Uh, Jayjay, when you play on XBL, the XBL servers don't really do anything. Game data is sent between the host console and the others and party chat works the same way. MS doesn't do much of anything in that regard. There is the matchmaking service, though.

Lucid, I agree that XBL should be free (the main features which are peer to peer), but I don't trust any of the other companies or the direction they're taking, either. TF2 has microtransactions. It makes me wonder where Valve is heading. Most of the big game companies are doing scary things these days. Activision-Blizzard's dropping of LAN and their new account system, the numerous F2P games (which are often a ripoff, but probably not always), awful DRM everywhere, etc. I'm not comparing XBL and Steam so much as saying Steam needs watched, too. (And yes, I really hate small payments for things) I am forced to add one fact about XBL, though. It is set up and maintained better than PSN or the Wii's online. (just for the sake of completeness, not trying to justify anything) I'm sure I could find plenty of other ways that the different major game companies rip people off, but meh.

One of the most absurd things is paying for DLC which is already on the disc. Capcom has no shame...

At least indie games seem to be on the rise! The indie developers seem to treat people the best when it comes to DRM and they bring some great ideas to the industry.

I always hear that Microsft helps out indie developers more than Sony does. Also, microtransactions are far worse than regular DLC and the PC has a lot of free2play games funded by microtransactions. No system is innocent. You don't think Valve loves money? Look at what TF2 has become. (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=300) (Note to future readers, that link will stop working eventually because of the way that site works) Need I also mention that if your Steam accounts gets banned, you lose access to all your games? Also, if Steam does go under, there's nothing in the agreement between you and Valve that says they have to unlock the DRM. Because most of the games belong to other companies', I don't know if Valve can even legally do that.

Sorry, a bit of a misunderstanding here. We're on the same side.

I'm not supporting Microsoft's charging people. I just also hate with some PC games where you'd have an online account with rankings or leveling (CoD, Starcraft 2, etc), you'd have to buy the game twice if you wanted a family member to have a separate account. Unless you want to share an account, you have to buy the game multiple times. In certain situations, XBL would actually be cheaper for some families. It doesn't make it right, only sometimes cheaper than other alternatives which aren't right either. I'm not defending their practices, only saying PC games need to have multiple accounts for a single copy of a game. Please do not mistake me for a fanboy.

I know all about MS and XBL, so telling me MS is greedy isn't necessary. Their update policy, DLC practices, paid avatar items, etc are stupid. However, the PC isn't perfect either and in some ways is getting worse. That's my point. The best system would be a combination of the best features of Steam, PSN, and XBL. Free accounts and all family members getting access to a game they own/share. Official dedicated servers for anyone to use (for consoles and PCs) and for PCs the added option to run your own. That would be excellent.

BTW, isn't it really strange that MS charges for XBL even though they almost never have dedicated servers? (I think L4D2 does) It isn't much of a service when it comes to the online play itself.

Also, the rising of microtransactions is awful. As is the dying feature that is LAN. =( I'm also more of a retail box, DVD, and CD key person myself but that's kind of dead nowadays.

BTW, about "only one person can play at a time," with some XBL games, you can play splitscreen online. If you had 4 people playing a Halo game online and each one had an account, all their online stats, ranks, etc would be stored separately.

Note: I type this on a high end homebuilt desktop. No one can say I don't like PCs =)

To be fair to Microsoft about charging for Xbox Live, you don't need multiple copies of a game for multiple people to have separate accounts. With a PC game such as Starcraft 2, you'd need to buy the game once for each person. So for multiple people sharing a system, the cost for XBL would be less overall if the alternative is buying the same games multiple times. There are other pros and cons for the different online frameworks as well, but simply saying XBL is more expensive isn't entirely accurate.

Your writing makes it hard to tell what you're asking (you're linked website is in Spanish, so that makes sense), but if this is what you wanted to know:

Construct 2 - Closed source, commercial (though test builds are free for the time being)

Construct Classic - Open source, free

If you have a GTX 400/500 (possibly others?) GPU, there's a bug which messes up textures when they're loaded/set in the image editor. It is usually just non-power-of-2 textures, but I've seen it happen to power-of-2 ones as well.

As a side note, I think those who release plugins freely need to state the license for using them. It is assumed "do whatever you want" but to have that actually said is a good idea for legal reasons. This is also more important if some paid plugins are added into the mix.

To be clear, about the 50-50 pay being fair, are you asking the other developers or the community in general?

Looking at the RakNet licenses, it seems (unless I read something wrong) you can make up to $100,000 in gross revenue before they make you spend $15,000 on a commercial license plus interest each month if you don't pay. The license comparison chart shows a "Budget" license ($7,500 unless you make over $1 million), but I can't find the actual license form for that.

http://www.jenkinssoftware.com/pricing.html

I know it is unlikely anyone would make that much money from their game, but I still don't like the license.

> Light object can do things Sprite can't. If I remember correctly, Sprite doesn't work with Shadow Caster.

>

I thought the light object was the source, and a sprite must have the shadow caster behavior to create shadows

This thread about the same thing was created recently:

Light object can do things Sprite can't. If I remember correctly, Sprite doesn't work with Shadow Caster.

If this can do what I'm hoping it can do, it should be VERY useful and far quicker than certain previous methods of doing certain things.