125 replies to this topic

[Nocturne]

...
We do listen to you all.

Russell

But does it prepare my tea, if needed? Two lumps, please!


( BTW Thanks you guys! )

Not yet, as we are working on the "Make Me an MMORPG" button right now, but the tea will come later...

[alexandervrs]

All,

The new build, which we are checking just now will build a ZIP (just choose it from types on the save file name dialog when you create a windows executable)

No need to build extensions or external tools.

We do listen to you all.

Russell

This is great! Thanks a lot guys

[monkeymagic66]

Thanks to the devs for your consideration. Looking forward to testing the new version.

[paul23]

I don't think you guys have though the solution I'm proposing through...

Having the ability to run a batch file, and/not create the installer after that means you CAN do what your proposing. It would save to a folder you can then do what you like.

Having multiple configurations then means you can then use a different config to either save to a folder, build the installer, using a custom DRM, your own installer - whatever.

I don't want to make specific options for build to a folder, build to zip, build with DRM, build with x,y or z; it complicates the codebase and clutters the UI. But they can ALL be done using the method I'm suggesting - and more! This method is totally expandable and customisable, and means we can implement it easily and quickly, AND it as the added advantage that each config can be different.

Think about it.... I'm not just proposing this because it's the simplest method, but because it's the most flexible, cleanest, and expandable. We really do know what we're doing you know.

Hmm that would actually make life a lot easier - maybe indeed formalize this to pre & post build events. (So ANYTHING can be done there).

After that it's just waiting for GM to allow compiling from command line....

[alexandervrs]

A second issue I had just now related to the .exe with its dependancies in the same folder and posted a bug relevant to this,

Is that I can't put two GameMaker game executables inside the same folder, because their datafile is always data.win.
Unity creates a subfolder called "MyGamename Data", and that's why I asked for the data.win filename to be the same as the executable.

Ideally,
The runner shouldn't care about if the extension is .win, .mac, .dat, .whatever (more customization)
The runner should search the game's working directory and its subdirectories for a file with the same filename (organization)
You could have more than one executable in a directory without clashing with each other. (accessibility & organization)

are you going to add more control over this in the future?

Edited by alexandervrs, 16 May 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Mike.Dailly]

are you going to add more control over this in the future?

Nope.

Although with the build events, you could package it all up in a self extracting runtime if you really wanted to and that would look just like the old version.
It would be pretty slow to start-up though.

maybe indeed formalize this to pre & post build events.

See my previous comment:-

But we're still really interested in doing the pre and post build events, so that'll probably go ahead as well; not sure when though... but at some point.

[rwkay]

The Runner does not care about the extension if you use the command line <Runner>.exe -game <game-file-name>, if you omit the game-file-name it defaults to data.win

Enjoy!

Russell

[alexandervrs]

are you going to add more control over this in the future?

Nope.

Pffft fine.
I know I am not easily pleased.

The Runner does not care about the extension if you use the command line <Runner>.exe -game <game-file-name>, if you omit the game-file-name it defaults to data.win

Enjoy!

Russell

Maybe it should try to find a file with same name as its filename first, I don't know...
I suppose I could create some "launcher" executables in C++ that pass those commandline arguments to the runner and make it load different datafiles. That could work I guess.
I only hope that antiviruses don't see this operation as "illegal" and go off.

Edited by alexandervrs, 16 May 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Mike.Dailly]

Pffft fine.
I know I am not easily pleased.

Sorry, I was editing my comment above while you were posting this... I've added a bit more to it.

[alexandervrs]

Pffft fine.
I know I am not easily pleased.

Sorry, I was editing my comment above while you were posting this... I've added a bit more to it.

Oh don't scare me like that again!

[GameDevDan]

Mike and Russell, I salute you. Most of this topic feels like a huge attack and you kept your cool. I like the option you've decided to implement too, it seems to please everyone.

Spoiler

As a side note: would people stop chucking around the word indie? Saying "indie games do this" and then "professional games do that" is absolute rubbish. If an independent game is being sold, it is professional. It's just... independently professional

[chance]

Mike and Russell, I salute you. Most of this topic feels like a huge attack and you kept your cool.

Nonsense. There were no attacks. This was an excellent discussion between users and developers.

Members explained their concerns, and suggested alternatives / options. Mike and Russell explained their decisions, and listened to member suggestions. An excellent topic.

[Thaudal]

Mike and Russell, I salute you. Most of this topic feels like a huge attack and you kept your cool.

Nonsense. There were no attacks. This was an excellent discussion between users and developers.

Members explained their concerns, and suggested alternatives / options. Mike and Russell explained their decisions, and listened to member suggestions. An excellent topic.

Couldn't agree more.

To Mike and Russel: Thank you guys for listening! You're great.

Not yet, as we are working on the "Make Me an MMORPG" button right now, but the tea will come later...

Hey, cool! Can we have a releasedate for that button yet? Will it be an update or will we have to pay for it? Can't wait!

Edited by Elminster, 16 May 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[ThatSnail]

All,

The new build, which we are checking just now will build a ZIP (just choose it from types on the save file name dialog when you create a windows executable)

No need to build extensions or external tools.

We do listen to you all.

Russell

Never disappointed with YYG's receptiveness to the community. Go staff!

[round]

We could export to a folder and then let you do what you like with it,

I support the above descision. Export all required files to one single folder..!

This is very convenient for us(many GM game developers)...yes.! A lot of GM game developers like this option rather than the installer option.

Please allow this option(export all required files to one single folder) in GM Studio. Thank you very much.

Edited by round, 17 May 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[PhiL Blunt]

Windows: obfuscation, is there any? If so, could this also obfuscate the image resources?
Also could it not be possible to hide/7zip/place in a folder' the game resources?
If not for AAA indie professionalism but as not to reveal spoilers of the game (I was browsing my games folder in large icon view on W7 and could totally see the bosses and other stuff you wouldn't want the end user seeing early).
Also the DX dll isnt needed and my game runs fine without it in the game folder. If it is just a case of having DX9 installed on your system couldn't this be checked with the installer?

[rwkay]

All code is now stored as VM byte code so in an redistributable there is no visible script code (so decompilers are a thing of the past), all resources are stored in internal formats but are not user visible in any easy way.

Only MP3 and Included files are stored as is.

Russell

[Jobo]

I support this matter completely.
GameMaker 1-8.x was appealing to those who wish to get into game making in a steady and easy manner.
GM:Studio appeals to the crowd who's already familiar with game making and want a faster way to reach multiple markets with their games.

As you can see, GM 1-8.x appeals to beginners and GM:Studio appeals to advanced developers.
It's gonna be absolutely ground-breaking.

GM:Studio and all the adjustments Russel, Mike and the rest of the crew are performing on it, are taking GameMaker into a whole new market.
A market the majority of Game Maker Community isn't a part of.

Of course, if you want someone to play through your work in progress, an installer is not always ideal.
So the decision to include the option is good in this way, but for the final build, I highly encourage everybody to use the installer function.

You're doing an excellent job!

[alexandervrs]

All code is now stored as VM byte code so in an redistributable there is no visible script code (so decompilers are a thing of the past), all resources are stored in internal formats but are not user visible in any easy way.

Only MP3 and Included files are stored as is.

Russell

Oh, seeing the .exe and datafile combo I thought we were still interpreting code through a runner but this time having the application data separated and not attached to the .exe,
I suppose this separation is so you can load whatever you need at when you need it and not bloat the .exe on startup?

[GameDevDan]

Nonsense.

I wouldn't call it nonsense, a lot of people get over excited here and talk to the team as if they don't know what they're doing xD I agree that this topic has been a useful back and forth about an important feature of Studio though.

Edited by GameDevDan, 17 May 2012 - 07:10 PM.