Proposed licensing model

I think Lucid is on to something with just about everything he said... I REALLY like the idea of paying for extra plugins, etc. Great way to keep income coming in and interest in the project.

Kinda like the old salesman tactic. Once you get somebody to buy, then you offer them just a little more for a few bucks, and then a little more... and before they know it they have paid double what they would have originally spent. Not that you are trying to trick anybody, but it is a logically way to keep revenue coming for those interested in the project as well as get the baseline money for those that want to just buy it once without nags/ads, etc.

Edit: Second what toralord said...their ideas sound ALOT better than what was orginally proposed.

Thanks

In regards to selling extensions or plugins i've got mixed fillings. But if it would be me I would offer things I would called MODULES - starters that would be packedges of plugins with ready to go engines ( that eventualy could work together ) like rpg engine, action adventure engine, platform engine etc that would be tweakable. This would speed up the whole proces of making games if someone would either like to make things go fast or if someone would be a bigginer but would want to make something a little more serious. Would sell them �20 ( or whatever it's worth) each inckluding free patches. Eventualy i would be releasing extensions for those to buy and later on a new versions and so on.

And maybe those kind of packedges would lure beginners too like they've been lured to programs like rpg maker, which would be an extra advantage.

[quote="toralord":1aza7t1m]As someone who studied online business revenue models.
I can tell you that what me, megatronx, and lucid posted so far
could bring you a great number of gamers and creators.[/quote:1aza7t1m]

And we not even being paid for it just jokeing

[quote="megatronx":3rueawfn]Thanks

In regards to selling extensions or plugins i've got mixed fillings. But if it would be me I would offer things I would called MODULES - starters that would be packedges of plugins with ready to go engines ( that eventualy could work together ) like rpg engine, action adventure engine, platform engine etc that would be tweakable. This would speed up the whole proces of making games if someone would either like to make things go fast or if someone would be a bigginer but would want to make something a little more serious. Would sell them �20 ( or whatever it's worth) each inckluding free patches. Eventualy i would be releasing extensions for those to buy and later on a new versions and so on.

And maybe those kind of packedges would lure beginners too like they've been lured to programs like rpg maker, which would be an extra advantage.[/quote:3rueawfn]

So a template for game genres.
I don't know about that, I think some thing like that should be free.
Like a proof of concept sort of thing.
That way you get new comers excited about making games with C2.

[lucid]

nah, I think pretty much the same basic assortment of c1 plugins should be included free

then the revenue sharing model, and maybe more plugs after all the basics are covered. but I don't think it should be split down to genres and such. the idea would be that it's complete when you buy it. and you're paying to enhance it, and for icing on the cake. it'd be very annoying to pay for any of the included c1 plugins. except for ones that came later, like panel, or custom movement. maybe a more userfriendly sprite ribbon plug. the original ones, including box2d would be worth paying extra for, but the fact they would all be included would make the product uberawesome and a great deal to begin with.

Since we're on the subject of business models.
[url:2oa6ioeg]http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html[/url:2oa6ioeg]

With an emphasis on number 6.

The free version sounds too good to me, seems like everyone will just use that.

[quote="newt":20clg9pi]Since we're on the subject of business models.
[url:20clg9pi]http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html[/url:20clg9pi]

With an emphasis on number 6.[/quote:20clg9pi]

Where is the part about keep you search results info and selling it to company.
Thay are .


[quote="alastair":20clg9pi]The free version sounds too good to me, seems like everyone will just use that.[/quote:20clg9pi]

[quote:20clg9pi]For non paying users there should be no exporters at all instead,
Non paying users can could post there games on Scirra gaming site.
This would be like a youtube for games site.
You could put video ads commercial to play before the game start like the videos in youtube.
you could put up html5 code so people link up the game to their web site, or share links to social site like face book, twitter,etc just like youtube dose.
So as people play the game and rate them, you could make best of game page.
Then you could create construct 2 gaming app for google chrome app store where the best games will be featured.[/quote:20clg9pi]

At first maybe but with no exporters other then posting it on Scirra site.
the scirra team would have a constant stream of revenue from commercial ads.
and people who would like to make money of of there game could buy exporters.
that is why I said that [quote:20clg9pi]This was you could make money while C2 is in development and when it is out of development.[/quote:20clg9pi]

Another possible model to consider in part is one that a few of the lesser known, in most circles at least, use----which goes something like "Paid members get access to the latest major features 6-8 months in advance of free users, beta-level and otherwise." So, it becomes something of a choice as to how far in the past you want to lag behind versus being able to deal with fresh and functional things.

Reaper's model seems to have served it well given the years they've been at it though, so in the end I suspect one can't go terribly wrong at using a version of it with some relevant tweaking given the software/hardware realities of a game engine/dev program suite are different versus a DAW and the like.

An answer needs to be arrived upon promptly though, as the other solutions from the various other outfits from small to large are chugging along and thus Scirra is going to need to act with agility and speed regardless of which path is trodden. This whole Molehill thing finally happening on the Flash end alongside Unity throwing in a bit with it is huge alongside the JS to C# stuff and whatnot.

I'm throwing my $0.02 in now too.

A lot of people seem to disagree on the "subscription" model. Sounds fair enough to me, but I can see why people are throwing fits.

Megatronx had an interesting idea which I were also thinking about. What if you had some sort of advertisement like Spotify? Maybe not as intrusive as Spotifys (no sound for instance), but merely as a way to gain some small revenue from the free version and a less direct way to push viewers to buy the indie/commercial license. Add to that an advertisement space on the download page for the free version (though that might be pushing it).

I bought Renoise last fall and their licensing deal is pretty nice. Their demo has pretty much all features (even save) enabled with the exception of "render song", and the ability to use ASIO drivers. I played around with the demo for two months before I bought it. Mind you I bypassed the disabling of rendering by simply connecting Audacity directly to my sound card and simply recorded what played on the speakers.

I still bought it though. Their license worked like this. You pay �58 ( plus VAT ) for the license and for that you get a sample kit and free updates for a whole version. I bought my license at 2.6 so I have free updates until they hit 3.6, at that point to get further updates I have to pay an additional fee. But that fee is smaller than the first one, �48, because I had already bought the license once. Now, C2 doesn't use version numbers anymore but I think it could still be applied. But then I guess the rate builds are released would have to be more regular.

I had another idea, I'm just throwing these out for thought, not saying they 'should' be used.
If people are really stingy and want to pay even less ( ), what if they could [u:139l636s]opt in[/u:139l636s] to having splash screens and such, insteead of having it simply be a nagging thing for free users?
By opting to allow splash screen and similar things they would get an X% reduction on the license cost when they buy their license. That way, you'd still sell a license, albeit at a lower price but with the benefit of more advertisement.