A case for subscriptions

I wonder if a lack of innovation is the real driving force behind Scirra switching to a subscription model? There was a short discussion about this in another thread. Most of what's change from C2 to C3 are bells and whistles. Maybe they don't really have a better choice to earn money, because the web isn't changing all that quickly and maybe they already built the best product possible?

I wonder if a lack of innovation is the real driving force behind Scirra switching to a subscription model? There was a short discussion about this in another thread. Most of what's change from C2 to C3 are bells and whistles. Maybe they don't really have a better choice to earn money, because the web isn't changing all that quickly and maybe they already built the best product possible?

Can you explain "lack of innovation?" I didn't see the discussion you're referring to in another thread, so I don't know what was said. I'm sure Tom and Ashley would tell you developing a game engine that runs in the web is innovative. And, my only argument here, would be that until C3 is out and has been around for at least a year, we won't really understand or know what it's truly capable of doing. It's just a big ol' poop-fest of opinions until then.

I doubt they changed to a subscription model because they couldn't come up with something "innovative" for their users. I could only imagine the conversation:

Ashley: "Look, the web isn't changing fast enough. I can't really think of anything innovative for the next version, so let's just put it in a browser, update the look and charge by the month/year for it. What do you think?

Tom: "Why not? There's no other way we can possibly earn money."

Nah. I can't buy that. They would have made the same revenue for C3 that they did for C2 had they shown us the updates and then charged the one-time fee. I think, and this is only my guess, is that they have more innovative plans for the web-based engine and want to charge a recurring fee for continual development, better support, updates and tools for the future. They grow financially, and the users get a better product in the end.

It's not out of the realm of possibility.

I think innovative is subjective. For the devs, it's a technical achievement to have built all this for the web. It is innovative in that sense, but for the end user whether or not it's built for the web is probably of little consequence. I actually think the fact that I can edit stuff on my mobile or tablet is very very cool - but most people won't care about that at all - and if I'm honest with myself, it's pretty impractical to do and probably almost useless for getting any real work done. Maybe in 5 years we'll see a lot of this stuff, but at the moment any advantages it may have don't seem to be obvious. One of the main things I see people saying is 'yeah that's cool, but we didn't actually ask for that feature' so it could just be a case of 'we don't want this because we're not ready for it'. I think perhaps it turned into too much of a passion project for the devs and they neglected to notice it wasn't actually what people wanted. That said though, I think if people are paying a subscription fee - they expect more than just access to a service, they expect the software to be dynamic and cutting edge - and really there's only so far you can go with 2d game dev.

Subscriptions to get updates, new plugins and features on a regular basis is worth paying for BUT holding your projects hostage so they can not be edited if you don't pay a subscription ransom is unethical in my opinion.

Subscriptions to get updates, new plugins and features on a regular basis is worth paying for BUT holding your projects hostage so they can not be edited if you don't pay a subscription ransom is unethical in my opinion.

Agree 100%, it is most certainly an ethical issue.

Subscriptions to get updates, new plugins and features on a regular basis is worth paying for BUT holding your projects hostage so they can not be edited if you don't pay a subscription ransom is unethical in my opinion.

For the love of god explain to me how editing a project after payment expiration would serve you knowing that you will not get to export it?

It is the reason why it is called a subscription model, it's not like Scirra just invented this payment system, it has been all over the internet for years...

It just does not make any sense to me at all ...

Most of us will make use of C3 in the first year since people will get it for half the price or for free. So in the 365 days, it will be pretty dumb not to release at least 4 or 5 games to the stores.

And after that, you will do the maths and see if C3 is worth 99$/year.

If you don't like it, then you move on to another engine. Simple as that.

C2's pay once system has it benefits for users but it is not good for a company.

Personnally if I was running game engine software company I will surely opt for the subscription model because:

• It will prevent my software from being distributed online for free.
• It will provide me a steady income.

Sick and tired of these threads and posts being brought over again and again and again and again and again ....

Locking this thread, been discussed at length in other threads.