[quote:3g24zb5p]splash screen

[quote:3g24zb5p]limited features

That makes no sense for free version, so let's better make it "30-days trial" .

GameMaker has this kind of "free version" and no one is using it.

Unity has that kind of free version too, and a whole lot of people are using it, including me . The feature list for the free version is pretty extensive. There are only a handful of runtime features that you can't use in the free version, most notably shadows, occlusion culling, post-process effects, and the splash screen. You can still make a good game without any of those.

GameMaker's limitations on their free version are way too harsh. You can't rotate sprites or define your own trigger events. There's no networking.

When I suggested that certain features of C2 be left only for the paid version I was mainly speaking of the commercial license. But you could also do something like OpenGL shaders for desktop games. That's an example of a feature that would be nice to have, but not necessary for game development. You'd still be able to use core functionality of C2 without them. GameMaker on the other hand is gimping major features.

So yeah, the main purpose of buying C2 would be to get the commercial license, but if it came with a few little extras on top (customizable splash, shaders, etc.) then that's just extra incentive.

Oh, and I'm not saying that C2 should copy Unity's model 100%. They allow you to use their free version to make commercial games as long as your game makes less than $100,000. The free version of C2 could be strictly for non-commercial use. Which I think is totally fair, if you plan to make money off of it then the guys who made C2 should get a little something.

would it be a one off payment or would you have to pay for updates?

I don't think I know of any software companies that make you pay for updates.

The only bright side of that is that those thieves probably couldn't make a go of selling games anyway. Indie pirates.... argh?

Yeah, I would imagine that the number of people out there trying to make money off of games made with pirated game engines is quite likely pretty slim.

Pirated copies of GM and MMF2 currently in use: Seventeen Quadrillion.

Games sold commercially that were made with pirated copies of GM and MMF2: Zero. Or if not, then pretty close to it.

Closing the source does provide some easy answers to the licensing issue. I say go for it.

But since you're going that route, I'd really like to see C2 adopt the Unity3D model of licensing. The main editor should remain free for non-commercial use. Any games made with the free version are branded with a splash screen or logo. Desktop exporters should also come with the free version, but be branded as well. If you want to go commercial, you can buy a "C2 Pro" license which will remove the branding and possibly unlock advanced features and plugins. Exporters for various platforms could be purchased a la carte (but a non-branded commercial license for the HTML5 and desktop exporters should probably just come packaged with a purchase of C2 Pro).

And that's my two cents.

That's pretty slick looking. Nice job . Stick with it man, I want to play this game.

I think that the best thing you can do, is to make C2 free and take a % of the profit that they earn with the games. (If the game is commercially released).

I definitely disagree. A straight sale on licenses would be the best option. And it's not like Scirra is running an app store where you can easily keep track of sales or anything.

Besides, let's say you use a future iPhone exporter to make an iPhone game. You already have to give Apple 30% off the top. That's a big chunk of change already. Do you think people would really be willing to give Scirra another thirty percent, or ten, or even five? Not a chance. They'd just use a different development package. A flat license fee would definitely be the way to go.

do that mean we can no longer export in HTML5 with the pay-what-you-want version?

ima bit confused

If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah.

I would assume that this means that you will still be able to export to HTML5 as long as the game you are making is free. But if you want to sell your game then you will have to buy a license. I.E. the same sort of deal as Unity.

Does this mean that the pay-what-you-want version will have a splash screen, or at least a quick "Powered by Construct 2" logo that pops up in the corner on start? Because that would be fine. And that way you can find people that are trying to sell their games with the free version on Android or whatever by using that HTML5 wrapper program.

Would the balance of a pay-what-you-want payment carry over to the license should you decide to buy that at a later date, or would you then be paying the full amount of the license on top of that?

And what sort of commercial viability does HTML5 have? Just playing devil's advocate here... I can see people paying here and there with the pay-what-you-want system simply because they like the program and want to support it, but I suppose I'm having a hard time seeing the need to buy a commercial license for HTML5 export. Unless people are really planning on using something like appMobi in conjunction with it. EXE and iPhone/Android native licenses would be a big draw, you might want to save the commercial license for those exporters.

I haven't voted Good Idea or Bad Idea yet... it depends on the details!

Thanks for the tip, though I can't seem to get it to work with the 3d Object. I took down the demo for now.

Awwwww I wanna try it

TORK:

I moved your first thread here from the Tutorials subforum, but I see you've already made another so I just deleted the old one. Just in case you're wondering where it went.

Awesome guys, thank you so much.

Here's to (hopefully) more C0.x releases in the future

<img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/2yo5mya.jpg">

Let's call it "Botox Viagra." Those seem to be really popular search terms on Google. It's like free advertising.

I probably just called every spambot for miles around to this thread, huh?

If C2 had vector graphics capabilities I'd never use them because doing vector graphics (and doing them well) is a pain in the ass.

And if for some reason I did want to do vector stuff for the web I'd just go back to using Flash, because that's what Flash does. No reason to reinvent the wheel. Especially since Flash has perfected that particular wheel. You can't really expect a small, open-source project run by two guys in their spare time like C2 to compete directly with Adobe in the vector graphics department, especially by implementing it as an afterthought. Making a game editor that exports to HTML5 is already a pretty tall order!

I've always thought that realtime vector animation for the web was a really dumb idea anyway. It just doesn't make sense. It's too CPU intensive. Compression on raster images has always been miles ahead of vector art. Vector art should be used in static design software, and vector animation should be rendered to video similarly to hi-res 3D. I really have no idea why Macromedia didn't just make Flash a raster-based program to begin with.

The only benefit to using vectors is that they're scalable, and raster images don't scale well. When you compare that to all of the benefits raster images get you, there really isn't any comparison at all.

Just my two cents I guess.

TL;DR: I'd be happy if Flash died a horrible, agonizing death, and took Newgrounds with it.

This is sexy as hell.