Proposed licensing model (take 2)

0 favourites
  • OK, forget the previous model. Have a look at this - this is the proposed model for when C2 has a suitable featureset:

    30 day demo

    • free and fully functional
    • nag screen after demo expires
    • no DRM/copy protection
    • probably a couple of months time lag before new features become available in demo

    Discount license

    • For indie/personal use where associated revenue < ?20k/yr, or non-profit/educational use
    • Buy for ?39 future-proofed with 2 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?149 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates
    • All official new exporters and plugins provided as free updates
    • After expiry, you keep the software indefinitely nag-free, you just can't get new updates/exporters that are released

    Commercial license

    • As with discount, but for business/commercial use or where associated revenue is > ?20k/yr
    • Buy for ?149 future-proofed with 2 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?599 future-proofed with 10 years of free updates


    Bulk licenses available on request

    Closed-source editor, open-source BSD HTML5 exporter

    No splash screens on any creations at any point

    And... early adopter licenses

    To help kick things off, raise some money, and give you guys a good deal for getting involved early, we'd also like to introduce Discount Early-Adopter licenses for a limited time (for indies/personal use only, as per Discount license) - a bit like a preorder. These are significantly marked down - there probably won't be such a low price ever again!

    • Buy for ?19 future proofed with 3 years of free updates
    • Buy for ?89 future proofed with 10 years of free updates

    How does that sound?

  • I see the main problem. 30 day demo users get all features even updates, even though they are slow they still get them.

    Where as if you pay after a while you don't get them at all, i can't see it working, that bit needs re-thinking.

  • Hmm... Demo users still get constant nag screens though (after expiry). Users who have paid can jump back to the demo after their license expires and use the features with nags (after a couple of months delay when the demo catches up), or just sit tight and not be bothered. I think that works OK actually.

  • All in all sounding good Ashley.

    Any idea on update 'block' costs?

    As much as applaud the idea of keeping the free version fully featured, i don't know how well that would work out for you in the long run.

    Oh and, what about upgrading versions?

  • There are no plans for upgraded versions, it is one continuous modular program which is why a purchase will future proof the next 2 years of updates as supposed to the current version of updates.

  • I was referring to upgrading the license from discount to commercial etc.

  • Details haven't been fully worked out for that but we are aware of the possibility of having an upgrade license. If we offer an upgrade option, it will be at a fair discount taking currently active licenses into consideration.

  • Excellent, all sounding very good chaps. Cheers Gullanian.

  • Thats a little better, but I still say an al la carte method would be better for plugs... but that depends on the plugs I guess.

    Might I ask what do you plan on making "official" as far as that goes?

    The "preorder" sounds interesting, but without knowing whats promised....

    Especially given the limitations of Html5.

  • Ahh there goes the free stuff.$149.00 for a licence?.No thank you,Unless it does what UDK can do otherwise im not interested.

  • Worth every penny. I have used many game development apps over the years (free and commercial) and none of them touch Construct. FACT.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Ahh there goes the free stuff.$149.00 for a licence?

    I don't understand - you can get a license for ?39, and the demo is free. What's worrying you?

    Might I ask what do you plan on making "official" as far as that goes?

    It's hard to say, right now, what we'll be working on in the next 2-3 years. A desktop exporter sounds like it'd be popular with our existing userbase (and could cover both Mac and PC). But it depends on a lot of factors. For example, if IE adopts WebGL, it'd probably be better to do a WebGL exporter first. Or, if a thousand people turn up all screaming for iOS native, we'd do that. Basically, we want to try to give people what they want, so it depends. I'll probably run some more polls in future to see what most people are after. (Note: please don't derail this thread with 'I'd like this exporter' posts! We'll sort that out in separate polls later - keep it on the licensing model)

  • Sounds good to me.

  • Hey ash and gull, I don't want to sound like a nag screen, but what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing in addition. I don't think you've voiced an opinion either way yet. It will give you a more constant stream of income. The larger the community, the more plugins made, AND the more plugins bought, so it'll be another revenue stream. Plugin devs could still have the option to not use the official plugin shop, so it wouldn't be a restrictive thing. They would just have that option of extra exposure and free hosting, and placement on the ranking/download list.

    This would help you make more money off of users who are unable or unwilling to pay for either license model. And once again to make more money off the people who bought license in between their 2 year things. And it isn't evil, because you're not restricting users from any official features

  • Money Ashley Money.Ive spent thousands of dollars already on the other apps,pc's and licences.Oh well whats a couple off bucks more, hell yeah go for it.But then i want to see that exe exporter and it has to have a decent 3d object handler.

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