The main website needs changing to reflect the new changes, the way it seems now from looking at it is that V2 is free and open source and the Fundry link is still there etc. I guess this will change soon though because i read somewhere a new site is being made which makes sense.

[quote:3kcucnuw]I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

What if someone was still using the earlier open-source SourceForge builds? As far as i know that would keep the same open-source GPL license it had when downloaded. I might be totally wrong but i think company's can only apply changes to the current version rather than older versions also.

This seems like a good update but i am not sure i like the idea of demo/trial betas so early on. It kind of makes me think C2 would have been better to have remained in development a bit longer then just released as commercial. It would have avoided a lot of confusion switching from open-source to closed commercial anyway that is for sure.

It would be the same if the threshold was 20k, 50k or 100k + or if the commercial license price is �149+ or less. It's just my opinion that the difference is still royalty's in a way, i guess other people don't like it having that label though.

For the record i am not arguing against that plan or anything also so don't get me wrong here. I think the suggested commercial license price is totally reasonable.

In my opinion any software where i have to pay more after i reach a certain amount of earnings is taking a share of profits because you are forced to pay the difference between the licenses.

That money is taken from profits so it is like paying royalties just that it's a 1 time payment each time it is required rather than a per sale system.

It wouldn't be a problem though if anyone was earning that much money either.

For Playmaker it is 3rd party pricing however, they are charging based on how much they think is fair for the time they put into it rather than a thought out price for a game maker.

You can't really compare the 2 though anyway in my opinion, they are not really the same as this is like a optional helper tool. Basically some of the plugins for Unity are almost like game makers or design programs themselves as they are so advanced.

This is not the only thing like that either there is other addons that make things simple with less coding like Vizio and Strumpy Shader Editor. Then a load of tools to edit scenes/maps etc simply, and there is now new addons released all the time.

I know i might get negative feedback for this comment but in my opinion Unity is on another level compared to Construct. Maybe a few years down the line Construct 2 might be able to match it though when it is more complete and professional, right now it only allows 2D though but Unity allows 3D also and soon flash exporting and then probably other formats in the future.

I'll tell you one thing, any creator that makes me share profit with them is one I will forget like last week's trash.

In a way that is what Construct 2 plans to do, if you reach a certain amount of earnings then you have to pay for a higher priced license. If you were earning ?20k/yr though and needed a commercial license it wouldn't be much of a problem though.

I guess you are talking about a per sale percentage share system but i haven't seen many game makers use that, i doubt many people would want to do that.

Not trying to argue here but you are wrong as far as i know. This is a user made addon and not a "Unity release" it has been released for a while also and was a free beta before and i honestly don't think they would be trying to be a competitor plus it uses a node based system.

This would allow 3d as well as 2d also, maybe C2 will do that later though?

I don't see why there is problem with GM vs Construct vs MMF2 discussion now really because i often see Construct users here bashing on other apps. Also it gets the attention of GM and MMF2 users with threads like the bobo the bear one or the recent Game Maker goes HTML5 etc.

For GM talk in this thread though it has mainly been things like comparing the price plan GM uses or why would someone pay a lot more when they can buy GM which is a great app for a lower price. Then C1 fans say GM is not as good but if anyone stands up for them then it's problem but the original discussions before that were valid.

If you are working with indie game makers there is almost always other members of the same community that also use and like other apps so if they are being attacked they take it as a insult also. We all just want to make games etc but at the same time there should be more respect for the people that use other programs also.

I have a similar question:

What about the current sourceforge page for Construct 2, will that be closed? or will that stay online but have a note development stopped and just not be updated?

It's fairly easy to re-create, if you add a text object and then set the text as "\s \\\\" when you run the layout it only shows as "s \\" and removes extra \ characters.

The magazine analogy is just wrong. Once your magazine is out of date, you can't put it on the shelf and go grab a newer copy at no cost, with the only drawback being that the new magazine politely asks you to pay for it every time you open it.

That analogy works quite well, 2 years of updates is in a way like getting 2 years of magazines. A new magazine is like a point release of software. Once you have updated your software it's not like you go back to older point releases to have less features and more bugs again either.

With both you want to keep updating and getting the latest thing, if you use a subscription with both that happens. That is not the comparison i wanted to make though, just the point that just like a magazine it still falls into a subscription model.

Construct would have a lot more value than magazines though because it lets you create games or anything you can think of and is a amazing program. I was comparing the business model and if you take the basic concept in a way it is very much the same way a magazine company does it.

For the record anything where you maintain set payments is a subscription. Like with magazines you can by a single copy at anytime or take out a subscription. If you already have a subscription and don't continue it you can still take out another later on can't you. You also keep all those magazines you got with the subscription.

Saying subscription is not really facepalm at all just that "2 years upgrades" is a nicer way of saying it.

In it's current form though it's not quite at that point in time though yet is it and is still un-finished. There is also only HTML5 export now so this all really depends on when it goes commercial. I hope that will happen much later on though because then most of what i said is invalid as it would be a good purchased, otherwise i see nothing that wrong with the points i make though because you would basically be buying a beta.

I will put it this way then -

If more free versions are made and then once in a usable state the product then stops getting free updates but has a price instead i will most likely buy it.

If not and it's released i a week or two i probably won't because it's like buying a beta, a large donation or a impulse buy as it will take a while to get to the quality of Construct 1 or have a EXE exporter again.

I guess the main question is:

When do you actually plan to start selling Construct 2?