Download Construct 2 release 31

  • On another note, will testers be able to sell games made with the most current release?

    I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

    Since you're working on movement actions, would it be possible to add bezier movements, which could be run in a queue?

    That's probably something for a behaviour to do - these are super-basic primitives that are very often useful for a wide array of uses.

  • So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money.

    I could not agree more and am getting a very bad feeling about Construct 2. I have no problem with buying finished software and was think this might be one worth purchasing, but some things are starting to feel very controlled:

    Like yearly licensing, alpha timed releases, and pay schedules for alpha versions (not even beta).

    With so may free finished languages out there I am afraid all this talk will scare away the base that is already formed.

    Even so pricing seems high at this early stage, There is a lot of bashing here about Game Maker, but they make a lot of money. $25 per version and free updates as quite attractive.

    I would sincerely look at your business model again. But with all this talk about pay to test I am thinking about dropping back to C1 and other game creation software.

    Best of luck with your endveor on C2!

    I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

    I totally agree!

    But you need to respect the testers too. Charging at this point makes Construct2 look greedy. Especially for non commercial projects. Many of us will never sell a single program we make then for fun.

  • The alpha early-adopter licenses are marked down considerably to reflect the fact it's an early stage. Also, I repeat the point: assuming we release regularly enough, which we plan on doing, testers get to use the fully-featured software indefinitely for free. What more can we do? Should we pay them to test it for us when we have no money?? I can't see what more we could offer or do for our users. Obviously the transition to free + open source to closed and licensed is a painful one. But I think we've gone out of our way to offer good deals despite this. Can you describe what's unfair about the deal so far and what would be a fairer deal?

  • Not sure if its doable, since the html5 exporter is already available, but a "blank" exporter that didn't actually export anything would solve the tester issues.

    Basically preview only test builds.

    Might get that exe exporter a jump start as well.

  • It's too hard to make a preview only HTML5 test build because it needs to run in your web browser, and anyone can just view the source.

  • The alpha early-adopter licenses are marked down considerably to reflect the fact it's an early stage. Also, I repeat the point: assuming we release regularly enough, which we plan on doing, testers get to use the fully-featured software indefinitely for free. What more can we do? Should we pay them to test it for us when we have no money?? I can't see what more we could offer or do for our users. Obviously the transition to free + open source to closed and licensed is a painful one. But I think we've gone out of our way to offer good deals despite this. Can you describe what's unfair about the deal so far and what would be a fairer deal?

    Go for it guys. I'm already spreading a word about its multiplatform browser html 5 compatible exporter to my geeky friends and they are amazed, and are going to look more in to it for the possibilities that come along with it.

  • The main website needs changing to reflect the new changes, the way it seems now from looking at it is that V2 is free and open source and the Fundry link is still there etc. I guess this will change soon though because i read somewhere a new site is being made which makes sense.

    [quote:3kcucnuw]I think the test builds should not be for commercial use - testing purposes only. I think it's fair if you sell a game, you buy a license first.

    What if someone was still using the earlier open-source SourceForge builds? As far as i know that would keep the same open-source GPL license it had when downloaded. I might be totally wrong but i think company's can only apply changes to the current version rather than older versions also.

    This seems like a good update but i am not sure i like the idea of demo/trial betas so early on. It kind of makes me think C2 would have been better to have remained in development a bit longer then just released as commercial. It would have avoided a lot of confusion switching from open-source to closed commercial anyway that is for sure.

  • As far as I remember, there have always been talks about C2 being commercial - even before the alpha was released.

    Anyway what is done is done - let's just try and iron out those misunderstandings now instead of keeping them here, and improve it's current state?

  • What if someone was still using the earlier open-source SourceForge builds?

    Before long those builds will be so far behind that they're not remotely useful. You won't be able to make anything complicated, certainly not sellable, with them!

  • Is this time limit thing going to be standard from now on ?

    I'm not opposed to construct 2 following a commercial route and trying to get some extra income, but seeing that a barely usable alpha version is already bundled with imposed limitations kind of kills it for me.

    I'm sorry to say this, but as other users pointed out, I have a bad feeling about all this.

    Construct 2 isn't the only tool of this genre in the market, but it's trying to compete with more established companies who already built a strong userbase such as game maker and mmf2 (which remember are working on html5 exporters and already have flash and iOS exporters).

    Construct had the edge of being free for anyone to download, so without any feature to make it stand out of the crowd I can only see construct 2 go down the drain which is a shame because the project showed a huge potential.

    I really hope you consider what you are doing and the direction the project is taking.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I think this post I made addresses your concerns: we just can't give the software for free. Yes we're behind on development, but we aim to catch up as quickly as possible - the current pace of updates should be an indication of that, and that's still part time work!

  • Sadly what you said in that topic didn't really reassure me.

    Obviously, you are motivated to do better than clickteam or yoyo games did with their products, but I don't see how you are planning to do it.

    Since the competition is already well established in the market, I'd say 99% of your customers are going to be previous mmf or game maker users, so you really need something to motivate them to abandon their software of choice and choose c2 instead.

    Until now I haven't heard of a single feature that the competition doesn't have, let alone one that would make it stand out.

    If it's going to be better than mmf or game maker is very subjective and unpredictable since we don't know how they are going to be by the time construct 2's 1.0 version is released.

    My suggestion would be to follow yoyo games's example, and go with a free and a paid version. It worked for them so in theory it should work for you two I think. When I mean free version I don't mean construct 0.xx I mean a solid product with a few features cut from the "pro" version for example and/or forcing a non-commercial license.

  • My suggestion would be to follow yoyo games's example, and go with a free and a paid version. It worked for them so in theory it should work for you two I think. When I mean free version I don't mean construct 0.xx I mean a solid product with a few features cut from the "pro" version for example and/or forcing a non-commercial license.

    That's exactly what they're doing, and the C2 free options are even better than GM's. One version will be a few months behind the current version with a nag screen, the other will be the most recent version usable for 42 days. GM's free version stays where it is until a .0 uprade, while C2's gets new features every few months.

  • The only problem I can see with the proposed model, is that Game Maker is adding HTML5 support. Even if this turns out to be a paid addon, that's at most $50 (or �50) total for a commercial license with exe and html5. Compared to ~$1000 (or �599) for the equivalent of Construct 2.

    Whether or not the differences in usability and interface warrant that large difference is up to the individual to decide, but given most people just make games for fun, I don't think it will be too big of a problem.

  • As we keep saying, the �599 option is for commercial enterprises over a 10 year period. This comes out to �59 per year, and only companies that turn over �200,000 in that 10 year period need to buy this license.

    Everyone else can go for the cheaper option. I really think keeping quoting the $1k figure is a slightly unfair comparison and can mislead our users because hardly any of them will qualify for that license, everyone else gets it on the cheaper license.

    If a company is turning over �20k per year, then they will probably want to pick the most stable, best supported and future proofed piece of software out there. If they think those qualities are more with a competitor, this is fine! We believe however our product will be far superior, that's the ethic we are building it to.

    �59 into a �20,000 budget really isn't much for a company that is earning a living as a direct result of our product (remember the license states that �20k turnover is for associated revenue derived from using our products). If a company earning this much really is debating as to the benefits of using different products solely because it saves them �40 a year, then good luck to them!

    With the discount license, you can still sell your games as long as your revenue doesn't exceed �20,000 per year. That is the only difference between the commercial license and discount license.

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