Licensing Model Options

Solar2D Daily Builds and Public Releases
#1

I just started using Corona, and I can see that Corona is a great environment to get started in, and it appears to be powerful enough for high-end development.

However, as a person just poking around, I’m having a hard time figuring out how I can justify $450 in up-front costs to release apps. I know Corona has to pay the bills, but after quickly putting together the interface (with no underlying code) of an app that I developed in CASL for the Palm Pilot years ago, I’m struggling with whether I want to continue.

Given the choice for Corona to make nothing off of me (if I decide $350 is more than I can justify right now) and possibly making something off of me, and allowing me to potentially grow into a full-fledged subscriber, it would be really nice if there was a model that offered a lower initial cost, ($100, $150, maybe even free depending on how much we want to pay in royalties) coupled with perhaps a 10 or 20 percent royalty per purchase. (Hell, make it 50%. The goal is to allow people to play around with this to see what they can do, and if they really start to make money at it, they should be encouraged to become fully licensed.)

I’d even be willing to put links to the Corona SDK in my App’s about screen, and perhaps a pop-up linking to the Corona site that shows up the first time the app is run.

Perhaps people on the lower tier get no direct support, only the use of the Forums?

Like I said, you guys have a powerful tool here. Your goal now should be to get as wide spread acceptance and use as possible. Offering a lower tier to app distribution would really open up your user base.

Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for developing a great development environment.

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 305446[/import]

#2

While all you say is somewhat true, you have to be careful with lowering entry requirements too much. You want developers who are serious about the stuff they put out there (especially if you want to put Corona splash screens).

You don’t want to flood the market with crap games made with Corona. It devalues the product for the rest of us.

I know whenever I see a Made with GameSalad screen I cringe, before even seeing the game. That can’t be pleasant for the pro suscribers that put out good products.

Using royalties is much more complicated for everyone involved. Also the model you propose shifts all the risk to Ansca, since if/when suscribers become successful they opt out of the royalty option (and if they’re not Ansca doesn’t get anything).

I feel the free unlimited trial goes a long way in making Corona more accessible. When you have your project(s) ready to go you have to ask yourself if they’ll be able to recoup the cost. If not, there wasn’t much point in releasing them anyway.

Though it could be interesting to see what Ansca could come up with regarding different pricing options.
[import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18275[/import]

#3

@Todd,

My first thought being an C, C++, Objective C, and java programmer and seeing the price of Corona I was instantly put off and that was back when it was $99 for an introductory price. My reason for this was that I had been working with Cocos2D and Box2D/and or Chipmunk which offer the same end results if not better as they are farther along. Cocos2D doesn’t do scripting but for me that wasn’t a big deal because I don’t mind programming in Objective C and C++ but for most people getting into programming or just coming from an only Java background it is much easier get going. I still haven’t published anything with Corona because they STILLLLLLLLLLLLL do not have the ability for me to add in my open OpenGL ES 2.0 shaders and pixel processing (CAN YOU HEAR ME ANSCA?). I think that will change as soon as these features are added. The reason for this is simple I can have an idea and finish it in a week even while I am working full time. I also don’t have to do as much testing.

Now that I think about it how in the world could you not make your $450 back. If you are only planning on making $440 on your app get a second job for a week instead.

I will say the lack of any form of an IDE or some way to easily get it setup with an existing one for $440 product seems almost inexcusable. I think someone is working on one but I would much rather have first party support. I know some other engines don’t either but since you are using LUA there aren’t any good IDEs you can just plug into with a fair amount of work to directly test your code.

Anyway, I will end my rant with a simple statement. If it is too expensive move on. [import]uid: 5886 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18339[/import]

#4

Pixel shaders? we no need no stinking pixel shaders !

Shaders are schedule for next major drop - as well as pixel level editing and other graphic goodies

C. [import]uid: 24 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18382[/import]

#5

“If it is too expensive move on.”

Yep. That’s what I’ll probably do. (Along with a lot of other potential customers.)

If an entry-level subscription with no support, and limited distribution options (such that “serious” developers wouldn’t consider it) were offerred, it would cost Ansca very little, but would generate larger economies of scale revenue.

CASL, NSBASIC and the other Compiled Script environments for PalmOS and Windows Mobile are no longer with us. Their subscription models didn’t allow them to reach the level of market penetration for them to survive.

The number of serious developers using Corona, is most likely not enough to support the company at $350 each per year.

You don’t want your company to be using the same development platform as people that develop “fart” apps? Why not? Low-end apps may not be the best thing for Corona developers (because of the added competition), but the revenue those developers could develop for Ansca might be the difference between the platform surviving or failing.

The environment these apps are running in is moving VERY fast. In the 15 months I’ve owned my Droid, it has had three different OSes and there are at least 2 more available on shipping (or soon to be shipping) devices. The road map thread was filled with iOS 4.2 and Android 3.0 requests. (Ansca is responding and releasing updates relatively quickly!) Soon that will be 4.3 (or 5.0) and 3.1, and on and on. If Ansca cannot generate enough revenue to continue to develop the platform, the apps that have been developed using it will become obsolete very quickly. When that happens, developers will be forced to abandon the days/weeks/months they have spent developing the app and re-write them in another environment. Oh, and their customers will be flooding their inbox with “When are you going to support !!!” messages while they work to re-write.

Ansca needs to look at options to get as many customers (from hobbyists looking to release freeware, to vertical market developers looking to build a custom app for a very limited market space, to mainstream developers looking to build the “next big app”) as they can.

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18383[/import]

#6

Guess that’s a “No” on my original message (the one about a more reasonable license structure for hobbyists).

Ah well. Titanium Appcelerator, here I come!

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18405[/import]

#7

> a more reasonable license structure for hobbyists

I think the unlimited trial version is a HUGE step in that direction. You can create an entire game – including building to your device – before you ever have to spend a cent. If you have a halfway decent game completed and were broke you could probably Kickstarter.com your way to paying for the SDK.

Jay
[import]uid: 9440 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18408[/import]

#8

I agree with JA. I think the 100% free to try and build locally is fantastic. If you’re not sure if you can recoup your costs from appstore then thats a problem for you and you alone. Did you ask Apple for a discount on the Mac you’re working on? Adobe for a discount on Photoshop?

I do want additional licensing options but at the other end of the scale. If I have 5 developers I only need to pay Ansca for one license that sits on our build machine. The developers all use the trial version. Ansca only gets paid for one seat license - no good.

As an incentive to buy more licenses, I’d like to see a server build license for enterprise. If we buy a minimum seat license (5 to 10 lets say), we’d get access to a Corona Build Server license for local installation. This would let us build and test locally instead of having to post for building over the Internet. The server and the seats would of course do license checks online but the builds happen locally. [import]uid: 11393 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18427[/import]

#9

@Todd,

You clearly seem to be a very reasonable individual.

You have posted a suggestion in the “Features and Roadmaps” section of the forum, waited under 11 hours for a company to respond to a request for them to change their business model, then assumed a lack of response in 11 hours means you can clearly assume a “NO” answer, and try to "make an exit about moving to a product there is arguable in a very different product/category from Corona and targeted at different users.

Good day to you sir…I say good day! [import]uid: 5886 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18437[/import]

#10

Well he got his wish! It’s now only $200 if you only want to build for iOS. Very reasonable IMO. [import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18520[/import]

#11

I am reasonable and logical.

In 11 hours, the company DID respond in my thread. They responded to something posted from someone else and didn’t respond to my post. Not even to say, “We’re thinking about it.”

The fact that there was evidence that they were reading my post (and responding to someone else’s rant) and chose to ignore what I posted told me that no response was coming.

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18522[/import]

#12

@bedhouin: I haven’t read the actual license agreement, but I would hope that Ansca has worded it in such a way that what you are doing violates it. (I’m sure it violates the spirit…) To me, it seems that if you have five developers, you should have five licenses. The trial is just that, a trial.

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18523[/import]

#13

@toddtw: It wouldn’t matter if you did read the license agreement because apparently you have poor comprehension skills. I said, If I have 5 developers.

We’re still in testing stage so we are only using one license on one machine before the rest of the team receives training.

Thanks for the accusation, but it is not welcome. [import]uid: 11393 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18524[/import]

#14

I would like to appologize to evgeryone. It was not my intention for this to turn into a flame war. I’ve just watched a really nice development environment fail to thrive because its licensing model did not allow it to make enough money.

My comments were not meant to inflame, but sometimes, I get a little too passionate in my remarks.

I hope you can all find a way to forgive my comments.

-Todd [import]uid: 25195 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18533[/import]

#15

man, considering I just purchased a couple weeks ago part of me wishes I could downgrade to iOS only.

On the other hand, my fiancee has a Droid so maybe this will remind me to finally try deploying to her device as a test. [import]uid: 12108 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18535[/import]

#16

“The fact that there was evidence that they were reading my post (and responding to someone else’s rant) and chose to ignore what I posted told me that no response was coming.”

It’s not really standard practice for businesses to discuss their pricing models of forum boards though. Plus given they had an announcement planned for the very next day, it makes even more sense that they would not comment on it.

You should be pretty pleased now. $199 is a very reasonable entry fee IMO. [import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18543[/import]

#17

I’m a little dismayed that it’s $349 per year for the pro version. I thought it might be an initial 349 then say 99 per year. Juswt wondering, has anyone here sold 349 worth of apps yet ? [import]uid: 9371 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18614[/import]

#18

I would hope no one would go through the trouble of developing an app for money who would only plan on making less than $349. Working for a week at any temp agency would net you that much money. [import]uid: 5886 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18617[/import]

#19

My plan is that each app I sell in the App Store brings in a minimum of $10K per month.

That’s my *plan*.

Reality, unfortunately, cares nothing about my plans.

Jay

PS - I have no Corona-made apps in the store, yet. When I do, I’m *sure* they’ll do $10k per month minimum. That’s my plan, after all. [import]uid: 9440 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18619[/import]

#20

Plans do seem to have there way of not working out don’t they? [import]uid: 5886 topic_id: 5446 reply_id: 18620[/import]