Source for registered users?

When you purchase Torque 2D, you get a full copy of the source as well. I know a company that uses a modified version of Torque 2D where they added and changed the things they needed. In my case I'm pretty much doomed when something is wrong, and I need to ask someone in the development team to fix or change it.

I'm definitely going to make a switch to something else as soon as my current project is over (it'll take some time so Construct 2 will probably be more ready to be used for game development by then). I've learnt the hard way that not locking my games into a platform I can not modify must be very high on the priority list.

I'm not saying it should be open source of course. Just that it'd be great if registered users gets the source and can modify it for their own needs.

Hey Nifflas. If you install C2 and browse in to the exporters\html5 directory, all the javascript sources for the runtime, plugins and behaviors are all there. You can also write new plugins and behaviors entirely in javascript (just documented today). I'm planning on BSD-licensing the runtime end of things, it's stupid to try and protect it anyway.

As for the editor, the problem is I don't know how we could open source it and still sell it. It used to be open source, but we closed it down when we decided to license the editor. Another side of the problem is with Construct Classic, we've had some problems with certain people copying the source, changing all the parts which refer to us or Scirra to say their own name, then selling it for a few bucks. A teeny bit frustrating when you've worked on it for years. We're too small to reliably shut these people down, we can't hire armies of lawyers.

Also, the editor is pretty complicated anyway. You'd need fluency in C++ and significant knowledge of how the editor works to not cause bugs like saving unopenable projects. All projects are saved in XML files now anyway, so I guess anything the editor lets you down on might be able to be circumvented with a bit of XML hackery. We're also happy to take suggestions! Especially right now we're still working out some core features, so now's the best time for us to make any "big idea" changes.

Does Game Maker or MMF2 give you the source? Regardless, why would anyone expect the source for C2?

I think some people expect too much. Worlds gone mad :/

Does Game Maker or MMF2 give you the source? Regardless, why would anyone expect the source for C2?

I think some people expect too much. Worlds gone mad :/ead his post again:

In my case I'm pretty much doomed when something is wrongquote]

I've learnt the hard way that not locking my games into a platformquote]

'm definitely going to make a switchhat clears it up, doesn't it?

s for the editor, the problem is I don't know how we could open source it and still sell it. never suggested to open source it, hence the comparison to Torque 2D (source included with buy). However, I didn't know that people changed the Construct 1 name, compiled the source and distributed it as their own software. I guess I can understand your choice in that case. Are you sure illegal stolen products get big enough to attract users who would otherwise have purchased the real product though?

think some people expect too much. Worlds gone mad :/'m an MMF2 user and MMF2 have taught me the hard way to never lock my games into a locked dev tool again. I also need better and more powerful tool. Now I'm trying to take every factor into account, and make a choice between Torque 2D (source included when purchased), pygame (open source), monkey (closed source but exports the games as actual c++ code) and Construct 2. I'm not mad for trying to pick the tool that fits me best.

One thing I've noticed here is reproducible bugs get fixed quickly.

Its actually quite interesting really, especially when you consider that it usually takes weeks, or months for most of the big companies to fix things.

One of the few benefits to a one man development team I suppose.

I never suggested to open source it, hence the comparison to Torque 2D (source included with buy).

If we give every registered user the source I don't think it would be long at all before a leak. We've got scammers already ripping off Classic, users from other tools with irrational grudges, etc. so I think actually it would leak pretty much straight away. I don't know how Torque 2D manages it. Perhaps nobody's leaked it so it's not a problem, or they can afford to hire lawyers to shut down anyone abusing the source code whenever they spot instances of it. We're a two-man team working from home and considering we're just about to start issuing licenses, I don't think we'll be able to afford the legal costs that might be implied by this kind of thing for some time.

re you sure illegal stolen products get big enough to attract users who would otherwise have purchased the real product though?

It's not just lost sales - suppose the following:

• ripoffs come loaded with viruses or spyware, then people start widely avoiding it because they don't trust it,
• ripoffs break things or are based on old versions, then users complain to us about the bugs,
• users pay for a ripoff then get angry and come complaining to us,
• the extremely amateurish looking ripoff websites are embarrassing for us and give us a bad reputation,
• etc...

In short it's potentially a serious problem and I don't think we have the necessary resources to adequately deal with it.

How likely do you think it is you'll need to debug the editor though? It seems to me that the most likely issues will occur in the runtime, in which case you can just fire up Chrome's debugger and see what's happening in the javascript for yourself. In the editor, I suppose with the source you could debug and see what's happening, but like I say, aren't you worried anything you change would cause a corrupt-project style bug? Integrity of user data isn't an issue in an ordinary game engine like Torque 2D, but in an editor it's absolutely crucial. If you come across problems I'm more than happy to debug and fix it. You can probably see on the bugs forum it's something I do routinely. Also, in the past, we've pushed releases out in a matter of hours. If it's urgent the fix can probably be out in a few days, rather than waiting months for Construct 2.5 or whatever.

Point taken, I suppose. I really didn't think people abused products like that.

I wasn't actually planning to modify the editor itself (other than perhaps making a portable build of it so I could run C2 from an USB drive since I tend to move between physical locations so much and don't always want to bring a computer). It just feels a bit more comfortable knowing it's available, given what have happened with tools I used in the past.

I guess I can live with a closed source IDE. As long as exporters are open, I'll definitely consider C2. If the .exe exporter turn out to be closed source, it'll be something else though.

I wasn't actually planning to modify the editor itself (other than perhaps making a portable build of it so I could run C2 from an USB drive since I tend to move between physical locations so much and don't always want to bring a computer).

C2 is already designed to be portable - try installing r50 to a USB stick.

s long as exporters are open, I'll definitely consider C2. If the .exe exporter turn out to be closed source, it'll be something else though.

I think it's likely any runtimes we develop will be BSD licensed. The HTML5 exporter should be BSD licensed too. I don't know about the EXE exporter's license yet, it's probably some way off. But exporters aren't very interesting, they're just converter DLLs - a project goes in, a runtime with some data bolted on comes out. So I guess the important thing is open source runtimes, which we aim to have.

Oh right, that's nice. I didn't consider that it might be portable (it's not that common unfortunately). I haven't actually tried much of C2.

I'm glad to hear about the runtimes.

For the exe and other runtimes, do you intend for it to spit out code or binaries?

Binaries - much more convenient for you than having to compile stuff yourself. This doesn't mean the runtimes can't also be open source though.