HotGod's Forum Posts

  • Hi,

    There's a problem with your offer. I'll try to explain.

    Usually this kind of offers is just a gentle translation of "Hey, will someone work for me for free?"

    Everyone have cool ideas for games and everyone think their ideas are great. The hard part is to transform the ideas into a living game.

    From my experience the best way to work is to bring money to the table. If you have an idea and believe it will sell and bring profit than developers will see you really believe in your idea and will more likely to join you.

    People and mostly developers don't like to work for free. If they keep on producing games for others for free they won't make a living.

    Hope this makes sense.

  • Game-play is more important than graphics.

    I used to own a Spectravideo console/computer. I played for hours with games which had silly graphics.

    It's like asking what's better in a book, the plot or the font. The plot is much more important but if you have a bad font people are less likely to enjoy your book.

    A good and solid gameplay is a must. without it no matter how lovely is your graphics people won't recommend it.

    In the early days of CD oriented games one could find cool graphics which wee created as games. People did play with these games just to see the cool scenery but this won't stand these days.

    Btw, graphics is not the only element. You can easily mention sound and music. If you'll have a great gameplay, cool graphics but bad sound design and awful music people will run away from your game.

    Also, as mentioned before, it depends on the game category. In some categories people expect more from the graphics side compared to other categories.

    Bottom line, it would be best to focus on gameplay and once you have a solid mechanics invest in graphics and sound and animation and presentation to match the gameplay level.

  • Wow, Cool.

    Thanks septeven!

  • I feel kinda silly asking this. Is there a way to turn regular text fields into a textarea one?

    I'm trying to produce a nice report for a client but all I'm ending with is a 1 line text.

    I tried introducing "\n" in the text, "\r", "<br>", etc. Nothing worked.

    Am I missing something here? <img src="smileys/smiley9.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • I wanted to try it on my iPad2 and return with numbers but I can't pass the first screen (due to touch support, I guess).

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I run on XP. No errors on startup. On exit I got a "Data Execution Prevention error" + "C2Wrap.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close".

    I guess these are minor issue. The game run smoothly and it would have been cool to see a full screen (Alt+Enter) is native resolution.

    Are they planning on making this available to Mac's too?

  • Ashley, Thanks for your reply. It's refreshing to get a rational answer.

    I tried to show that for each paid app developers tend to release a demo/free/light version. This turns the 5 apps limit into a 2 apps/games limit. No idea how this little sentence turned into a crap/good apps ratio. I tried to show this is not relevant and won't effect the market.

    I saw many times that free apps/games turned into paid apps. This is why appMobi should put a different model and I'm sure they will change it once they see a killer app getting millions of hits. With such success their model of a 5 limit apps will fail.

    I also saw a claim that this discussion doesn't belong here. I tried to show that as long as C2 doesn't put all it's power only on appMobi it will be fair to people like me who doesn't like the 5 apps limit.

    DirectCanvas is cool and I like the appMobi environment but if this limit will stay there all the cool c2-appMobi features are not relevant to people like me.

    And one last word, I didn't like the way some people talked to other C2 members. This is not a good way of listening and talking to others. I understand the emotions but there's a way to communicate. I always prefer the "cold" approach with ideas, concepts, numbers, over the "hot" and emotional path. This is why I didn't like the "capitalism" lesson, nor the definition that free apps = crap, and other sentences I do not wish to repeat.

  • Bert, I tried to explain that the 5 apps limitation of appMobi won't effect the good games ratio on the app store.

    There are so many games and apps these days (which is a good thing) that such limitation won't leave any mark. Native apps make almost 100% of the app store. Letting ppl upload 5 games or 50 html5 games will not count at all.

    So I tried to show such reasoning for the 5 apps limitation is a very weak argument.

    Trevor10, If I make $20,000 I don't mind paying 20% to the person/company which helped me get this nice income. If you wish to test me, simply bring a $20,000 project and see how I pay you 1/5. I do this with new projects I get so why not in this scenario.

    If you think the 20% is too high than we can lower it. That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to show the 5 apps limitation is not the right model in this case and will scare 99% of our community.

    —, I agree with every word you wrote.

  • I think the limit is a good idea to keep things off the marketplace that don't belong there. A marketplace is a public gathering held for buying and selling merchandise. That's the definition not my opinion. The so called free games you found and love have ways of making money with in app ads or thing to buy in app(they are not free). Finding popular games with reviews is easy, but when there are millions of apps that are crap, most people don't look, they buy whatever is in the top list(which are all big developer games), large developers have money for ads so they can rise above the crap pile. Just because you go and read reviews before you pick your next free game to exploit, doesn't mean the people that small time developers need to buy there app do the same thing.

    I think the limit is a bad idea. I'll explain why.

    If X is the percentage of good apps/games in the app-store and Y is the percentage of good apps/games in the app-store after the appMobi 5 apps limit, than I assure you X = Y.

    This limit won't effect the app store. They have so many apps there that even if 10 people will purchase from appMobi that's 50 games/apps.

    How will such small numbers effect anything over there?

    Free apps with ads is a cool way to test apps. If you like it you simply purchase the no-ad version.

    Sorry, the lower-crAps (I liked the name) argument doesn't hold and doesn't justify the 5 apps/games limit. With such argument C2 should limit the amount of apps/games too. Why flood the net with free HTML5 games? (no need to answer this silly question)

  • I agree with this limit, I don't want 2 or 3 people using appMobi to release 100 games with low quality, with the only purpose of spam the site.

    Spam which site? What are you talking about?

    I found great and free apps on the app-store each day. Believe it or not it's not just about money.

    The current system of tons of apps and good ones float to the top is a much better situation that few and expansive apps.

    If you're worried about quality than how about raising C2 price tag? Base on your golden rule we should prevent C2 from buying purchased by many people. Let's add an app creation limit to C2 users. If one should produce more than 10 apps the a environment will be locked and the user will be asked to pay more.

    People do things for fun too. This is why I love C2 approach much better than appMobi's one. Pay us and if you make money pay us more is much better than the 5 apps limit.

    As for the none forces you to chose appMobi remark. I didn't think otherwise. This is why I chose not to pay. If enough people will understand this rip-off the limit will be removed.

    With the 5 apps limitation the app-store won't be cleaned. This is a strange way of looking at reality. Apple doesn't have this limitation. They do have quality check but in general let the market be free of such limitation.

    Let's clean wikipedia. We should enforce a 5 terms limitation on each writer and if someone wishes to write more we'll charge for it.

    It's not just about the money you know. The "fun" factor is much more important. At least to me it is.

  • I'm not even arguing this because we are adding appMobi features, I genuinely think the prices are reasonable. It is directly comparable to paying for the server you'd need to host other HTML5 games - and appMobi host the app, distribute updates and can do analytics too, and in future hopefully directCanvas and playMobi.

    Apple's fee is only to give you permission to publish games. And why should anyone lower their prices because of what Apple charge? :S If it's that big a problem, publish to Android - or use the "less costly option", PhoneGap!

    Again, the focus of my points is not the price/s. It's on the 5 apps/games per year limitation.

    Your hosting comparison is a good one. I own a server hosting account which has no limit. It's a solid server which hosts around 30-40 sites I and my clients) own.

    C2 has a fair pricing plan. Pay X and if you make money pay X*Y. This makes sense and I'll be more than happy to purchase one day the business package.

    appMobi chose the not-so fair approach and I have no idea why this approach should be encouraged/promoted.

    Developing cool features is great but If PhoneGap will get the same attention appMobi is getting than it's a fair road to take. If appMobi (with its 5 apps/games limitation) is the only path C2 will take than (in my mind) it's a too-pricey road for most C2 embers.

    C2 represents the fair approach while appMobi is not. There's a difference between these two paths and I really don't understand why should the bad one be promoted.

    Again, this is how I see things. Maybe we should hear what appMobi people have to say. I'm sure they are reading this interesting thread.

  • mammoth, $200 is not the issue here. The 5 apps limitation is.

    Many games/apps are released in the form of a free game/app in the form of a demo + the real game/app.

    With the 5 as a limitation you get to publish 2 games/apps (2 free demos and 2 games/apps)

    Does a 2 game/apps example make my point clearer?

    If $200 per 6 games/apps per year is not much for you, what is? Will you agree to pat $100 per game? How about $500 per game? Do you have a limit?

    I expressed my personal limit, my limit is paying for a service who counts apps/games I upload and not the money I'm making out of these. I won't go with that plan and look elsewhere.

  • Do you really think that's a high cost to pay? Even $200 a year for 6 apps is only about $17 a month (?10 here in the UK). I know economies vary around the world, but here I'd say thats really in the pocket money range here, or an easily affordable hobby, and that's with a whole six apps published, so halve that for 5.

    If you're making money from the apps, which hopefully will be a lot easier in the near future, then between six apps I think it's likely you'd at least make your money back!

    Yes, $200 a year is too expansive for me. Apple offers a publisher account for $90-$100. There's no limitation attached to it. You can create 50 apps with this account. (Or $2,000 a year in appMobi money).

    I do understand why you wish to keep this "marriage" in tact but the groom is too greedy and with the 5 apps limitation you'll lose all the kids.

    I'm not alone on this. 99% of the community will not pay for a 5 apps limitation.

    I joined C2 cause the prices were down to earth. If C2 had limitation in the form of "One should only create 20 games, 5 office related apps and 1 music related app" I would have passed. But the limitation were logical - pay X and you're making money out of it pay Y.

    C2 changed the way I work. I really love this environment and will keep working with it. It's sad watching this marriage turning into reality.

    Again, beside the 5 apps silly limitation I have nothing against appMobi, I really like what they've created and the marriage looks natural not to mention the promising DirectCanvas.

    I really want this to work but with the 5 app limitation I don't see more than 2 buyers which is sad.

    The more logical approach would have been as follows:

    • Pay 50 per year
    • No #app limitation
    • If you make money we'll take a share (20%?)

    With such approach they will make more money, C2 won't lose potential buyers and apps will get to the holly places they deserve which will be a great showcase for C2 and appMobi.

    appMobi knows which app is making money. They can tell who's the lucky (and talented) developer who's about to swim in cash. This is the guy to get the money out of which will not say no.

    Currently I say no. If more people will say no (As I predict will happen) the 5 limitation will be removed. I really see this limitation as outrageous. Nothing more nothing less than outrageous.

  • Saw it. Great presentation and ideas.

    I used once a real-time css viewer which was a cool experience.

    This approach is not free of bad elements. Imagine you program and while you do you write something you didn't mean only to find out it moved all files from location X and renamed all their names to "Avocado", for example. Since this is happening in real-time without the need to press "compile" or "Run" it could be too late before you notice the bug.

    Beside this, it's a cool environment for a programmer.

  • I wrote about my suspicion about AppMobi being too greedy.

    Well, I was hoping I was wrong this time but sadly I just realized I was right.

    Just tried the great C2 new version with appMobi object. The orientation and locking worked perfectly.

    When I went to purchase the publisher pack from appMobi I encountered the two options:

    • $20 per month
    • $100 per year

    These are pricey but there's nothing I can do with it. It's totally legitimate to ask such prices. I was about to pay but then I saw the limitation which drove me off as far as possible.

    These two paths are limited to 5 apps. Yes! only five apps per pack. If you have 6 games you'll have to pay $200 per year or $40 per month.

    No one over here will pay such amount for a 5 apps/games limitation. This is beyond logic.

    Am I missing something? That's $20-$48 per upload per year (not counting versions. They have unlimited versions/builds). If you have 6 apps uploaded that's $33-$80 per app per year.

    Who will pay $80 for 1 upload? This is insane.

    I really hope I'm missing something here and got the whole picture upside-down. If I do I'll buy a hat and eat it. Who knows maybe I'll create an app for that (and pay $80 to upload it).

    I enjoy this environment and I like the co-op between C2 and appMobi but with such prices/limitation (If I got the picture right) the direction is not good news for people who can't pay $80 per upload/app/game.