The ironic thing about these game–making tools is that, while they encourage creativity, all the creativity is self–contained within the program and will never let you actually alter the program, limiting what a developer can do with it, and causing development to depend on a vendor who can change the program arbitrarily and at any time.
This closed–source, proprietary model is really disingenuous for the thing you’re trying to promote, which is making new developers. Developers need source–code in order to build new programs. They need it to be creative, to build games that last, and to build things that their fans and students can learn from. Otherwise they’re taught to be selfish and keep the knowledge to themselves. And when that happens, nobody wins.
You need to ask yourself, kind developer, if it’s more important to show you distrust the user, to say that they can only be creative on your terms and your terms alone, or if it’s more important to let them be free and release the source to this thing you’ve done.
Or, you know, just make another cynical capitalist product that will be forgotten about the instant you stop supporting it. The reason DOOM is still popular after twenty years is because people can alter its source code and make mods. What will you do? Be bigger than DOOM, or fall to the wayside?