Proposed licensing model

  • The free version sounds too good to me, seems like everyone will just use that.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Since we're on the subject of business models.

    http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

    With an emphasis on number 6.

    Where is the part about keep you search results info and selling it to company.

    Thay are .

    The free version sounds too good to me, seems like everyone will just use that.

    [quote:20clg9pi]For non paying users there should be no exporters at all instead,

    Non paying users can could post there games on Scirra gaming site.

    This would be like a youtube for games site.

    You could put video ads commercial to play before the game start like the videos in youtube.

    you could put up html5 code so people link up the game to their web site, or share links to social site like face book, twitter,etc just like youtube dose.

    So as people play the game and rate them, you could make best of game page.

    Then you could create construct 2 gaming app for google chrome app store where the best games will be featured.

    At first maybe but with no exporters other then posting it on Scirra site.

    the scirra team would have a constant stream of revenue from commercial ads.

    and people who would like to make money of of there game could buy exporters.

    that is why I said that [quote:20clg9pi]This was you could make money while C2 is in development and when it is out of development.

  • Another possible model to consider in part is one that a few of the lesser known, in most circles at least, use----which goes something like "Paid members get access to the latest major features 6-8 months in advance of free users, beta-level and otherwise." So, it becomes something of a choice as to how far in the past you want to lag behind versus being able to deal with fresh and functional things.

    Reaper's model seems to have served it well given the years they've been at it though, so in the end I suspect one can't go terribly wrong at using a version of it with some relevant tweaking given the software/hardware realities of a game engine/dev program suite are different versus a DAW and the like.

    An answer needs to be arrived upon promptly though, as the other solutions from the various other outfits from small to large are chugging along and thus Scirra is going to need to act with agility and speed regardless of which path is trodden. This whole Molehill thing finally happening on the Flash end alongside Unity throwing in a bit with it is huge alongside the JS to C# stuff and whatnot.

  • I'm throwing my $0.02 in now too.

    A lot of people seem to disagree on the "subscription" model. Sounds fair enough to me, but I can see why people are throwing fits.

    Megatronx had an interesting idea which I were also thinking about. What if you had some sort of advertisement like Spotify? Maybe not as intrusive as Spotifys (no sound for instance), but merely as a way to gain some small revenue from the free version and a less direct way to push viewers to buy the indie/commercial license. Add to that an advertisement space on the download page for the free version (though that might be pushing it).

    I bought Renoise last fall and their licensing deal is pretty nice. Their demo has pretty much all features (even save) enabled with the exception of "render song", and the ability to use ASIO drivers. I played around with the demo for two months before I bought it. Mind you I bypassed the disabling of rendering by simply connecting Audacity directly to my sound card and simply recorded what played on the speakers.

    I still bought it though. Their license worked like this. You pay �58 ( plus VAT ) for the license and for that you get a sample kit and free updates for a whole version. I bought my license at 2.6 so I have free updates until they hit 3.6, at that point to get further updates I have to pay an additional fee. But that fee is smaller than the first one, �48, because I had already bought the license once. Now, C2 doesn't use version numbers anymore but I think it could still be applied. But then I guess the rate builds are released would have to be more regular.

    I had another idea, I'm just throwing these out for thought, not saying they 'should' be used.

    If people are really stingy and want to pay even less ( ), what if they could opt in to having splash screens and such, insteead of having it simply be a nagging thing for free users?

    By opting to allow splash screen and similar things they would get an X% reduction on the license cost when they buy their license. That way, you'd still sell a license, albeit at a lower price but with the benefit of more advertisement.

  • I think a lot of people are missing an important point here: C2 was written so that they won't ever have to make a C3. C2 should be well written enough that they can incrementally improve it without having to do any sort of major rewrite. As such, that makes the normal model of paying for a new version obsolete.

    However, I think when used with something getter77 said, it might work. I like the idea of having paid members get access to all of the stuff that's in development for the next version.

    Imagine this: each year, construct has a new version released for users of the free version that includes all of the newly developed features over the past year.

    People who have paid get access to the features as they are developed. Users of the free version have to wait for the next free version.

    The people using the free version will hear about all of the cool features in development and want to use them, so you get a constant cycle of enticing people to buy.

    Also, I think the nag screen should display an ad. Not anything that you have to wait through, or at least no more than 5 seconds, but that way you can still get some revenue from users off the free version as well. The important thing is to keep the nag screen from being annoying enough to make people pirate C2.

    I also like the ideas above about the second two years costing less than the initial purchase, and "choose your free version" since people can't agree on what they'd like from the free version - have a nag screen or splash screen, take your pick. The problem there is if what if they change their minds when they're done with a game? But it's an interesting idea.

  • The problem there is if what if they change their minds when they're done with a game? But it's an interesting idea.

    Pay the percentage they saved or wait until their license has to be renewed for updates and pay full price then?

  • What if with free version you couldn't make game bigger then, for example, 15mb ? :>

    edit@ and the free version wouldn't work offline.

  • I think a lot of people are missing an important point here: C2 was written so that they won't ever have to make a C3. C2 should be well written enough that they can incrementally improve it without having to do any sort of major rewrite. As such, that makes the normal model of paying for a new version obsolete.

    However, I think when used with something getter77 said, it might work. I like the idea of having paid members get access to all of the stuff that's in development for the next version.

    Imagine this: each year, construct has a new version released for users of the free version that includes all of the newly developed features over the past year.

    People who have paid get access to the features as they are developed. Users of the free version have to wait for the next free version.

    The people using the free version will hear about all of the cool features in development and want to use them, so you get a constant cycle of enticing people to buy.

    Also, I think the nag screen should display an ad. Not anything that you have to wait through, or at least no more than 5 seconds, but that way you can still get some revenue from users off the free version as well. The important thing is to keep the nag screen from being annoying enough to make people pirate C2.

    I also like the ideas above about the second two years costing less than the initial purchase, and "choose your free version" since people can't agree on what they'd like from the free version - have a nag screen or splash screen, take your pick. The problem there is if what if they change their minds when they're done with a game? But it's an interesting idea.

    People are not going to try free version if features are being held back for along period of time.

    and [quote:2r2qw2q7]No new comer will buy C2. It is in it alpha stage right now, you really have no great games to show off the product. It is prone to having bugs with each new up date.

    o one and, I mean no one in their right mind would pay for that. I know I wouldn't. if you are just going after the current user of construct some may pay for that but

    a licensing fee is like murder to C2.

    I am looking at this not as a fan of construct but in terms of business person who might be want to make games for money and , willing to pay for the right tool to do that.

  • I was concerned reading the initial post. My desire for C2 has steadily declined since its announcement. First major blow was the html5 only exporter, so I decided to wait until the exe exporter was around before trying it. And then subscriptions...I am more than happy to help support the program and the devs by paying, but a subscription model is a huge turn off for me.

    But I am heartened that you are intent on finding a good solution. The idea of buying two years(or whatever time frame) of updates for whatever price you set is one that really interests me. Being able to actually own something I bought and be able to support you chaps too. Would not be against paying for specific exporters either, or specific additional plugins/behaviours etc.

    I am not sure what you could do to make the free version less appealing that buying the editor and updates without being so minimal as to be ignorable, or seriously impacting to the point of not wanting to use it.

  • I'd totally love to support you guys, and I fully understand your reasons, so I don't think moving to a closed-source system with payment is a bad thing. However, getting a reasonable system that everyone is okay with, is, of course, a tricky business, hence all this discussion. I think I'll stay out of this one for now, and wait for the updated proposed model.

  • I think some clarification is needed, because people seem to be confused.

    I am more than happy to help support the program and the devs by paying, but a subscription model is a huge turn off for me.

    But I am heartened that you are intent on finding a good solution. The idea of buying two years(or whatever time frame) of updates for whatever price you set is one that really interests me. Being able to actually own something I bought and be able to support you chaps too.

    That's what the subscription is. A new word is definitely needed, because 'subscription' is apparently confusing and bothering people.

    People are not going to try free version if features are being held back for along period of time.

    Perhaps, perhaps not. Game maker permanently holds back features from the free version and people pay for it. People often pay/pay more to avoid having to wait - seeing movies in theaters instead of on tv, paying full price for a game, etc. Paying/paying more for new stuff is common.

    As far as I know, the method I described hasn't been tried before. And while I respect your knowledge, there is no one who knows everything about business (since many business techniques haven't been tried) so something new might work better than you expect it to, especially with the sometimes seemingly illogical behavior of consumers that can be at times difficult to predict. That said, I might be wrong too, but it might be worth a shot. I mean, who knew people would pay hundreds of dollars for smurfberries?

  • Why is this becoming so complicated?

    What's wrong with a 30-day trial w/nag screen & limitations, solid price on a full version of C2, and paid add-ons/exporters? There's still plenty of profit to be made.

  • I mean, who knew people would pay hundreds of dollars for smurfberries?

    As Valve have proved, people will pay for hats that can be gotten without paying.

  • Tokinsom

    Because C2's �no major versions, lots of little ones' development model makes that pricing model not work the same way, because people wouldn't need to pay for new versions.

    I suppose every once in a while Scirra could say "HAY new version time, you all gotta pay to upgrade and get updates from this point on" which is basically what other companies do with a +1 to the program version number, but that's not really much different from the "buy it and get two years of updates" model.

    I suppose they could have yearly version numbers... C2 2011?

  • Been thinking about this some more. I think there's a perception problem with the subscription/2 years of free updates model, and perception is important for the customer. I think these might be too far from what people are used to. Perhaps a somewhat more traditional approach might work.

    Traditional model - every so often a new version is released. New features for next version are worked on in secret, with perhaps some public glimpses of what's being worked on to hype the next version, when it's done everyone has to pay for the new version, new features are used to justify customers paying again.

    Updated model - each year or two marks a new version of construct (again, perhaps with year numbers. If C3 is used for the name, it doesn't mean another rewrite, it is essentially C2.1, no different from the current development method, essentially C2 a year or so later. It is C3 in name only).

    People can preorder the next version and get access to the 'beta', meaning access to the current versions. Finished versions are released, people can preorder the next to get the features as they're developed. Everyone owns their copy, no one is confused, people are hopefully comfortable.

    Wolfire does something like this, with preorders getting access to the beta. It seems to work very well for them.

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