Proposed licensing model (take 2)

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:46 pm

TL22 has a good point. Disabling the exporter allows for someone to fully create a game without paying a single cent, but requires a license when he/she wants to publish it. It's only fair to pay for the software you use..

Also would it be a nice idea to have a hidden part on the forum for people with licenses?
B
2
S
2
G
1
Posts: 109
Reputation: 1,068

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:49 pm

I think it's important to differentiate the 30-day trial from an "expired" license. You keep functionality of the product once purchased, even after your upgrade cycle has finished.

the limited functionality is only in the 30-day trial, which is the newer version of the software. you can continue to use your old version of the software without limitations.
B
32
S
3
G
2
Posts: 57
Reputation: 3,692

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:54 pm

Pretty sure disabling the exporter would result in more piracy than the nag screen would. Those people are obviously not interested in selling what they've made. However, preventing export of future formats (like exe) could be a better option, but really don't see the purpose of that either since the "demo" will be behind in features and the license does eventually expire.
B
13
S
6
G
6
Posts: 144
Reputation: 3,106

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:57 pm

All great points and posts. We do read all of them, and are considering everything.

The special forum for license holders, and possibly other online benefits (if we can think of them) are all things we want to do. The website is going to have a massive overhaul, to become a more exciting and interactive place for everyone.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
124
S
37
G
25
Posts: 3,945
Reputation: 44,882

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:10 pm

I know its a little childish, but its also fun. How bout a special symbol, or customizable tag under the avatars of the prepurchasers?
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:16 pm

[quote="Ashley":1ud22qzv]
If you think Game Maker is better than Construct, I don't really have anything to say. You're welcome to use it. We think Construct 2 is better, that's all. Each to their own. GM also appears to be primarily a scripting tool, it doesn't appear many people use the event system. Construct 2 is entirely an event based system.[/quote:1ud22qzv]
Well, actually, this comparisons and questions is what people will ask when they'll choose between GM and C2. First you have to convince them that the difference in price is justified
B
2
S
2
G
2
Posts: 158
Reputation: 1,366

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:40 pm

[quote="DtrQ":2lys0gbg][quote="Trevor10":2lys0gbg] I'm not sure how Construct credibly proves its worth against Game Maker. GM is mature, stable, actively developed, has an HTML5 exporter (among others) and costs 25 and also has future proofing in terms of upgrades - usually just to the next version. Game Maker has already survived 12 years; Construct is going on 4 with limited success.
[/quote:2lys0gbg]
100% my thoughts.[/quote:2lys0gbg][quote="DtrQ":2lys0gbg][quote="Ashley":2lys0gbg]
If you think Game Maker is better than Construct, I don't really have anything to say. You're welcome to use it. We think Construct 2 is better, that's all. Each to their own. GM also appears to be primarily a scripting tool, it doesn't appear many people use the event system. Construct 2 is entirely an event based system.[/quote:2lys0gbg]
Well, actually, this comparisons and questions is what people will ask when they'll choose between GM and C2. First you have to convince them that the difference in price is justified[/quote:2lys0gbg]

Gm is stable. C2 will be stable. The whole point of this discussion is that we want c2 to be actively developed. Were at gm8 now in 12 years that means that on average you'd have to pay for it more often than once every 2 years to stay up to date. C2 has an html 5 exporter, others on the way. Of course c2 is new as opposed to mature. I'm not sure what's changed in 8, but here was my experience with 7 and c0.9x and why it was easy to change over
Keep in mind I don't say this to bash gamemaker,. This is just my honest comparison

Construct is fast, I can do 1000's of things per frame with no slowdown. Gm completely choked at less than 500, I did tests and this choking would happen even if the command was a simple null command.

Gm is useless without scripting. This isn't just my opinion, this seems to be the prevailing opinion among gm veterans. C1s scripting system wasn't even used much at all until about last year, because it wasn't needed.

There was a full decompiler available for gm7s slow interpretter.

And its much quicker to develop for constructs more advanced engine than it was for gms clunkier one. You can whip up a proof of concept for almost any gameplay type in minutes with construct.

Construct 1 aside from stability was vastly superior to gamemaker. So if you believe the developers when they ay c2 will be stable, then its a no brainer. If not, or if you need a fully matured product now, then the choice is just as obvious.

Gamemaker is like a fun learning toy, that you can use to make some basic and limited games. Construct is a serious tool, that's even more fun than gamemaker.

I know this type of talk bothers some people for one reason or another, ibut I don't say it to belittle gm users, or because I'm a c1 fanboy. There's just no comparison. Fromwhat I hear mmf is closer in power and potential, but I haven't tried it
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:43 pm

[quote="lucid":1y868d9q]I know its a little childish, but its also fun. How bout a special symbol, or customizable tag under the avatars of the prepurchasers?[/quote:1y868d9q]

Yes, we were going to have some sort of badges system, all things being well there should be an Alpha Supporter badge, or something similar.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
124
S
37
G
25
Posts: 3,945
Reputation: 44,882

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:28 pm

[quote="lucid":22an3xgr]Gamemaker is like a fun learning toy, that you can use to make some basic and limited games. Construct is a serious tool, that's even more fun than gamemaker.[/quote:22an3xgr]
Khm... Do you talking about C1 or C2? Cause, you know, I'm not GM-fan, I love Construct, but I think this is controversial statement. If we look at amount of games made with GM and games made with C-t...
And actualy most of my favorite indie games made with GM =)

[size=25:22an3xgr]why Rainbow Dash is the most popular pony?[/size:22an3xgr]
B
2
S
2
G
2
Posts: 158
Reputation: 1,366

Post » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:30 pm

My post had little to do with GM being better, it is unfortunate that is the only idea people took away from it. I was pointing out the difficulty of selling software to an open source user community, the difficult questions that will have to be answered if C2 is ever to sell beyond these forums, proposing they copy an already successful pricing model, and subtly asking how can anyone be sure C2 will reach a good stable release let alone be supported for the next 2, 3, 10 years - how else will they get 599 from businesses? Even a peak at some of their business planning and system analysis for C2 would go a long way to allaying some of those doubts. Currently, it's hard to tell if they have the next month planned let alone the next 10 years.

I'm not saying any of the above to be cruel. I've been thinking about donating for a while so I'll probably get the early adopter license (which I didn't think of during my original post) as I really do like Construct and think it has a lot of potential. However, it would nice to feel more certain C2 will not be C1 all over again, now that I'm paying (not donating to help out a struggling indie project). They say they learnt a lot last time, but that is awfully subjective.
B
17
S
6
G
6
Posts: 113
Reputation: 4,161

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eisenhans, humanescape and 7 guests