Frankly, Whats the point of c3?

[quote:28nbzfhl]Is the expectation that people will pay to do beta testing when it's released?

Of course not

I guess that depends on what features will be available in the trial version vs the full version. If some features can only be accessed through subscription then those who pay for subscription will also , by default, be paying to do beta testing.

We're not selling C3 during the beta

Tom - thank you - it was not clear (to me, at least).

I believe that's called early access.

I see a lot of posts like these, and I'm left to wonder: is the issue the subscription model - which I know a lot of people aren't fans of - or the value proposition of C3 with a subscription model?

There were those who pointed out that the nature of subscription/rental will prevent access to your work when the rent expires (ie stop paying). I have 2 different povs on this.

For example, I use Adobe CC for professional work (visual effects). But my work is essentially my studio's product for client's product. If any work is being held hostage by the rental scheme, it's not 'mine', as it were, but the studios and the clients. If they want to pay the ransom fee to alter the product after its first delivery, they're free to do it. It's the cost of doing business with Adobe. And the main thing is, at this point, it's not about the technicalities of file formats or back-compatibility; it's all about flow of money to the studio and to Adobe. As long as the studio has that flow, they're good. You can add to this that there's a certain volatility in working with 'media' projects, so that projects are done at a speed generally faster than development (in games, or other code projects).

The implications of a rental model involve _effective_ ownership: I can always claim IP but without a way to use it, that's a farce. And to me, the technicalities are just as important, if not more, than the monetary implications associated with subscription/rental. One forum poster asked: what's to stop rental prices from going up once subscribed? Then consider the fact that your choices are lop-sided: don't pay, and never be able to work on your project again, or pay up. That no-choice is the crux of my issue: it's not the price, per se, but it's that fact you don't have a choice once you start subscribing.

There are many ways to approach licensing and making money with a product as good as C2. I agree that a one-time payment was too generous for the kind of updates they were rolling out. I myself did the same thing for a LW plugin I wrote, and got major burns, so I get it.

But, why stop at one licencing method? I find a maintenance plan a more friendly way especially since C2's tradition has been regular updates. For example: Pay a yearly maintenance, get updates. If you stop paying, you don't get upgrades but can use the last version you paid for. If you want to take up the maintenance again, it can be taken up again for the full price or some other price you deem fair.

That no-choice is the crux of my issue: it's not the price, per se, but it's that fact you don't have a choice once you start subscribing.

Very well put.

I'd just like to add that from a fiscal point of view, at least the way I see it, a subscription model doesn't seem to be able to provide a more stable revenue than regular paid version bumps would. Say, a new release every three or four years. Most of the user base who stuck around for those three-four years would probably upgrade and pay full price again to get the new version. And there'd be no animosity about it or potential mass migration.

Of course you could flip that on its head: If users are willing to pay for new versions at regular intervals why do they have a problem with subscriptions? Functionally it's more or less the same thing! The answer is psychological, and rooted in faulknermano's point. People are willing to pay and pay again as long as they don't feel like they're being strong-armed into it. Which is exactly the kind of taste a subscription model that bars access to your work when it ends will leave in the mouth.

Another approach is to award loyalty: For example, Unity subscribers have the option to own a perpetual license of Unity after two years. This also mitigates the problem of not being able to open your files later.

I call this a "real" subscription - after all, a subscription gives the subscriber something in return to own (even though it might be in the long run).

Adobe's and Scirra's rental models, however, leave you standing with nothing once you stop paying the rent. A marked difference between how Unity treats their customers, and how Scirra would treat theirs.

Aside from the fact that Unity also offers a completely free, fully functional version (well, aside from the dark GUI, I believe ).

Another approach is to award loyalty: For example, Unity subscribers have the option to own a perpetual license of Unity after two years. This also mitigates the problem of not being able to open your files later.

I call this a "real" subscription - after all, a subscription gives the subscriber something in return to own (even though it might be in the long run).

Adobe's and Scirra's rental models, however, leave you standing with nothing once you stop paying the rent. A marked difference between how Unity treats their customers, and how Scirra would treat theirs.

Aside from the fact that Unity also offers a completely free, fully functional version (well, aside from the dark GUI, I believe ).

I like the loyalty idea. Hell I'd happily sign up for 5 years if it meant that after those 5 years I was guaranteed a perpetual license for the software at the state it was in when my rental ended. My gripe with the subscription isn't the price, I think it's pretty reasonable, even cheap. But I have huge issues with the lockout. It seems unnecessary - if there was a technical reason eg it was tied up in online infrastructure it would be a different story, but from what I can gather it seems to just be a business decision. One that is really bad for users. With a couple of tweaks here and there Scirra could probably make the subscription model work and save a chunk of their clientele and I think what will tip the scales will be whether or not we're locked out of our own projects. There are many companies out there who do subs, or paid updates with some tact and respect for their users.

But, why stop at one licencing method? I find a maintenance plan a more friendly way especially since C2's tradition has been regular updates. For example: Pay a yearly maintenance, get updates. If you stop paying, you don't get upgrades but can use the last version you paid for. If you want to take up the maintenance again, it can be taken up again for the full price or some other price you deem fair.

Another approach is to award loyalty: For example, Unity subscribers have the option to own a perpetual license of Unity after two years. This also mitigates the problem of not being able to open your files later.

I like the loyalty idea. Hell I'd happily sign up for 5 years if it meant that after those 5 years I was guaranteed a perpetual license for the software at the state it was in when my rental ended.

Great suggestions. I'd love to hear Scirra's opinion on these. They were posted in several topics, but as far as I can recall, none of these got replies from Scirra, so I'm curious what's their opinion on these.

I wonder if any of the c2 dev team use a browser based code editor.

Heh, yes actually, my daily driver is VS Code which is built on Electron. It's a fantastic editor. I last used Notepad++ which is a native editor, but I hardly use that any more, VS Code is much better.

As for perpetual licenses, I don't think it's really a change over the C2 model, it just postpones it. We could similarly end up working to maintain customers who last paid years ago, and it's doubly painful if they're doing things like using the app build service heavily which has on-going running costs.

I am in favour of something for users who have previously had a subscription and want to return for some quick maintenance on an old project without going in for a full renewal. We're looking in to our options for that. I am aware this is a significant consideration for many before they start using it.

...We could similarly end up working to maintain customers who last paid years ago, and it's doubly painful if they're doing things like using the app build service heavily which has on-going running costs.

Then, make the build service and anything cloud based that costs you an optional paid service for the end user. For everyone else is redundant to rent the software just to be able to fiddle with their projects, especially if they don't get much revenue out of it.

The build service is just one aspect of many that I picked as an example. There's a number of other aspects like the Scirra Arcade, multiplayer signalling, the hosting of C3 itself, other services we haven't announced yet, and other services we'd like to add in future. Also there's the aspect that we don't charge per-exporter, and don't do regular major version updates which we charge again for, so the fact we're still maintaining the software, fixing bugs and adding often significant new features for customers who bought it one-off maybe 5 years ago is also an on-going expense and service we provide. We've never done the pick-and-choose thing (e.g. you get all exporters bundled in the basic license, whereas many other companies charge you repeatedly for each), and similarly we just want to put everything in the one option.

Multiplayer

I am in favour of something for users who have previously had a subscription and want to return for some quick maintenance on an old project without going in for a full renewal. We're looking in to our options for that. I am aware this is a significant consideration for many before they start using it.

Thank you for taking the time to read those suggestions. I'm looking forward what you'll come up with. I'm sure that will help a lot of potential users to make peace with the subscription model.

Personally, I'm hoping for lock-out of cloud services (to spare Scirra from additional server load from non-paying users) and updates (users will need to update to keep up with the evolving C3 and HTML5, and also for getting bug fixes) till the users renew their subscription, but letting them edit and in some form, export their projects. But that's just my opinion.

we don't charge per-exporter

How would that work if you wanted to, with html5?