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

You have access to it, in perpetuity.

I have access to psd files that I can't do much with since I don't choose to use Photoshop.

However, I can open those files in other software.

Having access to the assets is a different thing though. With your PSD example, at the moment there is alternative software to Photoshop with full PSD compatibility (or at least very close to) so it's not a problem. You won't be able to do that with an entire game. If Scirra got bought out by a big company and they took the guts of C3 for another project and then cancelled C3 no one would be able to edit their projects. That's an extreme example, but a valid one as stuff like that happens all the time.

Same could be said for any engine.

If.

If doesn't get anything done.

If doesn't even start.

Same could be said for any engine.

If.

If doesn't get anything done.

If doesn't even start.

Any other engine without a lockout won't have that problem.

I'm still on a fence whether I subscribe or not. I really like C3 but I don't like the subscription model and the poor export options. I might just invest that same money in a professional tutorial for another game engine, like this... And that's kind of future proof path.

I'm still on a fence whether I subscribe or not. I really like C3 but I don't like the subscription model and the poor export options. I might just invest that same money in a professional tutorial for another game engine, like this... And that's kind of future proof path.

Tried GoDot and didn't like it.

I kinda hate to post it here since it seems a bit unfair but , if you don't like the Subscription (Renting )model then if I were you I'd rather look at Fusion 2.5 (but actually Fusion 3 upcoming) or GameMaker Studio 2. I even prefer Unity to GoDot.

Whatever you choose other than Fusion maybe... won't come close to Construct 3 in speed and ease of use imho.

I suppose each person need to decide what's more valuable to them.

I still think Construct 2/3 are pretty great. It was a hard decision for me to come and play with blocks. But still, Constuct 2/3 are just springboard into more serious game development. It shows you all the basic mechanic behind the games, while leaving out specific skill requirement in programming, so integrating into for example Unity would be much simpler. Were you already know how stuff should work, and only thing is to improve your programming. For me it still goes like this.

Gamemaker -> unity/unreal/monogames or some other professional engine.

Construct2 -> ^

Godot -> ^

Jumping from Construct 2 to Gamemaker/fusion, etc, after a year or two, seems to be bad progression.

Well, you can use Construct 2 or other similar engine, you should know that you must build your projects around pros and cons of Game engine! And should not hope for some serious improvements.

But I still I agree that Construct 2 and all other game engines should have the option to use almost entire engine freely with some neat limitations. When I was choosing which game engine to go with and Construct 2 had been yearly payment ~100 I would had hard decision, if there was no way to try it out for months with some small limitations. Picking Construct 2 is already like going to play Minecraft, while the game is wonderful and super cool, you still feel like playing with kids or are The Kid.

As already Construct 2 user the 50/100 year deal is super nice, complying and cheap. But when I think about back in time, when I picked the game engine as hobby tool, would I pick it again? It would be much, much harder decision than one time payment ~75. As when people go Construct 2 -> unity. Then there aren't potential clients who will come into construct 2, like engine X -> construct 2. Where engine X is free and then to pay a little extra and intergate into C2, as it is almost already the lowest tier.

I think limitations like: only 1-3 layout, 1 event sheet, fixed viewport/layout size, no groups, layers 1-3 max, some sprite limitation etc. Would serve newcomers much better. Then max 25/50 events.

Or old timers can pay 50-100 to unlock C3 with some limitation to develop their hobby projects. And then they can buy extras 25-50. - each unlock certain c3 limitations. Or pay 3-5 year in 1 go, to unlock it so called"forever" as people and their taste are different. There should be something for everyone.

Whatever you choose other than Fusion maybe... won't come close to Construct 3 in speed and ease of use imho.

Read neverk's full quote, In the end it says "And that's kind of future proof path." Sounds like a well-thought-out plan to me.

If you are actually thinking long term toward a proven deliverable product for phone/tablet/computer/console, other engines have a much better track record than construct.

What is wrong with using the best tool for the job?

Basically my issue isn't the price. It's the time. In short term I can make the most with Construct2/3 but the Constructs limits will eventually limit my possibilities. Money I have, but not that much time. So there for I need to make the decision where I put my time. In long term something more versatile will pay off... but it's so fun to use Construct. By continuing to use Construct I just have to accept the fact that It's just a hobby...

In short term I can make the most with Construct2/3 but the Constructs limits will eventually limit my possibilities.

Can you expand a little on what the limits your referring to are?

Has anyone actually tried the mobile exporters in C3 now they're available? I just tried a simple game I had knocked up in C2 & the exported apk was only 2.6mb, unlike when i tried to build that same project with phonegap and the file size turned out to be 25.5mb! Nice.

>

> > 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.

Ok, money aside. As long as you don't minify script on HTML5 export, you can still edit all those files. Did that change with C3, I haven't really checked? The problem is few C2/C3 users know what to do with those files once they have them. Even though users can always have access to their project files, they really need some javascript knowledge to be able to do anything with them without the editor. How is that Scirra's problem?

It seems to me if you don't want to pay for the editor and you don't learn javascript, then that's really your problem if you can't do anything with your game afterwards. The editor is affordable and available if and when you need it. And if you don't want to pay for C3, you can always learn javascript.

Think of C3 as a taxi service. A taxi can take you where you want to go for a reasonable fee, but it's not the taxi driver's fault you don't know how to drive.

Even unminified you can't just go in and edit the code.

The runtime is basically a bunch of custom functions and your events are a list of operations.

It would be a nightmare to figure out what does what.

Even unminified you can't just go in and edit the code.

The runtime is basically a bunch of custom functions and your events are a list of operations.

It would be a nightmare to figure out what does what.

It might be a nightmare, but it's still possible though, right? The whole selling point of C3 is to make HTML5 games easy. Never understanding or learning someone else's approach to doing things is always a risk when you pay for their services.

It's all about the runtime which is custom for each export.

So while it would be possible to reverse engineer a game, or a save file, it would be just about useless to use to decompile another game.

Other than the acquired experience that is.

If you were to make a setup like C2 it would be easy peasy to do a syntax less blocks system.

A game engine, not so much.

Then there's the editor with all its nuances.

Image editor, layout editor, event editor, etc.

So coding while great to know, can only get you as far as time, and experience will allow.

Our taxi driver knows the city pretty well.