Ashley's Forum Posts

  • I don't think that analogy works - you can continue using the software after your updates expire. Magazines don't really provide continued utility and value after the first time you've read them.

    IMO it's the same both ways: you either pay for new features when a new major version comes out (traditional software), or you pay for new features by getting a new license when your updates expire (what we propose). Or, you do neither in both cases, and simply can continue to use some old software. Another benefit of our way is you don't have to sit around waiting for major releases - it's up to you when and if you renew.

    We're well aware C2 isn't quite there yet - if we could snap our fingers and have a huge piece of software done instantly, we would, but it's a very long and complex process. The alpha licenses are significantly marked down to reflect the limited functionality. I also think they provide a very good deal - especially the 10 year early-adopter license - because if you agree we'll have a mature program and several exporters well within that time, you get all that for a very low price, and for a long time. (If you wait, you might miss out on the deal.)

  • chrisbrobs, cool game! I think you can just upload all the files to dropbox though, and people can play it directly in their browser without downloading/having to have WinRAR. That's what other people seem to have done, anyway.

  • Can you make a .capx with the exact cases that don't work and send it to me? Thanks.

  • It's not a subscription - you can choose not to renew after your upgrade license expires, and you can still use the software fully, and you're not nagged. You can choose when, or if, you get a new license, based on if you need new features. It's up to you.

    Compare to buying a traditional software package, where you buy one version of the software. A new major version comes out with new features. You can choose when, or if, you upgrade to the new major version, based on if you need new features. It's up to you.

    These seem to be pretty equivalent to me - the reason we're going with the former is we don't plan on having "major updates". We'll just be releasing regular small updates indefinitely - a bit like Google Chrome - rather than infrequent, big hefty major updates - like Internet Explorer.

  • You mean opacity? You can't yet, but this is added in the next build.

    If you mean alpha, you need to install an image editor that supports alpha, and I find Paint.NET is good.

  • Mipey's right, if you can name a private variable "my+variable", then the expression to access it is:

    Sprite.my+variable

    which the expression parser will read as "Sprite.my [add] variable" and throw an error either for 'variable' not being a system expression or 'my' not being a Sprite instance variable. I don't think it's a big deal - just use a letter or character instead, say.

  • The exporter SDK (like the HTML5 exporter) will be open source and free for anyone to use as they see fit.

    Obviously it's even harder to say what we'll be doing over a 10 year scale. You should look at it as an investment: we can't guarantee what we'll do and when, but it could work out a very nice deal given how much cheaper it is than full licenses further down the road.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • KrushBrother - sorry, I assumed you had voted, because you said it was a no from you.

  • But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.

    I don't think you should put a vote against the licensing model because you don't like the features - they're different things. If we did an EXE exporter, that would not change the proposed licensing model! So the question is, is it a good licensing model?

    We've been over the EXE exporter in other threads - we knew we'd disappoint many people with HTML5, but we took a risk and did it anyway, and we still want to eventually produce an EXE runtime. So hopefully everyone is happy in the end!

    The fact that you said that c2 is going to take up to 2 years to catch construct 0.x.

    0.x was developed very irregularly, part time, in odd evenings here and there. If we go full-time, I think we could catch up within 6 months - but that's not a guarantee (I probably said 2 years to avoid disappointment, or because we weren't planning to go fulltime yet). Feel free to wait until you think it's mature enough to buy a license, but then you might end up paying more (because the early adopter licenses are significantly marked down).

    I think being a games publisher or "the youtube of games" is way too crowded a market. There are a ridiculous number of other game arcades out there, some even running on HTML5 now. What's so special about a Scirra arcade? I really can't see why people would come to our site over an established arcade, so I don't think that's the way to go for us. Besides, we want to attract game creators, not just game players. We're about the program.

    lucid: as the original post says, the HTML5 exporter and all its plugins will be open source. Third party exporters and plugins will be allowed, either free or commercial, regardless of whether or not they're on an official "exchange".

  • Ive spent thousands of dollars already on the other apps,pc's and licences.

    Sounds like you want us to give away C2 free just because you spent a lot on your computer Well, it sounds like you realise we need to do this, so we'll do our best to keep you happy anyway!

    what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing

    Perhaps it'll be a good idea several months down the line, but for plugins to be a profitable business we very much first need a solid, mature and well-established editor. There's also the question of whether users will pay for something as small as a plugin (compared to the full blown editor), and a risk that users get the feeling they're being swindled having to pay for every little feature. Then there's the risks of things getting ugly if two people develop one plugin, one being sold, and one free, which also introduces compatibility problems when you have two ways to do the same thing. So I don't think it's something we should consider this early on - it seems risky, plus we need to get the editor and HTML5 parts sorted first, and I feel what I've proposed is the best licensing model for that so far.

    Edit: Gullanian ninja'd me on some of that

  • Ahh there goes the free stuff.$149.00 for a licence?

    I don't understand - you can get a license for ?39, and the demo is free. What's worrying you?

    Might I ask what do you plan on making "official" as far as that goes?

    It's hard to say, right now, what we'll be working on in the next 2-3 years. A desktop exporter sounds like it'd be popular with our existing userbase (and could cover both Mac and PC). But it depends on a lot of factors. For example, if IE adopts WebGL, it'd probably be better to do a WebGL exporter first. Or, if a thousand people turn up all screaming for iOS native, we'd do that. Basically, we want to try to give people what they want, so it depends. I'll probably run some more polls in future to see what most people are after. (Note: please don't derail this thread with 'I'd like this exporter' posts! We'll sort that out in separate polls later - keep it on the licensing model)

  • Hmm... Demo users still get constant nag screens though (after expiry). Users who have paid can jump back to the demo after their license expires and use the features with nags (after a couple of months delay when the demo catches up), or just sit tight and not be bothered. I think that works OK actually.

  • OK, forget the previous model. Have a look at this - this is the proposed model for when C2 has a suitable featureset:

    30 day demo

    • free and fully functional
    • nag screen after demo expires
    • no DRM/copy protection
    • probably a couple of months time lag before new features become available in demo

    Discount license

    • For indie/personal use where associated revenue < ?20k/yr, or non-profit/educational use
    • Buy for ?39 future-proofed with 2 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?149 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates
    • All official new exporters and plugins provided as free updates
    • After expiry, you keep the software indefinitely nag-free, you just can't get new updates/exporters that are released

    Commercial license

    • As with discount, but for business/commercial use or where associated revenue is > ?20k/yr
    • Buy for ?149 future-proofed with 2 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?599 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates

    Also:

    Bulk licenses available on request

    Closed-source editor, open-source BSD HTML5 exporter

    No splash screens on any creations at any point

    And... early adopter licenses

    To help kick things off, raise some money, and give you guys a good deal for getting involved early, we'd also like to introduce Discount Early-Adopter licenses for a limited time (for indies/personal use only, as per Discount license) - a bit like a preorder. These are significantly marked down - there probably won't be such a low price ever again!

    • Buy for ?19 future proofed with 3 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?89 future proofed with 10 years of free updates

    How does that sound?

  • Hey there, Kearel!

    While I am a really friendly guy and I allow other people to have other opinions from me, I would really appreciate it if you didn't bash gamemaker.

    I don't think anybody means to bash gamemaker, it's just you'll naturally encounter a strong bias on the forums of any one particular program. As I said, GM have a lot more users than us right now anyway.

    DravenX: protecting images isn't really worthwhile, as I said, print screen is going to get around even the most advanced encryption, which kind of makes even bothering to protect them pointless. However, it's much more serious if people can reverse engineer the game's code and get a useful, editable project back. So yes, we'll throw in some obfuscation to exported projects at some point in the future, to prevent that type of reverse engineering.

  • Well game maker's exe's are very secure indeed(no files can be extracted).

    Haven't they had problems with people decompiling games since forever?

    Also, I don't see much point protecting the sprite image files - copyright prevents anyone using them and it's obvious if they have ripped them, and you can't protect against good old print screen, so if they want the textures they got them. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where somebody ripped sprites and made money without getting the legal banhammer. It seems to me that protecting images is just a load of paranoia.