Read the full blog post on the GMB wiki


…Wait, what? Why should we read a part of your magazine (fyi: GMT’s out) from your wiki? Shouldn’t it go the other way: have a sneak peek at the wiki, not the magazine? This doesn’t really make any sense. You see that there’s an "interview" in the magazine that you really want to read, then download it and find out you actually have to go to the magazine’s wiki to see it instead?

Please, GMTech, this isn’t the way to go. And if you think it is, the notice should at least contain a link.

commence ridiculous comment war?

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. The reason why I keep coming back is because I know you find it hard to stop reply when your in a heated discussion (same with pretty much everyone). So I keep checking to make sure that you have not replied, but you did.

    There is no need for further discussion about this, thanks for your comments. Please don’t reply to this post.

  2. Wait — you could have just done what you claimed to have; “have the last say on this “blog topic” here”; but instead, you rush back. You want to know my response. I understand: if I’m in an argument, eventually I can’t resist going back.

    Replying is another thing. But to steer this off the “hostile” territory, I suggest you take a look at GMB’s About-page. Here’s a direct quote:

    “As well as news Game Maker Blog also features comments, opinions and discussions on various, often controversial, Gamemaker and YoYo Games related matters.”

    Comments. Opinions. From what I can see, this post perfectly fulfilled both of these sorts of blog posts. This was an opinion: and as you can see, many people agreed. I still fail to see the point why you have the content in the wiki when it should be in the magazine instead.

  3. ‘Excuse me, princess, but your utterly moronic system prompts for a rant (or two).’

    Making comments like that is not necessary for. Just leave the blogging to Phil, he does a much better job at it.

    There is no need to reply to this comment, just leave it at is. The last say on this blog topic here.

  4. Excuse me, princess, but your utterly moronic system prompts for a rant (or two).

    See how we actually had a civilized discussion before your last comment? Yeah; until you broke it by suggesting that I made this post with only one reason in mind: ranting. You should know that this wasn’t the case.

  5. I compared it to a blog so people understood fully what I meant.

    It is a personal preference whether or not you like the way we do it. We advertise that we have and interview, the interview is shown in the magazine, and as an extra for those who are really interested in the subject, they can view and extended version.

    This is something that is done by a lot of magazines, and it is something that we thought was a good idea and have chosen to do it. If you don’t like it then fine, it’s kind of sad to see blog posts like this where you have a rant about different things, GMB was much better when it talked about certain things and compared them etc, not just had a rant at it because you don’t like it.

    End of discussion.

  6. ‘The second being the reverse, that if the content isn’t good enough to be in the magazine why have it at all?’

    We never said that we would have bad quality content. Imagine a really long blog post only some people are interested in it so as an extra for those who are, they can read the extended version of the article by clicking on the ‘Read the rest of this entry »’ link, we are doing the same thing.

    Quite a few well known publications do this, and we are not trying to just advertise the WIKI, as it contains essentially the same content as the actual issues.

  7. I have mixed feelings on this issue. Firstly being that GMTech may hold good content back from the issue in order to promote their wiki, IMO this should not be the purpose of the magazine. The second being the reverse, that if the content isn’t good enough to be in the magazine why have it at all?

    Just minor concerns, I have no real issue with this at all.

  8. Actually this way is better in my eyes. You read part of the article in the actual issue and if you wish to read more you can see the extended version on the wiki. Not everyone is interested in certain pieces of content so we try to accommodate everyone, and a good way of doing that is by having the rest of the article on the wiki (if the content is really long).

    As for linking to the actual wiki link, that will be sorted in the next issue.

Finally: GameMakerTech Issue 11.

A breath of fresh air