Seeking assets for our new store!

Beaverlicious

These are two official sites where you can get this font (which comes from License Agreement shipped with that font)

http://www.fontspring.com/fonts/typodermic/venus-rising

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/typodermic/venus-rising/buy.html

Fimbul

Soo my Interface is just a dump of free stuff? Well thank you

It's just like you guys mentioned. The liscence of the font i used allows commercial-purpose for graphics texts etc. So technically it is okay (besides including it in the package) to use it for selling graphics, which it just are. I also see heaps of flaticon-icons already, so that there won't be a single Interface that could be 100%secure

I'm sorry Beaverlicious, I thought you were reselling a free font separately! I see now that you're using it as part of your work. Forgive me for my confusion!

In that case, I agree with you: I don't think you're in violation of anything. If the font you used has a license that allows you to use it for other projects, including commercial ones, and also allows you to redistribute it as part of your project, you're in the clear. The only thing you can't do is resell the font by itself, and you're not doing that - you're using the font as part of some work that you did - the font is fulfilling the exact purpose it was designed for, the fact that you need to redistribute it is a mere technicality.

However, examining the contract linked by shinkan:

[quote:2pa3mwih]1.4: If the Fonts are free, you may distribute the Fonts within the same company or household, provided this license agreement is included.

That could be a problem.

[quote:2pa3mwih]2.4: Embedding of the Fonts in documents (e.g. PDF files) is permitted for viewing and printing, but not for editing. If someone at a remote location wants to edit a document which contains embedded Fonts, they must purchase their own license. Internal corporate documents with embedded Fonts may of course be edited on licensed workstations.

So you can't make editable content with that font, unless of course all your customers become licensed users of said font by purchasing it for the incredibly steep price of free (that was sarcasm by the way, their agreement is dumb).

[quote:2pa3mwih]2.5: You may not rent, lease, sub-license, distribute, disseminate, give away or lend the Fonts. You may permanently transfer the Fonts provided the recipient accepts the terms of this agreement, and if you delete all your copies of the Fonts.

This kills you. You can't use the fonts at all in that manner! They don't even make concessions for free fonts! Might want to contact them and see if they can alter their agreement, but unless they do so, you cannot include the font files, just the PNGs generated with it.

An common solution seen in many sites is to just not include the font, and add a README.TXT or FONTS.TXT including the links to where you can download the fonts yourself. This frees you from any liabilities and makes your content suddenly legal, since photoshop doesn't pack the fonts with the PSD (unless you tell it to).

I would like to discuss about chargeback, according to FAQS:

[quote:2sfqsiqk]Chargeback

Unfortunately if a chargeback occurs, the amount of the sale is refunded and a ~£15 fee is charged. This is distributed proportionatly to everyone who was involved in the sale.

Chargebacks are fairly rare, but if you're unfortunate enough to receive one for one of your items you may notice a negative sale as the fees are greater than the value of the item.

It sounds anti-economic, the buyers are responsibles who have purchased our products have no bugs or were not incompleted, so if they decided to chargeback for less than $5 and they have cloned asset, then we lose £15 that's scam!

Chargebacks are just one of the major downsides of digital goods - they happen, and when they do you're pretty much going to lose. I've only ever won 2 chargeback disputes (PayPal), and both times was because the claimant simply didn't proceed.

The one positive is that to file a chargeback you have to go through your card provider/bank; most people simply contact the seller for a refund.

Also Scirra are the ones that are losing out, they pay proportionally far more of the $25.

I would like to discuss about chargeback, according to FAQS:

[quote:15u88sim]Chargeback

Unfortunately if a chargeback occurs, the amount of the sale is refunded and a ~£15 fee is charged. This is distributed proportionatly to everyone who was involved in the sale.

Chargebacks are fairly rare, but if you're unfortunate enough to receive one for one of your items you may notice a negative sale as the fees are greater than the value of the item.

It sounds anti-economic, the buyers are responsibles who have purchased our products have no bugs or were not incompleted, so if they decided to chargeback for less than $5 and they have cloned asset, then we lose £15 that's scam!

True

Chargebacks are *fairly* rare, and we do win them on occasion. We are definitely open to the idea of absorbing the chargeback fee as part of our service to sellers, however we want to see how it pans out at first and what the frequency of them are before we make any decision.

RE the charges being scams on small value items, yes it is pretty much a scam from the banking sector. Charge back industry is a huge profit making machine. They should always offer merchant to provide 100% refund, or proceed with the £15 fee and chargeback process. It's wholy unfair for them to charge a £15 fee on a $3 purchase, AND force you to refund the $3 at the end of it as well. Just part of eCommerce unfortunately.

Fimbul

thanks for bringing some clearance in this!

As you already said, it seems to be common to put in PDFs that direct to the source of the font. (I discovered the same on some GraphicRiver items)

So I uploaded a new version doing exactly this + a warning that you have to give the liscence a close view.

Tom I hope they will not affect us with chargeback frauds.

I don't think we should do any refunds on digital goods. None. Valve doesn't do it. Otherwise, we will get flooded with fees, and 100% positive that those who want their refunds will keep, use, or copy our work. At least with games, valve will remove the game from library if refund is given.

And when I used to work in second hand gaming shop. we were only giving credit, letting the person exchange the goods, and only if the original product wasn't working.

^ That's fudging the issue a bit, Steam do offer refunds when the product is misrepresented or doesn't work as advertised. There are more complex reasons that relate to the difference in rights for buyers between a product and a service, but the bottom line is that they do offer refunds.

Scirra have to comply with law, and business is business - product disputes are just unforeseen costs; if you make good products, then you wont have to worry about refunds.

^ That's fudging the issue a bit, Steam do offer refunds when the product is misrepresented or doesn't work as advertised. There are more complex reasons that relate to the difference in rights for buyers between a product and a service, but the bottom line is that they do offer refunds.

Scirra have to comply with law, and business is business - product disputes are just unforeseen costs; if you make good products, then you wont have to worry about refunds.

Not true. As other mentioned, scams are being made. I also remember from the shop when people where trying to scum us, by watching the movie or playing a game, then coming back stating it's not working.

Our store policy is no refunds at all, all sales are final. If legally obliged, we will process refunds but these instances are very rare.

Chargebacks however can't be blocked. If someone makes a chargeback, the customer can often force a refund. We have little control over it, all we can do is provide as much information as we can to the card company and hope they resolve it in our favour.

could i also offer assets which are animations in spriter file format? Basically that way i could offer not only graphic and animation but also allow animation editing to customers.

miu yes you can provide spriter assets, there are categories for that. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your question though?

Important proposition change for Addons category

Addons category includes, plugins, behaviours and effects.

Looking at the current plugins in the store after chatting with Ashley we're proposing the following changes:

• License changes from "Per Project" to "Per Developer". Makes more sense for this category, buy once and use in any projects you're developing forever.
• Max price $5 USD. Current plugins are in the £15 - £20 range which we are not comfortable with. This is a significant % of the cost of a Construct 2 License. We're happy to allow plugins for a higher price than $5 USD but only with special permission and if we think it's justified. We also don't want potential customers for Construct 2 browsing our store and thinking that they will be locked into or tricked into having to buy expensive plugins once they own a license.

What are peoples thoughts on this? We know plugin selling is a little controversial for some people, but we are going ahead allowing it for initial release. We would like feedback on these new limitations and changes though.

This actually sways my biggest fear about the store, which was the potential for C2 assets to quickly devalue themselves as a result of competition. With a price cap developers will have to compete on quality and features rather than price.

That said, I think $5 is a bit low for an opening price cap, $10 is a nice round number and can easily be reduced to $5 for sale purposes, especially when you consider that a plugin holds a greater reuse value than a piece of game art or even a sound file. With a 1-10 range you have enough wiggle room for some honorable price competition.

I'd (maybe) like to see a similar practice implemented for game templates, for certain games like Angry Birds, that are mechanically simple; it'll quickly devolve into who can sell it for the cheapest - it's not very laissez faire though; it's more logical just to wait and see if it even happens.

An interesting possible dilemma is when a previously plugin-exclusive feature becomes part of vanilla C2, or if a developer produces a plugin that is very close to a planned C2 feature that hasn't been rolled out yet.