Proposed licensing model (take 2)

I don't think you should put a vote against the licensing model because you don't like the features - they're different things. If we did an EXE exporter, that would not change the proposed licensing model! So the question is, is it a good licensing model?

Well, that's a very patronising post, but I'll respond sensibly.

The licensing you propose mentions the amount of money for each license, and without an .exe exporter, I don't believe they are worth the money.

I'd say that was relevant.

BTW, I didn't vote at all in this thread, and voted for "mixed" in the other thread, so I never put a vote against either license proposal.

I'm sure there's a way you can check that.

We've been over the EXE exporter in other threads - we knew we'd disappoint many people with HTML5, but we took a risk and did it anyway, and we still want to eventually produce an EXE runtime. So hopefully everyone is happy in the end!

The problem is that you compare Construct 2 to other game creators (in other threads), but they have the advantage of being available now, and have support for exe already, with other exporters either already available or on their way.

While I agree that HTML5 is going to be important, I still think that neglecting exe export from the off is a mistake.

That's my opinion, and as you say, it's your decision.

Krush.

DravenX

Nothing will stop crackers except for a version that is intentionally stripped of essential features that are fully removed from the software, because then there would be nothing worth cracking.

As for this new model, I'd just ask that everyone involved consider for a moment this approach vs the approach of other successful game creation software companies, and ponder why those companies aren't doing it this way. I just kind of feel like the answer to whether this is a good idea or not really lies within that answer, whatever that answer may be.

KrushBrother - sorry, I assumed you had voted, because you said it was a no from you.

It's a little bit more complicated than that, because:

User 1 buys normal license

User 2 buys normal license

1 month later user 1 upgrades for total cost of new license - amount paid

1 day BEFORE user 2's license expires, he upgrades.

Both paid the same amount, but license expiries would be different.

Although, as you point out it wouldn't be hard to work out, we're just considering options at the moment.

Would it make sense to do something like this?

Indie 2 Year to Commercial 2 Year

Original Purchase 1 year old

?149-?39*(1/2)=?129.50

License time resets.

Also, will other currencies will just be direct translations (What ever the exchange rate is)?

I like the overall idea of the model but before I go in and say Ill totally get the preorder 10 year one I would like to know more about how the 3rd party developer scene is going to work. I would love to make a XNA exporter for construct but are the tools in the indie package going to allow for that? How are the SDKs going to be licensed? Those are things that I would want to know before giving in my money.

The exporter SDK (like the HTML5 exporter) will be open source and free for anyone to use as they see fit.

Obviously it's even harder to say what we'll be doing over a 10 year scale. You should look at it as an investment: we can't guarantee what we'll do and when, but it could work out a very nice deal given how much cheaper it is than full licenses further down the road.

Not so flexible for me.

Since I'm not planning to make any money with C2 I won't pay �39 only for get rid off nag screens, it's overkill for me.

I think adding something like �10-�20 "for non-commercial only (and maybe with updates lag or only one allowed exporter (exe! exe!))" will attract more people

The delayed release of updates is a really good idea.

the key thing is to tell them what they are missing out on and how many days they have to wait for it. eg "New exporter - export to .exe - 29 days till you get it - Click Here for Why"

There would need to be a section for forced updates that everyone gets such as security holes etc.

The other thing is that I though the amounts of money were a touch low.

Also there should be a support option (I can't remember) where for a metric shitton of cash each month the user get access to you guys for support.

The key is that everyone has a right to earn a dollar, you guys have a great product so you deserve to be paid for it.

I am sure they'll focus on .exe exporter as soon as they get major roadblocks out of the way - that being the fact they're still studying. Until then, HTML5 seems like the "cheap" option to build Construct 2 on - it is much easier and faster to develop than OpenGL windows app.

(I wonder - could the Construct 0.x runtime be extracted for use with Construct 2? I know it is DirectX and all, but hey, it has effects, .exe etc.)

Anyway, as the license is concerned, I had planned to buy the better license to help motivate the project. I've got a suggestion however - what about an one-year license? That'd be attractive to part-time users.

Another suggestion - the demo should be latest stable release, while license should grant access to development builds. That way you'll get people who want in on the newest features to buy a license (especially if it is going to take a month or more between stable releases).

Now, there is one concern - compatibility between projects, made in different versions of Construct 2. One could be made in stable release demo, other in nightly build; obviously we can't expect that to go very smoothly for team projects.

Now, a question since I just mentioned team projects - how would you approach team licenses? One for all copies of Construct 2 running on different computers? Or will each instance require its own license? The obvious choice is to allow several Construct 2 instances with one license, since the other option sounds too harsh for people with laptop, desktop PC, mac and smart fridge.

Well then, I should be working now. Excuse me.

Another way of generating income would be to actually sell the games which are made with CS2.Look at UDK for instance,First they made great titles using thier engine and then they made that engine open to the public.How do i judge a good games creation app from a great games creation app?.The answer is quite simple ,By looking at the full games which were created with the app.

If you want to generate an income from CS2 then there has to be games which showcase the technology.Create full games with CS2 , Sell it and see what happens.Your user base would triple simply because people know what to expect from the app.

Its like this ,Wow i played this wikd awesome game and it was created by CS2.That app rocks and the best part is that you can actually buy it to create your own wikd games.See where im going with this?.

>

> The other thing is that I though the amounts of money were a touch low.

>

>

Maybe to you, but thanks to conversion rates the ?599 option (for example) would be nearly $1,000 for me. Which at that price point, there are far better options available, as much as I like Construct.

Hi Buddy,

Discount license

• For indie/personal use where associated revenue < ?20k/yr, or non-profit/educational use
• Buy for ?149 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates

Commercial license

• As with discount, but for business/commercial use or where associated revenue is > ?20k/yr
• Buy for ?599 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates

$1000 for 10 years future proofing comes out to $100 a year. You only need this license if you have a revenue >$20,000. If you went for the $1k 10 year license, in that period of time you would have turned over $200,000. The construct license represents 0.5 of that total minimum revenue.

If you are earning <$20k a year from associated revenue, you only need the ?149 for 10 years future proofed license, or ?39 per 2 years.

That's one thing that has been bugging me... Why are you guys using pounds instead of dollars? Unless I've missed something and you guys actually live in the UK and not the US, haha.

I'd use pounds instead of dollars as well.. Dollars are worth *** and are pretty damn unstable..

edit: And stop complaining about the commercial license. It's a pretty good deal! You only need it when you earn over 20.000 pounds with your games. That's a whooping 32.490 US Dollars at the moment. 1.000 dollars in costs is only about 3% of your earned 32.490 dollars.

And it's pretty fair since you use their software to create your game in the first place..

edit2: The above calculation is wrong. I forgot that the 1.000 dollar license lasts for 10 years. So your profit would be 200.000 USD or more.

BUDDY, thanks for clarifying. We understand there are people out there who prefer royalties, but from our point of view that would be a very time consuming and logistically very difficult operation to organise. Also, it relies on the fact that someone is going to have to put in a lot of time managing all the royalties, it get's really tricky. We actually think the simple payment option is better for both parties in terms of flexibility.

Yes we are based in the UK. Prices for proposals are being initially quoted in � sterling, this may change at a later date.

Currency conversions are pretty bad $-� at the moment, and have been for a while now, we are aware of this and aware of frustrations that can arise because of bad market conditions. We will do everything we can to make sure the price we offer gives customers good value, and sustainability for the future of Scirra.

I'd use pounds instead of dollars as well.. Dollars are worth *** and are pretty damn unstable..

edit: And stop whining about the commercial license. It's a pretty good deal! You only need it when you earn over 20.000 pounds with your games. That's a whooping 32.490 US Dollars at the moment. 1.000 dollars in costs is only about 3% of your earned 32.490 dollars.

And it's pretty fair since you use their software to create your game in the first place..

Don't forget that it's roughly $1,000 for a ten year license which means if your company is turning over $20k annually, in the ten year period you would have turned over $200,000, so $1,000 seems like a reasonable charge during that period. I expect 99% of people to fall into the standard ?39 license.