I sort of look at this like the sale of any item - the seller simply is not responsible for what you do with their product. If you buy a set of forks, made for the purpose of using them to eat with, and you use them for an art project, that's your business. If you stab someone with those forks, that's also your business ... not the fork manufacturer. TGC is making a game creation tool. It has an intention, just like the forks made by the utensil manufacturer. But it's not TGC's job to police what is done with what they've made. So, why even worry about this? Why should TGC go through extra programming to police what others may potentially do? Just make a great game-creation tool and the let the end-user be responsible for what they do with it.

But the problem still lies what if you were able to create a killer game with the default assets that remember are included as part of the price of GGMax. You spend all that time making a game that could potentially showcase what GGMax can do with the stock assets just to find that you're not allowed to sell it?

Fact is there is no way this can be done to please both sides. If they put in limitations it will turn people away, I certainly wouldn't want to spend money on a "royalty free" game maker that allows me to only make test games with the included assets. Forcing me to spend more money on other assets.

If they don't put in any restrictions then those who generally can make good games with the stock assets and some other sourced ones will feel their game will get branded as "rubbish" just because its "another GG game"

If all I am allowed to do is create .exe's with "testing only" splashed all over it or wherever, I think I would rather learn one of the free engines like Unity, if I am going to have restrictions that require me to buy my own assets, I would rather spend time learning to use an engine that is world known, rather than one that only a few actually knows exists. Who knows I might go from the hobbyist to actually wanting to make a game then.

Hello all! I noticed this hot topic.
So far I have nothing to show, but I have been making my game for several years, and it is still too "raw" in my opinion to show it to the public. ( ..and I feel that when I start compiling the game, I will flood the forum with requests for help .. although I try to optimize it even at the stage of drawing maps... however, everything has its time. )

It should also be noted that approximately 98% of the content is standard assets purchased through DLC and in-store purchases.
Although it is possible that many people in the Steam would have released it long ago.. .
I want to say that it is not a good idea to set any restrictions. All popular engines have a problem with bad games and I do not think that the respected TGC should be involved in the eternal fight against windmills.



PS. Taking this opportunity and hoping that my post will be read by dear Lee Bamber, I want to write a few words on a related topic.
In the past years, I have noticed several times that GG and AGK are given away for free.

I guess this is not a good idea, in my day to day experience, there is nothing less valuable that has been obtained for free.
If you need to do a promotion, it's much better to just do something like "90% promotion, limited time!"
First, the person who will buy a product on sale will think "wow, I'm lucky, I grabbed the item cheaply" and will most likely launch the program this year.
Secondly, some cent will still go to the wallet of a respected TGC.
Thirdly, the public who buys software, albeit on sales, is still a better audience than the freeloaders. (I myself am so in the sense - a lover of stocks and sales )

I apologize for having touched on such a complex topic, but I just cannot calmly look at your torment, I bought a licensed "3D Gamemaker" disc back in the good 2000..

Sorry for my poor English.

I think this is again a ridiculous discussion, occasioned by a lack of definition of a coherent roadmap. TGC should have said: "Our philosophy is to bring game programming closer to everyone. What each of you does is your responsibility".
Unity, Unreal, S2engine, comes with assets librarys you can use in your games, Why do you want to limit the GGM users to be able to create something they can play or sell? If anyone took a axample map, put some characters, some additional models or relocated them and create an exe file to get some money or just to play with their friends, where is the problem? Are they stole something? are they killing someone? (I understand that they interchange the steams keys,... bla bla bla,... but what . it is really important for you? Do you think this really imapact GG? How are you going to distinguish that people from a poor child that is tryng to start developing games... !
For sure one of the best points of GG is the asset library included. If you remove that,.. GGM will be forgot soon. Also if you reduce the assets. My son loves the GG library, He can use a lot of things, to create a final design. Without this capabilities,.. maybe he preffer to play with Core, it is more easy, free, and powerfull (the issue,.. you can note create standalone games, but... this will be the case if you limit asset uses in GGM)
My son has an idea of the best Game Engine:
- Big library as GG
- Easy scripting, let said, like the way Gamecraft connects components
- Powerfull graphics and FX as S2Engine
Will be very funny if Microsoft put a message in their power point templates, or excel, word templates, telling people, this files was created for testing porpuses.

Seriouslly we are discussing this?

I understand that it is frustrating to see people make money with little effort, while others focus on quality, but letting that affect us and wanting to limit it is a selfish, childish and envious act.
In one way or another those things will always happen. We cannot penalize some for what benefit or others.

I generally agree, but ONLY if the defintion of "stock media" is very precisely defined as in "not-altered stock-media". The possibility to alter the stock-media to something personal -especially if it looks better than before- has to be considered a creative success.

In Germany we have the definition of "Schaffenshöhe", meaning "creation height". This especially applies when someone has created a collage out of separate parts of images, printings etc. making it its own piece of art, whenever an external validator (like a judge) has no problems to claim that it has become a piece of art of more propietarian value in its "remixed" / altered version, than the mere separate parts.... I did a few illustrations for the german KEYBOARDS-magazine where this applied and there was never a copyright issue, while I have been using some famous vintage photographies. The fact that I did a collage and that I made use of extensive filtering and coloration techniques, made it something on its own creative grounds... GAME GURU should be widely open to any kind of this, because UNITY as being the leading market engine is as well.

In Germany LIDL copied Thermomix, just putting some parts together one each other and now a judge rtequest LIDL to paid a great ammount of money to Thermomix. LOL

Seriously it is a really stupid idea. Also scripts are "stock media" . It is like if you say: Here you have an Engine for you to create a game, but you only can distribute if you do not include any of the assets I give you. And any of the assets you bougth from me or third parties. If this is the case,.. which one is the advantage of use GGM? In real the comunity of GG think seriously on that? Really?I am not going to say what I am thinking now. But I can imagine which will be the future of GGM if TGC continues listen their followers instead think as a serious company.

Oh-- it's still going... and nobody is talking about actual important features?! lol okay, I fixed it. All those are lovely suggestions. But na, na, naw, ne nooo. Too much confusion! It's so simple. The REAL solution is: just design the GG /et al/ engines to vet all games via community voting board so game can be vetted or rejected via an in-house greenlight procedure.
Maybe call it bluelighting?

No game project can be compiled for distribution until that voting procedure tallies up a proper #! - say +99/100. It might take a year for this procedure to run it's course-- but perfection isn't fast. You must register and become a member of these forums to submit your project for acceptance. If a person has some kind of vendetta against the developer, they can destroy their game making project... or career. Easy man- easy! Then be sure once that's done GG is splashed all over every screen that is produced!

I'd rather talk about-- when is a new MAX beta coming out?
Is it good enough yet to buy? Can any real tests be ran on it?
Expected future time-line and REAL features progress of MAX?

Yes, and well done by that judge. It is quite objectively a rip-off of Thermomix...

This is why the creation height is so important... Basically EVERYTHING is based / inspired if not a remixed version of something before. However, if it starts looking like something new altogether, it becomes yours.

Another example: If you download a vinage version of Dr. Caligari and recolor it, you do not own the movie rights, but you surely own the right to have YOUR coloration on your version etc.

Yes, I thought something similar... Maybe a detection algorithm that counts how many changes, edits and transformation have been done to the DEMO itself. This way you can asure someone put frigging effort into it.

The family-friendly-version:
Otherwise, if people want to have an EXE to be played at home with their familes, please let them but then there will be a splash-screen clearly stating that the DEMO LEVEL and fairly unchanged ASSETS where used.

But still STEAM is to blame here AND the very, very low price-tag of GG. Plus the fact that there isn`t any "for-the-whole-family-fun-edition" around.

First off, having a GG watermark if you're using a lot of their assets makes sense and is fair. The argument against it is that it doesn't seem necessary to implement work-wise, and you'd have to do a lot more work than you think to make it work. Focus on the engine, this kind of soft-drm/crediting/etc side of engines aren't important. Developers are supposed to have working relationships with their artists, not just get by on credits and sneaking by some sort of 'is your game original enough technically' test that likely won't work.

Seems like a product of overthinking and also thinking punitively about the development process. Again, to developers reading this -- focus on making the project you're making, which includes contacting artists and such. This kind of solution wouldn't come up if you're doing that kind of work with your creative project. Otherwise, you need to think about these kinds of solutions to a self-made issue.

I'll say this - even though I don't plan to use pre-made/included assets myself, if GameGuru MAX goes the way of forcing restrictions on those that do use them, I'll not use MAX. I may ask for a refund, personally. I don't agree with these kinds of restrictions and see no reason for TGC to waste time implementing such a thing when there's so much else to do just to deliver a fully-functional game creation system.

Hi,
Can you add the paysafecard payment method to buy the engine (GameGuru Max) as soon as possible? Steam also has this payment method and I don't understand why they don't add it. I'm looking forward to having the engine! Thanks!
Another piece of advice I wanted to give was to add the Survival game genre and two more things to the possibility of creating waterfalls and importing heigthmaps. We need that on the engine!

Please listen to me! I need to have the engine as soon as possible to continue my project.