Crazy Pricing Model. C'mon Guys it's 2024 not 2005

Construct 2 has unlimited events

For a software of this quality and amount of constant updates, bug fixes and backwards compatibility like projects from C2 still working in C3 etc. for 24eur is fair. The engine never causes any trouble like Unity/Unreal/Godot - it just freaking works.

It's constantly being expanded with great features like recently getting runtime sprite loading, which can allow you to create stuff like game-modding relatively easily, scripting updates to handle limitations and use it where events would be annoying etc. To me C3 is for example much better and faster compared to Unity for 2D and definitely much easier. What some buddies of mine need 10 hours in Unity for, I need usually 1-2 hours in Construct to accomplish.

And don't forget this amazing forum and community, there's nothing like it, where even Mods and Ashley are known to respond to complicated discussions... Plus, you can suggest features.

If you're buying a game engine you're spending a lot of time on it anyway and you can buy it for the month when you think you'll want to work on some games.

We should bash on Adobe.

If you want outrageously priced, rent to never own software at a ridiculous price, look no further. c3 is pennies for the value it brings in comparison.

Photoshop alone has struggled with the same bugs for years and adobe doesn't give two cents. Most of the time, the features they add instead of fixing bugs are useless to 99% of people working in digital art.

I still use cs6, not because I don't have CC but because it sucks so bad, uses to much resources... but I need some of the other tools for work so I'm stuck paying for it. Luckily I'm in education, which is $30/month, which still feels like too much.

Its the biggest rip off in the software industry, and adobe hasn't added anything of higher value for 10 years except higher ram requirements.

2005 didn't have the rent to license software model yet. Add a decade and you'd be alot closer.

Okay, in all seriousness I agree about a number of things:

I think Scirra would have a better model if they had better limits for noobs and beginners (allow 3 families per project, increase events, etc...)

I think they should then put more focus to advanced tools that allow construct to handle larger, more complex projects with ease. Currently, scaling in construct is very difficult. With that, taking beginners to advanced users would be easier, and there would be no reason to learn other engines. But currently, going from an intermediate game programmer to advanced/expert is waaaaay harder in construct than in unity.

Like you, I had a struggle with making games (xna and c#), and after finding c2 I bought it almost the first day I tried it. As a beginner, it was superb. I did outgrow it a few years later, though I have used construct largely as a prototyping tool since 2015. However, depending on the project type, I am convinced c3 is the fastest game engine to produce simple to medium complex products in. If you have to scale those products or need shaders, cpu intensive algorithms, etc... unity becomes more productive, so there is a balance to find.

But if the end product is suitable for construct, save yourself the time and pay the license. Its all about opportunity cost, and I can see that even if I don't think construct should cost as much as it does, currently the opportunity that the license provides is worth it.

When you consider how fast you can setup construct, start a new project, and have playable content (under 10 minutes for simple things), and a few days for complex prototypes, construct has major advantages over the other engines. I think you know that, or you wouldn't be complaining about the price.

One thing is for sure, Scirra's priorities and goals would be much more in line with those of game developers who want to make a living with their games if they would have chosen a "free" monetization model with revenue share.

How C3 users are able to monetize their games wouldn't be an afterthought like it fells now, it would be the #1 priority.

The Steam support would be rock solid with support for the entire Steam API, there would be options for monetizing web games and/or official integration plugins for payment providers, increased efforts for console exports, an interest in collaborating with fitting 3rd party platforms and potential partners, etc.

Also Unity was perfectly profitable for most of the time, it only went downhill once the previous owners wanted to cash out by going public. They hired a CEO that knows how to pump a stock and that's what he did, by overspending on irrelevant company acquisitions to create a narrative that's enticing for investors who have no idea about game development. They had all pulled out their money by the time it all collapsed, and the CEO got a big fat severance pay before leaving.

How C3 users are able to monetize their games wouldn't be an afterthought like it fells now, it would be the #1 priority.

This is a very important thought! I support it with both hands.

theres always blender and unity free of charge with limitations on some exports... there is also construct classic that is open source ... and if u had construct 2 u can still use it.

TackerTacker - Wait wait wait.... you mean construct doesn't work with steam? There are some things I just assumed, and if I can't release a final product with potential for dlc, I think I need to reconsider using construct for my final product!

Wait wait wait.... you mean construct doesn't work with steam?

It does. But if you want your game to be available on Mac and Steam Deck, your only option (afaik) is to use NWjs export and Greengrinds addon.

Ruskul I'm not saying it isn't possible, clearly it is since there are a bunch of Construct games on Steam. I'm saying it is low priority for Scirra.

To prove my point I invite you to open a project, right click in the layout and click "+ insert new object", scroll down until you get to the category "Platform Specific" and insert the Steam plugin.

...problem is, there is no default Steam plugin (unless you already installed an extension from the addon exchange).

As long as I can remember there was always some kind of problem if you wanted your game to work on Steam with overlays and everything.

The Steam overly not showing up, you always needed very specific NW.js + Greenworks version combinations to get it kind of working ...but maybe streamers or youtubers couldn't record your game anymore or only with weird workarounds.

Now the official Steam addon that works with NW.js has this warning

NOTE: this plugin is no longer actively maintained, and where possible we recommend using the Steamworks for WebView2 plugin instead.

So we are expected to use the WebView2 version, which doesn't support Mac or Linux and therefore also no Steam Deck.

And all this to get the absolute bare minimum of Steam API features. Basically just achievements and some basic use info stuff.

No Steam Input API, nothing to help with Steam workshop integration, nothing to help with remote play together, etc.

But I get it, other engines have entire teams dedicated just to platform specific things, and for Construct just 2 engineers have to do this stuff on the side.

But then you get updates that add a BBC micro:bit plugin that reminds you that Scirra's priorities and goals doesn't necessarily always align with your goals.

Tacker hitting the bullseye. The current steam release pipeline is far from ideal and it's straight up missing like 80% of the available features. Considering that releasing a game sort of by default means "release it on steam" it should be a seamless and fleshed out process but it's neither seamless nor fleshed out. Greengrinds patches up at least some of that but should it really take a 3rd party addon for that?

Getting the micro:bit plugin is not exactly a tradeoff in my favor because I have never even heard of this thing before and I have no interest in it either. Don't get me wrong, it's cute and all and maybe it was like an afternoon project after a heavy bugfixing spree to get something easy out... but even then it's a questionable allocation of resources considering we've been told time and time again that these resources are in short supply.

I'd totally be down if Construct would stop new features for maybe a couple of months and double down on robustness of existing features in the meantime.

TBF Scirra did just create the pipeline for people to at least create their own Steam integrations with the C++ extension SDK, but it's only for WebView2 so windows only, I personally don't care about macOS, but no Linux / Steam Deck is very bad. And who knows what kind of macOS based gaming things takes off in the future, making Mac more important again too.

So it's again Steam support* with a big fat asterisk. I know Scirra doesn't have control over it, they can't force Microsoft to add Linux support. But for us it stays the same, a game engine with minimal and problematic Steam support.

Was it not possible to make this C++ extension SDK for NW.js? I literally don't care at all about the "advantages" of WebView2, I don't care much if a game is 300MB or 1GB bigger and I certainly don't want WebView2 to auto update the browser version my game relies on without my involvement.

But let's say it's currently literally impossible to create a fully functional Steam plugin for HTML5/Web games that works on all platforms, then play to the strength of C3 and give us some kind of web monetization plugin for browser games, or work on the Scirra arcade some more to integrate easy monetization into that, talk to devs and ask what they would like to see and what would be useful to them. How about a plugin for itch.io? Again a big indie platform that's especially liked by C3 devs where Construct is the 2nd most used game engine.

There are a bunch of monetization plugins on the Store, but I don't trust them at all.

Some show in screenshots that you need to copy paste the secret key into the plugin itself, Idk much about this stuff but even I know that's not good. Every documentation I've read about this says that you shouldn't store the secret key client side, It's not a save way to do it. Again I wish some kind of service would come from Scirra directly, how am I suppose to know which 3rd party addon I can trust and is save to use? It's one thing with some plugin for the game, either it works or it doesn't, but these types of plugins are about security. Another way could be Scirra getting in contact with 3rd parties asking if they would be interested in providing addons for their services on their own, if it is officially from the actual service provider then it would also be more trustworthy.

The only fully working, relatively easy monetization option in C3 afaik is mobile. I personally don't care about mobile and never really looked into it, so I just assume it works, because I didn't hear much complains about it.

...besides the usual iOS pain.