Download Construct 2 release 31

Download Construct 2 public preview 31

Link to release 30

This build has a few new extra actions & conditions, the instance variable type change, and bug fixes.

It's also the first time-limited testing build. In anticipation of licensing Construct 2, we can't have free test builds that work forever, otherwise there's not much reason to buy a license. Builds for testing (checked builds) therefore last 42 days: the first 14 days you're left alone, and after that it puts in a caption bar on startup notifying you of the time remaining. After 42 days (7 weeks), the editor won't start up. Installing a future testing build will reset the time limit, so providing we release a new build every 7 weeks and you upgrade to that, we can keep testing builds running constantly (there's a good chance we'll keep that up). This does mean users can free-ride on testing builds, but on the other hand, testers provide a useful service to us in helping us create more stable software, so I guess it's OK. It should also be plenty of time to get thorough testing done.

The demo (when we make one) will last 30 days from the first time you install it, so you can try it at your leisure. Test builds have a hard expiry date - i.e. if you wait 10 days before installing this test build, there will only be 32 days left before it expires.

Note: this policy is subject to change at a later date! It should suffice for now, we may come up with a new way of running test builds in future.

Changelog

• [Change] First time-limited testing build in anticipation of introducing licensing.
• [Add] Static checking is now also performed on actions and conditions (previously it only checked expressions). For example, entering 'Every -1 seconds' will give you an error in the parameters dialog. Only actions and conditions where there are definite invalid values do this. This should be a powerful addition for the future, when it is exposed through the SDK for plugin use as well.
• [Add] New angle conditions: 'Is clockwise from' and 'Is within angle'; new angle actions: 'Rotate clockwise', 'Rotate counter-clockwise', 'Rotate toward angle', 'Rotate toward position', 'Set angle toward position'.
• [Add] 'Move forward' common action under 'Size & Position' - move the object forwards X pixels at its current angle. Shortcut for 'Set position to Self.X + cos(Self.Angle) * X, Self.Y + sin(Self.Angle) * X'.
• [Change] Instance variables now cannot change type, so you can't e.g. assign a string to a number variable at runtime (0.x had previously allowed this). As a result, instance variable expressions are type-checked in the editor, and the editor will reject setting a string to a number instance variable etc.
• [Fix] Sprites can be copy-pasted between projects.
• [Fix] Several runtime bugs with 'Go to layout'
• [Fix] Double-quotes in object properties (e.g. string instance variables) caused assert fail
• [Fix] System condition 'Compare Time' didn't work
• [Fix] False-positive check failure deleting layout
• [Fix] Project bar showed incorrect icons with two projects open

[quote:h0volko6]This does mean users can free-ride on testing builds, but on the other hand, testers provide a useful service to us in helping us create more stable software, so I guess it's OK.

So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money. Oh, and then later on they probably have to buy the product they helped test. I am shocked by your even appearing to question the value of what the testers do for you.

I am getting a bad feeling about where this whole thing is going. Construct 2 seems pulled between "open for everyone!" and "buy this thing we made." There's nothing wrong with making a product to sell, but it seems like the idea of it being an open (or free) product for people to enjoy is being clung to, even though it really isn't in practice. This is a little difficult to explain, but I doubt I'm the only one feeling something wrong.

I will also note (in case this comes up), that this is not at all like the free beta of a game. Construct is a tool for producing things. As such, it's value (or enjoyment) does not come from the act of using it itself, but primarily from what you produce with it.

/rant (Someone needs to be negative. It balances things better and helps the development, trust me )

I think a top priority should be making a clear plan for Construct 2's development and how the testing and purchasing will work and letting people know. You devs seem very unsure right now and I think you could at least save some trouble (and maybe some community arguing?) if you create a simple list of things that need to get done and how things will work and whatnot.

Note: I complain because I want Construct 2 to succeed and I see FAR more positive "We trust you!" people than those who point out things they disagree with.

Edit: The "pulled between" thing is about you can't have both open source and free, while also having it closed source and costing something. At least, you can't have it try to be wholly both. It should be clear what goal you're aiming towards and what kind of product you really want to make.

It's seems that some people are confusing free and open-source !

Actually, open-source means only that the source is available, open.

So, if I pay 100? but that they give me access to source-code, there is nothing wrong with that.

But it remains a compatibility with "paid" and "open-source" and this is mainly due to users !

It's easy to buy it and make a custom build that you could give away!

I won't, but I would definitely learn from it !

By the way, Construct is a good product but It's definitively worth to have it as web application.

You could have the editor available online with ability to create games on your server and offer game hosting plans.

Base subscription (free):

• Access to WConstruct and up to 1GB game storage.

Intensive subscription:

• Base subscription + more space + collaborative space

Business/Corporate:

• All of the above + some kind of versioning.

The engine should be able to work offline and sync automatically when connected.

I will also note (in case this comes up), that this is not at all like the free beta of a game. Construct is a tool for producing things. As such, it's value (or enjoyment) does not come from the act of using it itself, but primarily from what you produce with it.

I disagree. Construct can be just as fun to use as the game you make in it Maybe that's saying I need to make my games more fun. ANYWAY. I don't see why you're still giving Scirra a hard time about the licensing models and such. It only slows development as they have to further explain something that's been said 100 times now. Nothings been completely set in stone yet as far as I'm concerned..just give it time.

So yeah.. Great update! Keep it up!

Speaking of licensing....

um, the credits are showing a reference to GPL.

Might want to change that before some lawyer types crawl up you backside, and make blueprints for their summer home.

— Wolf, it's aimed at time-limited test editions like buddy40 described. IMO testers actually get a pretty sweet deal in that they don't need a license provided they're willing to stick to the bleeding-edge test builds. I suppose the alternative is we only offer test builds to license holders - then we get less testing done, which could affect stability - it's an option to consider, though. Maybe later when we actually have some license holders.

newt: woops, dammit, too many things changing too quick...

[quote:18my3sv2]When Microsoft puts out a beta for the next Windows

Hold on isn't CS2 still in Alpha form.Beta usually means that most of the program's functionality is there.I guess your testing out the limit trial to see if it works correctly which is a good thing.

— Wolf, it's aimed at time-limited test editions like buddy40 described. IMO testers actually get a pretty sweet deal in that they don't need a license provided they're willing to stick to the bleeding-edge test builds. I suppose the alternative is we only offer test builds to license holders - then we get less testing done, which could affect stability - it's an option to consider, though. Maybe later when we actually have some license holders.

I was tired when I wrote that so it wasn't the clearest. It sounded to me (I was tired remember) like it had become a question whether testers should be allowed to test for free. The "testers can free-ride" statement made me think "that's the point of testers..." and the "I guess it's OK" part made me wonder if at one point it wouldn't be okay or something. I was worried about non-paying testers not being able to test without worrying about licensing or paying or just being nagged about not paying all the time. A healthy and happy testing community is good Sorry if this sounded harsh.

My second point was that I still don't know what parts, if any, are going to be open source or free to develop for. Rather, I really want other people making plugins and exporters (and having more devs for the editor would be great too) at some point. I can't tell if this is something people are welcome to contribute to now that it's not open source and I think some others are unsure as well.

Add on development is core, and always will be core to Scirra. We will never strangle the opportunities for individuals to make Plugins for Construct, that's what it is all about!

Good release, still awaiting Animations, etc.

On another note, will testers be able to sell games made with the most current release? If so, you're going to have a lot of testers and very few sold licenses; your releases are usually too solid to accrue any sort risk that would outweigh saving some cash.

The Alpha license will allow you to sell commercial games yes under the terms of the 'Discount license'. Without being an Alpha Tester though, you are limited by the terms of the 'Free License'. More details here:

This is all subject to change though. It will be made very clear and written up in full before we start selling Alpha licenses though.

Please note, the Alpha license is really not for everybody. You may prefer to wait for a fully stable build before buying a license.

Since you're working on movement actions, would it be possible to add bezier movements, which could be run in a queue?

So in 1 event line you could have a sequence of movements one after the other giving you the ability to easily script movement patterns.

On another note, will testers be able to sell games made with the most current release?

I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

Since you're working on movement actions, would it be possible to add bezier movements, which could be run in a queue?

That's probably something for a behaviour to do - these are super-basic primitives that are very often useful for a wide array of uses.

So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money.

I could not agree more and am getting a very bad feeling about Construct 2. I have no problem with buying finished software and was think this might be one worth purchasing, but some things are starting to feel very controlled:

Like yearly licensing, alpha timed releases, and pay schedules for alpha versions (not even beta).

With so may free finished languages out there I am afraid all this talk will scare away the base that is already formed.

Even so pricing seems high at this early stage, There is a lot of bashing here about Game Maker, but they make a lot of money. $25 per version and free updates as quite attractive.

I would sincerely look at your business model again. But with all this talk about pay to test I am thinking about dropping back to C1 and other game creation software.

Best of luck with your endveor on C2!

I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

I totally agree!

But you need to respect the testers too. Charging at this point makes Construct2 look greedy. Especially for non commercial projects. Many of us will never sell a single program we make then for fun.