Quote: "I believe the TGC emphasis on Game Guru Max is misguided since that is not an avenue most other engine producers are following, while they also provide similar but maybe more complex implementations that allow for first-person-shooter development."
That is an excellent point. I am hoping that TGK shifts its core product back to AppGameKit from GameGuru.
On another note, I am also hoping that TGK moves in the direction of creating and selling additional software items which revolve around its core AppGameKit product, almost what like DLC expansion levels are to a core base game.
These modular enhancement software libraries could be sold for additional revenue, especially to AGK's already-established core audience of long-term, loyal buyers / users. While TGC have already produced some accessory editors like its particle editor and level editor, there is still room for additional enhancement software for its core AppGameKit product. Even additional command libraries could be sold as modular enhancement accessory software, rather than offered as future free upgrades (which have always been greatly appreciated). It seems to me that the established user base of AppGameKit is eager to continue to financially support TGC, but under the right conditions.
As good examples of peripheral accessory products, I think of long past products like Activision's Garry Kitchen's Gamemaker, and Mandarin Software's STOS/AMOS. These were all, like AppGameKit, excellent products, superb products. But an interesting aspect of these products was that they offered optional enhancements which could be purchased, and which depended on the core base product in order to function.
For example, "Sprites 600" was a STOS modular enhancement in the form of an optional graphics library. It was not needed to use STOS, but it was a welcome addition. Other STOS modular accessory expansion software items were also available as additional purchases: STOS Maestro, STOS 3d, STOS Compiler. Excellent marketing, as the expanded product line in this form not only appealed to recruiting new customers, but also and especially "enticed" its already-established customer base to purchase additional software, while not detracting from its core product STOS, but rather reinforcing its core product STOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOS_BASIC
Garry Kitchen's Gamemaker (GKGM) did a similar approach: Activision produced the sci-fi library and the sports library which could be purchased separately to enhance the original core base product. As I recall in an interview, Garry Kitchen himself once commented that he regretted that they never created a sequel or an enhanced version of the original GKGM, which he felt had great potential to expand from its original specifications / capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kitchen%27s_GameMaker
Finally, the software license / EULA of AppGameKit is mostly good just as it is I would think. I think of Borland's "no nonsense license" from past years as an outstanding example of what should be, but sadly is not, a commonplace license agreement for the end user of software. For more information on Borland's historic license, see this link: https://www.osnews.com/story/22342/borland-in-the-1980s-treat-software-just-like-a-book/
Back then there were to my knowledge no SaaS (software as a service) or software subscription services, but rather only perpetual one-time licenses. In order for a software company to survive, while also being fair to the end-user / buyer, a perpetual license is given instead of "software as a service". To this day, similarly Corel offers its software in both models simultaneously: a subscription service model, but also optionally a perpetual license model. This is better than Adobe's offering of solely SaaS which Adobe imposed on its existing customer base years ago, even amidst strong protest from a portion of its then-existing customer base (many of whom I assume have since abandoned Adobe in favor of other FOSS or other vendor alternatives with superior licensing terms). In order to survive and thrive, a software company must continue to produce and sell software. If a core product succeeds, then additional peripheral modular enhancement extension products can be developed and published, to (ideally, hopefully) ensure that product's longevity, while remaining fair to its buyers who actually own a purchased copy of the software. It seems to me that SaaS undermines this arrangement and ultimately hurts both sales and customer retention/loyalty in the long-run. SaaS ensures that buyers/customers never actually own their software which they cannot purchase, but can only rent.
Anyway, that's my humble opinion and my "2 cents worth" of advice and hope for the future direction that TGK takes regarding AppGameKit and in general. I hope some of this is helpful, thanks!
