Elliott's Forum Posts

  • Monetisation plugins are a tricky area for me - whilst I can appreciate that the nuances of them make them tricky to develop for, as the developer has to account for updates and changes, their immense proximity to the financial success of an app makes using 3rd party plugins massively unattractive.

    I can see why Scirra seemingly don't prioritize monetization - could you imagine the outcry every time it didn't work flawlessly? That said, Facebook seems to be moving away from their "move fast and break things" ethos that makes working with their products such a nightmare, and if there's one thing they've always been solid for, it's advertising (...) - so I hope a resolution can be found here.

  • Tom - Outstanding! I'm definitely losing an evening tonight playing around

  • donald Cela - Madness Combat - great game!

  • I mean, if you look at Facebook's 3rd reccomendation...

    https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ga ... mendations

  • I can't think of anyone that wouldn't be interested... the best case I could think of in this situation would be for you to present a game before and after optimistion; do you have any examples?

  • Let's dispell this fiction that C3's pricing is somehow unaffordable for commercial developers - C3 costs the same as Apple's developer license for God's sake.

    The biggest selling point for me is the build server - to get a comporable ease of use service (i.e Cocoon) you'd have to pay $86 at least - for $13 more you get the build service and the entire game engine with C3! And that's not even the best bit...

    No splash screens.

    If you want to make an iOS game without a splash screen with Cocoon, get ready to pay $500 (per game) on top of the monthly service fee. With C3, no splash screen.

    Saving $500 up front justifies literally 5 years of C3 subscription for me. Can you guys remember how far C2 got in 5 years? That was Ashley working alone - the subscription model allows for Scirra to scale their developer resources atleast threefold; I cannot wait to see what happens next.

  • An interesting idea for future jams would be to have users opt-in via the editor to a "jam mode" that would impose a rule set (be it a time limit, behaviour restrictions, event limit etc). Heck, the exports could be signed as part of a verification.

    This is something I can only see being viable in a web based IDE.

    This doesn't really add anything to thread, but it just popped up...

  • iOS users are certainly much more receptive to premium apps and IAP, and are far more common in the West, which has notably better CPM; so I wouldn't be surprised at that figure.

    Android has quantity, iOS has quality; this true for both commercialised users and apps themselves.

  • Interesting! I was getting a 5x performance increase for behaviour vs events

  • I'll admit that whilst I can see the need for fledgling devs to see how the sausage is made, I'm with newt in hoping that the new runtime more closely marries the SDK to the event sheet system - it's one of the few ways I can see modular events being possible.

    The new addon library makes uses of version control - would forking be a future consideration? Developers submitting new features to existing plugins via soft forks might be the compromise for Scirra maintaining control whilst devs get to stand on the shoulders of giants.

  • There's a bit of misinformation here, firstly, digital goods have a 14 day refund period, not 30.

    "Sales are final" refers to the concept of consumer happiness - as in, "you, as a consumer, are happy to proceed and conclude this transaction"; and in doing so you void the possibility of disputing the sale because, and only because, you *changed your mind*. This is completely different from a product not being fit for purpose, which comes next:

    Scirra then follow this up by stating that they are compliant with UK sales laws; which is perfectly reasonable. A business is not responsible for educating a consumer on their legal rights, and an attempt to do so may result in further complications, as accidentally misinforming someone of their rights may be construed as attempting to falsely inform them; which would be a real crime.

    Given that Scirra is a game engine company and not the Citizen's Advice Bureau, I can understand why they were simply state that they comply with the relevant laws and deal with any future situations as and when they arise.

    I'm unaware of the thread in questions, but the T&Cs above seem perectly in line with eCommerce laws.

  • You can use the browser object to get the page URL, from here you could make the entire project non-responsive if it wasn't accessed from your domain.

    Though any real contract will give you legal protection that is just as, if not more, effective.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I am giddy thinking about the future implications for the editor with a web based exchange - a game engine with the addon/extensability of a code editor like Brackets or VS Code is intoxicating.

    OfferDaddy don't seem trustworthy at all - I've heard they create fake social profiles to pose on forums pretending to be members of the public whilst shilling their product.

    Any developer serious about making money would stay far away from them.

  • ...And 30 seconds later I found the answer...

    You can, it's the properties panel under the editor tab! I was looking for it in the view menu...