playMaker

Author Topic: Playmaker 2.0 concerns  (Read 2705 times)

Trarlex

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« on: July 26, 2020, 08:13:59 AM »
I wonder if its going to be an update or a new asset, please let it be the first ;-;

jeanfabre

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15403
  • Official Playmaker Support
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2020, 10:15:02 PM »
Hi,

 it's not decided yet as far as I know, but I would personally prefer a new departure if it means that playmaker engine is making the most out of the new unity features.

Bye,

 Jean

krmko

  • Beta Group
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • Fat Pug Studio
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2020, 11:38:50 AM »
I'd really like a fresh start too, i guess it takes longer to make, but i guess some things are probably impossible to fix/update in playmaker 1 now.

On the other hand, supporting both versions would probably be tremendous amoount of work.

Thore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2020, 12:43:58 PM »
I wonder if its going to be an update or a new asset, please let it be the first ;-;

Developers have to pay bills, too.

jeanfabre

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15403
  • Official Playmaker Support
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2020, 11:01:46 PM »
Hi,

 yeah, HutongGames has to think about the future and how to sustain business, the current asset store purchase system is not helping, hopefully, a subscription based system will become available to all publishers, not just a few, and that's going to be easier to maintain long term product.

I purchased my license 9 years ago! this means 50 cents a month... bargain!

Bye,

 Jean



djaydino

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2020, 02:54:09 AM »
Hi.
Quote
On the other hand, supporting both versions would probably be tremendous amoount of work.

The support for pm1 would mainly be bug fixes when needed, no new features.

LordHorusNL

  • Beta Group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2020, 11:43:51 AM »
Hi,

 yeah, HutongGames has to think about the future and how to sustain business, the current asset store purchase system is not helping, hopefully, a subscription based system will become available to all publishers, not just a few, and that's going to be easier to maintain long term product.

I purchased my license 9 years ago! this means 50 cents a month... bargain!

Bye,

 Jean

God i hope not.

If PlayMaker is heading towards a subscription based system, i'll finally have to make the decision to switch to Unreal. At this moment the only thing keeping me on Unity is PlayMaker and i'm not going to pay to use any asset every month if i can get better functionality for free on another platform and don't have to spend thousands of Euros getting that platform to a point where i can actually use it in production like i had to to do with Unity.

I'll gladly pay for mayor upgrades to PlayMaker when i need them but if HutongGames is thinking of switching to subscriptions then i'm truly done with this engine. I see the appeal for the company itself, however as a user it's not something i'd personally support.



djaydino

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2020, 01:33:33 PM »
Hi.
It probably will not happen as (like Jean said) only a few are having access to this.

BUT!

Personally i would favor this as well.
But it also depends on how much the subscription would cost.

As it will definitely help supporting and updating the asset.
As the author would be able to hire people to help developing the asset.

Meaning :
  • Better support for integration with other assets.
  • Faster updates for newer unity versions
  • Even better Forum support
  • Better Discord / Slacker support
  • More up to date tutorials

Thore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2020, 04:56:51 PM »
I don’t think a subscription model would work. Playmaker seems aimed more at beginners and casual developers, who don’t develop all the time. Developing something can take years, plus it needs support for even longer. I’m almost certain that I would not go into that, unless there is a significant benefit.

TotalHavoc

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2020, 05:26:27 PM »
I just won't use Playmaker 2 at all if it has any subscription tbh. No matter what the upsides are. That's just my take.

krmko

  • Beta Group
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • Fat Pug Studio
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2020, 12:18:38 AM »
Subscriptions models suck for me. I'm not doing this for a living, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the support/updates will get better with subscription model, i have to make sure i have the funds on the account for renewal every month and so on.

All in all, a big drag. Just price it whatever you like, even if it's 100+ bucks, let us buy it and get done with it.

WabbysLand

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2020, 04:39:08 AM »
I really like working with Playmaker but to be honest, with Bolt now free, I'll be ok to purchase Playmaker 2.0 but with many more features included (saving system, pooling system, dictionnary variables, advanced navmesh agent system...).

Concerning, subscription system, when working on a game project, it takes many years so in my point of view, it's not a good idea.

daniellogin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2020, 05:48:22 AM »
Look I really really second that a subscription would SUCK. Another comment said even if it's $100 one off, that's fine. I say even $200 one off is fine. Maybe more, since it's a decision you can calculate all in one go and know what you are in for. But to be never finished paying for something is too much to swallow! I don't even need support on discord... I mean maybe my advise isn't always the greatest... but I'm literally one of the people on there helping people every day! (for free mind you). So what would I personally be paying for? I would be paying other people to learn in the support channels... while still likely giving that actual support to them myself?

The only thing that would need paying for is new work done on updates. So in that regard, it would be better to buy version brackets. I own X version to Y version. Anything after that, I need to buy that. I'm fine with that. Because the day I don't want to pay, I keep what I'm happy with and already paid for, and the asset is not robbed from me, along with all my open projects. Sure maybe it would stop working with a later Unity version or what not, but that would be a real reason for me to pay for something I'm actually benefiting from.

jeanfabre

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15403
  • Official Playmaker Support
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2020, 12:30:41 AM »
Hi,

Interesting discussion indeed!

 It's important to realize that in the absence of a subscription model, many great publishers went under because they could not sustain support, it just is not viable as it is and only a handful of publishers can afford living on new purchases as proper income, and that's not a good business model, regardless of the field nor the perception of the end user.

 Which is why mobile phone and other tech company implement programmed obsolescence in their software, so that you end up being forced to purchase the latest hardware or software, which in end becomes a forced subscription. I'd rather play a fair game where every one is aware of the costs of maintenance.

Publishers assets are not like games or off the shelves product, it's never "out", it's a constant effort to work with the latest unity, the latest platforms updates, not even mentioning support. It's an on going process.

PlayMaker is literally the oldest and the most successful asset of all times, free or paid.

https://assetstore.unity.com/?rating=5&orderBy=5&rows=96

Let's see how Bolt is going to perform and affect PlayMaker now that it is free. Let's hope both can coexists.

Bye,

 Jean


tcmeric

  • Beta Group
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 768
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0 concerns
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2020, 02:55:12 AM »
The other option might be to pay for add-on packages. Want navmesh, TMP or other options, then pay a small fee. That way, some costs of updates may be re-cooped.