Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:26 pm

Just want to point out there are other alternatives to selling a product.
Adds for example. Yeah I know boo / hiss, but let me ask this: Would you rather put up with a few adds, or pay for play?

Also what ever happened to that rts you were working on Ash?
I remember seeing a few screens, and thinking I cant wait to see what he comes up with.
Dude, be the dream, live the dream. :P
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,347
Reputation: 66,749

Post » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:49 pm

[quote="Trevor10":3os6q4qf]Unity lets you use it for free (not $60) and up to $100K in sales (not $20K). How is the license for that other software better than Unity?

[url:3os6q4qf]http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses[/url:3os6q4qf][/quote:3os6q4qf]

It's hard to say one model is 'better' than another. License models are better than each other in different environments.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
124
S
37
G
25
Posts: 3,945
Reputation: 44,897

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:17 am

[quote="newt":8c4ilsjp]Just want to point out there are other alternatives to selling a product.
Adds for example. Yeah I know boo / hiss, but let me ask this: Would you rather put up with a few adds, or pay for play?[/quote:8c4ilsjp]

Ads won't amount to much though. If this were up to me, I would sell a commercial license WITH a small royalty. The software would be free and full-featured to use for non-commercial purposes, then a fee would be paid to use it commercially, with a small percentage of profits as well.

Could then take it a step further and sell specific exporters as well, adding another supplemental income source, without locking out anyone from the main exporters (html5 and exe being what I would consider the main ones).
B
13
S
6
G
6
Posts: 144
Reputation: 3,106

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:59 am

[quote="buddy40":2e3t163h][quote="newt":2e3t163h]Just want to point out there are other alternatives to selling a product.
Adds for example. Yeah I know boo / hiss, but let me ask this: Would you rather put up with a few adds, or pay for play?[/quote:2e3t163h]

Ads won't amount to much though. If this were up to me, I would sell a commercial license WITH a small royalty. The software would be free and full-featured to use for non-commercial purposes, then a fee would be paid to use it commercially, with a small percentage of profits as well.

Could then take it a step further and sell specific exporters as well, adding another supplemental income source, without locking out anyone from the main exporters (html5 and exe being what I would consider the main ones).[/quote:2e3t163h]
a one time fee is better than small percentage of profits, no one wants to deal forever with a company just because they used a tool of theirs. I agree that ads aren't enough

if you've ever tried to develop for android or iphone, you'll know what a godsend construct 2 will actually be. They'll be able to make plenty of money just selling the exporters. I still think the IDE should have a full preview feature if possible. better than a 30 day trial, someone might not really get going until after 30 days, then discover they NEED construct. give them that chance, just don't let them export to a permanent format. only previews

[quote="deadeye":2e3t163h]....[/quote:2e3t163h]
yeah, as soon as you said some features disabled I started thinking about darkbasic
darkphysics,darklights,darkAI. one of construct's initial draws for me before I realized it was god's gift to 2d game dev was that it had physics included.
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:02 am

[quote="lucid":1ph48ynh]
a one time fee is better than small percentage of profits, no one wants to deal forever with a company just because they used a tool of theirs. I agree that ads aren't enough
[/quote:1ph48ynh]

Except if the fee is too low, there might not be enough and if the fee is too high, there might not be enough either (due to there being less interest in paying that fee). Therefore, it helps to have a royalty for those whose games are successful.

It's just what I would do, obviously holds no weight hehe.
B
13
S
6
G
6
Posts: 144
Reputation: 3,106

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:43 am

I'm fine with some things being closed source in construct if you're going to end up selling it, but I would still be very disappointed if it started selling for a ridiculous amount of money (like it's $120 for multimedia fusion), the maximum I would be willing to pay would be around $20. Although that depends on how many features end up in the final release.
B
7
S
2
G
3
Posts: 139
Reputation: 2,331

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:59 am

My couple cents:

- hobbyist license - free (+ pay what you want) for projects that will not generate any revenue (free games etc.) - watermark, splash
- indie license - free IDE, a reasonable flat fee for each exporter used for distribution of the game that generates revenue, premium plugins
- developer license - free IDE, source code access, plugin SDK, a flat fee for each exporter used for distribution of the game, premium plugins

Fees are per game release. I believe flat fees are better than royalties, since royalties are a pain to administrate. Moreover, the more successful the game is, the more traffic it would drive toward Construct 2.

Also, since there'd be a fee for each exporter, the developer would want to polish his game before releasing it. So less half-assed games out there on the market.

Did you notice premium plugins? Those would be plugins created by community members or anyone outside Scirra; they could release plugins for free (hobby license) or premium plans (meaning that they get a small share of profit if their plugin is included in a licensed game). This would be a good incentive for developers to release quality plugins; the better plugin, the more likely it is to be included in a game project, thus more likely to earn moolah.

Each game would have its own license key integrated, which would then be checked with the Scirra database for authenicity of the game.

Everyone would want to start with the hobby license, which would be free and allow them to release as many free projects as they want - as long as they don't make any revenue (from sales, advertising, paypal etc.)

Should they want to sell the game, they'd have to get the individual indie license key for the game. This key would then be assigned to the game; it would also serve as the unique identifier for the game (and its revisions/patches).

The developer license would come with everything a developer would need to extend Construct 2.

Just my modest 2 cents.
B
62
S
21
G
12
Posts: 1,910
Reputation: 13,155

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:02 am

How fast do you need the money?

You could follow Minecraft's example and charge a small amount of money for the alpha version. When it goes in beta, you'll have to pay more. And even more when it comes out of beta.

I'm not sure how many developers are interested in C2 at the moment. (Minecraft is a game and got very popular, very quickly). This might not be the case with C2..) If there are thousands of people already interested in C2, this method might get you started..


p.s. I would also pay up to 80 dollars for a pro version. I even wouldn't mind a % of the profit to go to Scirra either..
B
2
S
2
G
1
Posts: 109
Reputation: 1,068

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:25 am

I'd pay for construct 2, but i'd much prefer a fixed price like 100 or something than be nickel and dimmed for every exporter or plugin.
B
37
S
19
G
18
Posts: 613
Reputation: 10,231

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:56 pm

I like the idea olf being able to pay for source code access. I believe the havok physics engine has a license like that, or maybe its physx that does.

Especially since ashley said that a plugin should be able to modify any part of the ide due to their being javascript. Almost any of my c1 plugins would have benefitted from being able to alter the ide. I could easily imagine all sorts of things, an isometric movement plugin, with corresponding layout editor tweaks for level creation,

I know I've mentioned it twice already, but id like to be more straightforward about it. The exporter thing. When I'm done with my current project, probably a year or so off, my next would have been to write an importer for c2 for the files this project exports. After that iwas going to focus on writing exporters for the mobile platforms, or if I'm incapable of doing it myself, I was planning to hire out the work. Id be willing to do the profit share thing with c2 if these exporters proved worthy, but its more to have these exporters than to profit from them.


If construct doesn't have an android or iphone exporter by then, what sense would it make to not have that avenue open for other developers to contribute

Also, a plugin store would be awesome if integrated with the site. You could sort by rating, or most downloaded, or search only free plugins, etc...
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eisenhans, Mirlas, radbrothers and 11 guests