Another vote for this.

I can even think of text-heavy games that might benefit from ~5 fps, so they don't drain a mobile battery.

Modularity, it's a massive feature but honestly it's really hard to think of stuff C2 can't do... It's less of a "What's next?" and more "What's left?"

Wow seriously? You guys lack imagination

I don't mean this personally —, it's just that I've been seeing a lot of people espousing this exact view here. I know you're just praising construct, but hey, here goes a list of ideas:

• Modularity
• Improvements to the SDK (more edittime controls, ability to spawn custom windows, access to plugin storage, more data types, plugin dependency system, ability to create behaviors for plugins)
• Separation of the several "polygons" (i.e. collision polygon and shadow polygon), as well as ability to hook into them (i.e. get the normal, for "mirror" surfaces)
• Object-specific event sheets (this might be confusing if implemented improperly though)
• Sub-layouts, more than one level running at a time (i.e. splitscreen, options menu, mini-games)
• Better interface creation options (Right now it's a big mess, custom controls are all over the place, making resizeable windows is hard. Hopefully modularity saves the day)
• Collaboration/Simultaneous editing
• In-editor macro/automation support

I suppose after we get modules, the editor itself will need some love, as well as the SDK.

With the store coming online soon, though, I expect modules to improve C2 by about 300%, especially if we can nest modules infinitely deep.

effects [...] mobile

There's your problem.

On a more serious note, did you try isolating the problem? Make a minimal capx with as few things as possible, but with the problem still ocurring, and we might be able to help you better.

I'm sorry I can't be of more help, my experience with mobile and with wrappers is pretty limited.

So I'm just going to ramble a bit about the license, most of what I say is probably going to be irrelevant, but since you asked for feedback, here goes:

[quote:1eebgirg]If the license is issued to a named employee and that employee is no longer under

employment by the business, you must email Scirra and inform them.

You must inform Scirra of a licensed employee's termination in all cases or only if you want a new license? What if I terminate an employee but he keeps the license? Shouldn't the "named employee license" only be usable by said person within the context of the business or can the employee use the license for its own benefit?

[quote:1eebgirg]When the Startup has generated more than the permitted lifetime revenue

Might want to define what "revenue" means, preferrably in section A.1. Does it mean profit or raw income? Before or after taxes? Does paying the employee constitute an expense?

[quote:1eebgirg]You do not need to pay any Royalties for any content you publish.

You don't need to pay *Scirra*, other conditions might apply.

[quote:1eebgirg]You are not permitted to reverse engineer any part of Construct 2 or the licesning system.

Typo. should say licensing instead of licesning. Also a waiver for "explicit written permission" might apply here for cases where one might want to reverse engineer construct 2 to create plugins, modify xml, fix bugs, or create exporters/wrappers. This already happens frequently with beefier plugins like spriter.

May also put in a clause saying you're free to modify and/or reverse engineer the OUTPUT of the program.

[quote:1eebgirg]Licenses for Construct 2 are indefinite and entitle you to free updates to any future

releases of the Construct 2 editor for life permitting you are in possession of a valid and

fully paid for license and you have not broken any terms of this agreement.

Might want to reinforce that free upgrades are for the "2" version of the editor. You aren't entitled to a free upgrade to Construct 3. Also might want to add that you're not entitled to free access to any addons to construct that may or may not happen.

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee may provide access to Licensed Content to no more than ten Authorised Users

simultaneously provided that access to Licensed Content is used solely for the purpose of

creation or reproduction of Works for Distribution made by or on behalf of Licensee

Missing a comma between simultaneously and provided. Also the 10 users seems a bit arbitrary but whatever.

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee may use the Licensed Content in up to 1 commercial projects.

Please get rid of the "commercial" project. A project is a project is a project. Even with the definition of "commercial" that follows this statement, the license still allows you to use the content to make projects with no intention of being commercial (such as fangames or portfolio pieces) that indirectly generate revenue (by attracting traffic to other ad-supported sections of the site, for instance).

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee is permitted to use the Licensed Content in unlimited free projects.

See above. All projects generate revenue in some form, even if said form is "recognition" - which is later converted to cash through becoming a reference in the area.

Let the project creator handle these issues with the seller through written agreement if he/she wishes to use licensed content for "free".

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee may not distribute Licensed Content in a manner meant to enable third parties to creative

derivative works incorporating Licensed Content.

should be "create" instead of "creative".

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee may not incorporate the Licensed Content in advertisments, broadcast TV,

theatrical or movie releases. There is exemption is for online advertisements that are

solely advertising the Work For Distribution.

Or if the work itself is an advertisement. Like I said, there's an use case of construct 2 where the user creates small advergames. Also, the word "online" doesn't make sense here. What if a game I created is being advertised via print, or offline digital media?

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee shall not use the Licensed Content in a manner that violates the law of any

applicable jurisdiction.

This is untenable and impractical. Different laws are often contradicting, the licensee isn't obliged to know all laws his work may appear on. A clause where the licensee accepts liability for his work in all applicable jurisdictions would be way way better, and allow you to get rid of the "pornographic/defamatory" clause. Also you mention pornography but neglect violence and gambling, which makes this clause extra-weird.

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensee must with immediate effect stop using the Licensed Content, destroy, delete and

remove the Licensed Content from Licensee’s premises, computer systems and storage.

And inform all parties who may have copies of the licensed content to do the same - Example: you must remove your stuff from kongregate as well.

[quote:1eebgirg]Licensed Content purchased at an exclusive price are permitted for use on unlimited commercial projects within the terms of this Agreement

Get rid of the word "commercial" here, it makes no sense. Add a disclaimer stating that you may still not resell the content directly (actually it would be better if you defined "project" in section A.1). Also merging C.4 and C.5 would be better for clarity (the heading "royalty free license" makes no sense since royalty free license is the whole license).

[quote:1eebgirg]If you receive a refund for payment of Licensed Content in part or full, your license is no

longer valid with immediate effect.

"you must destroy/delete/remove yadda yadda yadda" <-- reinforce this

[quote:1eebgirg]You may not use the e-books or any part of the e-books content for any commercial, promotional, institutional, corporate or teaching purposes.

Unless everyone else you're interacting with also has a license? I mean if you buy the ebook for everyone then you could use it for teaching within your organization right?

[quote:1eebgirg]If source code is provided (in the form of a CapX file in the download of the Licensed

Content, the “Source Code”) Licensee is permitted to modify any aspect of the provided

Source Code (permitting a valid Construct 2 license is in Licensee’s possesion) and create

derivatives of the work and publish the modified Licensed Content and derivatives on the

Domain Name, as long as the modifications and derivatives do not breach any stated

restrictions or terms listed in this Agreement.

You shouldn't be able to modify the source and resell the source. I.E.: The way it is now, I could buy games in the scirra store, reskin them, and resell them on FGL, and I wouldn't even be breaching the license.

[quote:1eebgirg]An exclusive price means that the item from that point onwards will be delisted from the

Scirra store and no longer for sale.

Can it be relisted? What if the seller modifies it and relists it? Can the seller still maintain it listed on other sites? Can I then list it?

As far as modifying the royalty free assets themselves, what are sellers thoughts on this? If you sell graphics/sounds would you mind if someone were to heavily modify them?

As long as you're within the scope of the license, I think anything goes. For instance if you purchase a sprite for an enemy and then modify it with different colors to represent different team/champion/boss/difficulty versions of the enemy, I think it's ok that you only have to use one license, since it's all the same work.

I also think it's ok to purchase a piece of music and convert it to some weird underground format and heavily modify/distort it, as long as you have a license and you're using it for one project only, that should all be in the scope.

Besides, construct 2 itself does modification on sprites (by compressing and composing into a tilesheet) and conversions on audio, it would be super weird if construct automatically violated the license.

Also Tom, I sent you an e-mail requesting seller access to the store, did you get it? I've been having some issues with my outbox.

The hardcore Linux users( which you pretty much have to be if you are a regular user ) will usually find a way.

Hell I got it to work on a really old pc using an offshoot of Ubunto, and I'm a novice at best.

Also don't forget there are more flavors than Baskin Robins, and most can switch between those with ease.

Oh, and dont forget Wine, has anyone tried Wine?

Linux users aren't second class citizens, the responsibility of "finding a way" lies with the developer if they want to claim Linux support, for anything but the most basic levels of proficiency by the end user. Wine doesn't count as "Linux support".

In addition, Linux represents a bigger market than mac, as well as being a prerequisite for many marketplaces, such as the IndieBundle, mentioned by the OP.

Wow this post turned out huge!

Regarding the new license:

You really should number the topics/clauses, makes it a lot easier to navigate.

[quote:2k63fmg7]Licensee may not incorporate the Licensed Content in advertisments, broadcast TV,

theatrical or movie releases.

What if the licensee purchased the content to create an advergame or interactive banner? What if the licensed content (say a sprite or a piece of music) is featured in an advertisement for the game?

[quote:2k63fmg7]Licensee shall not use the Licensed Content in a manner that violates the law of any

applicable jurisdiction.

I think it's unreasonable to request that the licensee abides by the laws of all jurisdictions the content may end up on. It would be better if the licensee just acccepted all liability on behalf of the content creator, no? This is especially relevant for licensees who might want to use the licensed content as part of controversial games that are illegal in some jurisdictions but not in others, such as porn/gambling games. IMHO they should be allowed to do that as long as they assume responsibility.

[quote:2k63fmg7]Licensee shall not use the Licensed Content in a pornographic or defamatory manner, whether

directly or in context or juxtaposition with other materials.

Again, why not? If the licensee accepts all liability, I don't see any reason why this should be forbidden. Some people create porn games using construct 2 already (gamemaker for instance can't be used for porn games because their license forbids it).

In fact, the "licensee accepts all liability" should probably be on top of the contract.

[quote:2k63fmg7]The license contained in this Agreement terminates automatically without notice from Seller

if Licensee fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement.

His client might also violate the license, in which case the licensee should assume responsibility. Might want to add that in there.

[quote:2k63fmg7]This license covers assets you purchase with the exclusive price.

If you purchase an asset an an exclusive price, you are also bound by the Royalty Free

License as stated above. However, as a Licensee you are permitted to use the Licensed

Content on unlimited commercial and non commercial Works for Distribution.

I think those two should be merged into the same section.

[quote:2k63fmg7]You are not permitted to modify the games in any way (including but not limited to removal

of copyright notices).

This part should mention modding and map editors, which are legal modifications of the game provided said game supports it. IMHO a "no reverse-engineering" clause would be more appropriate, but IANAL.

[quote:2k63fmg7]You are not permitted to copy or publish the games, or any part of the games content (text

or graphics) without explicit written consent from the Seller.

The "explicit written consent from the seller" is sometimes present and sometimes not, in several portions of the agreement. Why not add a "clauses may be waived with explicit written consent from the seller" in the top of the license and be done with it?

[quote:2k63fmg7]Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format

are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.

This means teaching as well, right? I mean since learning and teaching are sort of the same general thing. Especially since you mention you can show it to "friends". I mean all my students (who pay me) are also my friends, right? TBH I think source files should be allowed in teaching but it's up to you.

[quote:2k63fmg7]You may not use the e-books or any part of the e-books

content for any commercial, promotional, institutional, corporate or teaching purposes.

Maybe waive this clause as long as students/workers/clients/recipients also purchase their own copies (or you purchase copies for them)? Also I think "fair use" laws apply here, I don't know if not mentioning them invalidates the whole clause.

[quote:2k63fmg7]You are not permitted to modify the books in any way (including but not limited to removal

of copyright notices).

Allow conversion to different formats as long as its for your own purposes (i.e. pdf -> epub)? This is probably nitpicking on my part though.

[quote:2k63fmg7]You fully own all copyright and other rights to any content you generate from scratch

within the tools that the tool was specifically designed to create permitting you have a

valid license for the tool and you have paid in full for the tool.

However, the tool author should be exempted from liability (tool is provided "as is"). In addition, licensee should also abide by the tool's license if it has one. In fact, the same goes for the full commercial non-capx games (but maybe not the assets). Maybe look at how steam handles this part, since all games there have their own licenses besides the general steam license.

[quote:2k63fmg7]License may use Licensed content for any purposes within the terms of this

agreement including but not limited to pay services, without any royalties.

Typo there. Should be "Licensee".

[quote:2k63fmg7]If source code is provided (in the form of a CapX file in the download of the Licensed

Content, the “Source Code”) Licensee is permitted to modify any aspect of the provided

Source Code and create derivatives of the work and publish the modified Licensed Content

and derivatives on the Domain Name, as long as the modifications and derivatives do not

breach any stated restrictions or terms listed in this Agreement.

This is confusing. I get the impression that the licensee is authorized to create derivative works and then resell said derivative works under his own chosen license even if minimal modification is done.

[quote:2k63fmg7]If no Source Code is provided, Licensee is only permitted to modify the game to support

their commercial endeavourers, including but not limited to pay walls, providing the

Licensed Content as a paid for service for visitors on the Domain. Licensee shall not

modify any other aspects of the Licensed Content that strictly do not require modification

for the purposes of integration into commercial services.

So the licensee can modify the game and sell it, but not give it away for free? What are those "aspects of the Licensed Content that strictly do not require modification"? I don't think I understand this part.

[quote:2k63fmg7]Licensed Content may not be used contrary to any restriction on use indicated herein.

Well duh, that's the whole purpose of a license, no? Also right after this part the weird "abide by all laws" and "no porn" clauses show up again.

[quote:2k63fmg7]refer to the sales figure on the item page to see how many have been sold.

Might want to rephrase that as "the sales figure on the item page can be used as indication to see how many have been sold" to avoid liability (such as a bug with the counters).

[quote:2k63fmg7]Company who purchased the license becomes insolvent or enters liquidation processes

I guess this prevents the licenses from being transferred through liquidation? Nice trick.

[quote:2k63fmg7]Domain name the Licensed Content is published on expires and is not renewed

Well if the domain is renewed by another party, or transfers ownership, then the license should expire as well no? Or are you explicitly authorizing site-as-well-as-site-content sales? This probably is minor nitpicking on my part as well and is unlikely to ever be a problem.

Wow I can't wait to try the new store! I already sent you an e-mail Tom!

I believe one-use-per-project is pretty fair, however most stores don't even specify the "commercial" part - a project is a project, regardless of whether it's free. I think this limitation should apply here too, otherwise users might get away with a "free" project when in reality they're earning a ton of money via ad revenue or even licensing (i.e. selling the rights to ArmorGames), and you'll have no way to know, since you don't have access to that info.

Also, the license should allow for the buyer to use the asset him/herself or ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT (that is, for a comissioned project) - this is very important! Some people (myself included) often use construct 2 to create advergames or otherwise do comissioned projects, so the license should be transferable (via the "on behalf of a client" clause, not explicit changing as that would be a logistical nightmare) to the sponsor.

Last thing (for now): envato (biggest and IMHO best general asset store) judges the quality of all items and sets prices themselves. While this generates more work for the store administrator, it ensures the quality (and expected price) stay consistent. I personally love the approach, as it removes yet another concern for the seller and buyer.

that's a bit extreme and unnecessary.

I genuinely apologize if I offend anyone with my tone, my intent was to dissuade devs from going with Nintendo, not "hating"/flaming or trolling.

The way I see it (especially since c2 is built on open standards), we should reject this "behind closed doors" approach. We have this nice little construct community here where we help each other, and now Nintendo doesn't trust us, and requires people to sign all sorts of NDAs for what should be public information. I get the need to protect sensitive information, but questions like this one are quite important and should be discussed publicly (that means without "email the nintendo rep in your area" cop-outs).

The reason they have those draconian measures is because they don't trust their systems, and that's quite understandable, considering the wiiU is a marginal improvement on the wii, which itself was a marginal improvement on the GameCube (which itself was quite and underwhelming - and underselling - system).

... Nintendo will not go down so easily. They have the biggest collection of game franchises, they can still resell older games ...

That has always been the problem with Nintendo. They have a good portfolio, but are extremely hostile to third parties.

It appears Nintendo is the only company that manages to make money in Nintendo consoles. See this article, where publishers complain about that exact issue (regarding the wii) and this other article, where Bethesda claims it's too late for third-party support on Wii U.

Nintendo should be trying to woo (pun not intended) independent developers, but they're doing a lousy job. At least Microsoft attempts to foster a community (I don't know if that's the case for xbox, but it sure is for things like SQL Server or .NET).

Fimbul

No one should develop for MS. They use self destructive tactics. In fact many of there divisions end up closing. There rate of trial and success is extremely low. Making for XBox One is a sinking ship.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1819 ... x-division

Oh, I agree completely.

• They gimped XBox live indie games
• f'd up with the whole can't-turn-off-kinect and must-always-be-online (granted, they backed off on that, but the fact that they proposed it in the first place is what scares me).
• killed XNA after hyping it so much, and a bunch of developers still haven't recovered (even clickteam wasted a bunch of resources making a XNA exporter)
• Internet explorer is still way behind everyone else (and they still reject open standards)
• Windows 8 is garbage, office 365 is garbage, windows phones are... well... garbage.

Microsoft is playing catch-up and losing, and everything that made them great (remember the "developers, developers, developers" quote?) is also falling by the wayside.

You shouldn't develop for Nintendo.

You'll be trapped in their NDAs without any support whatsoever for your issues, since you won't be able to ask for help here in the forums, even if the issues you need help with aren't necessarily wiiU related.

Besides, Nintendo is a sinking company, historically with an antiquated closed mentality.

Think about it: you don't even know if your games will work with two screens, and you cannot ask anywhere - you must sign a contract that gives away your rights in order to even know the answer to that question. Does that seem worth it to you?

**** Nintendo.

On 3G it can take 3 seconds to just establish a connection. I cannot understand at all why such restrictions would be put in place. Who is this for and why does it need to be so extraordinarily responsive even over a patchy radio link?

Maybe he's trying to code an interactive banner-game? Trying to fit a game into an ad?

That's the only reason I can think of for such restrictions.

Isn't Ashesh that guy who pirated construct 2?

Yeah it is: https://www.scirra.com/forum/need-justice-ashley_p711788?#p711788

Whoah. Aren't you ashamed of your actions? The efforts you go through in order to steal and deceive take more effort than honest work!

Stop trying to fool people and make your own games! I'm sure no one would mind if you used space blaster's assets to make a bullet-hell game with similar mechanics and sold it, but you're never going to get permission to sell it directly without any effort.

Learn some responsibility, boy!