Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

0 favourites
From the Asset Store
Source code, art assets and music tracks to remake this game
  • I suppose, but with good SDK documentation, the source to the exporter isn't important - and that's a fairly minor disadvantage outweighed by some solid advantages, IMO.

  • Might be a better idea to have the windows exe closed source keeping the html5 exporter open source as the example? To show that you not only support html5 but having it open source too i think would be good for image, where as closed source paid for (whatever you want donation?) windows exe would work.

  • html5 exporter would be a much greater prospect for generating cash due to it's cross-platform implementation possibilities. Leaving it open source would be wrong in this case IMO.

  • Yeah i just thought that too, gah, well whatever you decide it's your choice and you can garuntee people will use it and love it.

  • I think it is a smart move to close source it. I don't think you can expect to make money from this project unless you close-source it. The pay-what-you-want might bring in some money at some point, but I think it makes sense to start generating money now.

    I don't know how much people donated for Construct 1, but I'm guessing it isn't as much as you would get from making this close-source.

  • do that mean we can no longer export in HTML5 with the pay-what-you-want version?

    ima bit confused

  • do that mean we can no longer export in HTML5 with the pay-what-you-want version?

    ima bit confused

    If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah.

    I would assume that this means that you will still be able to export to HTML5 as long as the game you are making is free. But if you want to sell your game then you will have to buy a license. I.E. the same sort of deal as Unity.

    Does this mean that the pay-what-you-want version will have a splash screen, or at least a quick "Powered by Construct 2" logo that pops up in the corner on start? Because that would be fine. And that way you can find people that are trying to sell their games with the free version on Android or whatever by using that HTML5 wrapper program.

    Would the balance of a pay-what-you-want payment carry over to the license should you decide to buy that at a later date, or would you then be paying the full amount of the license on top of that?

    And what sort of commercial viability does HTML5 have? Just playing devil's advocate here... I can see people paying here and there with the pay-what-you-want system simply because they like the program and want to support it, but I suppose I'm having a hard time seeing the need to buy a commercial license for HTML5 export. Unless people are really planning on using something like appMobi in conjunction with it. EXE and iPhone/Android native licenses would be a big draw, you might want to save the commercial license for those exporters.

    I haven't voted Good Idea or Bad Idea yet... it depends on the details!

  • 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.

  • HTML5 export is pretty much useless for anything right now, but we don't know what could happen in future. I hope there would be exe export maybe in an year or half. But since Ashley said that we would have to pay for exe export I will probably stick to C1, thanks to Paypal and RBI(Reserve Bank Of India) which don't allow anyone to buy anything directly from their Paypal account.

  • So what if someone else makes a free HTML5 exporter? Everyone will just use that one.. Or are you planning to close the whole exporter deal? Because that would be a bummer (i liked the idea of new exporters that can be built).

    I think that the best thing you can do, is to make C2 free and take a % of the profit that they earn with the games. (If the game is commercially released).

  • Still having a sourceforge page called 'Construct 2' would be misleading as it's more like 'Construct 2 Editor' that would be opensource by the sounds of things.

    I like being able to view source code but if closed source allowed faster development and there was good documentation it would be good.

    The only thing i am not sure about now reading this is if i would want to buy the exporter. I like the way C2 works but it is beta and i could code javascript and html5 for free anyway with a good text editor and they are very open style code formats. There is apparently a html5 exporter for mmf2 on the way also which has been in development for a while and other apps that make html5 also so i would probably compare them all.

    So for html5 it would mainly be down to the price then, what features the updated editor offered and how good the coding options were. If there is a exe exporter though and the price was right it will be a must buy though because that is what i was originally expecting C2 to do and i would be more interested in that.

  • I think that the best thing you can do, is to make C2 free and take a % of the profit that they earn with the games. (If the game is commercially released).

    I definitely disagree. A straight sale on licenses would be the best option. And it's not like Scirra is running an app store where you can easily keep track of sales or anything.

    Besides, let's say you use a future iPhone exporter to make an iPhone game. You already have to give Apple 30% off the top. That's a big chunk of change already. Do you think people would really be willing to give Scirra another thirty percent, or ten, or even five? Not a chance. They'd just use a different development package. A flat license fee would definitely be the way to go.

  • Folks, to be honest, at this time it looks best for us to close-source the editor as well.

    We're discussing all our options behind-the-scenes and there are a tonne of options (like taking royalties on sales of third party exporters) that are impossible with an open source editor. By having any part open-source, our options rapidly dwindle to very few limited choices. We can be an awful lot more flexible with licensing with closed source.

    Obviously this isn't aimed to rip off indie devs, I'm still in favour of a cheap or free indie/personal license. It just means that suppose Google came along and wrote an Android exporter and started selling it - we can ask for royalties (for example - this is not a definite plan). That's a neat possible revenue opportunity and it's just impossible if the editor is open source.

    As far as open-source contributions have gone in 0.x, we've had some cool patches by R0J0hound which is great and we're thankful for. However, in terms of options for making money, this is incredibly limiting, and given that we haven't exactly had hordes of developers battering down our doors demanding to write code for 0.x, it seems a logical move to go closed source.

    Again, not definite and still very much a work in progress, but it's on the cards and we're thinking it over. We don't want to rush in to any decision but I thought I'd let everyone know what we're considering. I guess it wouldn't be popular, but it makes it much more likely that we can really build something great. And the sooner we do it the better, to get ahead of anyone who forks the code already available.

    What are your thoughts? If C2 went closed source but still had a cheap or free edition, would that put you off it? How important is the open source to you?

  • If close sourcing is better for you guys, by all means, go closed source. Some things I like to see stay:

    • it's cheapness (right now it's free)
    • it's community and their ability to create plug-ins and customize editor features
    • the user being able to do whatever they want with their game after it's compiled.

    I think the last point is most important to maintain your indie crowd. One of the things I love about Construct right now is that nobody is putting up any licensing barriers, nobody is putting their hands in my pockets looking for change. My game is my game 100% through and through that I just so happened to make with this awesome tool named Construct and their community that supports that.

    I think you guys will make a good decision though. I think we want to be a part of this as much as you want it to succeed.

    Edit: the English: my personal opinions are not universal facts Though that might make for an interesting day...

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Ok then, if you go with a license version, then it should have some exporters, like the Android one.

    Yes, because if I pay for an application that in the end serves me just to have fun, then I wouldn't buy it. I'm in the need for an Android exporter, and surely I can make money out of the games I create, so it would be right for me and you.

    I'm not telling you to make a mega list of exporters, but the main ones:

    • Windows;
    • Mac OSX; (I don't need it)
    • Linux; (I don't need it)
    • Android;
    • iPhone; (I don't need it)

    So that it will become a productive application in which, with my work, I can make something that can return the money I spent.

    Are you with me?

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)