Download Construct 2 release 31

The alpha early-adopter licenses are marked down considerably to reflect the fact it's an early stage. Also, I repeat the point: assuming we release regularly enough, which we plan on doing, testers get to use the fully-featured software indefinitely for free. What more can we do? Should we pay them to test it for us when we have no money?? I can't see what more we could offer or do for our users. Obviously the transition to free + open source to closed and licensed is a painful one. But I think we've gone out of our way to offer good deals despite this. Can you describe what's unfair about the deal so far and what would be a fairer deal?

Not sure if its doable, since the html5 exporter is already available, but a "blank" exporter that didn't actually export anything would solve the tester issues.

Basically preview only test builds.

Might get that exe exporter a jump start as well.

It's too hard to make a preview only HTML5 test build because it needs to run in your web browser, and anyone can just view the source.

The alpha early-adopter licenses are marked down considerably to reflect the fact it's an early stage. Also, I repeat the point: assuming we release regularly enough, which we plan on doing, testers get to use the fully-featured software indefinitely for free. What more can we do? Should we pay them to test it for us when we have no money?? I can't see what more we could offer or do for our users. Obviously the transition to free + open source to closed and licensed is a painful one. But I think we've gone out of our way to offer good deals despite this. Can you describe what's unfair about the deal so far and what would be a fairer deal?

Go for it guys. I'm already spreading a word about its multiplatform browser html 5 compatible exporter to my geeky friends and they are amazed, and are going to look more in to it for the possibilities that come along with it.

The main website needs changing to reflect the new changes, the way it seems now from looking at it is that V2 is free and open source and the Fundry link is still there etc. I guess this will change soon though because i read somewhere a new site is being made which makes sense.

[quote:3kcucnuw]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.

What if someone was still using the earlier open-source SourceForge builds? As far as i know that would keep the same open-source GPL license it had when downloaded. I might be totally wrong but i think company's can only apply changes to the current version rather than older versions also.

This seems like a good update but i am not sure i like the idea of demo/trial betas so early on. It kind of makes me think C2 would have been better to have remained in development a bit longer then just released as commercial. It would have avoided a lot of confusion switching from open-source to closed commercial anyway that is for sure.

As far as I remember, there have always been talks about C2 being commercial - even before the alpha was released.

Anyway what is done is done - let's just try and iron out those misunderstandings now instead of keeping them here, and improve it's current state?

What if someone was still using the earlier open-source SourceForge builds?

Before long those builds will be so far behind that they're not remotely useful. You won't be able to make anything complicated, certainly not sellable, with them!

Is this time limit thing going to be standard from now on ?

I'm not opposed to construct 2 following a commercial route and trying to get some extra income, but seeing that a barely usable alpha version is already bundled with imposed limitations kind of kills it for me.

I'm sorry to say this, but as other users pointed out, I have a bad feeling about all this.

Construct 2 isn't the only tool of this genre in the market, but it's trying to compete with more established companies who already built a strong userbase such as game maker and mmf2 (which remember are working on html5 exporters and already have flash and iOS exporters).

Construct had the edge of being free for anyone to download, so without any feature to make it stand out of the crowd I can only see construct 2 go down the drain which is a shame because the project showed a huge potential.

I really hope you consider what you are doing and the direction the project is taking.

I think this post I made addresses your concerns: we just can't give the software for free. Yes we're behind on development, but we aim to catch up as quickly as possible - the current pace of updates should be an indication of that, and that's still part time work!

Sadly what you said in that topic didn't really reassure me.

Obviously, you are motivated to do better than clickteam or yoyo games did with their products, but I don't see how you are planning to do it.

Since the competition is already well established in the market, I'd say 99% of your customers are going to be previous mmf or game maker users, so you really need something to motivate them to abandon their software of choice and choose c2 instead.

Until now I haven't heard of a single feature that the competition doesn't have, let alone one that would make it stand out.

If it's going to be better than mmf or game maker is very subjective and unpredictable since we don't know how they are going to be by the time construct 2's 1.0 version is released.

My suggestion would be to follow yoyo games's example, and go with a free and a paid version. It worked for them so in theory it should work for you two I think. When I mean free version I don't mean construct 0.xx I mean a solid product with a few features cut from the "pro" version for example and/or forcing a non-commercial license.

My suggestion would be to follow yoyo games's example, and go with a free and a paid version. It worked for them so in theory it should work for you two I think. When I mean free version I don't mean construct 0.xx I mean a solid product with a few features cut from the "pro" version for example and/or forcing a non-commercial license.

That's exactly what they're doing, and the C2 free options are even better than GM's. One version will be a few months behind the current version with a nag screen, the other will be the most recent version usable for 42 days. GM's free version stays where it is until a .0 uprade, while C2's gets new features every few months.

As we keep saying, the �599 option is for commercial enterprises over a 10 year period. This comes out to �59 per year, and only companies that turn over �200,000 in that 10 year period need to buy this license.

Everyone else can go for the cheaper option. I really think keeping quoting the $1k figure is a slightly unfair comparison and can mislead our users because hardly any of them will qualify for that license, everyone else gets it on the cheaper license.

If a company is turning over �20k per year, then they will probably want to pick the most stable, best supported and future proofed piece of software out there. If they think those qualities are more with a competitor, this is fine! We believe however our product will be far superior, that's the ethic we are building it to.

�59 into a �20,000 budget really isn't much for a company that is earning a living as a direct result of our product (remember the license states that �20k turnover is for associated revenue derived from using our products). If a company earning this much really is debating as to the benefits of using different products solely because it saves them �40 a year, then good luck to them!

With the discount license, you can still sell your games as long as your revenue doesn't exceed �20,000 per year. That is the only difference between the commercial license and discount license.

Tom's right, you should be comparing to the indie license. Also, Game Maker is a scripting based tool, so you need to learn a programming language to use it. Construct is an event based tool that does not require you to learn to program to use it, so the barrier to entry is lower. People who already know how to program are probably happy to stick to programming - we're aiming Construct at people who don't know how to program, which is why events are useful. However, it's much faster than programming, so some programmers might like it anyway (which is true of our experience from 0.x).

So why worry about Game Maker? If you want to program, there are tonnes of alternatives out there, and you can even program a HTML5 game for free in notepad providing you know javascript, the correct APIs and so on - but it will take a lot longer and require a lot more expertise! We're not expecting hordes of Game Makers to jump ship either, because most of them are very familiar with the GML scripting system which is how they make their games, and there's no equivalent in Construct 2.

This is probably also a large factor for new customers. Are you really going to choose Game Maker over Construct 2 solely because of the price, and ignore the fact you have to get in to programming to do anything useful with it? They're actually completely different products with totally different features and methods of working. You should bear this in mind when making comparisons.

I have to agree with Ashley on that one.I have been programming for 10 years now and Construct was the 1st app that really stands out of the crowd when it comes to a user friendly app.And game Maker is actually an app you use for when you want to learn how to program.

Some people i know say that it's "cheating" when i use D&D,But hey you know what , i'm an indie Gamer so that is not even an issue.Even Big games companies use "in house" D&D to create their games.

So paying more for an app that truly is better and more advanced than it's competitor seems only logical.Unless you got 50 grand laying around somewhere to buy a ps3 or xbox360 dev kit.Think about it ,$599.00 for a 10 YEAR licence is a drop in the bucket compared to what you have to pay to go pro.

I laughed at that picture!

Yes I see your point, but comparing the highest options of both is quite inaccurate as it's not taking everything into account. I just wanted to clear it up incase anyone was reading the forum was confused, as there does seem to still be a lot of confusion around this which we hope to clear up soon.