Proposed licensing model (take 2)

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

Not at all naggy! We welcome all suggestions.

A plugin exchange of some sort is definitely on the books for the new website. I've discussed it with Ashley, and we are open to the idea of commercialising it in the future (don't get scared, this means if you make a plugin you can either choose to have it on the exchange as free, or paid).

However, before we offer this service to developers, we would want to reach a critical mass of users/visitors so it's actually a viable and realistic service and not going to be a big wet flannel on the website. We would also want a critical mass of free plugins, so that no user would feel that buying add on plugins is a requirement to using the software.

Again, nothing set in concrete in this regards, but we are definitely open to it.

Ive spent thousands of dollars already on the other apps,pc's and licences.

Sounds like you want us to give away C2 free just because you spent a lot on your computer Well, it sounds like you realise we need to do this, so we'll do our best to keep you happy anyway!

what do you think of the nonofficial plugin revenue sharing thing

Perhaps it'll be a good idea several months down the line, but for plugins to be a profitable business we very much first need a solid, mature and well-established editor. There's also the question of whether users will pay for something as small as a plugin (compared to the full blown editor), and a risk that users get the feeling they're being swindled having to pay for every little feature. Then there's the risks of things getting ugly if two people develop one plugin, one being sold, and one free, which also introduces compatibility problems when you have two ways to do the same thing. So I don't think it's something we should consider this early on - it seems risky, plus we need to get the editor and HTML5 parts sorted first, and I feel what I've proposed is the best licensing model for that so far.

Edit: Gullanian ninja'd me on some of that

Just like the last proposal, I have no problem with what you've come up with.

But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.

It also means it's not worth me taking up the early-adopter option, because without the guarantee of an .exe exporter, I'd be wasting my time.

I'm also not a fan of commercial non-official plugins/exporters.

Money's not a problem, in any amount, I just think that (a) you need to keep your revenue streams future-proof, and (b) people need to get value for money from their official purchase.

None of my questions were answered in the last thread, but here goes anyway:

How come you haven't come up with license upgrade prices?

It doesn't have to be complicated.

Just allow people to pay the difference.

We're not talking physical goods here, so there's no depreciation value to be factored in.

The "ALSO-" section could look like it only applies to the Pro license the way you've posted it (I assume it applies to all licenses), so you may want to point that out a bit more clearly.

Again, it's all pretty irrelevant to me while there's no .exe export.

The projects that I'm working on involve Unity, Construct 0.x, and Java, so maybe when I'm done with those, Construct 2 will be worth looking at (for the reason I've stated several times already).

The problem is, I may well be more than happy with the toolset that I've used to make those, and may not choose to add another.

I fear you may push away other Construct users without the inclusion of an .exe exporter early on too.

Just my opinion.

Krush.

I hate the idea of C2 going the same way as every other commercial game creator tools.

when I was thinking about C2 going commercial I was thinking how big it could get if you guys added so social components like facebook, youtube, xbox live, steam, etc

that is way I wrote this post

The fact that you said that c2 is going to take up to 2 years to catch construct 0.x.

You might not add the features I want to use for some time and, there will be bugs.

I could just wait for 2 years.

There is no way I will pay.

If I am putting up money I want to be able to make the game I want right away.

I am kind of disappointed at the fact that it seems that you guys are thinking so much out side of the box when it come to commercializing your product to the same level that you did when you started program Construct 0.x, to C2.

thanks for the response guys...

also, one more thing. any idea yet what this means as far as open sourcing exporters and plugins and/or allowing unofficial exporters to be made?

I'm also not a fan of commercial non-official plugins/exporters.

Money's not a problem, in any amount, I just think that (a) you need to keep your revenue streams future-proof, and (b) people need to get value for money from their official purchase.

Absolutely correct about people getting value for money from official purchase. This is why I mentioned the plugin exchange would not have the paid option added until we felt there was a big enough volume and variety of free plugins out there.

We really want to give as much value as we can in the product.

How come you haven't come up with license upgrade prices?

It doesn't have to be complicated.

Just allow people to pay the difference.

We're not talking physical goods here, so there's no depreciation value to be factored in.

It's a little bit more complicated than that, because:

User 1 buys normal license

User 2 buys normal license

1 month later user 1 upgrades for total cost of new license - amount paid

1 day BEFORE user 2's license expires, he upgrades.

Both paid the same amount, but license expiries would be different.

Although, as you point out it wouldn't be hard to work out, we're just considering options at the moment.

Again, it's all pretty irrelevant to me while there's no .exe export.

The projects that I'm working on involve Unity, Construct 0.x, and Java, so maybe when I'm done with those, Construct 2 will be worth looking at (for the reason I've stated several times already).

The problem is, I may well be more than happy with the toolset that I've used to make those, and may not choose to add another.

I fear you may push away other Construct users without the inclusion of an .exe exporter early on too.

That's a fair opinion, and as we always have said, an EXE exporter will eventually be included.

oh yeah, in addition to my last questions:

will unofficial exporters be allowed?

and

will the plugins and/or exporters be open-source since the ide is the thing sold now

I've got one more:

will commercial plugins still be allowed if sold outside the plugin exchange?

I hate the idea of C2 going the same way as every other commercial game creator tools.

when I was thinking about C2 going commercial I was thinking how big it could get if you guys added so social components like facebook, youtube, xbox live, steam, etc

that is way I wrote this post

The fact that you said that c2 is going to take up to 2 years to catch construct 0.x.

You might not add the features I want to use for some time and, there will be bugs.

I could just wait for 2 years.

There is no way I will pay.

If I am putting up money I want to be able to make the game I want right away.

I am kind of disappointed at the fact that it seems that you guys are thinking so much out side of the box when it come to commercializing your product to the same level that you did when you started program Construct 0.x, to C2.

I understand your frustration, but we are thinking long term. This is healthier for construct in regards to it's future.

Unfortunately the reason most game tools went down this path is because pretty much the only sustainable model to allow developers to work full time on it.

I love your ideas about social components, and we have every intention of allowing interaction with these tools where possible in C2.

The Alpha license is meant to offer a long term cheaper deal for people who adopt Construct early. I totally understand that you will only pay for a completed product, but that just means the Alpha license isn't for you.

But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.

I don't think you should put a vote against the licensing model because you don't like the features - they're different things. If we did an EXE exporter, that would not change the proposed licensing model! So the question is, is it a good licensing model?

We've been over the EXE exporter in other threads - we knew we'd disappoint many people with HTML5, but we took a risk and did it anyway, and we still want to eventually produce an EXE runtime. So hopefully everyone is happy in the end!

The fact that you said that c2 is going to take up to 2 years to catch construct 0.x.

0.x was developed very irregularly, part time, in odd evenings here and there. If we go full-time, I think we could catch up within 6 months - but that's not a guarantee (I probably said 2 years to avoid disappointment, or because we weren't planning to go fulltime yet). Feel free to wait until you think it's mature enough to buy a license, but then you might end up paying more (because the early adopter licenses are significantly marked down).

I think being a games publisher or "the youtube of games" is way too crowded a market. There are a ridiculous number of other game arcades out there, some even running on HTML5 now. What's so special about a Scirra arcade? I really can't see why people would come to our site over an established arcade, so I don't think that's the way to go for us. Besides, we want to attract game creators, not just game players. We're about the program.

lucid: as the original post says, the HTML5 exporter and all its plugins will be open source. Third party exporters and plugins will be allowed, either free or commercial, regardless of whether or not they're on an official "exchange".

lucid: as the original post says, the HTML5 exporter and all its plugins will be open source. Third party exporters and plugins will be allowed, either free or commercial, regardless of whether or not they're on an official "exchange".

awesome, thank you. missed that part

I'm ready to preorder, btw, just so you know there are some people who will.

and since I'm already posting about something else, I'd like to add my voice to the EXE!!! crowd

I think being a games publisher or "the youtube of games" is way too crowded a market. There are a ridiculous number of other game arcades out there, some even running on HTML5 now. What's so special about a Scirra arcade? I really can't see why people would come to our site over an established arcade, so I don't think that's the way to go for us. Besides, we want to attract game creators, not just game players. We're about the program.

But how many have there own game creator tool and that works so easy?

I see construct as a unique type of tool for making games.

[quote:3i31go8c]Sounds like you want us to give away C2 free just because you spent a lot on your computer Well, it sounds like you realise we need to do this, so we'll do our best to keep you happy anyway!

a demo version with a 30 day trial.The crackers are going to have a field day with this lol.Ash make sure that it's uncrackable.Piracy kills progress ,Down with piracy arrrr lmao',long live the exe.

To expand on the idea of 30 day trial:

• All updates are lagged behind
• After 30 days you can still use the software for personal use!
• After 30 days though you will have to endure a program start up message.

> But the lack of an .exe exporter means it's a no for me.

>

I don't think you should put a vote against the licensing model because you don't like the features - they're different things. If we did an EXE exporter, that would not change the proposed licensing model! So the question is, is it a good licensing model?

We've been over the EXE exporter in other threads - we knew we'd disappoint many people with HTML5, but we took a risk and did it anyway, and we still want to eventually produce an EXE runtime. So hopefully everyone is happy in the end!

But you can't seperate the license from its product. That's like saying "I can't really say what exactly I will sell you, but I want to charge 200 ? for it. Is it ok?"

We can only say if a licensing model is a good idea for the specific product it is offered for. And without a guarantee for an .exe exporter, a robust editor, and at least the feature set of Construct 0.x, well, without all this that model is a bad idea.

I don't mind that those features will take time until integrated, but it needs to be definitely in. And as soon as it is so, then that license model is a good idea.

Because, apart from real Scirra fans, people will only buy a feature rich, complete (for its tasks) product.

To expand on the idea of 30 day trial:

- All updates are lagged behind

- After 30 days you can still use the software for personal use!

- After 30 days though you will have to endure a program start up message.

There we are, the end of the Reaper model...

What message will it be?

"You are currently playing a game that was done with a trial version that expired. Please urge the developer of this game to f...ing buy a license."