Corona Starter And Changes To Pro - Discuss!

Solar2D General Questions/Discussion
#101

1- I am pretty sure it is too late now (and maybe not even feasible technically/business wise) BUT why not just add a “Pro Plus” or “Expert” level where people can get the new goodies (graphics, Gluon…) The current Pro could then upgrade to it if they want to for say $200? Again, just rambling here, since I am 110% sure you thought of that during your business decisions making process!

2- I am not sure about the reasoning behind "if people get “successful” with the “starter” then they would automatically switch to Pro.

a- I think it will a very very small % of the total users of “starters” who would call them “successful”

b- Not sure what the Pro version would bring them more (if they already successful) with the “starter”. Of course maybe analytics…

My 99 cents!

Mo

#102

Mo - yes, in theory we could add even more product versions. But that is a tough road - complexity is usually not good. If we end up with many products, with add-ons (as has also been suggested), eventually things get very confusing :slight_smile:

As for your second point. If an indie is successful and can stay with Starter, then that’s great. But as already discussed, we will add more features to Pro (e.g., OpenGL 2.0). So if you are successful and want to do more things with graphics, plugins or whatever else, then you might consider the upgrade to Pro. But even if you don’t - we will be happy with many successful indies using Starter - that only helps the community.

#103

Agree 100%. For $600 we should be able to make plugins.

You (Corona Labs) should add that feature to Pro version.

There are so many monetization options out there which would make the developers living easier.

I know they work cause I use them in my native written game but can’t use them in Corona (e.g. Kiip is a great additional revenue stream).

Why don’t you wanna help us make some money ? :blink:

#104

@David, good points! Can’t wait to see what you guys are cooking. Especially in term of graphics!

Mo

#105

Maurício Gomes, if it were a cash grab, we would not have given away what we did for free, nor would we be grandfathering everyone for two years or giving free upgrade’s to the Indie license holders.

#106

As a someone who has been watching corona from the outside for a while trying to decided on wether or not to buy, I have a few thoughts. I think that corona may be overreaching with the new $600/year price and here’s why: as several people have noted you are now in unity’s price range. What hasn’t been mentioned is that from all indications unity will be rolling out a 2d mode this year. If they do that then corona will be in the unenviable position of being in the same price rang as an engine that can deploy to many more platforms and gives you much more functionality.

#107

paulhunt5 - thanks for the thoughts. And your points are valid and well taken. However, I have to slightly disagree on 2 things:

  1. Pricing - Assuming you are publishing for mobile, Corona SDK Pro (at $599) will be comparable to Unity’s $800 “free” tier. Except that Unity which has the following restrictions:

  • Unity splash screen

  • only usable by small companies (<$100k in revenue)

  • a number of other graphics restrictions

And by saying comparable I am already taking into account the subscription nature of Corona, vs. the pay “once” nature of Unity (plus a 50% payment to upgrade 1-2 years later).

If you are a slightly larger company, or want to get rid of the restrictions, then you are talking about paying Unity $4500 - which is a *lot* more than $599/year.

  1. Functionality - You are absolutely right in that Unity publishes to a lot of platforms. But the action right now is in mobile. And if you are a mobile developer, you have little interest in publshing for Xbox, PS, Wii, etc. Of course, I am generalizing, but that is generally true. We (Corona) are well aware of other mobile platforms (e.g., Win8) and will support them when they get any reasonable market share.

Finally - Unity does do a ton of things. That is absolutely true, it is a fantastic tool. But many of those things are not needed if you are making 2D games and apps. In fact, we feel Corona is a tool that is better suited to that - you will develop more quickly and efficiently with Corona. And as always, time is money.

So in the end, we feel we compare very favorably. But again, you are absolutely right in that Unity is a very capable tool.

#108

2 years I started development on a game and settled on Corona SDK as a simple and fairly cheap option for development.

Now older and a little wiser I can see my time and money would have been better invested in other avenues, alas no point dwelling.

What I find interesting is that as more and more (better and cheaper) options have become available your price continues to rise. $600 for a YEARLY licence is really expensive compared to your competition. The only thing that has kept me here is the fact that I have sunk so much time into this I feel I need to finish it (sunk cost fallacy?).

To me, Corona is positioned as a product for people who want to enter the market and make a quick buck without having to spend much time learning tools and languages. 

Corona is a product with an impressive feature set, but when you start to scratch the surface you begin to realize the features are poorly documented and rarely work as advertised. I see a funny little parallel between Corona and the customer that they try to attract in that they are both producing a flashy, yet shallow product with the intention of making some quick money in a volatile marketplace.

This is stark contrast to something like Unity which seems to me to be aiming for a more longer term approach. They are comfortable selling Unity for a one time fee, because they have faith in their product and know that it will continue to sell. They are playing the long game.

Some will argue that the new ‘free’ version of Corona SDK is the perfect option for someone like me. You’re only missing out on IAP right? For now, it looks very attractive (Ignoring the fact that IAP is a deal-breaker for me). But I promise you, they will strip that free version down until you have no alternative but to rent the Pro version. That’s the nature of yearly licencing I suppose, you’re completely at their mercy.

#109

wpetzler - thanks for the thoughts. Let me ask you a couple of questions:

And let me preface this by saying that I think Unity is a fantastic tool.

  1. Say you buy Unity today for a “one time fee”. What will you do in 18-24 months when they come out with a brand new version (e.g., 5.0)?

  2. When you say that there are “cheaper” options out there, who are you referring to? Unity is not cheaper by any means.

  3. I think saying that “features rarely work as advertised” is unfair. Can you be more specific?

Things are changing so quickly in mobile that there are bound to be some things that don’t always exactly work as you would like, are evolving, etc. That by the way is the case with any platform. I challenge you to show me “the perfect platform” - I’ll quickly go into their forum and find threads of people complaining :slight_smile:

But I think 27k live apps in all the different app stores are a decent indication that the product works. Many of those apps by the way are very solid apps and I think they are in it for the long haul too.

I won’t argue about “better” because clearly there are different opinions there. If Corona didn’t work for you, then I’m sorry about that. It is working for many thousands of developers.  

Finally, I guarantee we will not take away features from Starter. If anything we will may move things from Pro to Starter as things evolve. 

#110

That’s exactly what I wrote somewhere a few weeks ago. I tried Corona Enterprise, is nice and everything, but for me - indie, sole developer - it’s overkill.
I don’t need to have access to ObjC every time I’m working on a app. I just need to be able  - from time to time - to build simple plugins to

extend Corona. That’s all. 999 is too much for that.

In my opinion, the perfect solution would be:

  1. a Pro+ license, same price of the current pro, that allows you to create plugins.

  2. a basic pro, same thing as now but 349$

And actually, since I guess there are more Pro license than Enterprise, allowing Pro to make and distribute plugins on your Gluon marketshare would probably increase the number of plugins available for your users and what Corona can do… a win-win situation.

#111

That’s exactly what i think… limiting plug-ins to enterprise users is not a good idea, and im pretty sure its way easier to find 5 pro users than 1 enterprise.

Since i’m sure that some enterprise subscriptions were sold already and you can’t change it right now, what about make it so enterprise people can actually sell their plug-in oficially and Pro users can’t? But both of them can make them. Think about it… Lua-based multi-platform engine for mobile with java/objC support, don’t you think that would get enough people (both pro and enterprise) to make you guys earn a lot of money?

#112

Yeah, it could be that enterprise users can sell their plug-ins in Gluon marketplace while Pro users can only release them for free.
More plugins available means more features for Corona and at the same time less work for Coronalabs…

#113

I personally think it is a mistake to compare Corona to Unity 3D.

  • Corona is the best 2D engine

  • Unity 3D is the best 3D engine 

So i think it is like comparing apple to oranges.

Still David,

1- Having a splash screen from Unity is really not the end of the World for most small indies. Especially it is a good looking one like Unity! I think it even enhance the app developer since it shows that he/she used the best 3D engine out there in this case.  Of course for more serious dev it is another ball game…

2- Let’s be frank and say that most of us here will never see $100K!! Trust me, if one day I make 100K+, you could charge me $5K for the SDK and I will still buy it!

I also be interested in finding more about the upcoming graphic features. Frankly that’s all I am interested about at this time. Maybe if those plug-in enable us to use Chartboost then I would also enjoy that!

Thanks for letting us vent:)

Mo

#114

I do see your point about the pricing. If someone Is OK with the unity splash screen you can get unity with iOS + android for $800 and since the paid upgrades are about 1 1/2 years apart that is cheaper than coronas $600/year, but without the splash it is a very high $4500, so pricing is tough to compare. A lot of it does come down to whether corona will support bb10 and win8 and whether or not a developer will ever need any part of the 3d functionality.

#115

[quote name=“LairdGames” post=“175147” timestamp=“1366054995”]I personally think it is a mistake to compare Corona to Unity 3D.   - Corona is the best 2D engine   - Unity 3D is the best 3D engine    So i think it is like comparing apple to oranges.   Mo[/quote] My point was that if unity delivers on the 2d mode then it won’t be comparing a 2D engine vs a 3D engine, it will be a 2D engine vs a 2D+3D engine.

#116

Can you write your own plugins with Unity ? (access to native libraries)

Do not forget that this feature is $999 per year for indy developers for Corona, that is the one decision I cannot agree with Corona labs.

#117

[quote name=“ubj3d.android” post=“175152” timestamp=“1366056251”]Can you write your own plugins with Unity ? (access to native libraries)   Do not forget that this feature is $999 per year for indy developers for Corona, that is the one decision I cannot agree with Corona labs.[/quote] My understanding is that with the “pro” version of unity you can write plug ins.

#118

Hi, I like to share my thoughts on corona sdk

1. Comparing with Unity

I think we shouldn’t compare corona sdk with unity at all, we should compare with Marmalade, game salad and other 2D engines.

  • Unity is 3D engine ,  If you want to make 3D game , go for Unity. Its is powerful, but very difficult to use, You’ll waste a lot of time developing 2D games with Unity.
  • Corona is 2D engine , fast&rapid development, and runs smoothly with no loading time on most phones. But it support less platforms. If you want to make 2D game or simple apps, go for Corona or other 2D engines. 

2.Starter vs Pro

  • Analytics

Its good to have, but not something you cant live without. Personally, I seldom use it.

  • Daily Builds and Pre-releases

Good to have. Public release is updated only every 3~ 6 months? 

  • Plugin

You’ll have to pay for most of the plugins. Does Pro user get some free plugins in future?

  • In-App Purchase

Probably the main reason to update to Pro. 

 

For now, all you need to decide is whether IAP worth the $600 per year? 

From my experience, 500 daily download for a iOS free game earns about 10~40 usd, 200 download earns 3~15 usd, 300 daily download with revmob earns 0~12 usd.

(android market is about 1/3 of iOS earning for the same amount of downloads)

If you are wondering whether IAP can cover the cost, just switch it from paid to free and see how much downloads you are getting after two weeks. 5~50 downloads per day probably earns nothing. 

Conclusion:

New users: upgrade Pro only if you get more than 1000 downloads per day

I think Starter is great deal. If you have one or two free app/game that each generates more than 500 daily downloads then go ahead and get Pro and try out IAP. If not, stick with Starter and use revmob ads for free game/app.

Current Indie/pro: continue ** subscription before  expires if  you make more than 350 usd a year**

For indie, don’t put too much hope in android market. But if you earn more than 350 usd last year then I think you should continue the pro subscription, because we’ll be paying $350 per year instead of $600 usd!

3. Suggestion

Include Offline Build & some free plugins for Pro users to make the deal more attractive.

#119

I guess we have to wait for project Gluon and the new graphics improvements in order to evaluate the new prices better. It would be nice to get a few more information about it though :wink:

#120

A couple of thoughts:

  1. David - thanks for your responses here and elsewhere over the past several months.  You are the voice that Corona has needed for awhile and the time you take is building trust with developers like me.  Thank you.

  2. I think you guys took a smart approach with the new price structure.  I like the product and I’m happy to pay more down the line to support a more robust version of it.  I want Corona to prosper so the tool stays around.  Those of us that do should give you some latitude to make pricing changes that guarantee growth and profitability for Corona Labs.  

I think a lot of the negative feedback stems from folks not understanding that the prices for current subscribers aren’t going to rise for two more years.  That wasn’t completely clear from the original post.  Delaying the increase for subscribers was a generous, customer-focused decision and I applaud that.  Thank you.

  1. From a macro standpoint, I like the new voice and direction around here.  I’m pleased that a new public build has arrived.  I think the Gluon/plugin framework has the potential to dramatically improve the Corona ecosystem.  

More communication would be great, though.  When core features like analytics suddenly (1) stop working (2) with very little explanation why and (3) no timetable for when they will return, that is really pretty shoddy customer service for a paid product.  It has been about a month and I still don’t understand why analytics aren’t working (other than it is some sort of “server issue”) or when they are going to return.  That does not build trust.

And, like many around here, I am hoping that the new-and-improved Corona team starts shipping features much more rapidly.  I’m happy to pay more and get more.  Lots of the things in the pipeline (Gluon/plugins, in particular) should really be great.  But, from a subscriber perspective, Corona builds and ships very slowly relative to others.  Despite promising a more agile development cycle last year, 5+ months elapsed between last week’s public build and the previous one in November.  Looking at the release notes, there is nothing that big in there, especially for your core iOS developers.  

Five months is an eternity these days in software development.  I’m not sure what needs to change on Corona’s product development side (maybe focusing on one big new feature at a time, like not re-vamping the graphics while trying to ship Gluon/plugins?), but subscribers no longer trust the Corona team to ship what they say they will in any reasonable time.  I know Corona Cloud and enterprise have been a focus for the team.  But plugins/Gluon has been discussed for a long time (a year or more?) and it still isn’t here.  Will it be launched within three months from now?  I don’t know how any subscriber could confidently say it will be (nor has Corona even committed to that timeframe).  I’m sure you’re aware of it, but higher prices are going to command a better ability to communicate and ship.

Thanks for all of your work!