Proposed licensing model (take 2)

  • 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.

  • Might loose some beta testing feedback from the free users... ok all.

  • We talked this topic to death.

    It is clear that more people like the idea then dislike it.

    It is time to start implementing it.

    But you guys need to clearly have a faq on this licensing model.

  • It is clear that more people like the idea then dislike it.

    It is time to start implementing it.

    Here's the thing, this isn't only for the current Construct 0.x community. Even if everyone here liked the idea, if it ended up making less people buy it in the end, then it's a bad idea. This is about a business model, not what current users want, but what will get the most money overall.

  • You know, it's not that bad of an idea. I say go for it- though I'm still going full behind 0.x till I can see the full power of C2 as something comparable. I think you guys are too hard on yourself; C 0.x is far from a 'failure'!

    Hope this thing starts getting itself off the ground.

  • I'd like to know more details.

    Does the Discount license allow me to sell games ( for example via Steam) I make?

    Who need to buy a Commercial license?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • The difference is turnover.

    If you are selling less than $20,000 a year of games, you only need the discount license.

    If you sell > $20,000 a year, you need commercial.

  • Yeah, thanks I needed that.

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