which is a totally valid concern:
On top of that, what if you already did release a game on console, and 3 months after your license runs out, you want to push out a patch with some simple bugfixes. It's not going to boost your sales a whole lot, but it's still part of supporting a game post release. Now you need to drop another $1500 for a whole year to export one patch, even if you don't need to make one single support ticket for help. See the issue here?
YoYo Games could still keep the Ultimate License as it is as a bundle for people or large studios that actually can afford that type of pricing and YoYo Games would still be earning revenue from that bundle.

If there were separate console licenses that were permanent, like I said also, they could stay at their $799 price.

I know people also say that you can't compare YoYo Games with the team size of Epic or Unity, but why not hire specific console SDK staff or support staff in order to keep console SDK's up to date?

Revenue would be earned with the Ultimate License, The Creator License and the proposed "Premium Support", for console developers who might want the optional support.
 

gnysek

Member
but why not hire specific console SDK staff or support staff in order to keep console SDK's up to date?
I think that they already have someone only for this. I have no idea how much programmer earns in YYG, but I believe that it could be something between 2000$ - 4000$ monthly. So... it's hard to talk about pricing of that module, cause as consumer I'd like to have lowest possible price, but I also would like to have high quality of that exporter and I know that they need to pay someone for that, while they might sell only few of those licenses each month. In case that this module and programmer should be compensated from console licenses only, price is ok. In case that this module costs are also supported by other licenses - it should have much lower price.
But I have no idea about their budget, so in my head I'm explaining to myself, that console part is separated and self published from licenses.
 

rIKmAN

Member
I know people also say that you can't compare YoYo Games with the team size of Epic or Unity, but why not hire specific console SDK staff or support staff in order to keep console SDK's up to date?
People say it for good reason - Epic earn ~$1 billion a year and Unity hundreds of millions from numerous revenue streams - you really are comparing apples to elephants.
Some other engines are a fairer comparison than either of those two as they are so far away from YYG both in terms of company size and cashflow that it's a pointless comparison.

Those massive profits allow them to offer console exports to users for free as the cost is offset from the huge amounts of money they generate elsewhere - and not only console exports for the engine as things like Megascans

The console exports used to be free for GMS too once you provided proof that you has signed with the platform holder, but we were told that they were never actually "free" and the cost was subsidised by the platformer holders themselves, which had stopped. The costs were then passed onto the customer in the form of the console licences.

I realise that people want everything for cheap nowadays and you made about 4-5 posts proclaiming that "YYG *need* to lower the price", when in fact they have a full team of people in marketing, accounting and whatever else who have way more data at hand to be able to make decisions on viable pricing for the business model and which licences should be permanent / subscription and their subsequent required costs. The pricing is their informed choice based on that data, same as the decision to purchase or not is yours.

Sometimes you have to think of the bigger picture and realise that YYG have to be profitable as a company and be able to pay the staff and ensure that the engine can continue being developed. They need some form of recurring revenue as one time "permanent" payments across the board simply don't cut it when you are getting into year 2, 3 and 4 of the engines lifecycle and people are asking "why not just take on more staff?". With what money? The one time fee you paid 4yrs ago?

I also think the $799 / $1500 price point is being blown way out of proportion (look at Juju's post for reference numbers) - it's not $100 like Desktop but it's also not like you have to remortgage the house to get your game on a console. However the difference in support/updates needed and the regularity of them for Desktop vs Console exports is pretty wide and is likely one of the factors as to why one is one-time and one is a more expensive subscription.

With regard to "I want to update my now dead game and have to pay $799 to do so" argument, the licences are yearly - not per title.
If your game sales have now dried up to the point that it won't even pay for it's licence cost for the year then it's probably best to direct your time elsewhere and move on to your next game or project - then when you release that you can use the same licence to update you older title(s).

Don't get me wrong I'm not a millionaire either and I'm not against cheaper pricing, but I've been around a while and seen engines I used and enjoyed in the past end up becoming unsupported and eventually die due to lack of profitablility while having users who complained about higher pricing then also complained when the engine died to to not being financially viable to continue being developed.

It can't work both ways, there has to be a middle ground where it works for both parties and I think JeffJ is the only one that has actually mentioned it having to be viable for YYG to reduce pricing too. They can't work at a loss, that's not how it works.

Basically I see both sides and it has to be viable for YYG to do whilst still being able to improve/update the engine, support all the export targets and possibly grow the team (as they are doing now) and I think it's a bit naive to tell them as a matter of fact that "they *need* to lower the price" as if that was the case the data would show it and I'm sure their teams would have already done it or be considering it regardless of what is posted on the forums by you, me or anyone else.

What matters is the pricing isn't extortionate (it's not) and that it is able to support the company and sustain the development and growth of the engine for years to come whilst still being within reach of the vast majority of users who want to publish on console using GameMaker (it is).

Maybe the Opera purchase will help in this regard and they can offset some of the costs the same way that Epic and Unreal are able to (maybe on a smaller scale), but I think given the required ongoing work and support that console exports require that a one-time fee seems unlikely and in some ways unreasonable. Don't forget that just because you might not need any support that it doesn't mean that the export itself doesn't regularly need maintaining, updating and developing to keep up to scratch and staff have to be employed and paid a good wage to do that.

The last year has seen my faith and optimism in GameMaker restored with the updates made and direction that things are headed in with Russell at the helm.
Now with Opera getting involved and the visible uptick in interaction with the community we've seen I'm confident that whatever changes are made (if any) will be fair to the users and deemed as required by YYG to ensure the continued development of the engine whilst allowing both parties to still pay their bills.
 

JeffJ

Member
... The above post sums up perfectly why I keep reiterating - it's not about the price, it's about the options. It doesn't need to be cheaper, it needs to be more flexible. I really wish we could start moving the discussion more away from price, and more towards flexibility / other options.

EDIT
And yes, of course it needs to be viable for YYG as well. We all want them to succeed, otherwise we will all fail. But I do genuinely believe there is a middle ground to be found, where both parties can be accommodated, without necessarily lowering the price.
 

gnysek

Member
Yeah, there's lot of things they could offer us in "premium" packages. Like voting for order in which features will be added, priority support, Early Access versions etc.
Question is that Opera would like to consider it together with other proposals in this topic.
 

rIKmAN

Member
... The above post sums up perfectly why I keep reiterating - it's not about the price, it's about the options. It doesn't need to be cheaper, it needs to be more flexible. I really wish we could start moving the discussion more away from price, and more towards flexibility / other options.

EDIT
And yes, of course it needs to be viable for YYG as well. We all want them to succeed, otherwise we will all fail. But I do genuinely believe there is a middle ground to be found, where both parties can be accommodated, without necessarily lowering the price.
I can't remember who said it now as this thread is a few pages long, but I liked the idea of a "top-up" licence for users, maybe who have owned a 12th console licence within the past 6-12mths. As an example it could be a one-time 1mth / 3mth licence specifically for the purpose of facilitating updates to a game already released using a full 12mth licence.

It might have been Kyle that suggested it actually as that seems like it would be a good fit for the situation he has been describing re: updating an old game who's sales have dropped.

I know you are vocal about paid support - not sure if that's because you want to pay for extra support on top or whether you want the cost of support removed from the licence because you don't need it, but there is definitely a middle ground to be found which will generally work for both parties.

You're never going to please every user, but there is maybe room for some sort of tiered system which might give users more options than they currently have.
 
... The above post sums up perfectly why I keep reiterating - it's not about the price, it's about the options. It doesn't need to be cheaper, it needs to be more flexible. I really wish we could start moving the discussion more away from price, and more towards flexibility / other options.

EDIT
And yes, of course it needs to be viable for YYG as well. We all want them to succeed, otherwise we will all fail. But I do genuinely believe there is a middle ground to be found, where both parties can be accommodated, without necessarily lowering the price.
That's what I'm saying also. Sometimes I got off track explaining and giving examples, but, I do agree that there could be a middle ground where both YoYo Games and developers of all sizes can access console exports without YoYo Games or developers losing money. I'm all for spending the console prices as they are $799 for each, but again, there is no "other option" to consoles except the Ultimate or a single console license.

People probably wouldn't like it, but that's also why I mentioned maybe a royalty model or a model like Unity or Unreal. Where the license starts out free, but as developers earn more revenue then they can pay YoYo Games the license cost. But if the developers don't earn anything, they don't pay anything.

Like Unreal. After developers had made 1 million they start calculating how much a developer makes. Maybe not necessarily "royalties", but maybe like Unity, where after a developer has reached a threshold they pay a set amount each year. I'm not saying the threshold should be 1 million though, but let me post some of what Epic says about their costs at: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq?active=release

Let’s say you released a game earlier this year and it made $500K in Q1 2020. $500K is less than $1M, so no royalties are due and you do not need to report revenues.

In Q2 2020, your game earns an additional $700K, bringing the total gross revenue to $1.2M.

At this point you would report on revenues, deduct the $1M royalty exemption from total revenue, and calculate the 5% royalty using the remainder.
$1,200,000 - $1,000,000 = $200,000
$200,000 x 0.05 = $10,000
This would mean that up until now you have used Unreal Engine during your entire development cycle for free, earned $1.2M in revenue, and you owe a royalty of $10,000.

Let’s say your game makes $300K in Q3 2020. Since the $1M threshold has been exceeded, and the amount earned in the quarter is greater than $10K, royalties are due on the full quarterly amount at the rate of 5%.
$300,000 > $10,000
$300,000 x 0.05 = $15,000
You would report your game’s revenues and owe $15,000 in royalties.

As sales slow, your game only makes $5K in Q4 2020. Although you’ve passed the $1M threshold, the earnings this quarter are less than $10K, and so no royalties are due and revenues do not need to be reported.

As business picks back up in Q1 2021, your game makes $100K. Since you’ve passed the $1M threshold, and the amount made in the quarter is greater than $10K, revenue reporting and royalties are due at the 5% rate.
$100,000 > $10,000
$100,000 x 0.05 = $5,000
You would report your game’s revenues and owe $5,000 in royalties.

In summary, if the lifetime revenue of your game from Q1 2020 to Q1 2021 is $1,605,000, the total amount of royalties payable is $30K.

In a way, it's like a subscription, but it's a varying cost to the subscription. This would create incentives for both YoYo Games and the developer. The better the developer's games are, the more YoYo Games will have paying developers. This is the big concern with a mandatory "no matter what money is made" subscription. But with a subscription like this:

"As sales slow, your game only makes $5K in Q4 2020. Although you’ve passed the $1M threshold, the earnings this quarter are less than $10K, and so no royalties are due and revenues do not need to be reported."

I would think both parties would win. In fact, I would be ok, with paying the $1,500 as long as I didn't have to pay it if my games were not making money in a certain time frame (like $5,000 or $10,000 in a quarter).
 
Last edited:

JeffJ

Member
I know you are vocal about paid support - not sure if that's because you want to pay for extra support on top or whether you want the cost of support removed from the licence because you don't need it, but
I'd be more than happy to explain this particular point in more detail. The short version: because it makes the most sense for everyone - including YYG.

Here's why:

For console development on YYG's side, you have two primary recurring expenses that could / would justify a recurring income:
1: SDK upkeep (which is one of the jobs they're hiring for)
2: More involved certification support

The SDK upkeep is a fairly "fixed" expense - it's always there, but it's a lot easier to gauge how much it will cost in man hours, and how often it needs to be updated for various platforms. Keep in mind, that SDK upkeep is also a factor for Android and iOS, yet none of these platforms require subscription from the user base, so it stands to reason that a similar fixed cost for upkeep could, and should be able to be worked out for console SDKs as well without footing the bill to the consumer.

Now, the certification support is more of a wildcard that you can't always accurately gauge in advance, even if you know how many "Ultimate" subscribers you have. Some developers (particularly first time console developers) will inevitably need more support than others. When you have several console certs under your belt, it's likely you won't need the same (or any) cert support because you can manage on your own, and the only support you'd be likely to need is when you encounter SDK specific bugs. This means that the number of console developers will never be exactly representative of the amount of support needed for said developer base. As such, there's two points to this:

1: It doesn't make sense that seasoned developers with little to no need for cert support should pay for something they don't need. These should have the option to buy a permanent export module for the various console platforms. If they run into a need for cert support, allow them to pay for it.

2: If cert support was separated from console modules, not only would it be more fair to the third party developers, but it would also give YYG an exact figure for how much staff they need to allocate at any given time to that particular support, making it a lot easier to never under or over allocate, and offer dedicated support for only this purpose for only this user base. Better for YYG, and better for those who rely on said support.
 

gnysek

Member
I know that my proposal will be complete on edge, but they could offer something like "Ultimate maintenance-only license", so after one at least once paid for whole year of Ultimate, is eligible to get one month short-term license every half year, to update any games to latest APIs/SDKs/GMS features on every exporter (I believe that those which gets breaking changes or new features are: Android, iOS, macOS, HTML5, consoles) for 50-100$. Outside of that, it will be still possible to update and test everything using normal permanent licenses on non-console platforms, as it's now, so most of users won't need any of Ultimate variants at all, while others would still be able to "prepare" their games without using Ultimate too. For those who need more time to test new games, normal one year Ultimate would be still required (which still should get some discount after first year).
 

rIKmAN

Member
1: It doesn't make sense that seasoned developers with little to no need for cert support should pay for something they don't need. These should have the option to buy a permanent export module for the various console platforms. If they run into a need for cert support, allow them to pay for it.
I agree that charging for "support" if it isn't needed could be an optional thing that can be purchased seperately if required and have the knock on effect of allowing the costs of the 12mth sub to be reduced, but I'm not sure that's the only ongoing cost.

When the console licences went from "free if approved by platform holder" to "yearly subscription" the reason given was that it was never actually "free" and now the platform holders were no longer subsidising the costs and so that cost had to be passed on to the user - which is fair.

However I don't agree with the permanent console licence option, the export still has to be updated / maintained / worked on regularly (moreso than other exports) which costs time and money and it doesn't seem right to me that in your example that experienced devs (who are more likely to have subsequent / repeated console releases) essentially pay once and get the benefits of that continued work in perpetuity, whilst YYG get nothing back in return other than the initial one-off payment.

It works with other exports like Desktop because they need very little work to keep working - people are still using GM8 even now for example.
Yes, mobile requires more frequent updates to extensions and such, but again not close to the work needed to keep console exports up to date, just looking at the roadmap shows this where "Console Updates" is scheduled every quarter regardless of what else is planned.

A permanent console licence just doesn't seem like a sustainable model to me and if you look at the numbers Juju posted to see how the current subscription cost is a fraction of any serious console devs game budget, then it's clear than anyone considering releasing on console should factor that in as a cost at the start and not consider it to be the show stopper to releasing their dream game on a console.

The shorter "update" licence is a good idea though and would help people like Kyle who want to push updates to older games already released via the full licence without having to pay out for another full 12mth sub.

Ultimately we aren't YYG staff and don't know the figures or any other pertinent data so it's all just conjecture really, but I'm sure YYG will find a good middle ground which is fair to both sides.

However they will never please everyone - and neither should they try to - as we'll all have different opinions on what would be best.
 
Last edited:

renex

Member
saw discussion about attach points - even as far back as multimedia fusion you had action points on the sprites - would be actually amazing if we had similar functionality in gm. particularly having multiple of them and being able to name them, defining them separately for each frame. multiple times now i've had to devise my own tools for this on art-heavy projects using paths and other messy things.
 

Roldy

Member
saw discussion about attach points - even as far back as multimedia fusion you had action points on the sprites - would be actually amazing if we had similar functionality in gm. particularly having multiple of them and being able to name them, defining them separately for each frame. multiple times now i've had to devise my own tools for this on art-heavy projects using paths and other messy things.
A bit off topic: I would like to mention that Sequences can supply this feature right now; it requires a little monkey business but it works. However, if the Sequence structure was more stable and exposed (being able to know which instances belong to which sequence easily and vice versa) then attach points for sprites and animations would easily be doable with the Sequence feature. Hopefully, any continued work on sequences will do just that.
 

Japster

Member
See my edited post above. There was context that had I been aware of such context... I would have taken that the RIGHT way! Again, I apologize to @gnysek.

In case anyone is wondering, I do feel like a jerk now, haha.
@Posh Indie - I wouldn't, to be fair - yourself and others here (@JeffJ , @KyleRansford , etc) still make a lot of good points... ...For example, I have the PC, MAC and LINUX exports available, but as I've STILL had no luck whatsoever with building YYC targets for Linux and MacOS, my games have ONLY been released on Windows / Steam, so far (I have complex solving logic in them that takes a LOT of processor power / time without YYC, and despite being optimised, runs VERY slowly on none YYC built executables (we're talking 30-40 seconds delays for AI help in some cases, compared to say, 6-7 seconds YYC built).

So, I use only 1 of my 3 target OS's, NOT by choice.

Likewise, maybe I'm doing it wrong, but my games (Like TetraLogical, which I honestly think is GOOD enough at least, to earn me *some* money) simply haven't. Yes, it MAY do well on console, but after flopping on PC, you get to thinking "Can I afford to potentially p*ss away £1,000's a year in the hope that the console market will embrace it?" - and yes, it can be argued that we should have faith in our games, but I've now created 5 or 6 full games, some of them completely free, which people seem to have loved, but never had many installs, so after a while you start thinking harder about committing more good money after bad.... :(

I personally think that the license COULD be either cheaper or performance based, to at least offer the ability to TRY and see if that market is viable, without a price barrier for (so far) unsuccessful, or newly console-intending indie devs...

I'm actually more of the argument that:-

If I can potentially target console markets for a nominal (or one-off export license) fee, or (gasp!) even FREE, and then my game actually did WELL after all on console, I would be MORE THAN happy with either a LARGE payment to YoYo, upon hitting a lower threshold than say, Unity's threshold, (e.g. Say I hit at least £50,000+, I pay a £5,000 fee), OR even the option of a revenue split percentage for both myself and YoYo, that ultimately paid them FAR better, if my game(s) did astronomically well - there's the method of paying support and incentivising YoYo to 'push' to support and improve the product right there...

So yes, I firmly believe that what you're saying in terms of change, while still keeping YoYo profitable and in business, is perfectly achievable, whilst lowering the barrier for us initially struggling devs... :)

...and I just KNOW that some people will NOT like some of the above suggestions, but tbh, why can't YoYo operate a CHOICE?... ;)

ie:-

1) As is - Opt for the existing $1,500 licence.

2) LARGE payment / thank you once the game does well, a'la Unity (but lower threshold, higher one-off payment - if my games were actually successful, I'd be MORE than happy to reciprocate!).

3) Set revenue sharing percentage (i.e. 5%, 10%) / thank you regardless of game's performance (ie. If not a flop, then the sky's the limit! - and for the games that might flop, well, less of an impact to the dev).


Personally, options 2 or 3 sound better for me, AND for YoYo in general - yes, some games may not hit great sales thresholds, but the ones that DO, give potentially exponentially bigger returns compared to the current offering, WHILE still obviously being a tiny (and so easily manageable/budgetable) proportion of ACTUAL income/earnings by the (in this case, successful!) dev?.... ;)

This way, everyone wins, in my opinion?...

If I currently had option 2 or 3 available, I would risk porting TetraLogical (and even my retro puzzle games) in a *HEARTBEAT*, as the only thing I'm initially risking is my time and effort, after the initial export target or console company's fees.

As it stands, I simply cannot risk not knowing if the games will run fast enough, or the exporter will work as intended, or if the extra work to modify them for console input, target system's leaderboards etc, is actually worth it in addition to a hit of $1,500 alone, just to TRY.

...and it's a safe bet many other unproven devs, with potential sources of console-based revenue for YoYo probably feel the same / are in the same predicament... Make no mistake, I know that it's a good price in the grand scheme of things, IF it came out of profits.... ...BUT, as an upfront fee BEFORE profits, it's a huge financial hurdle for anyone sinking money into dev, with no real income from it, and is almost certainly THE factor completely stopping them from even attempting to break into these markets, with potentially (wildly, even!) successful games... :(

...I believe in my GAMES, but not so much in take-up / returns from those markets without any experience of them, so it's certainly stopping ME... :(
 
Last edited:
THIS
Likewise, maybe I'm doing it wrong, but my games (Like TetraLogical, which I honestly think is GOOD enough at least, to earn me *some* money) simply haven't. Yes, it MAY do well on console, but after flopping on PC, you get to thinking "Can I afford to potentially [throw] away £1,000's a year in the hope that the console market will embrace it?"
I can relate to this quote in what they are saying. I have released a full PC game on Steam, which didn't do as good as I hoped it would. So, if I did purchase the access to all 3 consoles, it's a HUGE gamble to see if I can even break even to pay a FRACTION of the $1,500 a year cost.

THIS
If I can potentially target console markets for a nominal (or one-off export license) fee, or (gasp!) even FREE, and then my game actually did WELL after all on console, I would be MORE THAN happy with either a LARGE payment to YoYo
These are some of my thoughts as well. I would be over joyed even if I was able to get my game on Xbox One/Series X and PS4/PS5, even if it didn't do as well as on Steam.

THIS
...and I just KNOW that some people will NOT like some of the above suggestions, but tbh, why can't YoYo operate a CHOICE?
This is what I think would be a good option as well. There doesn't really need to be a "one size fits all". There could be different export options for each type of developer depending on their experience.

Permanent License
This could be for the indie developer that doesn't necessarily need any guidance or support, but, isn't really a large studio, but more of a seasoned developer. They could just pay a one time large fee ($500 or $1,000).

Indie Package
Like, smaller or newer developers, could exchange part of their revenue or pay royalties for the cost of console releases. Either by it being free, cheaper, or one time cost. But as compensation to YoYo Games, the indie developer is required to share a percentage of their revenue in some way. In this way the cost is actually recurring, but is taken out from the indie developer's revenue to pay it's cost.

Studio Package
Or there could be a "non royalty" or "flat cost" option (like how the Ultimate license is already) where season developers or large studios only pay a flat fee and not from any of their revenue.

THIS
Personally, options 2 or 3 sound better for me, AND for YoYo in general - yes, some games may not hit great sales thresholds, but the ones that DO, give potentially exponentially bigger returns compared to the current offering, WHILE still obviously being a tiny (and so easily manageable/budgetable) proportion of ACTUAL income/earnings by the (in this case, successful!) dev?
THIS
If I currently had option 2 or 3 available, I would risk porting TetraLogical (and even my retro puzzle games) in a *HEARTBEAT*
THIS
$1,500 alone, just to TRY.
AND THIS
BUT, as an upfront fee BEFORE profits, it's a huge financial hurdle for anyone sinking money into dev, with no real income from it, and is almost certainly THE factor completely stopping them from even attempting to break into these markets, with potentially (wildly, even!) successful games
This quote actually sums up what the main issue with the Ultimate License is really. Currently, developers pay a LARGE RECUURING fee BEFORE even making any money or BEFORE even releasing a game.

Let's say, I did purchase the Ultimate License and I have a large game already released on Steam and I wanted to convert it to release on all 3 consoles. Since when you sign agreements with each console, they will want you to either release your game on their console before their competitors or at least at the same time as their competitors. As developers know, it takes time to convert/test/improve/provide console specific game mechanics to a game originally released for PC. How long would it take to convert/test and fix any bug issues for ALL 3 CONSOLES? Depending on experience, it could take a couple of months or even a full year. If it takes a full year, then the developer would have to pay the $1,500 AGAIN. So the not so expensive at first sound price of $1,500 becomes $3,000 being paid WITHOUT any revenue earned to release their game in to the wild west of the console market where all that hard work may not even produce the $1,500 or $3,000 their ALREADY paid. And if their games don't do so well, they are STUCK, paying $1,500 yet again, just to KEEP their games on all three consoles.

This is the MAIN factor, that I think a permanent license would be an EXCELLENT way for indie developers to release their games on consoles. Of course as I and @Japster has said, the developers could even be given a choice in how they can access console exports.

At this point of the conversation, it seems like some developers are actually, BEGGING YoYo Games to let them pay for a permanent console export option, by saying that they would even pay a one time fee of $1,000 or more. Which would actually be the case in my situation (not that I'm literally begging of course lol), but I would actually, pay $5,000 one time for all console exports if it was a permanent license.
 
Last edited:
Top