Proposed licensing model (take 2)

  • 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.

  • We aim to open early adopter licenses ASAP.

    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.

  • [quote:mqv5v7qx]I just checked the website, because I thought it was 25USD... and it is.

    I wanted to like GM, but the UI is just ...too weird.

    Ah man sorry i meant $25 Im so used to working with pounds lol.But like i said earlier if CS2 proves to be better than the other competitors in every aspect then id consider buying the $500 licence.

  • Won't lie about being a little conflicted. On the one hand, I came upon Construct looking for a free game maker just to tinker around with and then I got way more than I expected in it. On the other hand, as a musician, I completely understand the mentality of wanting to do something that you're good at, that you love and get paid for it, and the generally common consensus that your hard work should be free just because it falls under the realm of entertainment and not necessity. So all in all, I do want to add that I do support your decision to go commercial.

    As far as your proposed licensing model goes, I personally think it looks good but I think you should make more distinction between the fact that people are paying for a license rather than continued use of the editor, so that they don't panic like I saw in the other thread before it got locked with worries about their editor locking up on them.

    I saw one person on here propose limited features in the free trial a la many other pieces of software. I think what you might be able to do is lock exporting functionality, so that you need to use Construct to run the games on the trial or expired versions, but leave all the actual game creation ability open. That way it'll be more of an inconvenience than a nag screen but not so much that they can't continue work on their game and continue to test it. They just can't make it convenient for others to play, as other folks will have to download Construct in order to play trial games. I think it'd end up win/win.

    As for piracy, I've heard it said pirates will be a problem no matter what you do. Which is true. However, the numbers aren't as bad as most people seem to think (I've done some studying). People are willing to pay depending on not only price points they find fair but also if they believe in and appreciate the faces behind the work.

    You seem to already have the fair price point, which you can make even more readily apparent by just adding something along the lines that "this translates to only $x.xx a month" or "help support the development of Construct! buy a license!" or some such thing that would be written far better than my 5 second attempt right there.

    The other thing you need to worry about is keeping an active and appreciated position in the community, whether it be frequent news/blog posts, getting people's opinions on proposed additions or changes, things like you're already doing. Only thing I can think to suggest you do in addition is to make sure it's readily apparent to new users/members from the get-go who you are (I had no clue as to how important Ashley was to Construct development until probably the beginning of this year, and I started playing with Construct probably second quarter last year ).

    I know folks may disagree with the exporter functionality thing on expired licenses, but from what folks have been mostly complaining about (at least before) was that they wouldn't be able to keep working on their games with expired licenses, but if you can devise a way to test games without exporting I think it could be a simple but somewhat significant way to either A) get folks to pay, or B) get more users downloading Construct = more potential licenses or at least word of mouth.

  • TL22 has a good point. Disabling the exporter allows for someone to fully create a game without paying a single cent, but requires a license when he/she wants to publish it. It's only fair to pay for the software you use..

    Also would it be a nice idea to have a hidden part on the forum for people with licenses?

  • I think it's important to differentiate the 30-day trial from an "expired" license. You keep functionality of the product once purchased, even after your upgrade cycle has finished.

    the limited functionality is only in the 30-day trial, which is the newer version of the software. you can continue to use your old version of the software without limitations.

  • Pretty sure disabling the exporter would result in more piracy than the nag screen would. Those people are obviously not interested in selling what they've made. However, preventing export of future formats (like exe) could be a better option, but really don't see the purpose of that either since the "demo" will be behind in features and the license does eventually expire.

  • All great points and posts. We do read all of them, and are considering everything.

    The special forum for license holders, and possibly other online benefits (if we can think of them) are all things we want to do. The website is going to have a massive overhaul, to become a more exciting and interactive place for everyone.

  • 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?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • 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.

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