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

There's only so much of posts saying things like "go use a different product" or "they're dumb lol" that I'm willing to take on the forum, and I also feel this thread has run its course. It's already going in circles with the same points being made. With Construct 3 we made some bold changes and yes, those changes may not be for everybody, but we are going to stick with the plan for the time being. That's not to say we'll stick with it forever, there's always scope to make changes in future, but we want to at least see how things work out with our current plans.

Different product discussion is healthy. Competition gives incentive to make a product (rental) better. I have already moved on to other alternatives for my game making hobbies. They cost much less, and are more feature rich. They do not include the event system -- but really the event system is just a GUI glorified scripting language. Technically it could easily be converted to a basic typed out scripting language and function the same. This isn't saying that it sucks, it certainly does not, but once users realize that languages like python or lua really are not a huge step forward in complexity with frameworks, it is not a big deal.

The construct brand is heavily regarded as a hobby tool because it lacks strongly perceived features that are vital. Whether these perceptions are correct or incorrect doesn't matter, in the end Scirra's income model will or will not verify this. People bringing up other tools is to help bring the spotlight on what construct needs to mature. This is literally what big companies pay for -- real solid feedback on what their product needs to sell more. Lashing out against these feature requests and ideas, is directly lowing your product's perception and potential income. Real and reliable exporters (native) are a great example of this. From the tone of your post, it is clear this frustrates you, but is it the fact that people are bringing up other products, or the fact that yours is lacking necessary functionality for their needs?

We are thinking about a way to allow previously subscribed users to more easily use Construct 3, so they don't have to pay a whole year subscription for some light maintenance. We don't want to make any firm announcements right now so we can keep our options open, but I am keen to provide something on this front. I must also emphasise that even with an expired subscription, you can still access your project and all its artwork, sounds, music and so on, so you can extract that and use it elsewhere if you want to.

You can no longer edit the project. Yes you can extract your resources to use on a different engine or framework. I fail to understand why you are not acknowledging that this is a lockout on the project. What if I am a huge lego hobbyist -- I rent an apartment, and start building a replica of my city. One day I forget to pay rent and am literally locked out of the apartment. Yes, I can still see in through the windows, but I can no longer interact with my creation -- without continuing to pay rent, forever. I am now locked out of continuing my work in this apartment. I would need to get a different apartment, or pay the rent (extortion fee)

I'd also add that as a subscription, I think Construct 3 is still great value. You can use it for years and years accessing all features and all exporters before it gets close to the price of the all-exporters price for other tools. It's also cheaper than the subscription for PhoneGap Build alone. So not only are we going to provide a build service similar to PhoneGap Build, but it's also cheaper, and comes with an entire game development IDE as well. The pricing isn't just for one feature, it covers everything, but I think that perspective does show - it's still not a particularly expensive product.

Other products offer a choice on exporters. Yes, they are expensive, unless you explore open source tools, frameworks, and engines. What we users have to go by is actual and factual history. We have paid a one time fee to purchase the product and knew what we were getting. Now you are asking that we just trust you, because you are going to bring all kinds of great new features. And this requires that we are locked in for an entire year subscription. After six months, if -- for example you do not deliver.. then what? I guess we have six months longer to use a product that did not deliver, but we dont have to re-subscribe right? This subscription thing is gross and is an awful business model. It is great for companies, and disgusting for the consumers. Renting software sucks, and the poll shows it.

Remember that if you're keen to see major new features like 3D, timelines, modularity or collaboration, we're very much limited by our resources, and it's difficult to make the jump to hiring new developers if we have a less stable income.

3D? I mean really? After how many years of the same rock hard cement answers about 3D, now we are exploring this option. Modularity and collaboration -- if you want these features you will succumb to our demands and use our subscription model. Again, once subscribed -- they will come, whenever we are ready. So please -- essentially, PRE-ORDER our product -- we will deliver - we promise.

It seems to me a more stable income would be expanding your customer base -- not extorting the current base for rent. I would personally love to pay an additonal 25-50 dollars for an official scirra 3D addon to Construct 2 as an example. Then again, there are plenty of people who dont care about 3D and would not be required to purchase it. This would be a great model -- official addons for things like: 3D, timelines, modularity, and collaboration. Being locked out of a product that you do not own is filthy -- while I understand your reasoning for it, I personally do not agree with it -- and I am not alone.

Finally I'm sure some people are going to point at this thread and accuse us for shutting out discussion of the topic. I'd like to point out that this thread has been open since February 1 - over three months - and has nearly two hundred replies, including several from myself. After this time of allowing all this discussion I believe there is little else to be gained from allowing this thread to continue. I have read nearly every post in this thread, and as many as I can from the Construct 3 forum, and often posts from other forums and websites. We have heard everyone's points, in some cases I've directly responded to them, and now it has simply come down to re-hashing the same things. Even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else, we have a clear plan and a vision for where we want to go. I'm confident in time our decisions will become clearer, much as the choice of HTML5 over Flash originally mystified many but ended up being the right way to go. I'd like to thank everyone for their energy and feedback, and please be assured we'll still be listening and posting here on the forum, as we continue to develop Construct 3 in future.

You started your post with the almighty I am tired of hearing something I dont like -- dont force my hand speech. Again, I appreciate you have a clear plan on the direction you want to go. Shutting down everyone else' conversation about the issue seems childish. If you do not like the discussion that people are having, why have a forums? Is it supposed to be all rainbows and sunshine with Scirra worship? When a significant portion of your community disagrees with you, they will find a way to have a conversation about it.

I find this new direction that Scirra is going in to be very disappointing. I came back to check in to see what was going on -- read through the previous discussions, and am saddened by the result. On a personal level -- the Scirra team are great people, and I wish them the best in their future endeavors. Unfortunately, I will not be a part of those.

I wholeheartedly agree with Twinsonian 's post.

Ashley why are you trying to make it look like the lockout isn't that bad. It really is. The event sheet is everything - the game's whole logic is in there! You are trying to paint this in a different light than what it is - saying things like it being "light limitations".

Look, I know you want to force people to keep being subscribed, but why not have some faith in the updates that you deliver for that instead, huh? You have a good track record for it with construct2 and people know already that you can deliver good updates.

Why don't you trust that to do the subscription sales alone? Software updates really can keep sales going - it's proven and is still the most common model used - even with the subscription type payment!

If you already have the attitude that you also need lockouts to do that, then that shows that really you are not all that certain in scirra's ability to make sales on the base of putting out some great updates alone.

It tells me that you need the lockout, because your updates alone are not going to convince people to , well - pay to keep getting updates for another year.

I simply can't comprehend where that fear comes from in you - as scirra as a company has never actually tried it before! You have never sold a single build version upgrade- correct me if I am wrong

We are listening - I think what a lot of people want is not for us to actually listen (which we are doing) but do something different than we've planned.

Errmmmm, that what threads like this are about - getting Scirra to change their plans - which you will not do, hence you are not listening.

Which threads have been unfairly locked?

The last thread Ashley locked.

No thread needs to be locked unless people are at each others throat. Just because a discussion is going in circles does not justify locking a thread. A thread will run it's course by itself, will eventually die down to a few, and finally die out - there is no need to lock them.

And now Ashley wants to lock this one?

Haven't banned anyone for voicing their opinion if they keep it civil.

lamar?...

I didn't read anything from him that warranted being banned, yes maybe he was hashing up the same points, but that just goes back to my first point in this reply.

Unless of course I may have missed a post or thread where he warranted that action being taken.

• - - - - -

What is clear from these threads, is the majority of people do not like or want SAAS, in fact they would prefer to pay more to avoid it - it is really that simple. The big players like Adobe can take that rout since they have bucket loads of businesses that will support that model, and in the case of their software, and what it used to cost, has made it a much better deal.

Whether Construct - which as stated by many, many times, is mostly a hobbyist tool - can survive going down that rout remains to be seen.

One thing for sure is the sub model your have developed is not expensive, but to many it is not friendly, and has alienated a great number of your current user-base, and I think quite a few are feeling abandoned by Scirra.

Despite Ashley's comment about people trying to create a frenzy - which is a little crazy imo - that's not what people are trying to achieve. They just don't like the course Scirra have taken, and yes they want Scirra to change their plans. That as said before is why threads like this are started.

After the many posts and the locked thread, it seems the best option for Construct users now is to wait and see how the subscription turns out. Scirra really wants to try it, and if it works out then that's great for them (and us) !

If not, they'll hopefully have a backup plan ready in time

But, I would say it will be one or two years from now before we know for sure (eg: many people might try one or two years before trying something else, so it's still pretty risky for Scirra if big/long-term projects aren't being made).

That's okay though, we've all been waiting many years already for HTML5 to be the high performance multi-platform export format of choice for 2D gaming anyway, what's the harm of waiting a few more?

After the many posts and the locked thread, it seems the best option for Construct users now is to wait and see how the subscription turns out. Scirra really wants to try it, and if it works out then that's great for them (and us) !

If not, they'll hopefully have a backup plan ready in time

But, I would say it will be one or two years from now before we know for sure (eg: many people might try one or two years before trying something else, so it's still pretty risky for Scirra if big/long-term projects aren't being made).

That's okay though, we've all been waiting many years already for HTML5 to be the high performance multi-platform export format of choice for 2D gaming anyway, what's the harm of waiting a few more?

The problem with this I think is that at the moment there is actually very little incentive to subscribe. The overlap between C2 and C3 is vast, and who knows how long it will take C3 to mature enough plugin wise for many to transfer their projects over? I say this as someone who is knee deep in 3 projects, all of which use plugins qhich quite frankly should be part of the base construct package. If I subscribe in the near future I'll pretty much just be throwing $99 away (or whatever discount I get from being a customer) the only incentive to subscription at the moment is support of Scirra's vision, but unfortunately some of this vision I'm not interested in. I think people will continue to discuss and criticise this model and that won't go away. We're not stirring a frenzy, the fact is it doesn't fit the needs or wants of the greater community.

Oh humanity theirs a fair amount of hate towards the Construct 3 game engine.

I think Construct 3 is vastly superior In terms of UI design then Construct 2

but I personally like construct 3s UI by a far margin compared to the slightly more weak Construct 2,

Having a runtime app would be more fun and personal though so I'm looking forward too that.

Everyone doesn't have a choice in this development of Construct 3 by the way it's merely a feedback loop that honestly I would say rarely

leads to actual implementation so all this but hurt drama going on is fairly pointless .

Scirra Team are taking a well informed risk but I will say that paying yearly is better then monthly for my case but I think

their should be more choices and options and no limitations attached depending on which one you pick .

Other then that I can't see myself not using Construct 3 unless the development goes sour for some burdening reason

aslong as my game idea's can be made in it.

> After the many posts and the locked thread, it seems the best option for Construct users now is to wait and see how the subscription turns out. Scirra really wants to try it, and if it works out then that's great for them (and us) !

>

> If not, they'll hopefully have a backup plan ready in time

>

> But, I would say it will be one or two years from now before we know for sure (eg: many people might try one or two years before trying something else, so it's still pretty risky for Scirra if big/long-term projects aren't being made).

>

> That's okay though, we've all been waiting many years already for HTML5 to be the high performance multi-platform export format of choice for 2D gaming anyway, what's the harm of waiting a few more?

>

The problem with this I think is that at the moment there is actually very little incentive to subscribe. The overlap between C2 and C3 is vast, and who knows how long it will take C3 to mature enough plugin wise for many to transfer their projects over? I say this as someone who is knee deep in 3 projects, all of which use plugins qhich quite frankly should be part of the base construct package. If I subscribe in the near future I'll pretty much just be throwing $99 away (or whatever discount I get from being a customer) the only incentive to subscription at the moment is support of Scirra's vision, but unfortunately some of this vision I'm not interested in. I think people will continue to discuss and criticise this model and that won't go away. We're not stirring a frenzy, the fact is it doesn't fit the needs or wants of the greater community.

How compatible are construct2 plugins with construct3 ?

I wonder as construct3's runtime continues to mature- will that compatibility continue to be maintained?

In that sense then, plugin developers will need to port their work to c3.

Do you think some paid plugins will also start moving over to a rent model too?

>

> > After the many posts and the locked thread, it seems the best option for Construct users now is to wait and see how the subscription turns out. Scirra really wants to try it, and if it works out then that's great for them (and us) !

> >

> > If not, they'll hopefully have a backup plan ready in time

> >

> > But, I would say it will be one or two years from now before we know for sure (eg: many people might try one or two years before trying something else, so it's still pretty risky for Scirra if big/long-term projects aren't being made).

> >

> > That's okay though, we've all been waiting many years already for HTML5 to be the high performance multi-platform export format of choice for 2D gaming anyway, what's the harm of waiting a few more?

> >

>

> The problem with this I think is that at the moment there is actually very little incentive to subscribe. The overlap between C2 and C3 is vast, and who knows how long it will take C3 to mature enough plugin wise for many to transfer their projects over? I say this as someone who is knee deep in 3 projects, all of which use plugins qhich quite frankly should be part of the base construct package. If I subscribe in the near future I'll pretty much just be throwing $99 away (or whatever discount I get from being a customer) the only incentive to subscription at the moment is support of Scirra's vision, but unfortunately some of this vision I'm not interested in. I think people will continue to discuss and criticise this model and that won't go away. We're not stirring a frenzy, the fact is it doesn't fit the needs or wants of the greater community.

>

How compatible are construct2 plugins with construct3 ?

I wonder as construct3's runtime continues to mature- will that compatibility continue to be maintained?

In that sense then, plugin developers will need to port their work to c3.

Do you think some paid plugins will also start moving over to a rent model too?

I'm not sure on compatibility between C2 and C3 plugins, but it is certainly something that worries me. I'm very glad that people can write plugins for Construct, but I actually feel that Construct itself is lacking some very important features that plugin developers have picked up the slack for. I've always found it odd that there is no native tweening, or even audio fade in/out for instance. And for software that touts itself as being easy to use this seems like such a glaring oversight. And I know you can do all that stuff if you jump through some hoops, but honestly plugins save a lot of time and those kind of things should be in the base program.

My worry about the proposed rental system is that the timing is so weird for it. I don't really need to jump to new software yet because C2 is still fulfilling my needs and probably will for a while yet. But because C3 is coming, C2 sales will probably drop off a cliff as people perceive it to be dead or dying (even if that isn't the case as Scirra has said they will maintain it for the foreseeable future). So if C2 sales dry up completely as psychologically people perceive it to be dead, but no one jumps to C3 because they don't need to yet, that's going to be quite a long period with little sales to Scirra.

When I bought C2 I didn't really need it, for one it wasn't mature enough compared to Classic (and at the moment I feel the same about C3 to C2). I bought it as a kind of future investment, to learn slowly and transition over to and it worked well. If C3 had been a one off payment (no matter how much, name your price) I would have done the same. But if I were to subscribe any time soon I would probably still spend most time in C2 and would pretty much be wasting money on the C3 sub at least for a couple of years... I work slowly and on fairly big projects and I don't like paying for something I'm not constantly using or won't have access to use in the future.

The lack of Plugins/Behaviours that will be in C3 also concerns me somewhat for now but, at least there seems to be some good work done by blackhornet and — to make a converter that helps bring things over.

I'm sure there will be some guys that will be getting C3 and do plugins/behaviours...I'm just not sure how many of the really great developers would be porting it since it seems a lot won't be paying the Rental either. Initially at least. Maybe it's quite compatible and it's trivial for the most part.

It's going to be another story when the C3 runtime lands....then things change again and those plugs will probably have to be ported again? Yes/No?

Looking at the track record through the C2 forums, it's not likely that Scirra would add many behaviours themselves. It's mostly left up to third party devs. It seems that users try and convince tirelessly on something that is needed and then getting responses why it's a bad idea then eventually a 3rd party option comes around.

RexRainbow, RojoHound, Blackhornet and others have been instrumental there by the looks of things. If those guys don't get C3 for some reason it will be a real loss to those who do and to C3 in general.

If I was Scirra i'd at least offer to give them the first year or two of Construct 3 for free since they basically add A LOT of what users want...no...NEED, to Construct.

Hopefully I'm just being pessimistic here.

> Haven't banned anyone for voicing their opinion if they keep it civil.

>

lamar?...

I didn't read anything from him that warranted being banned, yes maybe he was hashing up the same points, but that just goes back to my first point in this reply.

He deserved to be banned, and is never welcome back. You didn't see a lot of personally targeted emails, threats and general revolting behaviour we will not ever tolerate.

We are not banning people who voice their opinions, and I have no idea where you got that impression from.

[quote:37ya3ah9]Errmmmm, that what threads like this are about - getting Scirra to change their plans - which you will not do, hence you are not listening.

We're listening as I've said, and taking it onboard. It's not going to impact our immediate plans as it's in motion and we're confident in our decision and planning.

People are asking us to listen - and we are. But I think a lot of people asking us to listen are actually asking us to change what we're doing, and won't be happy until we do. That's different.

I have already moved on to other alternatives for my game making hobbies. They cost much less, and are more feature rich. They do not include the event system

You can use whichever tool you like, but Construct is aimed at non-coders. So if you're intending to code, it's probably not the right tool for you.

[quote:3h53zzqb]The construct brand is heavily regarded as a hobby tool because it lacks strongly perceived features that are vital.

We are a small company with limited resources. Lots of people are pointing out the things that are missing, or that they perceive as needing improvement.

The main reason we haven't addressed all those things already is because we can't. There are only so many of us and so many hours in a working day.

I can't quite get my head round how many people have an approach like "X, Y and Z are missing, and they should also charge less". Naturally customers will always want more for less, that's just how business works. But trying to both sustain the business, maintain the products for thousands of existing users, and address all these major areas that people want to see worked on, with a small team solely funded by the acquisition of new users, is pretty much impossible. This is the main reason I find this frustrating: to me these feel like impossible demands, everyone insisting we should do a whole range of improvements, while simultaneously arguing for less sustainable business models.

I don't expect anyone to change their mind over this, but I think it's an undervalued point: if you want to see these big changes to the product, we're going to need a way to scale up. And some of the different models and revenue ideas thrown around here could well force us to scale down instead, making these features everyone wants a more distant prospect. You can't have it all: there has to be a tradeoff somewhere.

[quote:3h53zzqb]Lashing out against these feature requests and ideas, is directly lowing your product's perception and potential income.

At no point have I meant to lash out against anyone, although I will admit this has been frustrating at times. I apologise if I have at any point come across as lashing out.

[quote:3h53zzqb]I fail to understand why you are not acknowledging that this is a lockout on the project.

My main objection is trying to make it sound like you are completely locked out and all your artwork and media is "held hostage" until you pay again. That's not the case. I think this is a really important point: if your subscription expires and you decide to go with another tool, you can. You're not locked out and prevented from doing that until you pay again. So I don't like the term "lockout", unless it's qualified like "editing lock".

[quote:3h53zzqb]Now you are asking that we just trust you, because you are going to bring all kinds of great new features.

...

So please -- essentially, PRE-ORDER our product -- we will deliver - we promise.

No, don't buy the product - or any product - based on promises. We sell the product based on what is available now, and you should only buy it because it has features that you need right now. We only talk about future plans because lots of people want to know them. I would not recommend anyone makes a purchase decision based on future plans: there is too much uncertainty around if, when or how it will work.

This is easy advice to give because I think both C2 and C3 have a great set of features already.

[quote:3h53zzqb]3D? I mean really?

OK, I should have said 2.5D. Like Construct Classic's Z elevation, 3D box object, that kind of thing.

[quote:3h53zzqb]It seems to me a more stable income would be expanding your customer base -- not extorting the current base for rent.

Again, I object to the term "extorting". This is not extortion. It's a product for sale. You don't have to buy it if you don't like it. It's as simple as that.

Ashley, its great to have devs respond in forums but I think you will drive yourself mad replying to the same arguments again and again in this thread.

Just make C3 robust, stable and at least as good as C2 for now (with the extra C3 features) and it will sell. If it needs to change in the future then it needs to change. I am still pretty new to C2 but I have used enough software over the years to know that the guy who created C2 is a god damn genius and I trust his vision going forward.

With C3 you can get on Steam and iOS. That's more than enough exporting features for you to make money and get exposure with. I think the major problem with developers is phycological. There's a mindset that "if you are not coding you won't ever get the flexibility you need".

You need to minimize your game development problems and C3 does that.

With C3 you can get on Steam and iOS. That's more than enough exporting features for you to make money and get exposure with. I think the major problem with developers is phycological. There's a mindset that "if you are not coding you won't ever get the flexibility you need".

You need to minimize your game development problems and C3 does that.

While Steam alone is okay for sales (but not really "enough" to run an indie studio on without being extremely popular), I would say iOS / Android are both very hard to make any commercial success on without falling back to in-app-ads or token-purchase systems and free-to-play models.

The console export options that became available to us after switching engines had made a substantial difference in both the success of our crowdfunding campaign, and the global press that our game has received so far.

For other benefits that switching to code gave us check out my post here:

However, Scirra can't control when and where a 3rd party wrapper will be available, so it's best to assume that the only true export of Construct 3 is HTML5. Console support so far has been unsuitable for commercial titles to rely on, and that might continue on indefinitely if console makers don't wish to enable full HTML5 + WebGL.

Basically: Don't try to minimize the other options available, they are tools for a purpose, and if you want to make large and/or commercial games for consoles and mobile they're a safer bet.

Construct 2/3 is great for hobbyists, web games, educators, and freeware, but having released our previous Construct 2 game on Steam we have learned the hard way that most computers buying 2D games are still not ready for HTML5 + WebGL.

With C3 you can get on Steam and iOS. That's more than enough exporting features for you to make money and get exposure with. I think the major problem with developers is phycological. There's a mindset that "if you are not coding you won't ever get the flexibility you need".

You need to minimize your game development problems and C3 does that.

I'd like to minimise my game development problems, but you just spent $300 in one paragraph.