Most of the people I recommend TGF2 to tell me they don't want to pay for something they're not even sure that they would use. They also mention the free programs online they were thinking about trying. I looked for TGF and MMF at the clickteam website as a possible cheap alternative and found out they were gone. I feel like if clickteam is no longer trying to profit from these programs maybe they could be used to spark the interest of new potential developers. Hopefully in time they'll see a reason to upgrade.
I don't think they should, they're pretty much the same as MMF2 just with a few less features etc., and they're not really wanting to support them now anyway.
I think they should make TGF2 free though. It's basically a demo you pay for.
I fully agree with that, TGF2 should be what K&P for schools was. People who get really into it will want to buy MMF2 anyway. Also it would make part of my job a lot easier
I am afraid CT is a bit too conservative for such things though.
When Construct is free, open source and even better in some parts, Clickteam should really think what to do next. In my opinion they should give at least TGF2 for free, charge for MMF2 Developer not more than 50€ and completely rewrite their next version of MMF.
How many of you is still interested to give 300€ to get MMF2 Developer?
Totally agreeing with Hayo and Jarzka. With Game Maker 8 and Construct free, I'm surprised Clickteam actually expects people to pay so much just for a game making software. Maybe at least have a donation button. :|
...Unless they do- I don't know, I haven't checked for one cause I'm not motivated to right now. But yes, I think MMF2 should be free, upgraded and improved, and TGF2 discontinued, concerning MMF2 pretty much has what TGF2 has.
I do have to admit, MMF2 really helps me out a TON when it comes to prototyping. It definatly makes a better impression with a game design if the people you're working with can see and interact with what you're talking about. However, once I'm confident with using something like C# or C++, I'm fairly certain that going to XNA or any of the other free development tools definatly seem more attractive.
With that said, it is still useful, it'd be nice if there were more options as far as portability is concerned. As far as making the older versions free, that'd be kind of like asking Autodesk to make their older versions of 3DS Max free. Odds are, if there are older versions of software that can produce the same products, and it's free, most people might be inclined to go for the free version. I can see if there were something substantially different (Like I remember reading something about the dev version being able to export to flash?), that might rope more people in.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by W3R3W00F Totally agreeing with Hayo and Jarzka. With Game Maker 8 and Construct free, I'm surprised Clickteam actually expects people to pay so much just for a game making software. Maybe at least have a donation button. :|
...Unless they do- I don't know, I haven't checked for one cause I'm not motivated to right now. But yes, I think MMF2 should be free, upgraded and improved, and TGF2 discontinued, concerning MMF2 pretty much has what TGF2 has.
I agree also, but as usual, CT is lagging behind..... At the school were I work we use gamemaker for our IT lessons. Kids love it and some are still using it outside of the school. If we could have introduced them to TGF/MMF somehow for free, a number of them would move on to pay for their copy.
I do believe TGF2 should be completely free and used to draw in new people who are interested, promote it very heavily, sites, magazines and so on. Once they see the potential a number of them will buy MMF2, which should be priced a lot more friendly then it is now. This could result in way more customers then CT has now. It will open up a whole new audience for them.
Unfortunately CT has a bad strategy when it comes to marketing. They're great programmers, but lousy marketeers and should hire someone who is really good at that, instead of more programming staff. No one at the current staff is any good at marketing the product.
TGF2 being free, MMF2 being $50 and MMF2 Dev being $100 would work really well. However, this discussion is probably pointless, as Clickteam's current pricing is probably working well enough for them at the moment.
Discarded pizza boxes are an indispensable source of cheese.
Yeah, they should make it sort of like what KNP used to be. Everything should be available, except the ability to save. So people can really go and try everything, or even open up other people's source code, but when they get serious about doing something with it, they'd buy the full thing. The KNP advertising model really worked well... I think most posts on "how did you discover MMF" start with people saying they found KNP/TGF somewhere.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
You forget, the guys making Construct are doing so during their free time as a hobby. Clickteam is a commercial business, they certainly will not make money buy giving away current software for free.
TGF2 would be great as freeware to boost clickteam awareness. I also wish they would have released the SWF as a free expansion pack to those who purchase MMF2. I think if more of us were able to produce flash games it might boost the popularity of Clickteam products. Sadly due to my financial difficulties I can't even afford MMF2. Which makes it hard for me to dispute those who say it's just to expensive. I know that it didn't take much for me to realize what a great product they have. I hope others are still willing to try a demo even if they can't afford the product right now.
Originally Posted by Chris Street You forget, the guys making Construct are doing so during their free time as a hobby. Clickteam is a commercial business, they certainly will not make money buy giving away current software for free.
But Game Maker gives their software away for free and it works. Is GM a better product? Maybe (not). Is it making more money? It's hard to tell. Is it used by more people? Certainly. A product selling for €50 has a ridiculously difficult time competing with one that's much cheaper, but of similar quality. And the KNP marketing style worked well.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
i was lucky enough to get mmf2 developer for 125$ second hand from someone who had 2 copies, well below the 360$ price point new. for someone in their 20's with a job, none of these prices are too expensive as software is concerned.
im more concerned about the speed at which clickteam is trying to churn out new features instead of solidifying what they already have. wheres HWA? there was a release candidate but no release. that was months ago. java? it seems like they just forgot about java. the java sdk even dissapeared for awhile until i poked francois about it and he fixed that. and flash? well flash is missing key features it should have had initially. still no sdk. and francois seems more interested and focused with the iphone/ipad to add them.
"Scale, blendmode and all those kinds of things will be included in the next version of Flash. And no, I do not know when (I have to finish iPhone/iPad first)." - francois on flash runtime features.
the mmf2 product line is getting quite cluttered. too many options, exporters, addons, etc. which is spreading their support thin. i realize they've hired some more programmers, and pay for freelance work, but i hardly think thats enough.
i really think that once they get all these runtimes out of their system they should focus on mmf3. which should include all these as core features. and should adopt the free, standard, developer model.
free-has most features but cant build. (demo with no trial period)
standard-has most features but has limited build options and not for commercial use. (hobbyists)
developer-has all features, all build options, and anything made can be freely distributed/sold/etc. (professional developers)
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Don't forget that the reason Construct is free and open source if I'm not mistaken, is because Clickteam brought the banhammer down on them.
There was some legal badblood between scirra and clickteam about the nature of construct. alleged broken NDAs, Copying of source code, and extreme similarities in the look of the products (which is no longer the case). That was the reason construct is 'open source' NOT the reason it is 'free'(although it probably didnt help). If Ashley hadnt worked for clickteam in any capacity they most likely never would have brought any of it up. And the fact that clickteam brought it up before construct was even a viable commercial product, let alone out of any sort of alpha or beta stages (it didnt even work at the time iirc, plagued by crashes) is absurd.
Originally Posted by Robot Cecil for someone in their 20's with a job, none of these prices are too expensive as software is concerned.
My university offers game design courses as a general education thing, for like non-comp students to make games. It's a pretty pricey university... the course itself costs about $1500. Anyone who can afford that can certainly afford MMF. But they use Game Maker because the lecturer thought that Game Maker is more cost-effective.
MMF2 is a good piece of software, and they shouldn't give it all for free. But prices are certainly not competitive. I hope they've got a good business plan, because I'm certainly not buying MMF3 at those prices.
BTW, I didn't know that Ashley worked for CT. Now their claims of IP theft makes more sense
Edited by Muz
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I think it would be a good idea to give away TGF2, but that's easy for me to say since it's not my product.
Nice information on the clickteam vs scirra issue.
Why do you wanna create a game with a free TGF2 when you can't build the game? Does't that mean you cannot play the game? That's not really useful. Or does it just mean that you cannot build a standalone version from your game but you can play it inside TGF2? So everyone who wants to play your game should just download the free TGF2 and play your game. So where is the point in disabling the build then?
They should consider lowering the price of their products in my opinion - but certainly shouldn't give them away for free. People can download the trial versions if they want to know what the product is like.
The price is something that has always put me off getting the best versions of their software. MMF2 is about 4 years old now, so I think lowering the price of the developer version would be welcomed.
Current Prices without SWF export
TGF2 - £34.99
MMF2 - £74.99
MMF2 Dev - £229.00
Current Prices with SWF export
TGF2 - £83.99
MMF2 - £123.99
MMF2 Dev - £278.00
My first gripe would be that the SWF exporter is £49 standalone. Firstly I think that is too much - there may be reasons it is that price which I am unsure of, and I'm sure other people may value the exporter to be that price. But for me personally it's not worth it. A neat idea would also be to reduce the price of the exporter if you purchase it with TGF2/MMF2. Say, you could buy MMF2+SWF for about £110.00 or something.
I'm pretty sure MMF2 is the same price as it was 4 years ago. Sure they've added features over time, but I think a £39.99 or £49.99 price point would attract more people now. I'd scrap TGF2 altogether as I see no use for it.
Also the price difference between the standard and developer version is too big in my opinion. I see no reason to spend an extra £154 for some extra extensions and whatever else the developer version offers. I'd spend an extra £30 maybe, but no way would I spend over £100 more for the developer version. I understand they may be aiming it towards those who want to develop games professionally, but is it really working?
I just worry that they value their products themselves and stick a price tag on it, rather than looking at the market they're in and possibly researching how much people would pay for their products. It'd be interesting to know how well their products sell.
Still the fact remains that when schools want to run gamemaking courses they are more likely to go with Gamemaker because:
- Gamemaker doesn't cost, which also means the students can use it at home as well. There is no way a regular school will pay more than $200 for a set of TGF/MMF licenses, especially when there is a free alternative.
- There is good educational material for Gamemaker, including very clear step-by-step plans for both students and teachers. CT products lack that support.
This way a large part of the potential audience (this should not be overlooked) gets in contact with Gamemaker, not CT products, while CT products make more sense (as in students can actually make games in it). Even I will have to use Gamemaker now.
Is what suggesting this on the CT boards would look like
and?
i love ct, but they can be a bunch of pricks sometimes.
imo it was absolutely unnecessary to make a legal ordeal out of it.
im not 100% sure but i remember ct getting ashleys parents (i think it was his mom) involved. not to mention he was over 18 and not a dependant, as i remember him scolding ct for doing that. as if they had nothing better to do than harass his family. i would love to find the post about it, but i doubt it as it was either locked or most likely deleted as everything about construct was back in those days.
I think the problem is marketing and distribution. In the UK KNP was given away in about 2000 on a magazine called PC Planet (I think) on their first issue. Then in about 2003 or 2004 TGF Pro was given away on the cover disc of Game maker magazine (first issue too as well I think).
I just dont see things like this happening anymore. Surely TGF1 should be free (version with the made with TGF splash screen), get people interested then if they want to make advanced games they will progress onto MMF2.
Also you could buy TGF in Toys R Us or game shops over here some time ago, this has also gone.
I think the problem with having TGF1 for free is that it's not a very good advertisement for the more recent products. I am starting to wonder though, would it be legal to use TGF1 at schools since it was given away for free once anyway?
Originally Posted by Jenswa If you obtained that free that was given away, sure it is
But don't they have a special educational program?
Yes they do, I've informed about those. I needed at least 30 seats, up to 120. We were kind of disappointed with the special educational program and we decided to go with gamemaker instead. Porblem is that the initial price is way to high, so even with any reduction you will still pay too much.
I've mentioned this to CT also and how they're loosing money because of their pricing policy, but they didn't care.
I found TGF 1.06 at clickteam in the retired products section as a free download. It also has a free update patch as well. There's some MMF extentions there as well.
did you even read those downloads? they are only the installers to the old software. they still require that you have a valid license key. they are NOT free.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by alastair john jack
jenswa.neocities.org
. but yes it does still apply.
I found TGF 1.06 at clickteam in the retired products section as a free download. It also has a free update patch as well. There's some MMF extentions there as well.
