Proposed licensing model (take 2)

You're right. I didn't even think of that.

This would mean that you pay 100 dollars a year and earn at least 35.490 dollars. (the revenue in the first post is measured in pounds) Don't you think that the pricing is a bit off? Construct is a pretty essential tool to create the game, else the developer(s) would've chosen to code it themselves or to use a different engine..

It's a careful balance between making the product accessible, getting a large user base, offering value to customers and sustainability of Scirra.

Just like the last proposal, I have no problem with what you've come up with.

But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.

Ditto. At least it makes it less certain that I'll jump on-board right away... An exe exporter would be lovely :3

Other than that, I have no problems with this model.

Everything looks good to me.

I hate to admit it, but I'm in the wishy washy stage as well until OpenGL or WebGL support comes on board with the matching exporter, though. Construct 0.X was awesome because shaders allowed visuals better than something akin to ArmorGames (not to discredit Armor... they make fun online flash games!).

I'm excited for Construct 2 though. I think down the road, when it's more full-bodied, it'll be one of the best 2D game makers out there. I know it will. Best of luck to you, business wise!

Well i think it's much better now but i still dislike the subscription thing the more i think about it as it has so many possible problems.

Maybe with that after you update for another 2 years then the price should be reduced and continue to do so each upgrade you buy. If the system stays with a subscription (which is basically what 2 years of updates is) then there should also be a reduced 1 years payment option.

A example of a major issue with subscriptions would be if someone pays for 2 years updates but then development slows down for whatever reason, as when they pay the update cost at that time it would be exactly the same product they had before so basically buying it again with no need to yet.

This is a major reason why i like the way regular +1 version updates work, i can actually decide if there is new features i actually want. With a subscription payment i would be wasting money on something i already had until a few months later or more when the developments had progressed to the point of making it worth the buy.

There is the bigger problem that after payment the development efforts could be spent on making features or exporters i would never need to use. Basically with a subscription you have no idea what will change, be developed or the focus of developments.

With major +1 releases though you don't have to guess and have the freedom to choose to upgrade or not if you think it's worth the cost. With a lot of software i own i have also had many free updates and sometimes more than a few years worth with no extra cost but when i pay again there is often a large price reduction so i am usually fine with upgrading.

Also with this idea people pay for everything grouped together. I am guessing some people will really like a iOS exporter but others might not have a iPhone etc and not even care about that yet they still pay exactly the same price. When they pay if lots of time is spent developing the iOS exporter or it's features and plugins etc then that's time and money lost for them yet they have no control over that.

Well i think it's much better now but i still dislike the subscription thing the more i think about it as it has so many possible problems.

Maybe with that after you update for another 2 years then the price should be reduced and continue to do so each upgrade you buy. If the system stays with a subscription (which is basically what 2 years of updates is) then there should also be a reduced 1 years payment option.

A example of a major issue with subscriptions would be if someone pays for 2 years updates but then development slows down for whatever reason, as when they pay the update cost at that time it would be exactly the same product they had before so basically buying it again with no need to yet.

This is a major reason why i like the way regular +1 version updates work, i can actually decide if there is new features i actually want. With a subscription payment i would be wasting money on something i already had until a few months later or more when the developments had progressed to the point of making it worth the buy.

There is the bigger problem that after payment the development efforts could be spent on making features or exporters i would never need to use. Basically with a subscription you have no idea what will change, be developed or the focus of developments.

With major +1 releases though you don't have to guess and have the freedom to choose to upgrade or not if you think it's worth the cost. With a lot of software i own i have also had many free updates and sometimes more than a few years worth with no extra cost but when i pay again there is often a large price reduction so i am usually fine with upgrading.

Also with this idea people pay for everything grouped together. I am guessing some people will really like a iOS exporter but others might not have a iPhone etc and not even care about that yet they still pay exactly the same price. When they pay if lots of time is spent developing the iOS exporter or it's features and plugins etc then that's time and money lost for them yet they have no control over that.

no offence but this is [rubbish], Edit: please don't use offensive language! - Ashley

imagine c2 reaches point where it is at the level to produce a decent game. You buy it for 40 coins ,and for that price u get existing product and 2 years of updates.

if u dont like subscripcion word so much then ignore it. And imagine u paid for exsisting product and got 2 years of updates as a bonus.

It's not a subscription - you can choose not to renew after your upgrade license expires, and you can still use the software fully, and you're not nagged. You can choose when, or if, you get a new license, based on if you need new features. It's up to you.

Compare to buying a traditional software package, where you buy one version of the software. A new major version comes out with new features. You can choose when, or if, you upgrade to the new major version, based on if you need new features. It's up to you.

These seem to be pretty equivalent to me - the reason we're going with the former is we don't plan on having "major updates". We'll just be releasing regular small updates indefinitely - a bit like Google Chrome - rather than infrequent, big hefty major updates - like Internet Explorer.

These threads get out of control really fast

This proposal is really fair. please release it, so I can buy my early-adopter license

I see a lot of people worried about getting the features they want. Haven't A & G proven that they're responsive to the community enough for you already? I mean, they've brought us in on this conversation that affects their livelihood in the first place! They're still supporting C.X while they develop C2. Forum posts are fast and frequent. Releases are rapid-fire.

If you be reasonable and have a little faith, i'm sure they won't let us down.

It's not a subscription

I think a lot of people are missing this. READ THE OP!!!!

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Facepalm

Couldn't help myself - sorry

I think some people need to re-read the front.

In it's current form though it's not quite at that point in time though yet is it and is still un-finished. There is also only HTML5 export now so this all really depends on when it goes commercial. I hope that will happen much later on though because then most of what i said is invalid as it would be a good purchased, otherwise i see nothing that wrong with the points i make though because you would basically be buying a beta.

I will put it this way then -

If more free versions are made and then once in a usable state the product then stops getting free updates but has a price instead i will most likely buy it.

If not and it's released i a week or two i probably won't because it's like buying a beta, a large donation or a impulse buy as it will take a while to get to the quality of Construct 1 or have a EXE exporter again.

I guess the main question is:

When do you actually plan to start selling Construct 2?

For the record anything where you maintain set payments is a subscription. Like with magazines you can by a single copy at anytime or take out a subscription. If you already have a subscription and don't continue it you can still take out another later on can't you. You also keep all those magazines you got with the subscription.

Saying subscription is not really facepalm at all just that "2 years upgrades" is a nicer way of saying it.

I don't think that analogy works - you can continue using the software after your updates expire. Magazines don't really provide continued utility and value after the first time you've read them.

IMO it's the same both ways: you either pay for new features when a new major version comes out (traditional software), or you pay for new features by getting a new license when your updates expire (what we propose). Or, you do neither in both cases, and simply can continue to use some old software. Another benefit of our way is you don't have to sit around waiting for major releases - it's up to you when and if you renew.

We're well aware C2 isn't quite there yet - if we could snap our fingers and have a huge piece of software done instantly, we would, but it's a very long and complex process. The alpha licenses are significantly marked down to reflect the limited functionality. I also think they provide a very good deal - especially the 10 year early-adopter license - because if you agree we'll have a mature program and several exporters well within that time, you get all that for a very low price, and for a long time. (If you wait, you might miss out on the deal.)

buddy40 - I think Gullanian made a post about that - it's something we'll try to work out, it's not something we immediately need to worry about (at least 2 years away before any second purchases). It's a good idea though.

I like Construct, I know I don't post my prototypes so no one knows. However, I also like Game Maker - a dirty word around here - more. I'm not sure how Construct credibly proves its worth against Game Maker. GM is mature, stable, actively developed, has an HTML5 exporter (among others) and costs $25USD and also has future proofing in terms of upgrades - usually just to the next version. Game Maker has already survived 12 years; Construct is going on 4 with limited success. Why not just copy the way Game Maker does its sales: free limited version, paid full version, and completely closed source. After all, you are competing for the same market. You may have to alienate the people who liked Construct because it was free - they are no longer your market and many of them may have become spoiled by C1: it was a fantastic piece of free software without equal in terms of free "game makers." If C1 is what they've come to expect for free, imagine what they expect to pay for.

All of the above is unimportant. I won't pay $61.94CAN for C2 when I can get GM for $24.32CAN (based on today's XE values) until it proves why I have to pay more.

Edit: USD it is and removed insensitive link.