Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:54 pm

[quote="lucid":lrm57mma]...ashley said that a plugin should be able to modify any part of the ide due to their being javascript.[/quote:lrm57mma]
Actually, it's any part of the runtime - javascript plugins can't yet mod the editor.
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,952
Reputation: 178,600

Post » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:17 pm

[quote="Ashley":ltpntssb][quote="lucid":ltpntssb]...ashley said that a plugin should be able to modify any part of the ide due to their being javascript.[/quote:ltpntssb]
Actually, it's any part of the runtime - javascript plugins can't yet mod the editor.[/quote:ltpntssb]
Ah, I see. My mistake.

Though, you say yet, does that mean its a planned feature? Or just a possibility?
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:53 am

This really isn't going anywhere is it?
So far just about everything has been about how to take things away rather than how to keep things working, and make a profit.

What if you could keep everything necessary, open sourced, and free for use, while still supporting indie game devs, something that has become synonymous with the names Scirra, and Construct?
All while making a profit?

The answer is literally staring you in the face right now.

Rather than selling a program outright, which is bound to go into saturation at some point.
Why not offer a service to the developers?
As it stands its relatively easy for someone to upload their game and disseminate it for free.
But when it comes to actually selling that game the options dwindle.
My thought is, why don't you just make a site that will handle the selling of those games for a profit?
Sure there are sites that do that now, but most of them are terrible to the dev.
They will take a huge percent of what is sold, and some even force you to hand over your rights.
Sure you wouldn't make as much as those sites do, but as people find out about the no bs policy they will come here.
You could even offer other services, such as selling plugs, resources, etc.

Think it over, its already happening with other venues, and there's no limit to its potential.
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,356
Reputation: 66,767

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:36 am

[quote="newt":31gbmzjt]This really isn't going anywhere is it?
So far just about everything has been about how to take things away rather than how to keep things working, and make a profit.

What if you could keep everything necessary, open sourced, and free for use, while still supporting indie game devs, something that has become synonymous with the names Scirra, and Construct?
All while making a profit?

The answer is literally staring you in the face right now.

Rather than selling a program outright, which is bound to go into saturation at some point.
Why not offer a service to the developers?
As it stands its relatively easy for someone to upload their game and disseminate it for free.
But when it comes to actually selling that game the options dwindle.
My thought is, why don't you just make a site that will handle the selling of those games for a profit?
Sure there are sites that do that now, but most of them are terrible to the dev.
They will take a huge percent of what is sold, and some even force you to hand over your rights.
Sure you wouldn't make as much as those sites do, but as people find out about the no bs policy they will come here.
You could even offer other services, such as selling plugs, resources, etc.

Think it over, its already happening with other venues, and there's no limit to its potential.[/quote:31gbmzjt]


Couldn't agree more with this.

Though harder to realize for the devs i think it's best for most of people. Not selling Construct as a product directly but selling services. I don't know if it could work well it Construct , but something like what the Stencyl guys are doing would be great. Well the domain is similar Stencyl is Flash and iOS games , Construct is Html5 for now... And having used both Construct and Stencyl i still prefer Construct , even if Stencyl has some great features. Anyway i hope we'll find the best strategy in the end.
B
58
S
13
G
10
Posts: 632
Reputation: 12,505

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:58 am

Just no watermarks or splash screens please.
I refuse to use any program, even if I can pay for it to go away.
It puts a sour taste in my mouth :(
B
2
S
1
G
4
Posts: 156
Reputation: 1,612

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:53 am

I think if Construct 2 doesn't have at least ONE free exporter then it would need to be a lot more professional than C1 was to make any money. Not that C1 was bad, in fact it was by far the best free tool I found for making 2d games, but if I were going to pay for it I'd want to be a lot more sure that my gamemaking was serious, and if it were more serious I'd probably want a more serious tool with support.

I think what would work better is if you make all the exporters only cost money if a game is commercial. In other words, if money is made by a game exported with said exporter (even if it is advertising money from a web-game) then the developers have to pay some license (and maybe have a few tiers of payments based on how commercial a game is). On the other hand, games that end up making no profit should have a pay-what-you-want scheme.
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:42 am

I should also say that my approach might actually discourage other free exporters that might act as competition for Scirra from being developed. Probably no one will bother to code and release an exporter just so that commercial games don't have to pay Scirra money if there already is one that is pay-what-you-want for non-commercial games.
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:41 am

my 2 cents on the scirra game arcade service as a sale. I feel the total opposite. I'd rather pay to dewatermark an otherwise fully working version of construct.

I don't want to sell my game on scirra arcade. I want to sell it on steam, itunes, and the android app store. no offense, but I never even consider buying games from a "all games here made by our special tool" stores.

I would hope anything I was trying to sell could stand on it's own. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a scirra arcade. I'm just saying I think construct 1 or c2 is powerful enough to make "real" games. I think making the business model revolve around a scirra store wouldn't work. The truly successful games would sell better elsewhere, leaving scirra with only profits from less successful games.

I still think the most important thing is to decide exactly which part to sell, probably making it a pay this much if your game makes over 100,000 type license. Make it cheap enough it isn't worth the trouble of pirating, and I think it will go far, and ash and the gang can live comfortably as we head toward construct 3
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:46 am

[quote="lucid":2emx2dwq]I don't want to sell my game on scirra arcade. I want to sell it on steam, itunes, and the android app store. no offense, but I never even consider buying games from a "all games here made by our special tool" stores.[/quote:2emx2dwq]

This.
Moderator
B
5
S
2
G
6
Posts: 4,348
Reputation: 10,971

Post » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:22 pm

Just want to say, if price of full version, without any ''license tiers'', with .exe exporter will be approximately equal to Game Maker price then I'll don't worry about limitations of "free version" and will buy full. If not, I'll better switch to GM or something.
[quote="ansmesnobody":3b2re46t]Just no watermarks or splash screens please.
I refuse to use any program, even if I can pay for it to go away.
It puts a sour taste in my mouth :([/quote:3b2re46t]
Second this.
B
2
S
2
G
2
Posts: 158
Reputation: 1,366

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests