License

Has a license for the beta been determined? I know the editor specifically says no commercial games, but I'm wondering if that will be the rule for the entire beta (i.e. no commercial games for the next 1 - 2 years?) or will commercial use be allowed after the early adopters license is available? Also, what is the plugin license? Are there any limitations to the types of plugins that can be made? I hope I didn't miss a post explaining all of this.

Thank you.

Don't know if this still stands but check

THIS

We'll have both discount (standard) and commercial licenses, and cheaper versions of both when we release early-adopter licenses. I'm hoping we'll have early adopter licenses on sale within a few months, so if you're little brave and want to make something commercial with beta software, there'll be a license for it. (There'll also be a free edition!)

There won't be any limitations on plugins. In fact, the same goes for exporters - you can extend Construct 2 in any way you see fit, and we won't stop you. I'm toying with the idea of releasing the HTML5 exporter, the Javascript runtime and all plugins under a BSD open-source license. I can't see any reason not to, but for the time being I'm playing it safe and keeping the exporter closed while we work out the license specifics and finish core features of the editor.

What are differences between free edition and commercial license?

We're still working out the specifics. You'll find out soon :)

Thank you Ashley that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Does no limitations on plugins or exporters included commercialization? I'm particularly interested in writing a multiplayer plugin as I'm quite good at client and server side programming - I especially like using JavaScript. I was concerned that might be an issue as it may (but highly unlikely) compete with your multiplayer plans.

Sure, you can commercialize any of your plugins/exporters as you like. You'll probably run in to problems trying to sell plugins in C2 though - they're just text files containing javascript, so preventing copying is basically impossible. However, you could sell exporters or the server-side part of a multiplayer plugin.

I'm not worried about any plugins/exporters competing with official ones. In fact, if your multiplayer plugin is good and there's a free edition of the client-side plugin, I don't see why we'd need to write another when we could just promote yours. If you go ahead with this and want to collaborate in some way, shoot me a message and we could try to sort something out.

... You'll probably run in to problems trying to sell plugins in C2 though - they're just text files containing javascript, so preventing copying is basically impossible.

Sorry to tell, but today, even raw EXEs are not so difficult to edit. There are million of tools to edit executables, and NOTHING can stop crackers, pirates and everything others.

That is the reason for me not to care about them, anymore. I can still sell licenses to use my products, cease and desist unlicensed people and do everything about. Even if I sell compiled EXEs, soon or later, they will be cracked, modified, reverse-enginnered and so on.

And, im modern world, people prefer to play the games. Most of my open-sourced games with online scoring did not even got cheaters. Except a mario game written in C++ that cheaters abused.

So software protection is very good topic, and very large one, but source code is not the only way to edit an application :)

so, You'll probably run in to problems trying to sell plugins in C2 though - they're just text files containing javascript- you can also run in these problems, and most likely will. They cracked your competiton - Game Maker - on its release day. If Construct goes commercial AND gains enough market share, it will get beaten.

I am not telling this to discourage any of developers, I tell facts. Facts that Apple and Microsoft face every day, and facts that everybody faces soon or later, including me. That is the world. And don't forget. Even if iopensourced, like Construct Classic is, more of users even don't care. Many of users can't program in C/C++, so they will never ever think to check out these sources.

Just as in the HTML/PHP world. My clients CAN build their site with photoshop and joomla... but they just don't want, So they pay me to do the job. And I do the job, using GPLed software. And they don't even care about their sources.

HTML5 games share the same problem. Their source is visible (this do not mean it's open, though!). It's you that make the license. And minified code can be deminified with 2-3 clicks.

Given the nature of C2, and its ease of use, it would be just as easy, if not easier for someone to replicate the events rather than dig out your code. Seriously you would be better of copyrighting asset's, such as graphics rather than infinitely reusable code.

To put this thread back on the proper track, my post had nothing to do with protecting my code. I'm not going to worry about something that hasn't even happened yet: my code being stolen. Even if it happens and too few users of C2 are willing to pay for anything (I have some big plans for C2) - but perfectly willing to pirate - I'll just close down shop and move on. I'm not depending on it for my livelihood. With this post I just wanted to be sure making plugins, server side apps, and exporters of any type are allowed and can be commercialized. Ashley provided good answers.

Sorry to tell, but today, even raw EXEs are not so difficult to edit. There are million of tools to edit executables, and NOTHING can stop crackers, pirates and everything others.

I'm well aware of this. Of course EXEs are crackable and given a large enough audience or determined enough cracker, they can be cracked. The difference is simply the skill level necessary to do it.

To copy a javascript plugin (just a text file) you can simply copy and paste it. Any user with the most basic computer skills can do this.

To copy an EXE with copy protection, a naive copy-paste won't work. Usually disassembly or hex editing is necessary, with an uncommon level of technical know-how. This usually postpones cracking until the software is popular enough to justify it. Copying is then also limited to a smaller audience who seek out cracks, rather than being easy for everyone, like in the javascript case. Usually, this means it's still profitable to sell EXE software, despite its crackability. However, copying text files is so easy for everyone, it's quite impractical to try to sell javascript. So I believe EXEs vs. javascript are very different cases - one is still profitable, the other not.

For the record, we do not plan on implementing any DRM in to Construct 2. We're aware any measures we add will eventually be cracked, whilst also impeding legitimate users. If piracy is so rampant and the majority of people refuse to pay what we believe to be a fair price for our hard work, then we'll simply shut ourselves down and go and get jobs like everyone else.

I meant that Javascript and PHP files can still be profitable :) See for example Invision Power Board forums.. they have the same license key system, that every other software have today. And yes, crackers crack it via different ways. But IPB is doint more serious legal job here. When they see unlicensed IPB forums, they cease... yes, it is difficult, there is need for lawyers to track everything up. Same topic is with the licenses.

If you put commercial license and a free license, kids that don't know what license is but still know how to sell using their daddies's paypal accounts will most likely violate the free license with their indie games.

I mean that nothing technical can stop a human. You, other developers and your lawyers. They enforce the licenses. Ana every company needs them. And it never, never ever works as expected. Look for example Microsoft Windows... Here, in Bulgaria, almost all people use pirated Windows. The laws in Bulgaria are bad, they protect the home user's freedom more. If you are company, however, they will sue you if not licensed. And, ISPs won't assist you if you want to sue some unlicensed home user that used pirated construct then sold his game and gained more than Scirra... Eh, in most cases, these guys pay soon or later ;] But that are also the facts.

So when you allow commercial exporters, this is good. Only the exporter's author must think well how to handle these cases with pirates around and not to screw up when they come and tell him "hi" ;] Because they come. If a product is a success.

As a game designer, I try all these gamedev tools out today. Game Maker, Multimedia Fusion and Construct. Every one of these applications have its pros and cons, and every one is well-suited for some users. I like the idea of Construct, I find Construct better than game maker, but I find it also more hard to use than Game Maker for some things. Well, in fact, I don't like Game Maker at all! So you must focus in creating Construct AWESOME! Not like Yoyo Games. They want the money, like M1cro$0ft. Every major update of Game Maker is nothing! Nothing, except new DRM that gets cracked on the second day after the update. Construct must focus on usability and features to get cool! And it is, even in its beta, better than game maker. Of course, the best solution is C++, or writing own game engine (which I am doing now, by the way), but not everybody can write such a tool :)

Sorry for getting offtopic ;]