Proposed licensing model (take 2)

>

> 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."

That seems harsh. Genesys's point is entirely valid. Why would you pay for something when even the developer doesn't know what will be in the final product? You can't blame someone for not believing it'll do everything everyone wants.

Scirra needs to write up a list of promised features that bound them by contract or else a lot of people aren't going to bother buying until it is finished. If it isn't in writing, there's little to go on besides "faith." Of course, I doubt they'll write up such a contract as there'd be all sorts of legal complications with that. I think the key thing is, if you're going to sell something, it is best to sell it when it exists, not before.

I wonder how this would look to someone who's never used Construct before?

And remember, telling people "Fine, then. Go away." does not help. It is in no way a genuine response.

(I'm just feeling like I have to balance out this discussion a little.)

[quote:2wbvjelc]@ buddy40 - This type of response that drives people away from Construct.

Exactly,The aim is to get more users not lose more users.Everything about CS2 was done prematurely.If the program had more to show then more people would accept a deal like this.And no shader support is also quite bad.

How about from now on, people actually read the proposal, the whole proposal, even the first line. And talk about specific points in the proposal they take issue with.

such as instead of A on line 5 ______________ how about B_____________________ because C_____________.

buddy40: I'm pretty sure what they meant was that that sort of response is not conducive to the Construct community, and possible users might shy away from a seemingly negative community, which we seem to rapidly devolve into the longer these threads go on.

Ashley, since there seem to be a definite split here between people that are ok with the licensing model and those that aren't, I think it's time to cut out the community from the discussion. Take the responses and poll data you got from these threads and see if you can talk to a marketing consultant (or whatever they call themselves), if you're not doing that/planning on doing that already. I'm pretty sure that would be much more productive at this point.

It's great that you want to involve the community as much as you do (and it'd probably be a good idea to continue doing so), but in the end a community will almost always disagree with itself.

Only you guys should make the definitive decisions. They may be influenced by the community, but should not be mandated by it. Because then nothing happens when people start arguing.

yeah, people are getting pretty passionate about it, and unfortunately as much as i and some construct loyalists are fine with it, and just eager to get them on their way financially, the roughly 65 percent who approve is not very promising. I think honestly it's just hard for people to put aside the fact that it's not complete at the moment. Until it is, you're going to have to be sustained on the community who already trusts it will eventually get there.

with a complete product, there will be less resistance, but i think it'll be important to point out how many +1 versions competitors have, most have more than 1 every two years.

OR!!!

just thought of this.

maybe you should just have a set group of features that construct 3 will have, still do incremental updates, but when it reaches that level, people who have paid for the subscription fee will still get it even if it's called c3

it won't even be a subscription, it'll be a future proofing promise. its the free update guarantee, which extends to +1 versions as well.

that'll feel better for most. which i think is the main problem, is this is a different business model, and the words just don't sit right with alot of people. which may seem insignificant, but it's not...it's pretty much everything when it comes to selling something. to them it feels almost like a product rental, and not only that, but a rental of something incomplete with no clear idea of what they'll have when the rental expires.

promise what 2.0 will have. at that point, decide the features of 3.0, increment the updates over the next months or years, and deliver, and I think people will be happier.

maybe even at this early stage, it might be a good idea to compile a list of promised features for 2.0, to get some more early adopters, as well

I think inkBot is right: this discussion has gone as far as it is usefully going to.

Rest assured: we've read every post of feedback. We hear you. However, now I think is the time where we take this in to our hands. Thanks for all you posts, but I'm locking this now. If you really have a burning issue to take up, feel free to email/PM me.