Sure, but the point was to fix the current installer in the meantime, which, to be honest, actually seems to be an issue with hoe the pager handles ##guest. Waiting for the new version just defeats the point, as, in the meantime, we're stuck with the broken version.
| |
It's a single version away... The bug has existed for many versions. It can exist for one more.
Be patient. It's free software. | |
Murrawhip wrote:
It's a single version away... The bug has existed for many versions. It can exist for one more. A single version's release can be up date a year away. It's happened. | |
We have completely replaced the "Make EXE" system with a much superior standalone installer, compatible with v.496 and later. While technically this is a bug, since we have pulled support for the old-style standalones (to avoid conflict), this is more-or-less a non-issue. The only caveat is that you have to use an approved hub entry for the new system (at least at the moment), but I'm quite certain any game that is worth exploiting this system will qualify.
| |
As far as I can tell though, this isn't a bug with Make EXE, but with the Pager's fumbling of ##guest in the byond protocol. For instance, byond://69.64.62.128:10003##guest.
| |
Ok, after further investigation, we've concluded that this isn't something that we can easily fix. The problem is basically that the pager uses a mutex to keep from launching multiple instances, but in this case, it's trying to launch two different pagers (the one they have installed vs the one included with the exe), and that's throwing the current directories out of wack (where it can't find the file).
While we could build in some logic to try to pass the absolute paths, it's really a very specific case that doesn't apply to the new system, since the ##guest problem will only occur in this specific case of the old Make EXE bundling the pager. I also should mention that as of 496, we don't endorse the redistribution of BYOND in this manner (partially because it conflicts with our new stuff, but more importantly because there are licensing issues we need to acknowledge and that is handled in the new setup). It's ok to use it with older builds for your own purposes, but distributing a general installer framework is not allowed. Anyway, hopefully it'll all be moot and you'll find the new system better for all of this. I don't mean to get all bureaucratic as I don't care for such nonsense; mostly I want to make sure we are providing the best system possible. | |
Tom changed status to 'Deferred'
| |
I guess I should have mentioned the protocol bit back when this thread had started... oops.
Honestly, I thought that distributing BYOND as a whole would be a little iffy, but Tiberath posted the tutorial for it, so I assumed it was a thumbs up. Anyway, I can't wait to use the new system. Thank you for putting your efforts into it. | |
You didn't do anything wrong; the whole point of the old system was to allow redistribution of BYOND. But it was a little clunky, and I think the new way is a lot better. And anyone making a good game can use it (even if they can't afford a hub, that's something we'd be willing to provide for promising works, assuming we even keep that pay-per in the future).
It's just that as of 496 we don't want to support both methods so we've pulled the older one, which basically makes this bug obsolete since it really only applies in this kind of case (even though it is a pager bug). | |
My only major concern with the new distribution system is how it requires the game to use BYOND's subscription system for all sales. BYOND's current subscription system doesn't support microtransactions or DLC sales, it's just a one size fits all subscription. The cuts you guys take are also a bit unfair, a small game getting only a few sales will be "taxed" at the same rate as a huge MMO with hundreds of players.
| |
We can be flexible with the subscription setup depending on how people plan to use it. Currently we only have a few games really generating anything, and they seem to be ok with the new proposal (which is something like 25-30% of sales, no flat fee, depending on what rates we get from processors). I'm sure we can figure out how to do micro-transactions better.
I don't love a commission-based approach, but, frankly, it seems to be the best option for this project to generate anything close to enough to sustain itself for the future (and that is contingent on a few hit games coming out). I hope developers understand that it is in their best interest to support BYOND financially since that is the only way for it to really advance. | |
Right, but that goes both ways. With the 30% model you're choking out anything which isn't a big hit that generates a lot of revenue. Even right now barely anyone wants to make a game which isn't an MMO because that's where all the players are and that's where all the money is at. Even with 50+ players online at all times only a portion of them will be subscribers. From those subscribers developers will only get a portion of that income.
With the 30% model developers are going to have a tough time breaking even, they wont be able to quickly make a return on their investment. If I spent $500 making a game I'm going to have to make $650 to break even since BYOND will take $150. With that $150 I could have just bought Game Maker, shipped my game, then kept all the profit to myself. Like I said earlier, the only way, or at least the safest way, to make that money would be to turn your game into a service or some kind of MMO you can keep charging for (and get stuck working on forever). Professional looking indie games are routinely going for $5-$10, BYOND games will have to compete with them. It will be very hard to make back $500 charging that much per sale with BYOND taking such a large cut. | |
I honestly don't think the 30% is going to be the reason a game succeeds or fails financially because of the way the margins work on software. Far more games will make zero than $650, and in those cases, the "tax" makes a lot more sense. Where it really is a penalty is when a game makes a lot of money, but that is a GOOD thing.
Anyway, the whole revenue-sharing advantage extends beyond just the standalone. When we have the flash stuff working, games that participate in this can distribute themselves off-site (eg, on Kongregate), and get a lot more exposure that way. Since that is of no benefit to us otherwise, the cut of sales seems justifiable. | |
Well, think of it this way. With the $1 + 10% fee you're charging now Decadence made just enough to break even. This is counting non-subscription donations. Without the donations it would have been a net loss. If you were charging 30% it would have been a net loss either way and I probably wouldn't be making games anymore.
As I said in my previous post it's much cheaper to just buy Game Maker one time and keep all the profit to myself. Even Unity would be cheaper at those rates. Perhaps you should follow UDK's example by only taking a cut after the first $500 or so in sales, that way developers have at least some guarantee of breaking even before they have to worry about fees. If you absolutely must charge a fee at all times keep it at something reasonable like 5% then bump it up another 5% for each $200 in sales, capping it at 25%. If you add support for microtransactions never charge more than 5%-10%. | |
Tom says that the installer stuff will come in 496 here.