So GameMaker Studio 2 is getting native support for Nintendo Switch. When's RMMV gonna do the same?

[ForestLogic]

Pretty much everything you said hinges on "might", and you not having any real answers, so I'll take that as there not really being any reason for the option to be explored. The only good reason I can see would be if it's technically unfeasible, which I doubt since I've seen a lot of people saying Switch supports HTML5.

Really, I'm having a hard time seeing why people are getting such vitriol for this conversation lol. I could see it in the past when RMMV wasn't even out and it seemed unrealistic, but a lot has happened in the past 3 years. Kadokawa released RPG Maker on 3DS, Switch became a massive success (especially for indies), and now Yoyo is catering Game Maker specifically to be able to create for a console.

I absolutely get the idea of keeping expectations in check. If the option were made, the vast majority of games wouldn't see success on a home console. It probably wouldn't be profitable for most people. It would only be a niche audience.
BUT it's really ****ty to just tell people no without giving them the ability to just try. If they fail, that's on them. Who are you to say they shouldn't? What wouldve happened if someone told the creator of To the Moon to not bother making a game with RMXP? What if there were people telling the maker of Undertale he'd never make a good game since he knows nothing about coding?

Not everyone can be the next huge hit, and not every game makes it big. But someone will eventually, if theyre given the opportunity to do so. And by giving more people that opportunity it benefits all of us.

 

[Archeia]

There are a few reasons and Sharm is very clear on them, but here are the major ones.

• Cost of creating and managing tech support for that port. Remember, RPG Maker MV is already considered expensive for most of the userbase.
• A partnership with Nintendo because they are extremely strict with the developers program. In fact, they have some specifics there that makes it hard for new Devs to get in. And you need this to develop and test your game in the console.
• A possible change in business model. Right now, RPG Maker does not take any royalties for games created in RPG Maker and only costs $80 USD with assets to use. Game Maker manages through it by their price tag without any art assets even and hits a larger niche, the action game devs.

 

[ForestLogic]

There are a few reasons and Sharm is very clear on them, but here are the major ones.

• Cost of creating and managing tech support for that port. Remember, RPG Maker MV is already considered expensive for most of the userbase.
• A partnership with Nintendo because they are extremely strict with the developers program. In fact, they have some specifics there that makes it hard for new Devs to get in. And you need this to develop and test your game in the console.
• A possible change in business model. Right now, RPG Maker does not take any royalties for games created in RPG Maker and only costs $80 USD with assets to use. Game Maker manages through it by their price tag without any art assets even and hits a larger niche, the action game devs.

Once again, a lot of this is speculation. Nobody knows the financial status of Kadokawa, but as someone already pointed out, they have multiple subsidiaries and seem to do well with RMMV, so doesn't seem like they're hurting financially. Furthermore, Nintendo technically lets anyone become a developer. You can register at their developer portal anytime you want just by filling out some forms. Wii U was (and still technically is) open to anyone willing to put the money and effort into developing for it. Switch is currently closed-dev, but so was Wii U for its first couple years.

And once again, I really don't understand the rhetoric behind "Most people using RPG Maker don't want to pay a lot of money, so therefore no one should be able to pay a lot of money." Few, if any game dev/engines expect royalties from software made using them, and instead opt for a large upfront cost. Why would RMMV be any different? Hell, most major creation software (not even game creation, just in general) use a similar business model which seems to work well. Let casual users pay a small fee to use the program at a base level. For advanced users who want more options, there's an upgrade fee. And for the bigwigs, they pay a large fee for a "pro" version of a program. There's no reason why this couldn't be applied to RMMV.

Also bear in mind, this whole entire thread I'm not talking about people using all RTP assets, making chintzy games just for the hell of it. No one would buy those games on a home console. I'm speaking on behalf of designers focused on making games from the ground up using RPG Maker. I realize most of the customers are the casual users who think $80 is a lot of money, but who's to say that if a program as accessible/versatile as RMMV were capable of delivering projects to home consoles it wouldn't become more popular? GameMaker received a huge amount of positive press and attention after Undertale started heading to consoles and it's probably only gonna get better now with it having native Switch support. RMMV could use that kind of positive press especially after the Greenlight fiasco.

 

[Archeia]

They have multiple subsidiaries and seem to do well with RMMV, so doesn't seem like they're hurting financially.

I think you're misunderstanding my post then. KADOKAWA is a huge publisher, but RPG Maker is just one of its small niche IPs. You need to justify the cost to dump that much resources in one of your smaller IPs and break even + more. This is why it's important to bring up the base cost and what the current user base thinks is "expensive." Because that will influence the sales should it happen. You can't just blindly guesstimate that power users would buy RPG Maker if they can release to Switch. It's very important to know the numbers of those users.

I mentioned the art not because I'm expecting you to use it with your Nintendo game, but how much value RPG Maker MV alone would cost. That 80 USD can go to the game engine itself without any art assets. Creating a map editor (Based on country and Japan is expensive) to just create one is around 10k+++ USD unless you hire on specific third world countries barring the skill required. The RTP (aka art assets) would cost at the very least 10, 000 USD++ alone. In short, the engine is already sold on a deal with free updates for cheap for a very good reason. The community and its expectations. It might also be indicative of how many are fans of the JRPG formula willing to make a game. There is a reason this topic exists in the format it's in to gauge userbase interest.

Also individual developer signups is different from company relations. For example, Live2D and VNMaker partnership means that if for some stroke of luck and you are super succesful, you don't need to pay royalties to Live2D anymore. There has to be a benefit for the developers, publishers and consumers for a "partnership."

RPG Maker MV game engine is open source too (not editor), Game Maker is primarily closed source. So you need to also think about the risk Nintendo is taking as parts of their code would have to be exposed.

In short, how are you going to be sure that this is going to be a profitable business for everyone involved? Developers and publishers should feel confident enough to sink in this much money for a port. Start a petition or something with a poll on how many people would buy it and estimated cost. Then Japan might seriously consider it than theories.

Why would RMMV be any different? Hell, most major creation software (not even game creation, just in general) use a similar business model which seems to work well. Let casual users pay a small fee to use the program at a base level. For advanced users who want more options, there's an upgrade fee. And for the bigwigs, they pay a large fee for a "pro" version of a program. There's no reason why this couldn't be applied to RMMV.

Also, obligatory RPG Maker is for hobbyists response.

Once again, a lot of this is speculation.

Who do you think is implementing fixes and tech support of RPG Maker MV? Who would have to implement the said features and then fix issues if the Nintendo Switch Port support has to happen.

Hint: Majority is from DEGICA, not KADOKAWA. I don't understand how you can just say this is just ""speculation.""

 

[LTN Games]

This came up at the htnl5gamedev forunms, at the moment html5 its not supported on the switch. There may be other ways but it won't be worth the time and effort for the developers to invest in.

"HTML5/JavaScript development is not supported on the Switch, and we have no plans to support it in the future. We apologize for the inconvenience." - allegedly from Nintendo

The guys over at htnl5gamedev forums know there stuff and my guess, if it was possible they would've done it by now.

 

[mlogan]

And once again, I really don't understand the rhetoric behind "Most people using RPG Maker don't want to pay a lot of money, so therefore no one should be able to pay a lot of money." Few, if any game dev/engines expect royalties from software made using them, and instead opt for a large upfront cost. Why would RMMV be any different? Hell, most major creation software (not even game creation, just in general) use a similar business model which seems to work well. Let casual users pay a small fee to use the program at a base level. For advanced users who want more options, there's an upgrade fee. And for the bigwigs, they pay a large fee for a "pro" version of a program. There's no reason why this couldn't be applied to RMMV.

Okay, but given the userbase of MV, you would need to ask if enough people would be willing to pay the higher optional price to make it worth it. Personally, I don't see it happening, but I very well could be wrong.

 

[ashikai]

Forgive me if I'm completely missing the mark here but...
Would it not be possible to create a 3rd party toolset that could take an exported RPGMaker game and port things that way? Rather than having it built into RMMV, I mean. As far as cost structure and licensing and whatnot, all of that would be a factor of the 3rd party toolset rather than RMMV itself, solving that problem (theoretically?). You could then tie the royalty portion of the license agreement for commercially distributing to a console to that application rather than MV itself (if needed).

Barring other consoles (because I know little about developing for them), I know that a lot of people have been using nintendo's hidden switch web browser (which uses the nintendo web framework) to play HTML5 based games; I've done it too on mine. It's obviously not a public/standardized thing, but the switch CAN (technically) already play RMMV games (through the browser). The switch is also a touch screen, so even without mapping the buttons on the controller you should still be able to use all of MV's touch functions without any further configuring. (again theoretical; I haven't played an RMMV game through my switch's browser yet so I can't confirm)

I'm also pretty sure NW.js can compile as a desktop app, so could we not do that and add a level of interpretation for the controller? How is it different from exporting to android or iOS, really, if the device can already interpret the source language? (legit question, I don't actually know the answer)

Just my personal addition, I would totally fund a kickstarter + buy a third party tool that could deploy to the switch (the $450 dev kit fee is affordable for a commercial game; licensing I'm not sure about cost-wise, but I'm sure it would be workable; really anything below $3k for a commercial game is pretty cheap IMO). I'm not really interested in porting to any other consoles ATM.

 

[bgillisp]

@ashikai : Not a bad idea honestly, though I doubt people will pay the $450 fee for a program that they still wouldn't be able to sell their game on the switch for. As to why they couldn't sell it, that would be because it would have to use that hidden method which Nintendo doesn't recognize, so as far as they are concerned, your game doesn't work (due to no native HTML 5 support on the switch), and I doubt they would approve a game to be sold that they believe doesn't work.

Now, maybe there is a workaround I don't see, but you'd have to find a way to port a game onto the switch in an engine that uses HTML5 and get it to still run in HTML 5 on a platform that doesn't have support for it.

However, not to say this isn't a bad idea, it just might have to be another engine for switch support to exist for due to MV using HTML5, and Nintendo has stated they have no HTML5 support and no plans to add official support for it (per a previous post in this thread).

 

[ashikai]

@bgillisp yeah, everything I wrote was pretty theoretical. I mean they do support HTML5 stuff unofficially since the games an run in the hidden on-console browser but I know so little about console development that I really can't comment beyond that. .___.;

 

[thephoenix112]

Here's where not having that allowed support shoots you in the foot: Steam has become AWFUL for indie games. There was a story of an action RPG that got 20x the sales on Switch as it did Steam. So by not allowing it at all, while many other engines do, you're basically forcing people to go elsewhere if they want to go to consoles.

While a vast majority of RPG Makers user base may never even come close to being able to be console released...The same can be said about every other engine. The difference is, if someone wants to go that route, on Godot, Unity2D, and now even GMS, they have that option. RPG Maker doesn't offer it.

Yes, most people wouldn't need the support, but for someone like me where I have put a lot of time and effort into my game, and we see the PC market is a mess...I want the ability to push for PS4 and Switch support. At this point if I want that, I have to give up on RPG Maker entirely and change engines. I'm fine to pay more. No question. A $400 license to support console is nothing when you consider the return it could bring. By not offering that at all, it can push games to other engines, which is where I'm at right now. It also means that you risk losing great games that could be amazing PR (look at what undertale did for GMS) if people are forced to switch.

 

[VisitorsFromDreams]

I think the way to go would be to have something cheaper like MV be for hobbiests and keep that $80 price tag while having a much more expensive "pro" version for people like me who do make all there own art, audio, music. I dont think there would be any reason for a pro version to have rtp or premade assets of any nature for that matter (could always have an asset store option like most competitors) which would also bring down development costs a bit.

 

[LTN Games]

How about just porting your own game yourself or hiring someone to do it for you instead of patiently waiting for a company that does not want to do it so that MV can stay in the price range it is in. It would probably cost you just as much as buying it from Degica.
It's the best solution and if you don't want to do that then maybe it's best to choose another game engine for your needs.
I personally think everyone should patiently wait for Nintendo to allow html5 games on their system, there was a large petition going around the HTML 5 community to get Nintendo to do it I seen it on Twitter multiple times.

 

[thephoenix112]

I guarantee porting to another engine (because RPG Maker does not offer any way to be put on consoles) will cost far more than any licensing offered by any engine that has console support right now. It's something I've been looking at in a major way because of the issues Steam is having, and the rise in sales on consoles. You're talking about having to re-program everything from the ground up, not to mention if you've even once used a resource that does not allow usage outside of RPG Maker, you have to find it, remove and replace it in entirety. Even though we (my team) personally have made everything from scratch, you're still talking about a LOT of time programming or a lot of money paying programmers. That's thousands of dollars, on top of a huge delay in production just to get back to where you were.

As far as RPG Maker staying in it's $80 baseline price range...currently RPG Maker has a higher cost of entry than most other engines. GMS is $40, half the current cost, and have greatly increased GPU usage which...I don't know if RPG Maker has yet? Beyond that, the two biggest engines, Unity and Unreal, are completely free in every way until you release a commercial game and make an certain amount of money. You don't pay a dime to download and make the games you want, and they both have an extensive amount of assets for free as well. There's no limitation to the engine either. That's not even considering others like Godot and Lumberyard, both offered at no cost of entry as well. With RPG Maker, no matter what you do, whether you release a game or not, whether you release a commercial game or not, whether you ever see a penny from game sales or not...you're paying $80 just to get in the door.

Also worth noting is that most of those engines offer an optional license for those wanting to port to consoles. Using GMS2 for instance, you only pay when you need it. For anyone that's at a point that they'd even have a chance on consoles, the costs they're asking are ones that are very accessible and easily recouped, especially considering more prime placement and better market spacing. It's not something everyone has to pay for access to, only those needing it.

The major reason we started with, and stuck with, RPG Maker for so long was an amazing community that was focused specifically on the genre of game I was working on. Resources were plentiful. Add to that my knowledge of Javascript and I was able to program far easier than with Ruby. However, this was also before the downfall of Steam. Because of Steam Direct, games are getting buried more than ever before. Like I said above, devs are mentioning that console sales now top PC sales, even as high as 20 to 1 in some instances. It's a great engine...but with PC sales declining, no GPU support, and no console support, I'm worried it's going to get more and more relegated to a hobby engine as the best it could be...

 

[bgillisp]

@thephoenix112 : I'll admit I share those concerns myself, and am even looking at options besides Steam for when my game releases (which is it on target to release this year sometime). But then again, I predict sometime in the next few years, a few things will happen.

1: The rush of games to steam will force big developers to desert the platform, including the AAA games. This will probably happen after a few big AAA titles get buried in the mess there and the company decides to just give up on PC versions, or leave the platform.

2: A good competitor to Steam will come around, with quality control (and don't say gog, they flat out refuse to take RPGMaker games unless they are a hit elsewhere). If I knew enough about servers and how to set all that up I'd start one myself.

3: The rise of #2 will force Steam to either change their policies, or start to lose money. Though as much as they seem to think algorithms solve all the problems, they will probably just spend $$$ trying to fix it with an algorithm and/or raising the Steam direct fee, neither of which will work.

But I think that is probably 2 - 5 years down the line still.

 

[thephoenix112]

@bgillisp : Completely agree that it's going to end up causing SOME sort of response. Steam Greenlight wasn't exactly the most well-crafted system either but Steam Direct + asset flippers and people even reskinning tutorial games is just ruining the platform. However, Steam tends to put their AAA titles front and center, so they don't as easily get buried as much as indies. They could have a competitor but...you're absolutely right, it'll take years before we even get there. But for the time being, it's definitely making indie devs consider going elsewhere, either to other platforms or other services. Steam was great for a while but people found ways to abuse it (because of course they did) and Steam isn't doing anywhere near enough to stop it.

 

[Archeia]

I'm pretty sure GMS2 base engine costs around 50-60 dollars without the Nintendo Switch Port. And I'm pretty sure GMS1 didn't have switch port on theirs which I'm guessing your 40 USD comment is coming from? I have it so I know it's not 40 USD. Maybe on certain countries.

 

[The Stranger]

@Archeia You're right. It's $39 for a very basic GM2 license which lasts for 12 months, you have to pay $99 for a permanent GM2 license. This only allows you to export games to Windows; you have to get a different license for Mac. The price shoots up to $400 if you want a license so you can export to mobiles and tablets. The console licenses are even more expensive - PS4 license being $799.

 

[Archeia]

@Archeia You're right. It's $39 for a very basic GM2 license which lasts for 12 months, you have to pay $99 for a permanent GM2 license. This only allows you to export games to Windows; you have to get a different license for Mac. The price shoots up to $400 if you want a license so you can export to mobiles and tablets. The console licenses are even more expensive - PS4 license being $799.

Thanks for rechecking!

 

[peq42_]

...but with PC sales declining, no GPU support, and no console support, I'm worried it's going to get more and more relegated to a hobby engine as the best it could be...

RPG maker mv has support to gpu since always.Look at how webgl works and search "GPU.js"
Steam is growing in userbase and sellings every year, look at how many people are online there now and the peak 3 years ago or so.
Indie games have been taking place of AAA games since years ago, take a look at this video So makert is only getting BETTER for us(that knows how to sell).

 

[thephoenix112]

I was specifically answering the question of raising RPG Maker's base costs to accommodate console support. Considering absolutely no sales prices, RPG Maker has a flat cost of entry at $80. That's what you pay regardless of what you need it for, or how long you intend to use it, and people were mentioning if you add in console support, that price has to go even higher up. What I was getting at with GMS2 being $40 (technically $39) for cost of entry is to say they ARE offering that support to those that need it, and have a far lower general cost of entry as well. You only pay for what you need. They don't need to have the base cost of entry up high just for offering that support. That's also not considering most other engines nowadays are completely free until you start turning a profit, so they have no general cost of entry, and many have console support or atleast console accessibility at this point.

Just for sake of reference, here's the link to GMS2's licensing:

https://www.yoyogames.com/get

That said, GMS offers that tiered structure to allow better access to fit what you need. Just want to make some fun fan games? $39 and you're in the door. Need licensing to release to consoles? Trust me when I say, if you're serious about console porting, $799 is nothing, and easily recouped if your game is worth anything at all. GMS found a great way to do it and now has an engine that offers pretty much anything you could need as far as publishing goes, from fan game to fully commercial release across all platforms. Their cost of entry is lower than current RMMV and their licensing costs are fairly standard.