Proposed licensing model (take 2)

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:45 pm

Worth every penny. I have used many game development apps over the years (free and commercial) and [u:37r8rmbb]none[/u:37r8rmbb] of them touch Construct. FACT.
B
19
S
6
G
7
Posts: 1,204
Reputation: 7,296

Post » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:47 pm

[quote="DravenX":3dwvt4es]Ahh there goes the free stuff.$149.00 for a licence?[/quote:3dwvt4es]
I don't understand - you can get a license for 39, and the demo is free. What's worrying you?

[quote="newt":3dwvt4es]Might I ask what do you plan on making "official" as far as that goes?[/quote:3dwvt4es]
It's hard to say, right now, what we'll be working on in the next 2-3 years. A desktop exporter sounds like it'd be popular with our existing userbase (and could cover both Mac and PC). But it depends on a lot of factors. For example, if IE adopts WebGL, it'd probably be better to do a WebGL exporter first. Or, if a thousand people turn up all screaming for iOS native, we'd do that. Basically, we want to try to give people what they want, so it depends. I'll probably run some more polls in future to see what most people are after. (Note: please don't derail this thread with 'I'd like this exporter' posts! We'll sort that out in separate polls later - keep it on the licensing model)
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,946
Reputation: 178,478

Post » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:54 pm

Sounds good to me.
B
4
S
1
G
1
Posts: 63
Reputation: 776

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:00 am

Hey ash and gull, I don't want to sound like a nag screen, but what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing in addition. I don't think you've voiced an opinion either way yet. It will give you a more constant stream of income. The larger the community, the more plugins made, AND the more plugins bought, so it'll be another revenue stream. Plugin devs could still have the option to not use the official plugin shop, so it wouldn't be a restrictive thing. They would just have that option of extra exposure and free hosting, and placement on the ranking/download list.
This would help you make more money off of users who are unable or unwilling to pay for either license model. And once again to make more money off the people who bought license in between their 2 year things. And it isn't evil, because you're not restricting users from any official features
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:07 am

Money Ashley Money.Ive spent thousands of dollars already on the other apps,pc's and licences.Oh well whats a couple off bucks more, hell yeah go for it.But then i want to see that exe exporter and it has to have a decent 3d object handler.
B
22
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,356
Reputation: 7,141

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:12 am

[quote="lucid":32t4ly15]Hey ash and gull, I don't want to sound like a nag screen, but what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing in addition. I don't think you've voiced an opinion either way yet. It will give you a more constant stream of income. The larger the community, the more plugins made, AND the more plugins bought, so it'll be another revenue stream. Plugin devs could still have the option to not use the official plugin shop, so it wouldn't be a restrictive thing. They would just have that option of extra exposure and free hosting, and placement on the ranking/download list.
This would help you make more money off of users who are unable or unwilling to pay for either license model. And once again to make more money off the people who bought license in between their 2 year things. And it isn't evil, because you're not restricting users from any official features[/quote:32t4ly15]

Not at all naggy! We welcome all suggestions.

A plugin exchange of some sort is definitely on the books for the new website. I've discussed it with Ashley, and we are open to the idea of commercialising it in the future (don't get scared, this means if you make a plugin you can either choose to have it on the exchange as free, or paid).

However, before we offer this service to developers, we would want to reach a critical mass of users/visitors so it's actually a viable and realistic service and not going to be a big wet flannel on the website. We would also want a critical mass of free plugins, so that no user would feel that buying add on plugins is a requirement to using the software.

Again, nothing set in concrete in this regards, but we are definitely open to it.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
124
S
37
G
25
Posts: 3,945
Reputation: 44,887

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:13 am

[quote="DravenX":12y6v4ak]Ive spent thousands of dollars already on the other apps,pc's and licences.[/quote:12y6v4ak]
Sounds like you want us to give away C2 free just because you spent a lot on your computer :P Well, it sounds like you realise we need to do this, so we'll do our best to keep you happy anyway!

[quote="lucid":12y6v4ak]what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing[/quote:12y6v4ak]
Perhaps it'll be a good idea several months down the line, but for plugins to be a profitable business we very much first need a solid, mature and well-established editor. There's also the question of whether users will pay for something as small as a plugin (compared to the full blown editor), and a risk that users get the feeling they're being swindled having to pay for every little feature. Then there's the risks of things getting ugly if two people develop one plugin, one being sold, and one free, which also introduces compatibility problems when you have two ways to do the same thing. So I don't think it's something we should consider this early on - it seems risky, plus we need to get the editor and HTML5 parts sorted first, and I feel what I've proposed is the best licensing model for that so far.

Edit: Gullanian ninja'd me on some of that :)
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,946
Reputation: 178,478

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:21 am

Just like the last proposal, I have no problem with what you've come up with.
But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.
It also means it's not worth me taking up the early-adopter option, because without the guarantee of an .exe exporter, I'd be wasting my time.

I'm also not a fan of commercial non-official plugins/exporters.
Money's not a problem, in any amount, I just think that (a) you need to keep your revenue streams future-proof, and (b) people need to get value for money from their official purchase.

None of my questions were answered in the last thread, but here goes anyway:

How come you haven't come up with license upgrade prices?
It doesn't have to be complicated.
Just allow people to pay the difference.
We're not talking physical goods here, so there's no depreciation value to be factored in.

The "ALSO-" section could look like it only applies to the Pro license the way you've posted it (I assume it applies to all licenses), so you may want to point that out a bit more clearly.

Again, it's all pretty irrelevant to me while there's no .exe export.
The projects that I'm working on involve Unity, Construct 0.x, and Java, so maybe when I'm done with those, Construct 2 will be worth looking at (for the reason I've stated several times already).
The problem is, I may well be more than happy with the toolset that I've used to make those, and may not choose to add another.
I fear you may push away other Construct users without the inclusion of an .exe exporter early on too.

Just my opinion.

Krush.
B
2
S
2
G
3
Posts: 406
Reputation: 2,062

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:26 am

I hate the idea of C2 going the same way as every other commercial game creator tools.
when I was thinking about C2 going commercial I was thinking how big it could get if you guys added so social components like facebook, youtube, xbox live, steam, etc
that is way I wrote this post viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8704&start=60#p66604

The fact that you said that c2 is going to take up to 2 years to catch construct 0.x.
You might not add the features I want to use for some time and, there will be bugs.
I could just wait for 2 years.
There is no way I will pay.
If I am putting up money I want to be able to make the game I want right away.
I am kind of disappointed at the fact that it seems that you guys are thinking so much out side of the box when it come to commercializing your product to the same level that you did when you started program Construct 0.x, to C2.
B
21
S
4
G
4
Posts: 280
Reputation: 2,934

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:27 am

thanks for the response guys...
also, one more thing. any idea yet what this means as far as open sourcing exporters and plugins and/or allowing unofficial exporters to be made?
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: hollowthreat, Solomon and 7 guests