On this note, I was looking at the Chartboost library. It is an encrypted lua file which you require in your project just as any other lua module. It works and does its thing and is not a traditional CL served plug-in. I would like to learn more about how they achieved that. An encrypted lua library that is. This might be the way Corona Enterprise users could package their modules in a protected sense and offer them on any marketplace of their choosing. This might even be the way for pro users to offer things like improved widgets etc. Anyone know more about this?
Last I heard Chartboost on Corona was broken and they said they no longer support it. Haven’t checked their source, it is likely obfuscated, not encrypted.
Yes. Probably thats what it is. Sorry for the terminology error. It looks like this when you open it in an editor. Just pasting some of it :
LuaQ@chartboost\_library\_public.lua l%C@A@$A$$$$A$$$$A$$$$A$$$$A$$$$A$$$$A$ FF AFE AFA AFAA AEA\ZAA!match^(.\*)%..-$chartboost.libraries.lib.classchartboost.libraries.CBUtility&chartboost.networking.CBWebImageCache"chartboost.networking.CBURLOpener"chartboost.model.CBImpressionType#chartboost.model.CBImpressionStatechartboost.model.CBOrientation!chartboost.model.CBAnimationTypechartboost.view.CBAnimations#chartboost.view.CBAnimationManager(chartboost.view.CBUnderfinedProgressBarchartboost.view.CBLoadingView!chartboost.view.CBBackgroundView&chartboost.view.CBPopupImpressionView,chartboost.nativeviews.CBRoundRectImageView&chartboost.nativeviews.CBActionButton&chartboost.nativeviews.CBMoreAppsCell-chartboost.nativeviews.CBMoreAppsRegularCell.chartboost.nativeviews.CBMoreAppsFeaturedCell-chartboost.nativeviews.CBMoreAppsWebViewCellchartboost.CBViewProtocolchartboost.CBViewController8chartboost.nativeviews.CBNativeInterstitialViewProtocol.chartboost.nativeviews.CBMoreAppsViewProtocol"chartboost.view.CBWebViewProtocolchartboost.model.CBImpressionpcallrequire.chartboost\_internalprintChartboost requires the additional library file 'chartboost\_internal.lua' to be found in the same directory as 'chartboost.lua'.DFZrequire name mod \_\_chartboost\_\_modulesK$H (Z@܀@@܀$@$AA@A type functiontablepairs\_base\_\_index\_\_callinitis\_a setmetatable0\<D@e@@@e@ setmetatableinit1222233344444777777788888;\< class\_tblargobjcinitbase\>E@@@@@ getmetatable\_base???@@AAAABBDDEself klassI have seen this kind of obfuscated code before when I was trying to get behind the Corona SDk “Demo” project from the Legacy builds… I didn´t find out how to make it readable though. But these were all .lua files
Yes, so my point is that there is a way to reasonably obfuscate code and offer it for sale. I don’t know if this approach could be used on the Enterprise built native invoking plugins but it certainly sounds like a way to secure pure text lua based modules Pro users might offer for sale.
Problem is not everything can be done in pure lua. That’s the problem.
Exactly. This doesn’t diminish the need for Corona Labs to offer the plugin market. It was just an idea for Pro users trying to make modules and sell them etc.
On the plugin market side, I don’t get it why this is so hard for CL to accomplish. They obviously have the mechanism for 3rd party plugins to be hosted on their servers and used in the SDK. There are numerous examples of this already in the monetization libraries etc. See http://coronalabs.com/resources/plugins/
So please help us understand David. Why is it possible to load a plugin if your name is Vungle or SponsorPay or Fortumo etc and not possible if your name is @deleurapps?
If someone makes a plugin and gives it to corona to support a third party service, I’m sure they will add it. They just don’t have a monetized strategy done yet. (although I heard from a few sources it was but the guy left).
Corona’s stance right now is they do not want to build plugins, they want it done by third party vendors as they don’t want to support them which I understand. But the Third party vendors don’t want to build them as Corona’s market share is much smaller than the big SDK’s out there and there return on investment isn’t there.
Okay, I’m confused again. I’ve seen people offer plugins for sale here in the forums. In fact, I saw someone offering just such a thing last night. So how are they able to do that if CL has to be involved to make the plugin work?
Jay
There is no way currently to buy or even share plugins unless you have Enterprise. There are people offering plugin development to other Enterprise users, but I don’t know of any other offerings from that. Unless it is a “Lua” plugin. I’ve been out of the Corona scene for a bit, but I’m pretty sure that’s it.
Yeah, the plugins I offered for sale are exclusively for enterprise users. With the enterprise subscription you can make any plugin you want.
I think a major reason why corona does not want to let enterprise users share their plugins with pro is because less people would be interested in the enterprise subscription. There would just be a select few who make and destructed plugins with the enterprise subscriptions, and the rest won’t buy that plan.
They already doubled the price to pro so they can finance free users so Corona can claim larger market share. Yet there isn’t a huge difference for Pro users, especially since starter users getting plugins too. IAP is a requirement to be successful on the apps store so that’s kind of a trick pony being used to leverage Pro user upgrades. It was promised well over a year ago this functionality would be available to Pro users already.
I think Coronalabs would _increase _sales of Enterprise licenses if there was a plugin marketplace that all subscribers could access.
The unwashed masses (I include myself in that) don’t have the expertise to set up and build natively, so writing plugins is not something I will attempt. I’m never going to buy an Enterprise license even to integrate other people’s plugins because I don’t care to get bogged down setting up native build environments. The whole point of using Corona for me is the ease with which cross platform apps can be made from a single code base. If I had to write natively for iOS and Android… well, I’d be using something else. For every Corona user who can write native plugins there are probably 10 of us who can’t, or won’t.
But those who do have the expertise to write plugins might be more likely to purchase an Enterprise license if it meant they could sell a couple hundred copies of their plugins to people like me. I think the popularity of Unity is partially due to the perception (somewhat incorrect) that it doesn’t require programming. Corona doesn’t have that advantage, but LUA, plugins, and Corona’s core make it the next best thing in terms of ease of use and accessibility for non-expert programmers.
^^ Exactly my thoughts and position.
Here we go guys, they listened to us 
http://coronalabs.com/blog/2014/04/18/introducing-3rd-party-corona-plugins/
I wouldn’t call two plugins by one developer a marketplace and if that’s a sign of the prices to come, it’s going to end up at Unity pricing at no time.
It’s just the beginning 
The question is: the beginning of what?
I am with @cspence. Two plugins highly over priced.
And is the first time that I see a product that charges you on 2 dimensions: time (1 year license) and # apps.
I am pretty sure that if Corona open the approach to the community, we would get developers creating the plugins for free and making it available for everyone…
Btw, it appears that Paypal has a REST API (https://developer.paypal.com/webapps/developer/docs/api/) , so we don’t need a plugin to use it… Anyway, for me Paypal is of no use, since Apple will not approve an app/game with Paypal.
I just think you should have an open mind about this. Corona is unable to create a marketplace right now due to higher priorities. However, they did hear out their customers and tried to meet them halfway. They teamed up with several developers that would specifically focus of creating plugins, that would try to fulfill the customers’ needs. $60 is definitely not over-priced, as plugins do take quite a lot of effort to make (speaking from personal experience) and in a long term they should pay back.
All I’m saying is try to look at the bright side of things that Corona is listening to your requests and is trying to fulfill them in at least some way while still focusing on its own priorities.
Cheer up!
For something like this (payment processing) I’d rather pay $90 than free. Every time. The guy offering it for free is either a hobbyist or is more likely to go out of business without cash coming in – then you’re kind of stuck.
I’m getting ready to pay $75 to upgrade a plugin for which I originally paid $300 – because it saves me LOTS of time (which equals $) over doing it myself.
I think the 1-year time limit is loony, but not the app limit or the pricing. It’s not a tween library or something like that, it’s a plugin that directly affects how people give you money.
Jay