Proposed licensing model (take 2)

I know its a little childish, but its also fun. How bout a special symbol, or customizable tag under the avatars of the prepurchasers?

If you think Game Maker is better than Construct, I don't really have anything to say. You're welcome to use it. We think Construct 2 is better, that's all. Each to their own. GM also appears to be primarily a scripting tool, it doesn't appear many people use the event system. Construct 2 is entirely an event based system.

Well, actually, this comparisons and questions is what people will ask when they'll choose between GM and C2. First you have to convince them that the difference in price is justified

> I'm not sure how Construct credibly proves its worth against Game Maker. GM is mature, stable, actively developed, has an HTML5 exporter (among others) and costs ?25 and also has future proofing in terms of upgrades - usually just to the next version. Game Maker has already survived 12 years; Construct is going on 4 with limited success.

>

>

100% my thoughts.

quote]

If you think Game Maker is better than Construct, I don't really have anything to say. You're welcome to use it. We think Construct 2 is better, that's all. Each to their own. GM also appears to be primarily a scripting tool, it doesn't appear many people use the event system. Construct 2 is entirely an event based system.

Well, actually, this comparisons and questions is what people will ask when they'll choose between GM and C2. First you have to convince them that the difference in price is justified

Gm is stable. C2 will be stable. The whole point of this discussion is that we want c2 to be actively developed. Were at gm8 now in 12 years that means that on average you'd have to pay for it more often than once every 2 years to stay up to date. C2 has an html 5 exporter, others on the way. Of course c2 is new as opposed to mature. I'm not sure what's changed in 8, but here was my experience with 7 and c0.9x and why it was easy to change over

Keep in mind I don't say this to bash gamemaker,. This is just my honest comparison

Construct is fast, I can do 1000's of things per frame with no slowdown. Gm completely choked at less than 500, I did tests and this choking would happen even if the command was a simple null command.

Gm is useless without scripting. This isn't just my opinion, this seems to be the prevailing opinion among gm veterans. C1s scripting system wasn't even used much at all until about last year, because it wasn't needed.

There was a full decompiler available for gm7s slow interpretter.

And its much quicker to develop for constructs more advanced engine than it was for gms clunkier one. You can whip up a proof of concept for almost any gameplay type in minutes with construct.

Construct 1 aside from stability was vastly superior to gamemaker. So if you believe the developers when they ay c2 will be stable, then its a no brainer. If not, or if you need a fully matured product now, then the choice is just as obvious.

Gamemaker is like a fun learning toy, that you can use to make some basic and limited games. Construct is a serious tool, that's even more fun than gamemaker.

I know this type of talk bothers some people for one reason or another, ibut I don't say it to belittle gm users, or because I'm a c1 fanboy. There's just no comparison. Fromwhat I hear mmf is closer in power and potential, but I haven't tried it

I know its a little childish, but its also fun. How bout a special symbol, or customizable tag under the avatars of the prepurchasers?

Yes, we were going to have some sort of badges system, all things being well there should be an Alpha Supporter badge, or something similar.

Gamemaker is like a fun learning toy, that you can use to make some basic and limited games. Construct is a serious tool, that's even more fun than gamemaker.

Khm... Do you talking about C1 or C2? Cause, you know, I'm not GM-fan, I love Construct, but I think this is controversial statement. If we look at amount of games made with GM and games made with C-t...

And actualy most of my favorite indie games made with GM =)

why Rainbow Dash is the most popular pony?

My post had little to do with GM being better, it is unfortunate that is the only idea people took away from it. I was pointing out the difficulty of selling software to an open source user community, the difficult questions that will have to be answered if C2 is ever to sell beyond these forums, proposing they copy an already successful pricing model, and subtly asking how can anyone be sure C2 will reach a good stable release let alone be supported for the next 2, 3, 10 years - how else will they get �599 from businesses? Even a peak at some of their business planning and system analysis for C2 would go a long way to allaying some of those doubts. Currently, it's hard to tell if they have the next month planned let alone the next 10 years.

I'm not saying any of the above to be cruel. I've been thinking about donating for a while so I'll probably get the early adopter license (which I didn't think of during my original post) as I really do like Construct and think it has a lot of potential. However, it would nice to feel more certain C2 will not be C1 all over again, now that I'm paying (not donating to help out a struggling indie project). They say they learnt a lot last time, but that is awfully subjective.

[quote:3r01fyfp]Gamemaker is like a fun learning toy, that you can use to make some basic and limited games. Construct is a serious tool, that's even more fun than gamemaker.

Have you ever downloaded game maker's games?.They don't look basic or play basic at all.Yes CS is powerful and way more advanced than GM ,But both are equally as good in thier own ways.Remember were "indie gamers" and no matter what app is used to create games they will always remain fun or just plain awful.It mostly depends on what the developer can do with that particular app.

When money is involved then comparisons will always be made.That's why Nintendo always stays on top,There products are way more inferior to their competition but they always win because of the huge price difference.

I love all these apps because every one of them has unique capabilities.

Let's not turn this in to a GM vs. Construct debate, it's besides the point and those arguments never go anywhere anyway.

how else will they get ?599 from businesses?

We won't actually be offering that license at first, only the early adopter licenses. I'm not expecting to sell any of them until we've proven C2's worth as a mature and well-established tool.

[quote:184b68g9]However, it would nice to feel more certain C2 will not be C1 all over again

It ultimately is a promise, but I think by trying C2 you should be able to find it's already a lot more reliable. It's up to us to build a rock-solid program to prove that, and we think we can really deliver. We've taken significant steps to improve it, some of which were detailed in the new features thread, such as checked builds (which are already making a big difference).

I'd like to know how will you do with Fundry? Scrap it or keep it running for additional revenue?

EDIT: Just want to you know that I won't object to Fundry. I rather like that idea, and certainly won't mind it if you run both as it doesn't really affect the non-paying users in negative way.

How can anyone be sure C2 will still exist in 10 years? What if I have a license that runs out right before a potentially program ruining bug is discovered?

There's a big trust issue here and the dev team is not in a great position after 0.x, no matter what regular 0.x users think or how much trust any of us have. Even big companies sometimes stop working on things sometimes, so why should anyone trust a few guys who didn't finish (yes, I know the details) their last project because it was bug-ridden and poorly coded?

So when you mention paying for a license (updates, whatever) for 10 years, that's pretty meaningless. When Microsoft says they'll provide updates to an OS until X date, everyone believes them. I don't see how Scirra is in any position to expect the same kind of trust, especially when there isn't a version 1.0 (like there would be with an OS) to begin with.

This is in not meant as an insult. These are facts essential to keep in mind.

There are no easy answers to those questions. We're proposing a startup business. Startups always involve an element of risk for everybody.

All I can say is I think we have the capacity to build something really great. Sure, 0.x was a bit of a disaster - but we know our mistakes, and know how to avoid them. You can support us through what will probably be a crazy few months where we try to build something resembling a business from the ground up out of nothing. Or you can just sit back and wait and see. If you asked me I'd say we need all the help we can get, but it's your choice! Jump in, or take a back seat and see what happens.

I like this new model. Although I'm still attached to Python and will continue to mess around with 0.x I'd like to see Construct 2 succeed so will look forward to being an early adopter. I think people get too hung up on if the project will still be around 5 years from now. I know we have probably all spent more money on less worthy projects/events.

why Rainbow Dash is the most popular pony?

actually I think pinkie pie is my favorite, rainbow dash is the awesomest looking though

I know this is probably getting ahead of ourselves, but I'm curious: if for some reason, the need arose to start again from scratch, say 5 years down the road, and this had become a fulltime job. would this new from the ground up version be included in people's already existing subscriptions like any other incremental build, or would it count as something separate?

also, any eta's on the re-sourceforging of the runtime?

and of the early adoption availability? I know it's asap, but is that like days, weeks, or months? gotta plan my finances accordingly

I don't see why there is problem with GM vs Construct vs MMF2 discussion now really because i often see Construct users here bashing on other apps. Also it gets the attention of GM and MMF2 users with threads like the bobo the bear one or the recent Game Maker goes HTML5 etc.

For GM talk in this thread though it has mainly been things like comparing the price plan GM uses or why would someone pay a lot more when they can buy GM which is a great app for a lower price. Then C1 fans say GM is not as good but if anyone stands up for them then it's problem but the original discussions before that were valid.

If you are working with indie game makers there is almost always other members of the same community that also use and like other apps so if they are being attacked they take it as a insult also. We all just want to make games etc but at the same time there should be more respect for the people that use other programs also.

I would do something like:

Tier 0: Free but nag screen and delays in features.

Tier 1: Pay-what-you-like (with a suggested value, e.g. �29) to get features and remove nag-screen (but limit distribution to a scirra site though so that people have to actively consider it), and you have to go through some 'process' and actively type �0.0 for payment if you want it for free, with a note that reminds people that the software is hard work to make.

For Tiers 0 and 1

Cannot publish games unless they're freeware.

Pay-what-you-want payments that are equal or greater than the commercial tiers (e.g. Tier 3, Tier 4 ) grant you that tier license automatically.

Then various commercial tiers as you suggested, but with somewhat higher prices as a result of the above. Indies who are going to make a little money from their game won't have an issue paying �75. People who won't be making money probably in most cases would pirate the software and get all the features anyway. Maybe this way you can convince a few of them to pay you a little, while the people who would have paid before might drop the suggested price.