It is good time to make the Construct great again

I kind of agree with your point, but I don't necessarily agree it's down to our poor marketing - it's mainly that there's a contradiction in the messaging. Our main feature has always been that you don't need to know programming and can use event blocks as an alternative to coding, but by saying how easy it is, some people assume it's not an advanced tool, even though it is. If we say how advanced a tool it is, some people will assume it's not an easy-to-use tool, which would affect our core appeal. So we tend to focus on highlighting the easy-to-use aspect.

We do try to get this all across though - take a look at our features page: it highlights "No programming required", but does also allude to its power:

Construct lets you have it both ways: beginner friendly blocks, all the way up to a full coding editor.

Under the hood is an incredibly powerful and versatile engine with outstanding performance. It’s perfectly capable of running vast and intensive games smoothly and efficiently.

Packed with tools ... There are genuinely too many features in Construct to reasonably list here. Here’s just a few more things Construct has and there's a lot more to discover on your journey.

We also emphasize that JavaScript is an industry-standard language that you can get a job in - IMO a huge advantage over using tool-specific languages like GML or GDScript:

Other engines use proprietary programming languages that lock you into their ecosystems. Construct uses Javascript which is one of the most popular programming languages in the world.

Learn real-world transferable skills and level yourself up with Javascript.

I think possibly another thing working against us is people don't take browser-based software that seriously, even though it can far outperform competitors. One of our goals is to change that perspective!

I guess we could do more to emphasize the advanced capabilities of Construct, especially now there's things like the C++ extension SDK for advanced desktop integration. But I fear that the more we do that, the more we might scare off beginners. I'm sure there's a balance to be found, but it's tricky to get it just right.

My 2 cents is that

a) as Ashley said, people are sceptical of Browser-based software and don't value it as much as desktop software (kinda like mobile apps that can't ask for the same price with same functionality as desktop apps)

b) there's a certain subscription fatigue in the marketplace in general (look at Streaming services, etc.) I'm sure Scirra will argue strongly against it but they have to be really careful to not outprice themselves out of reach of their target audience. Sure, Game Maker etc. has subscriptions too but they have a bigger brand, more hit games to back themselves up, they promise you exports to consoles (which even then isn't as easy as they make it seem), etc. I don't know however, if you'd have substantially more users when charging $79 per year vs $130 and the danger could be that you lower the price but don't gain any users which would be basically harmful to the company.

c) The No-Code aspect CAN be seen as something that will hold you back. I also think it's much less of a sales argument than people think because most beginners still flock to Godot now, which is using a Scripting Language etc. Instead of Ease of Use i'd rather focus on emphasizing SPEED of use. Meaning Construct is the only Game Engine that let's you make projects almost at the speed of thought thanks to its revolutionary approach to visual scripting. There i'd rather compare the event sheet system to the more common node based structures that we see, that lead to quite unwieldly results.

Some more random thoughts:

Personally i don't think there's anything wrong in having tools that are more suited for smaller projects at all. I mean it becomes more and more clear nowadays that there's actually a DEMAND for smaller games, because of the overabundance of offerings. People simply don't have time to play every 200 hour AAA game anymore and more often than not, they're actively looking for something that will keep them entertained on a rainy sunday afternoon.

I think Scirra could probably think about doing more sales promotions. Stuff like get the first three Months for 50% off or something like that. Just to get people to sign up and hopefully convince them enough so they stay on.

I'd also forget about all the petty "We're better than GML" stuff because the average user who'd use either engine really doesn't care much about that. Also you can get onto thin ice very quickly. These kind of posts were never well received either and don't come across as very self confident from Scirra's side.

I'd rather always focus on the vision for the end user. Know their dream, i.e. creating your first game from your bedroom but no idea where to start and sell them the solution to their problem. Know what values the brand stands for (making games should be accessible) and hammer that home. Simply JavaScript > GML won't inspire anyone but being the number one address to put people on their path of game development will.

I think if Scirra works on their storytelling a bit and caters their marketing activities (and website) a bit more towards that it would definitely help. I agree however that recommendations will always work best but even those can be much more amplified. Instead of weird spinning cubes on the homepage, why not have some quotes by people who actually made and published games with the engine and what they love about it?

Self Promotion is always the hardest which is why even ad agencies often get outside partners for their own marketing because an outside view always helps. I think maybe investing in some consulting, even if it's just a workshop or something with the whole Scirra Team would be something to think about. Just to get an evaluation of the website, the social media strategies, the sales channels, etc.

Price aside, the free version feels like it could benefit from easing up, just a bit, not enough where someone can make a fully-featured game, but enough that you could get somewhat far and then need to subscribe.

Events are tricky, I think a limit is a good idea, but maybe a bit higher for logged in users. Sure, you could say "ah then they should learn to utilise loops and such to keep event count down", but maybe people won't think that and just abandon when they hit limits.

There's an effect limit of 2. Just 2, for the entire project! Gives you a quick taste but doesn't let you make a small effect system, could add blur horiz and blur vert and you've reached the limit. Maybe a change to this, maybe 2 per object, maybe a global limit of 6 - sometimes combining effects is quite important.

Remote preview is restricted, perhaps this could be unrestricted for logged-in users, as its quite exciting to preview on mobile and such. Could say that people could open on their phone and test, but seeing popup is just another "uhhg" moment if testing on a desktop.

I guess my thought process is trying to find a way to get people using C3 a lot and getting quite familiar, without hitting restriction popup and such as easily. Then it's like "I've spent few hours and just hit a restriction, I really dig this, let's sub" rather than "ahh man I've hit a restriction multiple times and it's been 20 mins".

Scirra would have more useful data on all this so I imagine they know whether popups on free version causes the person to quit suddenly or something. But just some thoughts.

The example page is definitely amazing, even on free version, you can still open anything to see what sorts of things you could make with C3. Maybe a good "tech demo" kinda like kiwi story but does some crazy showcase of everything (physics, effects, etc) kinda like how half life 2 had that map they showed at E3 showing off essentially EVERYTHING that can be done in one small sweet package. The examples definitely do this, maybe even a highlight of the very impressive ones for free users to be easier, but a self-contained project with everything could be great!

EDIT: Infact, when I open C3, I see first person shooter, cave bridge, and challenge room, none have touch controls and don't say to flip to landscape. Why not have these update to have this? The cave bridge is an excellent demonstration of how beautiful C3 stuff can look! But all in all, if free version always presented a wonderful tech demo example that works on touch, then even people casually browsing on their phones could go into the editor and immediately preview a beautiful professional-looking project.

All points mentioned here are totally valid, however I have another to make...

What C3 needs more than anything, is published games out in the wild.

As someone that's used Construct since the Construct Classic days, I've routinely checked out other engines (as they all have shortcomings, and sometimes C3 hits me with a wall I can't work around), and the FIRST thing I ask myself when investigating any other engines is: what has been made with it?

If I don't recognize the name of at least ONE game listed, generally I move on, not out of spite or anything, but out of a reaction of: it must not a capable tool, or no one else is using it either...

Examples won't get anyone's attention, neither really will demos... only finished and sold games will, I'm afraid.

While not aware of Scirra's financial situation, what would really help to ship games, would be to either offer or partner with a publishing service, especially if its capable of helping devs to completion, be it through direct tool support, project funding, distribution, etc...

If there are few to no visible games in the wild, then the engine isn't visible either... and that sucks, because Construct 3 is awesome.

Is the cost to entry high for young, new, solo devs? As someone in Canada, yes, I have to justify my monthly subscription to my wife every month, as C3 still has yet to bring in any revenue to our household to justify my continued use of it.

Are there features that newcomers will be looking for that aren't in place yet? Of course there are. Whether or not those are in the pipeline or never intended is unknown, but they will be viewed as "currently missing".

Does that mean the tool is no good? Absolutely not, C3 is fantastic. But no one knows about it when there are no tangible and visible projects made with it. MIGHTY GOOSE is probably the most well-known/obvious title that we can all point to, which is a great start, but there needs to be more.

So my point is, whatever can facilitate more finished games of quality and polish, getting out the door, and making a little money, in app-stores, e-shops, Steam, Switch, PlayStation Store, Xbox, whatever, is what NEEDS to happen.

Can anyone think of a single other subscription based engine that doesn't have a fully featured free version?

Scalability issues and failure to add features for fear beginners would find it complicated... these are major barriers in my mind to any serious look at construct.

It's only the marketing - there's lots of advanced features, be it javascript integration, multiplayer, encryption, translation, file system. Plenty of random hidden things, like the touch plugin has pressure sensitivity, worked on my old Note phone!

Construct is great, so long as you are either making something simple or a prototype. But if you want to practice SOLID, you canʻt. If you code, you know, if you donʻt, you probably wonʻt.

This would be same for any product, even GDevelop. You get so far until you need to understand loops, arrays, functions, etc. You can still achieve a lot without this, even if it means a beginner ends up copy pasting duplicate event blocks or something.

Every dev cycle I come back to construct, It has a nice IDE, and making games in it is fun... but each time I leave to finish in unity, frustrated with lack of event reusability, better abstract coding, efficient functions, etc...

I don't get this, event reusability can be achieved with functions/custom actions/event sheet includes. Functions seem efficient although there's that debate on the whole calling functions by name which is seen as finicky.

The moment you find yourself creating a tool to edit project files so you can more efficiently delete or copy variables... well...

This can be done just fine in the editor. It does react badly in one circumstance though, can't recall how but something to do with having multiple same-named local vars in a group or sub events.

EDIT: Wait I misunderstood, yeah project file editing is basic, can't cut and paste rows in arrays and such so it's not the most powerful.

Also, and most importantly, if you are visual, but want to write good events, you need to use families... families all have the same icon in the event sheet, so now, that whole visual nature of events goes out the window..

100% agree and it drives me crazy, especially when you name families like "HUD_Camera", "HUD_Bars" and all you can see in event sheet is "HUD_..." unless you expand the view and such.