Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

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.

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

Second this.

As far as plugins go, I think something like shaders would be totally fair to reserve for the paid version. They're not necessary for game development, they're more like icing on the cake.

I completely disagree with this - shaders are really what put Construct above the other 2D creators in terms of what could be done with it. Basically everything I've worked on so far in Construct has involved shaders to a very game-defining degree, that is to say the game would be completely impossible to develop without shaders unless humongously drastic changes were to the gameplay and visual output. They should definitely be available in the cheapest version, whatever that ends up being.

Also, I gotta say that I like the Reaper licensing scheme mentioned earlier - the base price is high, but it's available for considerably cheaper for indies/student/whatever, then if they make a lot of money with it, they'll need to buy a full license. No features restricted between these two licenses.

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

I think your assuming way too much here.

I'm not saying you would have to sell the games only via Scirra. One of the main selling points is to bypass nonsense like that.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "real", but as it is right now you cant sell your Construct games on Itunes, Steam, or Android anyway.

Think less arcade, more service, and probably no marketing.

You sell the game, they just handle the billing, hosting, etc.

I think you underestimate how much work that would be. To make a venture like that successful would be a full time job for multiple people. They'd be so busy with it they wouldn't be able to spend much time developing construct. Besides, what Ashley said he wants to do is develop construct, not make a games portal. There are plenty of other came creation tools making enough money to support their developers, there should be some way for scirra to, too.

Oh I know its a lot of work, at least initially, and there would probably have to be some outsourcing at some point.

The thing is you could outsource just about all of it, and leave plenty of free time to work on the C2 project.

It mostly depends on what you want, or have to invest in it.

Its definitely not something that could happen overnight, but just like adding adds to the site the longer its up the more likely it is to bring in income.

Also regarding adds I think its safe to say that that could bring in as much if not more in one month, than an entire year of donations.

Well, at least there's a workable base to fork from; would have been nice to collaborate but seeing as the community + the development team don't really see the value in it, seperate ways seems to be necessary. Better shut down the Sourceforge page ASAP

Well, at least there's a workable base to fork from; would have been nice to collaborate but seeing as the community + the development team don't really see the value in it, seperate ways seems to be necessary. Better shut down the Sourceforge page ASAP

this what usually happens when a GPL project becomes closed source especially if it becomes commercial . I had a feeling this would happen ever since they released construct 2. so to everybody that dislike the idea of Construct becoming commercial. canCheck this out

> Well, at least there's a workable base to fork from; would have been nice to collaborate but seeing as the community + the development team don't really see the value in it, seperate ways seems to be necessary. Better shut down the Sourceforge page ASAP

>

this what usually happens when a GPL project becomes closed source especially if it becomes commercial . I had a feeling this would happen ever since they released construct 2. so to everybody that dislike the idea of Construct becoming commercial. canCheck this out

Tried it, but I find that I need to do too much clicking to do simple things. I might as well program the thing for all the time i'd save.

> Well, at least there's a workable base to fork from; would have been nice to collaborate but seeing as the community + the development team don't really see the value in it, seperate ways seems to be necessary. Better shut down the Sourceforge page ASAP

>

this what usually happens when a GPL project becomes closed source especially if it becomes commercial . I had a feeling this would happen ever since they released construct 2. so to everybody that dislike the idea of Construct becoming commercial. canCheck this out

The project you pointed at isn't open source either :

I have no problem with Construct becoming commercial. I do, however, have a problem with people not giving commercializing open source a chance, and jump at closing things down as the final solution.

Gluon, Enigma and Game-Editor are open source alternatives, so maybe have a look at them as well.

I don't think any of those projects are worked on by full-timers. C2 needs fulltime work, it's that big a project.

Game-Editor has a full-time developer, and is commercial (look at the buy page).

I don't think any of those projects are worked on by full-timers. C2 needs fulltime work, it's that big a project.

You are right. We do the Gluon project in our leisure time.

How does Game Editor legally require that licenses must be purchased? If the whole program is GPLv3, doesn't that mean I can just download the source, build it, and I've got my own Game Editor I can do what I like with?

The executables have to be licensed under GPLv3 due to the linking done in the creation process. If you license your game under the GPL, you can distribute it for free; if you want to use another license, you have to buy a non-GPL license sothat the viral nature doesn't come into play.

You could fork the project, and re-write the executable creation process in a way that abstracts all Game-Editor code to ensure that no GPL code is linked; however, it would be tricky..

Little off topic:

Why do some of you guys strongly dislikes the splash screens? I like to give the credit to everybody that have a hand in the game development and that includes the game engines. So I don't mind the title splash screen personally.