newt's Forum Posts

  • Oh I know its a lot of work, at least initially, and there would probably have to be some outsourcing at some point.

    The thing is you could outsource just about all of it, and leave plenty of free time to work on the C2 project.

    It mostly depends on what you want, or have to invest in it.

    Its definitely not something that could happen overnight, but just like adding adds to the site the longer its up the more likely it is to bring in income.

    Also regarding adds I think its safe to say that that could bring in as much if not more in one month, than an entire year of donations.

  • my 2 cents on the scirra game arcade service as a sale. I feel the total opposite. I'd rather pay to dewatermark an otherwise fully working version of construct.

    I don't want to sell my game on scirra arcade. I want to sell it on steam, itunes, and the android app store. no offense, but I never even consider buying games from a "all games here made by our special tool" stores.

    I would hope anything I was trying to sell could stand on it's own. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a scirra arcade. I'm just saying I think construct 1 or c2 is powerful enough to make "real" games. I think making the business model revolve around a scirra store wouldn't work. The truly successful games would sell better elsewhere, leaving scirra with only profits from less successful games.

    I still think the most important thing is to decide exactly which part to sell, probably making it a pay this much if your game makes over 100,000 type license. Make it cheap enough it isn't worth the trouble of pirating, and I think it will go far, and ash and the gang can live comfortably as we head toward construct 3

    I think your assuming way too much here.

    I'm not saying you would have to sell the games only via Scirra. One of the main selling points is to bypass nonsense like that.

    Also I'm not sure what you mean by "real", but as it is right now you cant sell your Construct games on Itunes, Steam, or Android anyway.

    Think less arcade, more service, and probably no marketing.

    You sell the game, they just handle the billing, hosting, etc.

  • This really isn't going anywhere is it?

    So far just about everything has been about how to take things away rather than how to keep things working, and make a profit.

    What if you could keep everything necessary, open sourced, and free for use, while still supporting indie game devs, something that has become synonymous with the names Scirra, and Construct?

    All while making a profit?

    The answer is literally staring you in the face right now.

    Rather than selling a program outright, which is bound to go into saturation at some point.

    Why not offer a service to the developers?

    As it stands its relatively easy for someone to upload their game and disseminate it for free.

    But when it comes to actually selling that game the options dwindle.

    My thought is, why don't you just make a site that will handle the selling of those games for a profit?

    Sure there are sites that do that now, but most of them are terrible to the dev.

    They will take a huge percent of what is sold, and some even force you to hand over your rights.

    Sure you wouldn't make as much as those sites do, but as people find out about the no bs policy they will come here.

    You could even offer other services, such as selling plugs, resources, etc.

    Think it over, its already happening with other venues, and there's no limit to its potential.

  • Just want to point out there are other alternatives to selling a product.

    Adds for example. Yeah I know boo / hiss, but let me ask this: Would you rather put up with a few adds, or pay for play?

    Also what ever happened to that rts you were working on Ash?

    I remember seeing a few screens, and thinking I cant wait to see what he comes up with.

    Dude, be the dream, live the dream.

  • power = distance(sprite.x,sprite.y,mousex,mousey)

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Just thinking out loud here...

    One of the issues with closed source is the testing phase is not public... generally.

    No company is going to want to advertise bugs in new product.

    But, that can slow down development, more testers, more bug squashing.

    What if you had the option to join a beta phase, and in return you could opt out of having a splash screen?

    As to the nerfing of features.

    That's just asinine IMHO. All it does is alienate users, and raise the possibility of cracks.

    It should full featured with the options of free game equals free use, paid games equal paid use with the options there of a one time payment, or a percentage of profits.

    Along with an indie, and pro license I suppose.

    Not sure how the pro would work unless its per installation.

    The 100,000$ thing is a bit iffy. This is an indie program, and profit margins that high are going to be rare.

    That coupled with the lack of cross platform, or console support is not much of an incentive for the devs.

  • Bug added.

  • Well there's only one reason why there's not 50 different flavors of C0.x floating around, that being PROF-UIS.

    Now the thing is, even if they could export a non official version they still couldn't sell it, since its GPL.

    But the worse part is if some idiot were to try that, it would fall upon the guys that wrote the code for free, to hire a layer, etc to try to stop it, with very little chance of reimbursement I might add.

    On the other side of that, if you were to make a closed source the chances of piracy go up exponentially.....

    Same thing goes for trying to recoup profits for that as well.

    The only bright side of that is that those thieves probably couldn't make a go of selling games anyway. Indie pirates.... argh?

    I'd suggest you guys take a look at working business models out there, and see what they did.

    GM, and Stencyl are going the Apple route, and with the potential of HTML5.... that could work pretty good.

    It would, however require a bit of an investment.

  • That is a bug.

    Its somehow not being saved in the editor.

    Testing shows you can set the variable instances at runtime using pick "nth", so that part works correctly.

  • Yeah the licensing is a little vague, and HTML5 even given the potential, is still a bit "iffy" at the moment.

    My main concern is HTML5 is C2's only exporter, so who knows what this would do to development of C2 itself.

    It might drive the development of an exe exporter, or just drive some away.

    Either way it's too early to say.

  • I don't see any reason this will affect plugins. What are you worried about?

    Might slow development from outside devs.

  • Question:

    How is this going to affect plugs, since they have to be written for each exporter?

  • [quote:28co4kyd]are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?

    There would be no source.

    I think HTML5 would be a good choice, if that's the route you want to go.

    There are a lot of pros, and cons.... obviously.

    But , in the end its your choice. I think all we can do is point out those advantages / disadvantages.

  • Just curious would it be possible to use the html background as a background for canvas?

    IE:

    body {
  background-image: url("http://yoursite.com/images/image_name.gif");
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
}[/code:xpp89n0h]

  • Decipede!

    A little game I've been working on.

    Runs ok in FF 3... freakishly well on Chrome.

    A bit more to add, and obviously delta time ... needs some work.