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

Right so your assumption is subscription = no impulse buyers. Or re-reading your posts, are you saying monthly option = impulse buyers but yearly = no impulse buyers? I really don't follow.

RE impulse buyers and C3, we just wont know until we try. Also not sure why this is a concern when this is a business concern and not something that would directly affect anyone else.

> I don't understand why Tom keeps inviting all this dialog when Ashley is just going to shut him down. I grow tired of the mixed messages. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

>

Eh? What mixed messages? Please be specific and quote me and Ashley where we contradicted each other.

Tom

It occurred to me that I'm wasting too much time here. Those comments I made before, forget I even mentioned it. Best of luck with C3.

> I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

>

Well, the yearly subscription price is much smaller than the C2 license. That fits the impulse buyer profile.

The ability to not resubscribe even more so.

That coupled with the availability of the editor makes for a very strong impulse buying presence.

Imagine what would happen with a monthly option.

You obviously don't care about product ownership, do you? People are NOT going to impulse buy something when they have to think "hmm, I'll have to buy this until I've finished whatever project I start, which could be years down the line by the time I've picked it up and put it down a dozen times."

And cheaper? By what, 30 dollars or something?

You obviously don't care about product ownership, do you?

What does that mean?

I would impulse buy it- even for more, if the standalone version has no editing lockout like the online version!

proposal here

You guys still beating this dead horse?

If Scirra refuses to listen to their base then they will learn the hard way when no one subscribes to C3.

Move on already and lots of good engines out there and some of them free.

Yeah seriously, what's the point of joining a forum to just post about how...oh wait.

In other news, it's mothers' day....

And my god, it is a bright and sunny day over here.

Respect those momma's folks, make ehm coffee and breakfast, show a little love.

Back on topic (slightly):

I was wondering, if the new online package builder (exporter) gets implemented for C2 as well, will it be free for C2 owners?

Or will it require a fee ?

If it does not require a C3 license or subscription, that would be just awesome.

Off topic (again)

I gave my mom an old classic little music box with one of those handles you need to turn. It plays le Claire de luna.

First, I'd like to point out that I like many ideas posted in this topic (even if they are not so viable from a business standpoint), but I'd also like to voice my concerns about some.

What if all bug reports are done through C3 itself, forget the forums, e-mails etc and when the user tries to submit a report on a version that is not up to date they are informed that they are using an old version and need to upgrade to be eligible for support. Only the most current version of the software will send the bug report. C3 will just do a quick check to see if it's up to date. You could put it in your TOS etc. That way you will only ever be maintaining the current version of the software, but lapsed users who aren't experiencing bugs will be able to continue to work on their projects if they need to. I think if you had a system like this, and introduced one killer feature a year people would be pretty happy and just stay subscribed anyway. It seems like win win to both Scirra and customers. Am I missing something?

What if someone want to submit a bug report about the editor not starting?

* Post subscription customer. Full editing capabilities in Standalone version, but no export options at all. Not even html. Only preview option.

How this is different from the so called "lock-out"? You can edit your game but you can't get it out of the editor. You can even finish your game if the current feature set fits you without paying a penny to Scirra and then only resubscribe when you need to export.

*Latest standalone version could probably always be found online, somewhere else. Since every subscriber would have access to it. You would probably need an account status check here. If someone using a standalone version later than they should be allowed all access should be blocked, or limited to 50 events.

What if someone wants to install their post-subscribe standalone version on an offline machine?

Don't waste time on examples etc. Please.

While the examples should not be the highest priority, they are very much welcomed. I had students who looked around in examples, examined how they work and built up logic we haven't discussed in class. So from a teaching standpoint, examples are very good to have.

There are thousands of examples and tutorials on the net and on the forum though with more being done daily.

If it's between examples and new features / behaviors I'd take the latter every time.

glerikud

It was not a suggestion I was trying to prove a point why full editing capabilities without subscription is not a good idea. From an exploitability/business perspective. If you read the whole post.

Some kind of lockout has to be in place. Otherwise it would be exploited. As a user I rather have the lockout, than have the devs spend all their time on security/exploit issues and losing business, instead of adding new features and updates.

I can live with paying once a year for software that I like. No biggie. The payment model/lockout is the least of my worries.

It was not a suggestion I was trying to prove a point why full editing capabilities without subscription is not a good idea. From an exploitability/business perspective. If you read the whole post.

Then I missed the point of your post. I'm sorry, my mistake.

The standalone versions are intended as a supplement to the browser-based version, to cover a few features that can't be done in the browser like direct disk access. We'd prefer to unify our offering across all the products, because it's simpler for us and easier for customers to understand. Having mixed patterns depending on where you use the product is pretty confusing for a new user IMO.

In addition to that, we can't produce standalone versions for every platform. Standalone on Android - which already has surprisingly large usage, comparable to Mac - would mean sacrificing 30% of our revenue via the Play Store, which we really want to avoid, and may in fact be infeasible to integrate with our own payment system (Google has an entirely separate payment system and rules about how it can be used). "Add to homescreen" is also very much app-like and does not involve any revenue cut at all, so providing a standalone version would be difficult, provide little functional benefit, and cost us a significant amount of revenue. Chrome OS - where we have no other major competitors and a great opportunity, particularly in education - cannot provide any standalone version at all. We can't tell Chrome OS users to switch to a different OS to use a standalone product. We'd rather come up with one system focused on browser usage that covers everything. The standalone versions are basically a bonus for Windows, Mac and Linux users only.

When I make posts like this, some people seem to accuse me of "shutting down the conversation" - that's not what I'm setting out to do, I'm pointing out the difficulties with all of these alternatives. It's easy to sit back in your armchair and claim all the solutions are obvious. It's really not: every approach we could take has tradeoffs like this, and there are a lot of different angles to consider.

Ashley does Apple have some weird policy that forbids the use of their service for distribution of a product that runs licensing from a third party?