Talk:GameMaker/Archive 2

GameMaker 8's logo Controversy

I feel like this article lacks any information on the reason for the logo change. It simply states that "The decision received substantial criticism via the Game Maker Community and YoYo Games Glog with thousands of comments posted in protest." Would anybody be able to write about what the comments were protesting against? Thanks. 86.174.232.16 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC) lumos101

Writing

This article contains numerous grammatical errors -- I suspect some sections were not written by native English speakers. (I don't really have the inclination to go through and fix them, just thought I'd note it here.) --166.249.128.225 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note,I might see to.74.178.177.227 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DRM Bug destroys data of legitimate users

"The Game Maker Blog recently reported widespread complaints from Game Maker Studio users who saw the international pirate symbol unexpectedly and irreversibly added to the assets they created for their projects. The move, meant to discourage piracy, was instead ruining the hard work of people who had paid anywhere from $50 to $500 for a legitimate version of the software."[1] 109.192.59.185 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've added that section now that sources exist, however this image needs to be uploaded with proper licensing who knows how to do that... YarImAPirateMateys (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

http://imagery.playerattack.com/GameMakerStudio-Pirate-560x315.jpg

Controversy section

I removed the controversy section and copied it here. It seems like the logo controversy is both (a) not notable enough, and (b) not relevant/recent anymore. As with the DRM debacle, it makes for an interesting story, but other than that it seems to offer nothing new. If someone wants to re-add, I suggest perhaps being less verbose?--this section takes up way too much space without being really informative. --Eyas (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with you, although this sounds like minute details, it was a rather large thing for the company at the time, being that they were new, and a very small team at the time. Although I could see an attempt to make it should I offered my attempt at breaking it down to only whats relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.247.179 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And I also feel that the controversial section should stay because it helps balance the article to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.141.151.247.179 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Give me real controversy and I agree with you. The DRM stuff is mostly forum drama that unfolded and was resolved over two days, while the GM Logo is even more embarrassingly trivial and nonsensical. How about real controversies such as initial concerns with YoYo Games? GameMaker 7's closed file-format? Or others? I agree with WP:NPOV but adding "controversy" for the sake of neutrality makes no sense if the controversy is unfounded. --Eyas (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The issue was ongoing it was not addressed untill a month later, their release notes back this up. If the logo controversy is to remain their as little of an issue or coverage it had, and the fact that it was seven years ago, then this content should remain because it's newer and much more notable. This was a very big issue, how many technical artile references/blogs do you need? Heres four more... http://gamemakerblog.com/2012/11/26/skull-crossbones-vandalize-studio-games/

"YoYoGames employees have also remarked on their 'love' of DRM.[66] The DRM misfire was originally introduced by Mike Dailly as a pun on the movie Pirates of silicon valley." If you look at the (locked) citation, https://twitter.com/mdf200/status/320169736145076224, it clearly refers to a game called Death Ray Manta. The second bit isn't cited. Snorehigh (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Just wish the Yoyo games staff would report things like that on here, instead of putting them selves at risk of legal problems by editing the article themselves. - X201 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

April Fools joke

Valve buying Yo Yo Games and Game maker was confirmed as an April Fools Joke, so it should probably be moved from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.11 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Then a section regarding the April Fools joke should be added under controversy.

GameMaker Studio Logo

It needs the correct one, all those affiliations look wayyyyy too commercial for that to be used, it makes it so irrelevant. And besides, that one is already outdated so it needs updated to the new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.247.179 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

YoYoGames Employees

Please be aware that the companies employees have attempting to remove neutral point of view from the article and are attempting to bias the information. I am about to file a request for indefinite page protection. They continuously keep removing the controversial section and replacing it with redundant version info, this practice is not done on any other wikipedia article regarding game engines. 71.114.163.24 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is clearly evident that someone is biasing this article, take for instance...

Source Control

GameMaker: Studio also includes a comprehensive source control scheme so that working on a project within a team is easier than ever before. Currently incorporating Subversion (SVN), and with more solutions on the way, GameMaker: Studio is the only development tool your team needs to get things done in record time.[34][35]

Whoever is doing this needs to stop, this sounds like something straight out of an advertisement, this is against Wikipedia Guidelines. 71.114.165.160 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Article move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Game Maker → GameMaker: Studio –

• The article Game_Maker should be moved to GameMaker: Studio the program has been renamed it is now GameMaker: Studio no longer in the form of Game Maker 8.1. Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.252.156 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Software has been renamed, legally, and editors have already performed the necessary maintenance for the article move. 72.72.252.156 (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Game_Maker → GameMaker (move (@subpage)) – Case software renamed, myself and other editors have performed the fixes within the article, we just need it moved. 72.72.252.156 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• I moved that last message from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. But page GameMaker is about another game maker. There are several pages named Game Maker or similar. Idea?: move all GameMaker and similar pages to names with a bracketed disambiguater, and let Game Maker and similar redirect to GameMaker, which could be a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well sure I am alright with that, but we could also just move it to GameMaker: Studio which is the full name of the product now. 72.72.252.156 (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• But what should we move GameMaker and Game-Maker to? and leave the plain names as disambig, as above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with the other game creation systems. If you want to move this article to a new page aligned with the software's own recent name change, go have fun with that. The new name is less ambiguous anyway, so a move is probably in everyone's best interest. This should have no direct effect on the other similarly named pages, though. They are already rather well differentiated. If anything, the switch to a less ambiguous name for this page makes this a bizarre moment to start meddling with the other pages. They aren't hurting anything or especially confusing the issue. Leave 'em alone, and let 'em exist independently.--Aderack (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation page at Gamemaker. Just need to add a hatnote here. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Nice disambig page. Current article move aside, that oughta do it. It was probably long coming. --Aderack (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Would we not just leave GameMaker and Game-Maker where they are? It is going to GameMaker: Studio, we could just use it as a namespace?72.72.252.156 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why do you not make the move yourself? This appears uncontroversial to me. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. 72.72.254.84 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@72.72.254.84 Please don't make unilateral changes. Faizan 13:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Written In

* Written in Delphi For Versions Up To GM8.1, GM Studio IDE is C# using the Lazarus GUI framework

In fact IDE isn't C#, it's still in Delphi, cause it's based on GM8.1 one. It was mentioned lot of times on twitter and community by YoYoGames staff members, that cause of Delphi they cannot do this or that. It's Delphi 2010 in fact: https://twitter.com/mdf200/statuses/320121824535011329 - as Mike Dailly, Head of Development said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnysek (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this article is currently protected from first party sources editing the article. Wikipedia is not a playground, nor is it a place for advertisement. 72.72.249.141 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Game Maker Language

Game Maker Language "main article" link seems to just redirect back to main article with no expanded details. Can this link be either removed or updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The link originally linked to an article, Game Maker Language, which has since been redirected to the article, Game Maker. As a result, the link effectively links to itself. The link is considered broken, so I have removed it from the article. --- Hrbm14 (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) ---

TOO many information about GM8 and earlier version

I just cleaned up facts in this article because of sheer inaccuracy presented here. still the article have too much information that is correct for GM8 and and earlier version, but incorrect for Game Maker Studio.

for an article titled Game Maker Studio, this should only contain information about Game Maker Studio, not earlier version version, so we should either clean up information about earlier version, or rename this article back to Game Maker. Atsuki Kimidori (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The article already fails to establish proper citation and WP:Notability as it currently stands, removing that information would only make it a more likely candidate for deletion. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No Game Maker decompiler is "being actively developed and maintained"

this is getting rude, and BlitzGreg, you can't call my edit unconstructive and give me a warning because I disagree with you based on fact, that against WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ and WP:POINT. while there are Game Maker decompiler, they only exist for Game Maker 8 and earlier version, which is legacy software and have not been updated for years, and early iOS game maker app. currently there are no being "actively developed and maintained" decompiler for Game Maker because before creating executable, Game Maker Studio recompile GML to C++ or Java depend on export target thus there are no GML for any decompiler to decompile compiled executable back to GML source code anymore, saying a decompiler is "being actively developed and maintained" for something that not been updated for year is nonsense. Atsuki Kimidori (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about all Game Maker versions, it appears editors moved the article to avoid ambiguity. From what I gather on Google, Game Maker 8.1, does have an actively developed decompiler. You would know that, had you visited the link. Compiled software can and does get reverse engineered, quite frequently actually, what do you think moddb is? Reverse engineering also pertains to software cracks. I gave you a warning as a result of your unconstructive edits when you reverted and attempted to remove cited content added by Wikipedia administrators. BlitzGreg (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What if the other editor is Wikipedia administrators? please read Wikipedia:What adminship is not, they are just another Wikipedian, who voice no heavier in editing fact than a normal user, as I have said, that is against WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ and WP:POINT. you have also have not assume good faith Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and wrongly accused me of vandalism as mentioned in What is not vandalism in Wikipedia:Vandalism, also, 2 commits with 6 months without a single commit is NOT "being actively developed". even when compiled GM Studio can be reverse engineered, they can't trace back to source code anymore cause it not there and thus, should not be called decompile in case of Game maker. you also not obeyed Wikipedia:Consensus when I say in edit surmany that no edit should be made until a consensus is reached. Please read the rule carefully before making decision and edit. if you continue to disrespect the rule, I will have notify an admin. Atsuki Kimidori (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Because you are in violation of the WP:Three-revert rule and continue contested edits to remove the content. The administrator in question was directly involved in the last disputed edits to those sections, that is why they are relevant, also the reason for the current protection level. I did assume good faith at first, but this is your 6th attempt at removing the disputed content from the article without a consensus, the content was here before you edited the article. What you are proposing is pure Original Research. BlitzGreg (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

it not Original Research, please read this and this Atsuki Kimidori (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of those sources only verify that reverse engineering is still possible with the "Studio" software. I believe Mike Dailly is someone related to the company, if so, that makes both of those unverifiable sources of information. Wikipedia articles are to rely on secondary and tertiary sources of information. BlitzGreg (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

my point still stand, 2 commit without any new commit for 6 long months is not what you call "being actively developed", the guy just toss the source code he had for years up there and leave it at that, and there also the fact that there are no decompiler for studio, and you still have not justify calling my edit vandalism, I will continue to remove that part no matter what until you can convince me with evidence that a decompiler is in fact, being actively developed. if thethe aim of wikipedia is present accurate, unbiased info, I'll do my best for that until an admin block, or ban me, if they do, then I have no business here anymore. Atsuki Kimidori (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from an uninvolved contributor) The 'source' cited for the statement that "decompilers are still being actively developed and maintained" is nothing but a Google search - not remotely acceptable as a citation for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the edit warring notice board. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a sentence

Hi, I think that "The hack involved a zero-day attack involving a Twitter feed an IRC chat link." is not a real sentence, is it? However, I can't fix that due to semi-protection. The involvement of that twitter feed and/or an IRC channel is also not clear to me reading the provided forum thread. --Mitja (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the grammatical errors for you. BlitzGreg (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Free and Standard version have been merged

This means that people who already bought Standard to remove constraints needed to pay for Pro to not get new constraints to work with. Altogether this is a pretty stupid way to go about merging versions because it basically asks people to pay for something they've already paid for. 213.93.29.31 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

adding a list of games made with game maker

I feel as game maker is getting more popular it would be good to add a list of games that have been created with game maker studio. Especially since other game engines have their own list.

Category:GameMaker_games already exists there is no need to establish a list as one already exists. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced "controversies"

I have removed the sub-sections of the "controversies" section that didn't show any reliable third-party sources. "Consensus not reached" is not a valid reason to re-add unreliably sourced content. BlitzGreg, if there's something wrong with my edit and you feel those sources are reliable, please explain which ones, and why. Huon (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I merely would like to request that WP:Consensus be reached here where the discussion is already active as we continue cleaning up the disputed content. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, why is there a controversies section in the first place? Seems unusual and biased. After clicking through all of the links in the related section to see other game making software, I note that the "Controversy" section is unique to this development tool, and is not a regular section of game-making tool articles. I wonder, then, if this tool is notable for its controversies, more so than other tools?

As for the 2 current controversies, one seems to be more controversial as a topic of Wikipedia than as a software issue: With regards to decompiling software, aren't decompiler tools actively developed and readily available for every kind of executable, compiled or otherwise? Should every software, or software making tool have a controversies section which explains that decompiling tools exist? Or is this merely a fact of software existence?

With regards to the DRM issue, it does seem more like a relevant controversy; there are notable news articles mentioning the issue. But also, I believe that this is an issue from some years ago, which is long since over. I appeal to wiser wikipedians--how should this kind of data be represented in a fair and unbiased fashion? Surely, as the controversy is no longer applicable, is would seem biased to preserve it on an actively updated page which details the latest aspects of this software. On the other hand, should it be swept away as though it never happened simply because it no longer persists? On other software pages, for software which regularly suffers from overzealous DRM, I actually see no mention at all of such issues (example Adobe Photoshop, despite notable incidents ). So, though notable, should this historical information be preserved? 68.187.219.102 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I Just Want To Clear Some Things Up

Hi - It's come to my attention that there has been some mixup with the Wikipedia entries for both GameMaker: Studio and it's company YoYo Games - It's mostly contained within this investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaymd_123 Let me clear things up: Jaymd 123 is James - one of our employees RGribble0 - is another one of our employees and the IP addresses are me - Ross Manthorp - a low level employee of YoYo Games on different computers and in our office. We have had a long running confusion with Wikipedia - honestly, none of us understood how it worked - we assumed people with much more power than us was editing our pages with an agenda and biased towards trying to attack us. It hurt most of us. It confused some of us - but mostly, we tried to ignore the whole thing. Feeling powerless and just hoping things would work out if we continued to do our best to support GameMaker users. Suddenly I looked at the page - and I couldn't take it anymore. Who was this, who was this that hated us so much and wanted to see our name slammed... I started seeing it over and over. BlitzGreg. BlitzGreg. BlitzGreg. Who was this guy. What did he want with GameMaker and YoYo?? I began to connect the dots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_BASIC BlitzBASIC a spin-off of a project that was orginally intended to decompile GameMaker games in order to reverse engineer the games.... Honestly, not that shocked. Really? I'm just hurt. What's the point of all this?? Dog eat dog?? Business? These are not things that concern me as I do not have such a high investment in YoYo Games. I work there and I am a personal fan of GameMaker. This has to stop. I want to make edits to this page. I see that the releases are wrong... I see that the logo is wrong. I see so much wrong and UNEEDED on this INFORMATION page. IT's killing me. I'm calling on mods and admins to help me out here. I want to prove that I am Ross of YoYo games and that like Blitz edits their own page with full control I would like to have some control over the place in which I work.

Please help me understand this more and please help me understand BlitzGreg's motivations.

Thank you.

I've now made an account if this makes things easier - 100% transparency rmanthorp is what I use for most online accounts - I work at YoYo Games

None of my efforts are intended as an attack on your company or any of your affiliates, though one could argue the content contributors for the disputed content may have had that motive, I do not as again I did not add the content. This has been an ongoing problem between these articles. As I already stated Wikipedia is not censored and we attempt to maintain WP:NPOV which sometimes means content which may negatively reflect the article subject is necessary to create an unbiased atmosphere. I have never even heard of BlitzBasic before today but it looks like that article could also use some improvement so thank you for bringing it to my attention. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The logo on both articles appears to be the latest logo on your companies website, so could you provide a link to the image that better represents the product and I can possibly upload it for you and change it. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey hey - it's as much a hassle for us recently as it could be for wiki editors we are just trying to make sure everything is up to date - recently we have moved to the single tone green logo https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/534298577409806336/m1czNk-0.png so no different shades of green in the logo and the Logo for Studio itself is actually the YoYo Games logo without the text - Annoying? Yes. However, this is what reflects the company right now - https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10419408_538704722918887_3939329029035111910_n.png?oh=88096d730b9207238f37a94f5930245c&oe=5503F47B&__gda__=1426488487_69b12d8492e2c48053f8b0793e3c9c76 You can also use the steam images for the Studio page - as these are OK with our style guides - I like these logos the best http://store.steampowered.com/app/214850/ http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/214850/header.jpg?t=1415446545 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmanthorp (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to mention that you should sign your comments with 4 ~ tiddle wave symbols instead of letting the bot do it. Anyway, I take it this is a new logo of sorts? A quick Google search for "GameMaker Studio" logo yields results similar to what you've posted with the older logo as well, but I guess I can take your word that this is official. At any rate I am not sure the later two designs can be used on the article not because they aren't public domain but they are also not "official" as in used everywhere and most commonly known to the product or article subject in this case. But I will upload the revision provided that seems to be the most common one. BlitzGreg (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rmanthorp: Done, please refresh the page and the logo should be updated, I also used a higher resolution version. How does this work for you? BlitzGreg (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I have a lot of learning to do but I can assure you those are as 'official' as it gets with us. You appear to have used the infamous TWO TONE GREEN logo that has gotten away from us unfortunately - this whole escapade started because we have been trying to remove any uses of that logo. So this is all quite funny really. I would appreciate a change for a one shade green logo (or the ones from the Steam page...) also for an updated list of the recent released versions you can use our release notes page - or this fan API update page http://gmapi.gnysek.pl/ Thanks for the crash course on wikipedia Rmanthorp (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rmanthorp: Sorry about that, I just thought the other was a little higher resolution. I've changed it again to the 2 tone version, but I am afraid the other two you provide are simply too high resolution but I don't have much experience with logo's in this regard, as far as I am aware policy is to just use the most generic current logo of the subject/product. Perhaps @Huon:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @MusikAnimal: and @Avono: could weigh in on the usability of the alternative higher res logo's? BlitzGreg (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also it seems as though the YoYoGames article may have an outdated logo as the tone is also off, is this correct? BlitzGreg (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct - the YoYo Games article also has an outdated logo - it should be more like this https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/534298577409806336/m1czNk-0.png Thanks. I think the Studio one looks nice now :) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmanthorp (talk • contribs)

@Rmanthorp: You are welcome, and I have updated the logo for YoYo Games, refresh the page as well. BlitzGreg (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Could do with the YoYo Games on the GameMaker page linking to the YoYoGames article - also it'd be nice to see the versions updated as above. So now I have clamed down. What makes a person 1. able to edit this page? 2. Want to edit this page? Here was me thinking it was all malicious and hiding our achievements when really it's just been miscommunication?? What drives a need to update when the information is so thin? Rmanthorp (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said the information wasn't malicious, whoever added some of this content or made some of these changes may have had malicious intent, I don't know because it wasn't me, I am only looking to stop further warring on this page and thus why I requested that it be protected some time ago, because not only were anonymous ip's adding biased info but ip's were also vandalizing the content. You are able to edit this page when you have a confirmed user account, it is only semi protected to stop ip addresses, so you're on the right step by having registered, I am not sure what the exact stipulations are that upgrade your account to confirmed but it's a certain number of days and edits I think. The need to update information obviously comes from its relevance and how much people want or need to know it, Wikipedia is a free project comparable to open source software, contributors are anybody and everybody. One second and I'll fix the link. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested topics and additions

This comment below is copied from the YoYo_Games talk page, please see there for reference: I would still love permission as you do realise a lot has changed since your last positive comment.. My information would be reliable, relevant and up to date. You do not mention any of the key features.. [2] The GameMaker: Marketplace has been added [3], GameMaker: Player [4], Sony PlayStation support [5], Microsoft Xbox One support [6], Here's some more info which I would love for you to add [7] [8] [9] RGribble0 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGribble0: Ok let's start small here, starting with platforms, I have updated the export modules section, is this correct? Can you also verify whether the other platforms listed are still supported or if any of them have been deprecated? BlitzGreg (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Yes those Export Modules are correct. There is no resource limiting free version any more, there is Professional only features though you can look on this page. This is why I'd suggest helping us gain access to this page. We would be willing to stay within the rules and moderation of yourself, we'd just keep the page up to date (as it should be). RGribble0 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGribble0: I have updated the modules information again but I had to go looking for a citation about the free version changes, does this look correct or could it be worded better? Another thing I want to make clear to you is that we can not use links directly to yoyogames domain because that is called a primary source, meaning it's not reliable, for content to be added it has to be from someone not affiliated and not subject to bias like a news article or press release. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Don't mean to be nasty here but your Googling skills seem to work when looking up negative things.. Surely if you are going to moderate something at least keep the cobwebs down and if you are not interested, pass the baton. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] It would be worth noting that upon a Google search of "Gamemaker news" I got all of the above and then managed to get through 8 pages until I got to 1 of your "piracy" articles... RGribble0 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGribble0: Excuse me? I am under no obligation to maintain this article nor is anyone else and I have not accepted the responsibility to do so, all confirmed users are free to maintain the article. I managed to find an appropriate reference for the free version information which positively reflects changes in your company, my objective is to provide proper citations for disputed content that everyone keeps attempting to remove whether it's negative or positive. I meant I had a hard time finding a reference for the changes in the free version, nothing to do with the new modules, those were easy to find relevant sources. I'll just leave this up to another editor then since there seems to be no way of making progress here. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: There you go [16] RGribble0 (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: and [17], I would love for this to be my obligation... RGribble0 (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Content Removal

Just wondering if the section "2013 April Fools' Day joke" is allowed on this page? Both the references are from forums and from my reading of section 10 on WP:ELNO this is not allowed. The coin arcade article is still allowed though. Please correct me if I am wrong. RGribble0 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Would like to know if you are planning on doing this considering it is not allowed? or even the changes I asked before. I have noticed you make a few topic additions.

@RGribble0: The citations are not in violation of that policy per WP:External_links#Official_links, the forums are controlled and moderated by your company on the same domain and therefore the exception applies. The other citation is Coin Arcade which is not affiliated with your company and is therefore a reliable tertiary source. BlitzGreg (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the three references in that section, Reddit is anything but a reliable source. The forum thread doesn't say what it's cited for, and despite moderation it's hardly the equivalent of an official announcement by the company. That leaves us with Coin Arcade. I see no indication that website has an editorial staff or a reputation for fact-checking; at best it could be described as a group blog. Besides, it also doesn't say what it's cited for. That leaves us with a grand total of zero reliable third-party sources and quite a bit of content that's completely unreferenced. That's not appropriate, particularly given the highly critical tone. Thus I'll remove that section. Huon (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, I was happy enough with the coin arcade article (however it doesn't leave much to the content). I did say: "The coin arcade article is still allowed though. Please correct me if I am wrong." Thank you guys. RGribble0 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have decided to remove all citations involving blogs in this case as well as files which require plugins such as pdf, where possible I replaced them with Game Informer citations and the likes, some sections such as the DRM section have sufficient reliable citations, namely Game Jolt, to warrant their inclusion. The remaining unsourced content should be cited soon to avoid deletion. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline, exactly, demands or even suggests the removal of "files which require plugins such as pdf" as references? Huon (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: Exactly that policy which RGribble0 linked (WP:ELNO), and I quote: "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details."

Adobe Acrobat PDF's constitute rich media by the policies definition, regardless I was the one which originally added the citation, and I did not remove it, it was replaced with a PC Gamer citation. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELNO only applies to the External links section of an article. WP:ELNO specifically states " This guideline does not apply to citations to sources supporting article content.". -X201 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@X201: Noted, and second I've gone and cleaned up and formatted all the remaining citations there are no longer any raw links in the article. One dead citation was removed because it seems the domain was purchased and no longer references what it was citing. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a snapshot of it on the wayback machine if you need it. - X201 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@X201: I didn't know waybackmachine could be cited and yes that works, you actually beat me to adding the citation template to the PC Gamer source after you readded so thank you, let's not have anymore raw links in this article. But I should mention I was going to go with the original PDF citation because it was a little more friendly to them (YoYo), if you read the PC Gamer article you can see why. The person who made a game with the engine actually does not like the drag and drop features and the comments section is not very friendly to it. But then again this is Wikipedia and we should remain unbiased, it's not our job to do the reporting. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it interpreted or JIT?

This passage is confusing:

«scripting language that is interpreted similarly to Java's Just-In-Time compilation used in GameMaker, which is usually significantly slower than compiled languages such as C++ or Delphi»

It can’t be interpreted and be similar to Java’s JIT in the same time. 'Interpreted' means that the program uses an additional layer of processing: processor runs an interpreter, and interpreter runs the bytecode. JIT means the bytecode is converted to processor's code when program is run. Some (mostly older) versions of Java were interpreted, newer ones use JIT compiler.

If it is interpreted, then it is not similar to Java's JIT. Please clarify if GameMaker uses an interpreter or JIT compiler. Thanks. Dzmitry. 93.84.20.232 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is interpreted, similarly to JIT but not the same, I don't see how that is at all confusing? Resources and scripts are tacked onto the end of the executable bundled with an interpreter and extracted just before execution. BlitzGreg (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The confusion is this: "It is interpreted, similarly to something that is not interpreted at all but compiled." The way I understand your comments here, there is a pre-compiled executable with some to-be-interepreted code tacked on, but nothing is JIT compiled, right? Huon (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No I mean it is apparently interpreted similar to something that is also interpreted. If you head on over to Wikipedia's article on JIT you will see that it does not always mean it is converted to processor code or assembly but also from one format to another. From what I've read when GM builds an executable it bundles the resources in a format similar to its IDE format, GMK, and then essentially zips that with its runner, sort of like the JVM. At runtime the runner will extract the game resources and convert them from said format and load them, once scripts are converted they are then interpreted by the runner and other scripts and code can be added dynamically during runtime. Before the runner can dynamically execute code however it will translate it into bytecode and also does this now when it builds an executable, essentially AOT, and it also does obfuscation automatically now as a solution to the reverse engineering.

I still see no reason as to why anyone would find this confusing, the program after all targets novice programmers and it seems the purpose of that content is to make an assimilation that the average Wikipedian will understand without much experience with the subject. Perhaps Jerry Ford's Getting Started with GameMaker can help clarify.

Appendix C 15 "Interpreted. A programming language whose scripts must be interpreted (converted into an executable format) every time they are executed"

Hope that clarifies. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

JIT is NOT "usually significantly slower than compiled languages". Furthermore, there is nothing in the cited reference making this claim. There are many articles that compare Java's JIT speed to being equivalent or in some cases faster then compiled C++ code. Either way, this bias needs to be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:44D:7201:F85C:EA0E:2CFC:E7E0 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case it's not biased, GM has a notorious reputation for this which a simple Google "gamemaker slow" search will show you because it's nothing to do with the Java but is similar to the Java JIT, analogous does not mean equal. This is less the case now though with their new mechanism but should still be mentioned for legacy versions which are still supported and it is. So again I still see nothing wrong with the content and I think it should stay it does a wonderful job of explaining it to the intended audience of the article, novice computer programmers. BlitzGreg (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yoyo Games was purchased by another company

So should the developer field be changed to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.193.130 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

gml syntax highlighting lost

Since the switch from Geshi to Pygments for syntax highlighting (phab:T85794), support for 'gml' was unfortunately dropped, as can be seen with the plain text formatting on this page and many others such as Well-known text. If you want specialised 'gml' syntax highlight support again, it will need to be added to Pygments. Alternatively, if there is another language which has similar syntax, we can add that as a fallback. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is something that should be addressed, but not a major issue. I don't believe the programming language is as notable as Geography Markup Language because no standards body such as ISO has ratified anything on it. The syntax of the language borrows heavily from JavaScript and I find it appropriate to use the JS extensions instead. BlitzGreg (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting this article into 2

"GameMaker: Studio (originally named Animo and later Game Maker) is a proprietary game creation system created by Mark Overmars in the Delphi programming language." This is very incorrect. Attempting to keep all information about all variations of Game Maker in one article is causing lots of issues and confusion such as what is mentioned in "Is it interpreted or JIT?". GameMaker: Studio is a complete rewrite and is not in Delphi, GameMaker: Studio's GML is compiled whereas GameMaker <8.1 (formerly known as Animo) is interpreted and was written in Delphi. 82.23.5.203 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be that the program has not been entirely rewritten as the IDE is still written in Delphi. Many of the original formats are also still supported as imports into the program and I can see that most of the API from the original versions is still functional with slight differences between these versions. The same has also been done for the Construct (game engine) and other articles. A simple change in compilation techniques with additional platforms and small API changes is not enough to warrant a separate article, even though Construct's changes happen to be more compatibility breaking, they also do not warrant a separate article. It may clear up some confusion to mention that it was "originally created" by Mark Overmars and then mention that he is still a majority shareholder of YoYoGames. BlitzGreg (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. None of this is a justification for splitting. Only something like a clear delineation of notably different subjects according to many secondary reliable sources, and a draft of substantial content, would do that. — Smuckola(talk) 22:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is both misleading on this point while also not worthy of a split. Perhaps rewrite the header sentence and expand the Overview to include a quick history to emphasize the big changes from the early days to present. This article once contained a complicated "version history" list. I am by no means suggesting that be added back. No one needs to know when every individual feature is added. But the big changes that turned GM into GM:S such as "from interpreted to compiled" are a must. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 04:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the lack of historical context is frankly baffling. It doesn't need to be a checklist of every detail (in fact it shouldn't be), but the broad shape of the software's evolution is pretty important context. --13:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.52.59 (talk)

Yeah, I don't understand why there's been this huge push to strip the page of historical information. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a brand catalog; the development, usage, and cultural history of the software are of greater significance than a succinct and on-brand description of its current iteration. That doesn't mean the page has to go nuts with the detail, as stated above; it just means a detached, impartial glimpse of what the thing is as a whole. --Aderack (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming

So there's a problem in the article that I'm not really in a place to address in full:

The name was later changed to GameMaker, lacking a space to avoid intellectual property conflicts with the 1991 software Game-Maker.

Okay, that sounds good. There are a few things to consider, though:

• The article that it cites is one that I wrote, that doesn't say any such thing
• Taking out a space or a hyphen isn't a significant enough change to bypass a trademark
  • The name "GameMaker" (whatever your spacing or punctuation) dates back to Garry Kitchen's GameMaker (1985)
    • You will note that the word "GameMaker" is formatted exactly as it is under modern-day YoYo Games
  • RSD actually licensed the name "GameMaker" from Activision, for their product Game-Maker (as its coder comments under my article)
    • RSD never actually owned the trademark; that was Activision
    • RSD hasn't been incorporated for about a decade now, so they're not in a place to chase after trademarks

All things considered, then, this is an interesting claim to make. It does raise what may be a significant question, though: what of Activision's trademark? Did Mark Overmars or YoYo Games license it, as RSD did? Certainly changing the software's name to more closely conform to Activision's is not going to do wonders for skirting any trademark claim that Activision might put out, so I think we can safely discard that theory. On a more historical basis, though, it may be educational to learn if at least in name this GameMaker has some shared heritage with the older and otherwise unrelated systems. --Aderack (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

GameMaker: Studio 2

There is no mention of the new GameMaker: Studio 2. Although it is still in beta, I believe such things should be updated on the Wiki page, as the release of GMS2 is quite a big deal for its users and anyone who might be new to GMS.

GameMaker: Studio 1.4 was the previous version, and 1.99 the early access. After that GameMaker: Studio 2 was released on 2nd November, 2016 under beta testing. It comes with a new & changed user interface, including the addition of workspaces, a new sprite editor, new room editor and much more. It was released for only 64-bit systems.

Source(s): https://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio2 https://www.yoyogames.com/get2 https://forum.yoyogames.com/index.php?threads/gamemaker-studio-2-is-here.11778/

Gippymatharoo (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already provided the sources. GameMaker's official website, GameMaker's official forum's official post. What else do you need? Why would I be lying about this, anyway?

The idea is to source content with third party sources that are not affiliated with YoYoGames. As with all articles, first party sources are unreliable because they color the presentation of facts in their own favor for marketing purposes. Please read up on Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable citations. BlitzGreg (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You need third party sources? Okay, there you go:

GameSkinny: http://www.gameskinny.com/w8kgz/yoyo-games-announces-gamemaker-studio-2

Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/284721/Details_on_GameMaker_Studio_2_features_roll_out_as_limited_beta_begins.php

PCGamesN: http://www.pcgamesn.com/gamemaker-studio-2-beta

Gamefromscratch: http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/2016/11/02/GameMaker-Studio-2-Beta-Launches.aspx

Indiefunction: http://indiefunction.com/2016/10/12/yoyo-games-teases-gamemaker-studio-2-0-with-new-12-second-video

Now that I've linked 5 articles that mention the release of GMS2, I hope you can accept the addition of information about GMS2 in this article. Please see to it!