Proposed licensing model (take 2)

Might loose some beta testing feedback from the free users... ok all.

We talked this topic to death.

It is clear that more people like the idea then dislike it.

It is time to start implementing it.

But you guys need to clearly have a faq on this licensing model.

It is clear that more people like the idea then dislike it.

It is time to start implementing it.

Here's the thing, this isn't only for the current Construct 0.x community. Even if everyone here liked the idea, if it ended up making less people buy it in the end, then it's a bad idea. This is about a business model, not what current users want, but what will get the most money overall.

You know, it's not that bad of an idea. I say go for it- though I'm still going full behind 0.x till I can see the full power of C2 as something comparable. I think you guys are too hard on yourself; C 0.x is far from a 'failure'!

Hope this thing starts getting itself off the ground.

I'd like to know more details.

Does the Discount license allow me to sell games ( for example via Steam) I make?

Who need to buy a Commercial license?

The difference is turnover.

If you are selling less than $20,000 a year of games, you only need the discount license.

If you sell > $20,000 a year, you need commercial.

Yeah, thanks I needed that.

Still think you're making it too complicated.

Just have 2 versions, a free version with a splash screen with no commercial license, and a paid developer version without splash screen and with royalty free commercial license.

I also liked the idea about the free version not supporting shaders.

I also liked the idea about the free version not supporting shaders.

I'd disagree with that, whether free or not should still support shaders, the demo version is meant to impress the user no? why giving them a limited version that does not support shaders? shaders and high quality graphics are the main things that make Construct what it is, the demo should have limits but not disabling OpenGL shaders completely, maybe it should not allow you to export games as standalone (as in .exe, html5 and so on) and you're limited to save it as a source code in the demo with a forced nag screen somehow but I dislike the idea to not support shaders in the demo sorry.

HTML5 canvas doesn't have shaders, anyway.

I think I will go for Game Maker with its Android exporter being published soon. Game Maker is already complete, solid, and worth the money (25 dollars).

You guys should revalue your project. Come on, you're not selling Unity, you can't charge that much money for a game editor that's not even in the beta release.

I hope you will revaluate the project, because it's not worth it.

So, I don't think a re-evaluation is in order, simply more work is in order!

Pricing is always divisive, but there seems to be a huge divide between those who already see the potential, and those who are waiting to see the features they want before they cast their chips.

Maybe it's better to revisit the topic of pricing (besides the early adopter) until, say, the top 3 requests from the "next feature to implement" poll are completed.

These threads just go around and round.

In a past post Ashley pointed out that Game Maker had a bigger user base support and noted that Game Maker must be going something that Construct isn't.

I do not mind paying for a program and in fact I like to to see improvements and continued existence of them. I am a very small time user and it looks like the �39 / $63.48 (2 years) may be a little high compared to the Game Maker 8's Pro Edition for $25/ version price. Game maker is then free to uses with all updates until the next major version is release.

So with the current Construct 2 model it looks like you get only a partial product that costs more money. Combine that with all the other free game engines and the full featured Game Maker I am afraid you may not not only scare off new users but lose some of your current base.

My advice is look at what other similar programs are charging and price accordingly. Charging now at half the price until Construct 2 is competitive.

[quote:23n414ug]This is the purpose of an early adopter version. The only part I see that is not worth it are the commercial licenses, and that's only for now. They would be later on.

Game Maker costs 25 dollars. An early adopter version costs nearly as much, and 10 years of free updates costs twice.

Game Maker is complete. Construct 2 isn't even at the beta stage.

Why I should pay? I'm not even sure if an Android exporter will be made, and if it will be made as a free update for those who paid. There's no planning, so instead of asking for money, they should first make a complete version of Construct with many functions, and then we can talk about paying for it. Again, there's no planning so if there would be a complete version of Construct, I don't even know if they are gonna make the Android exporter.

I don't have unlimited money, and I'm not ever going to buy an unfinished product that I'm not sure will serve my purposes.

>

> I don't have unlimited money, and I'm not ever going to buy an unfinished product that I'm not sure will serve my purposes.

>

Then enjoy Game Maker and forget Construct exists, I guess. Take a look at it again when it's "finished."

Genesys has a reasonable statement.

buddy40 - This type of response that drives people away from Construct.