What payment option would you like to see for Construct 3?

Subscription will never give anyone the luxury of owning something. .

How about the games actually made with it ?

Sooo.....

After reading and commenting in threads with this kind of subject matter it is obvious we can't change things (we knew that anyway).

For me the worse news this year (technology wise that is) was C3 being browser-based, and even worse still being a Sub model - WOW what a let down!!!

C3 has nothing to offer initially - it is C2 in a browser atm.

If I were to subscribe, I would just be paying for an online service that I don't need to build my projects - just the standard HTML5 build we have with C2 will be fine.

As PhoenixNightly said it IS NOT THE PRICE, it's about owning the software. It appears that Scirra have a problem with letting us own something for our outlay. I suspect it is because this model has been built in since the very beginning.

After reading the numerous replies from Ashley and Tom it is clear that C2 is now what it will always be. No more updates (apart from maintenance, for a while anyway). All those things we wanted fixed\added - not going to happen! (to those that will say you are a scrooge - wrong, I would buy C2 again to fund Scirras efforts)

And the deal for C3 is what it is, take it or leave. Paint it however you like - it is not a friendly deal.

Wish you the best Scirra.....

But now I will take my leave

Happy game making everyone.

—

That is true but I see a lot go the route of Adobe and no payment no access. I even saw ones that I don't put in the subscription category of the Rent-To-Own being that you are told what you will have in the end. After so many payments the software is yours.

lennaert

Having the tool is my number one priority. I put tools in my toolbox and I expect them to stay there for whenever I have the time and is ready to use them.

I don't mind supporting a company that I believe in but I have certain expectations to make me happy when I separate myself from my hard earned money. I am not one just to give money because I believe in something, it has to give me some gratification of what I desire.

Some people value owning the tool others value the output of a tool.

>

> Subscription will never give anyone the luxury of owning something. .

>

How about the games actually made with it ?

Let's say someone owns a game they developed but can't work on it any further due to lockout. A player discovers a game breaking bug that they'd like fixed- it can't be done because the game's developer needs to get permission from Scirra first. Access to a potential fix is held at ransom in this case because there is no other alternative to fixing it.

In this scenario Scirra has a stake in your development, and can dictate how that development is handled or how you handle the games you've made.

It's kind of like being sold an instrument that is out of tune and the only solution is to tune it, however, only Scirra knows how and you have to pay them to get it tuned and there's no guarantee it'll be tuned perfectly. Overtime it might go out of tune again, it might break, parts might need replacing. If you look at it this way, then you realize that what you are buying into is a faulty product that you have no control over at the end of the day. Yes, buying into it allows you to use it for your own benefit/enjoyment and play music, and you can earn some money by playing the music for other people. The music belongs to you, but you never own the instrument- the only instrument of its kind that can play that music that belongs to you. You can duplicate that instrument and give it to everyone on the planet, but nobody can fix it until Scirra permits it to be.

Now you can even take the argument further if you consider 3rd parties that Scirra relies on. Even if Scirra deems that you can develop the instrument further after paying up, they might provide you with tools that are faulty or unreliable. So not only do you have to appease the gatekeeper, you have to rely on other entities behind that gate that might change at any time.

Sure, this is an exaggerated example. It's not as serious as this example makes it sound. I like Construct, and I want to see it improve- and it probably will. However, a lot of things won't improve or change, let's be honest. Does that make Scirra bad or make Construct anything less than it is? No.

I think what people here are doing is just figuring out what is right for themselves. Do they see themselves using a specific instrument, does it make the kind of music they like- how can they express it now and in the future, etc..

>

> >

> > Subscription will never give anyone the luxury of owning something. .

> >

>

> How about the games actually made with it ?

>

Let's say someone owns a game they developed but can't work on it any further due to lockout. A player discovers a game breaking bug that they'd like fixed- it can't be done because the game's developer needs to get permission from Scirra first. Access to a potential fix is held at ransom in this case because there is no other alternative to fixing it.

In this scenario Scirra has a stake in your development, and can dictate how that development is handled or how you handle the games you've made.

It's kind of like being sold an instrument that is out of tune and the only solution is to tune it, however, only Scirra knows how and you have to pay them to get it tuned and there's no guarantee it'll be tuned perfectly. Overtime it might go out of tune again, it might break, parts might need replacing. If you look at it this way, then you realize that what you are buying into is a faulty product that you have no control over at the end of the day. Yes, buying into it allows you to use it for your own benefit/enjoyment and play music, and you can earn some money by playing the music for other people. The music belongs to you, but you never own the instrument- the only instrument of its kind that can play that music that belongs to you. You can duplicate that instrument and give it to everyone on the planet, but nobody can fix it until Scirra permits it to be.

Now you can even take the argument further if you consider 3rd parties that Scirra relies on. Even if Scirra deems that you can develop the instrument further after paying up, they might provide you with tools that are faulty or unreliable. So not only do you have to appease the gatekeeper, you have to rely on other entities behind that gate that might change at any time.

Sure, this is an exaggerated example. It's not as serious as this example makes it sound. I like Construct, and I want to see it improve- and it probably will. However, a lot of things won't improve or change, let's be honest. Does that make Scirra bad or make Construct anything less than it is? No.

I think what people here are doing is just figuring out what is right for themselves. Do they see themselves using a specific instrument, does it make the kind of music they like- how can they express it now and in the future, etc..

someone else, with a subscription .. could fix that bug for a small fee prospects I tell ya.

someone else, with a subscription .. could fix that bug for a small fee prospects I tell ya.

I hadn't considered that prospect. Seems like a good method of covering the cost of subscribing.

Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it. Price has nothing to do with it, the chosen model is the problem. Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work. Now the fact that you can open up and poke around your project if your subscription has lapsed/Scirra has collapsed is probably enough for me to subscribe - however, probably not for most people - and I still think that the system itself is unfair and people should be fighting to change it. I can't fathom the apathy that some people seem to have to this, they just roll over and take it and the more people who do that the worse it's going to get.

If those cost you the money - why are you then locking the editing capabilities of the editor?

Why not instead limit access to the features that cost money to keep running instead?

Use local preview- like in construct2 for the standalone version of the editor and let people export to html5 only if their subscription ran out.

Nw.js is free right?

I had mentioned that way back on page 8 of this thread: pay once to use the software and get all exports for a year, then pay/rent/subscribe to use the export services scirra offers.. You can create/edit/preview a game, but after a year you have to pay to export it. That would still fund the main reason scirra is offering this new technology, and people can still use the software even if their subscription lapses..

Look at the Sibelius purchase plan, it has 3 options (buy, yearly rental, monthly rental):

http://www.avid.com/~/media/avid/files/ ... 0331131511

Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work.

Generally speaking, if you're putting in "hundreds" or "thousands" of hours of work into creating something, you'd probably know already what you're getting into initially and chances are you're probably gonna keep on subscribing. I'm pretty sure Scirra isn't gonna stop anyone from doing that.

> Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work.

>

Generally speaking, if you're putting in "hundreds" or "thousands" of hours of work into creating something, you'd probably know already what you're getting into initially and chances are you're probably gonna keep on subscribing. I'm pretty sure Scirra isn't gonna stop anyone from doing that.

Sure, ultimately the user knows what they're getting themselves into. My point is it's an artificial limitation that's being imposed that is bad for users. It's within their power to change that but they don't want to.

Why does everyone think construct is worth $100 a year? Sole credential being a game the creator had to abandon due to an awful runtime and 0 chance of platform ports Scirra promised were built-in (Last Penelope).

Why does everyone think construct is worth $100 a year? Sole credential being a game the creator had to abandon due to an awful runtime and 0 chance of platform ports Scirra promised were built-in (Last Penelope).

There have been other threads to cover this. To many it is a creative tool that people enjoy using. If you are an artist, there is a good chance that you spend more than $100/year on art supplies. If you play sports, there is a good chance that you spend WAY more than $100/year to join a club or attend games. If you love watching movies, chances are you spend more than $100/year watching Netflix, Hulu, and going to theaters. If you love to eat out, chances are you spend more than $100/year at restaurants.

For me, I am willing to support Scirra partly because I love to tinker in Construct, and partially because it is financially self-sustaining. I am very lucky in this regard, as I have been able to sell my creations and (partially) offset the cost of the time I spend. Most of my colleagues don't make any income from their hobbies -- I live in Chicago, and there are several members of my department who have spent several thousand dollars for tickets to watch the Chicago Cubs play baseball a few times a year. Watching the Cubs play is not how I would choose to spend money, but they get such great joy from the experience that it I understand why they would do it.

If I used Construct 2 purely for financial gain and not because I enjoyed it, I might stop using it and move on to other activities. I tried that approach, but keep coming back to Construct 2 because I would rather spend thousands of hours doing something I enjoy rather than something that is going to make me 50% more money for the time I spend.

Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

If it was only a dollar a year, you would probably pay less than $80 on the software over your lifetime and wouldn't that be as good as owning it? That would be an insanely better deal than just buying it out right for $500 or whatever price you mentioned before. I think you're so fixated on this one aspect that it's clouding your judgment.

$100 a year really isn't that expensive either. It only amounts to $8.25 a month to subscribe. That's absurdly cheap as far as subscriptions go. I pay close to 3 times that for HBO.

everyone

So how does the full version of C3 compare to C2? Is it the same or better? Should I wait to subscribe?

So how does the full version of C3 compare to C2? Is it the same or better? Should I wait to subscribe?

C3 is an amazing tour-de-force of browser programming. I have used it to sketch out a few ideas, and it works very similarly to C2. Everything is super-fast, and it runs on my mac.

I don't like the way saving and export works -- I am a dropbox subscriber, and not being able to export directly to the public Dropbox folder I use for testing is a pain. The current export option requires export -> save .zip to hard drive -> move to dropbox -> unzip -> test on server. Under C2, this all occurred in a single step.

Although C3 has the potential to be better than C2 in the long run, I can't use C3 for either of my current projects, which both rely on a plugin that will probably never be ported to C3. I am really struggling with whether or not I should subscribe, even though I know I will be using C2 almost exclusively over the next 12 months.

> Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it.

>

That's absolutely ridiculous.

If it was only a dollar a year, you would probably pay less than $80 on the software over your lifetime and wouldn't that be as good as owning it? That would be an insanely better deal than just buying it out right for $500 or whatever price you mentioned before. I think you're so fixated on this one aspect that it's clouding your judgment.

$100 a year really isn't that expensive either. It only amounts to $8.25 a month to subscribe. That's absurdly cheap as far as subscriptions go. I pay close to 3 times that for HBO.

everyone

So how does the full version of C3 compare to C2? Is it the same or better? Should I wait to subscribe?

I feel you may have missed my point, price is not the issue so I'm not sure why you're discussing it in relation to my argument. I just used that example to illustrate that even at a ridiculous price of $1 I would still be wary of using C3 long term due to the lockout. I would happily pay $200 a year sub if the model was better but would fight to change it even if it was as low as a dollar in its current state. The issue is perpetual access to one's own work, not price.