zeno's Forum Posts

  • I still agree with Neo1000 and also everything newt has said here and in the other thread. The way i am reading it is people are thinking anyone that disagrees just doesn't want to buy Construct if it is commercial at ?200 and bringing the argument that will pay for itself in no time.

    I agree with that and from what i have read so does Neo1000 other than the change of plan. This is not a problem with paying and in fact for a quality program like Construct if it was in a stable state i would pay up to ?400. The problem i have is this time out subscription plan, sure i want to support this app and would be happy to buy it if i could keep it but i can't see that happening if after 2 years i then don't own it and have to pay again.

    After a few years doing that it would be more than MMF2 and on the way to a unity pro price and also what is to say development will keep happening? What if i paid for 4+ years and then development stopped for some reason, i would not technically own the program i had spent hundreds on.

    Again i want to support construct and would be happy to buy if i can actually keep using the product i paid for but i really don't like this subscription idea.

  • This way, traditionally you are also charged for every additional exporter, and when new major versions come out, you're charged all over again. So it's not quite one payment and you have it forever. With the subscription, you're guaranteed all these updates (and I think it would be a good idea to include additional exporters) with that. It could even work out cheaper in the long term.

    I thought exactly the same thing as Neo1000, i don't like the subscription idea. It also seems a bit odd going from a free software to one where you pay more than Game Maker but then 2 years later don't actually own it. I would rather pay ?150 or something and then pay ?20-30 for major updates and own that version forever which you DO have with MMF2 because you are not forced to update as there is no time out on the license.

    MMF2 has been getting loads of updates and they are all free and also there is lots of free extensions, and the HWA version was also free. The exe, screensaver, java and java mobile exporters they have are all free also and the flash exporter is fairly cheap. Clickteam might have reduced upgrades for V3 also for older customers.

    I would be happy to support Scirra with a payment of ?150 etc but only if i actually owned the software after that. With subscriptions it just seems like a large donation with bonuses but time limited so i actually much prefer the system Clickteam etc use than that idea.

  • If it is construct 1 then you could use something like event groups with comments. That way you could title them and know who made the changes always.

    Other than that i am not so sure, i guess just plan before who would do what to make things easier to know what would be edited and made.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Just a thought but for the font maybe it could just have a option on the settings to select a font and size etc you want to use for the text. If it was not found it then defaults to a standard font.

  • I never got this working, i got the x86 version but the exe fails to run for some reason.

    I really like C2 and can make javascript plugins without problems but also want to make some Construct 1 plugins. Do you know if there is other installers to get the needed library's for the SDK? i want to avoid having to get the full version if i can because that is like 1GB or something.

  • After all, you wouldn't want 'other interested parties' to start leeching your code now, would you. (partly joking!).

    I guess you mean Clickteam and Yoyo Games but i doubt they would need to. Remember MMF was made before construct and the company's have had software released for a long time. Both also already have exporters for things like java, flash, iphone and android already made so the developers would be good enough to make a HTML5 exporter.

    I know MMF2 already has a HTML5, iphone and android exports in development from reading the forum they have and Yoyo Games already have mobile formats made and announced HTML5 at a similar time. Maybe they would take a look out of interest though but i doubt either would need to take code.

  • I voted for image and animations but i like the idea of behaviors also. I get what others have said about behaviors not being as important as other things, however i think you could just have the base of it and custom movement. If that was done then people could make custom movements but other behaviors could get added later as you don't have to have all of them from V1 right now.

    It is a difficult choice though because other things on the list would be important also.

  • Interesting, i am guessing this has been in development for a while also so i wonder if they plan on doing any more formats also. I guess as soon as the big HTML5 hype thing started a while back all the game development programs probably started making HTML5 exporters.

  • All widgets name are defined in the ".layout" file or when creating it in cap file.

    This is what i originally thought but none of the names in the layout file i tried would work. Basically i was just wanting to make it so when i pushed the buttons on the GUI things happen in construct like a sprite shows etc but i had had no luck getting it to work.

    Maybe with a future update you could have a quick example on how to use the controls to interact with regular object and other plugins correctly as i am sure it's easy when you know how.

  • Do you write plugins only because it's open source? I don't get why that means "there's not much point" now.

    I think you guys probably read my question the wrong way, i said "is there much point in making plugins still?", by that i meant if the app/exporter could possibly be changed at any time would there be much point in developing plugins before the changes. I also have/had no idea what the changes would involve in regard to the current system, maybe i should have wrote that question in a better way though

    As for your question no not really, i think open-source can help with learning and getting to be a better coder though but i would be just as happy to code with a closed source apps as long as the SDKs they use are not too restrictive.

    That is great news to hear thing won't change too much though. From what i have read it is only the exporter part that will be closed so we could still see the javascript the plugins used and learn from it, this is what i really like about C2 currently as it makes it so simple to create new plugins.

  • I don't really think it's down to the feature set of a pro version or having a start screen to avoid piracy, that would sadly happen anyway as soon as a price was put on something even if it was low cost. It could help avoid it a bit but that's just another problem software developers have to deal with these days.

    Like i said earlier HTML5 and Javascript are free and easy to do code formats so with a exporter like that the price and options available could be a major factor. Anything up to $80 is reasonable in my opinion and i would probably pay up to that much if i thought it was worth it feature wise.

    That would be my opinion though, these days many people think a game development app like GM for $25 or a top of the range iPad app for $2 is overpriced so i think the developers would have to try and find the right price point also.

  • As you say "SDK is subject to change at any time" and there is the talk of closed-source now is there much point in making plugins still?

    Would a re-write make the current SDK not usable? or would we still be able to code a plugin now and it would work fine in later versions?

  • I think a lot of people know that a closed-source program doesn't always have to be commercial already. Ashley seems to want the project/exporters to have a price now though or at least that is the impression i am getting from reading his posts.

    I am just wondering what the costs of a "indie dev" or "personal use license" would be and also if one was free and the other commercial then would the paid version have extra features in a similar way to what unity does with it's pro version.

  • I have the same opinion as what i said before though other than the questions about open-source, if it results in a better app and faster development then it would be good. As long as i can customize and make my own plugins to use like i currently can i would be happy.

    I am just wondering though, to avoid problems why you didn't just make C2 closed-source and commercial from the start?

    Edit:

    Also if it is closed source i hope it will still avoid using extra library's, with C1 i still can't use the SDK because for some reason the needed Server 2003 SP1 SDK won't install and i think the main editor requires some commercial thing. Basically what i am saying is it would be good to keep things like C2 currently does in that you can just work with the code in a easy way and if you need to build then make it easy to do without needing a load of extra required downloads.

    Even though it is in a way i don't really think of C1 as open-source due to that because i don't own or can't get the required library's. So i really hope if there is a exe exporter and a SDK it will try to make this much simpler than how C1 did it.

  • Still having a sourceforge page called 'Construct 2' would be misleading as it's more like 'Construct 2 Editor' that would be opensource by the sounds of things.

    I like being able to view source code but if closed source allowed faster development and there was good documentation it would be good.

    The only thing i am not sure about now reading this is if i would want to buy the exporter. I like the way C2 works but it is beta and i could code javascript and html5 for free anyway with a good text editor and they are very open style code formats. There is apparently a html5 exporter for mmf2 on the way also which has been in development for a while and other apps that make html5 also so i would probably compare them all.

    So for html5 it would mainly be down to the price then, what features the updated editor offered and how good the coding options were. If there is a exe exporter though and the price was right it will be a must buy though because that is what i was originally expecting C2 to do and i would be more interested in that.