Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

Dear Scirra

We love Construct2 and we want to love Construct3 but we hate the subscription payment model.

We ask you to please make Construct3 available for a one off payment.

Post below if you agree.

don't use a WE , it's not a problem for me and for many others

I am disappointed by the subscription model that Ashley and Tom are going for with construct3.

This makes it too similar to Stencyl:

http://www.stencyl.com/

But stencyl has native export, and construct 3 seems like it will still be html5 only - or html5 in a container (thus huge size on disk footprint due to bundled web browser)

I will probably eventually buy Clickteam Fusion 3 instead. They are keeping their licensing model.

http://www.clickteam.com/fusion-3-development-blog

I do not want to rent software, I want to own it in my toolbox once I buy it.

If you want me to bite, you need to offer an option for a one off payment. That option would of course have disadvantages, but it should allow me to run the software when i have no internet connection, without logging on to a service and compile game packages without having to upload my project on your server.

You guys can try with the renting model, but will quickly find out that you are paying way more in the long term. Some of you might drop out after the first year. This is precisely what happened when stencyl offered a free first year subscription (usually 99$) via the humble bundle.

It will be very difficult to compete with fusion 3, especially if clickteam offers it for the same price to own a license - not rent it.

How about offering a one time payment license for construct 3 editor without your online services.

Next to it offering another option - a subscribtion that includes integrated web services by scirra, access to bonus assets on the store and/or other special support/services.

don't use a WE , it's not a problem for me and for many others

Don't post then.

Most people here who use & enjoy C2 are hobbyist, myself included. I will not pay a subscription fee for C3.

Me, I want to pay one-off, not subscribe. It might work for serious business with goal for released paid games. But for personal, people who might not actually release games due to shortages, people dabbling away, experiments, playing around... My problem = short of time and brains, so never released proper games before plus not paid either..

Plus I tend to not use C2 for months/half year due to stuff going on life, and then have a couple of intense weeks/months, and then... I worry if I have to subscribe for selective months, I would never start these months worrying about wasting money.

so.. Please add another one-off payment model.. or I will likely not go C3.

helena, you anticipate me for seconds

I don't like the annual/monthly fee: I use C2 in a very discontinuous way so I will pay 100 usd a year for something that maybe I will use for a month one year, six months the next year, one week the next next year...

In this way you are changing your market from "everybody" to "people who want to design videogames as semi pro or more"... if this is your intention for marketing reason... well, goal accomplished I can also understand that this could be a way to contain the crackers' plague, and you have all my sympathy for that too.

Personally I don't think I will switch to C3: I am doing this in spare time, and I will never earn a penny from one of my games (I will be lucky if some of them will see the light in a future far far away!) so simply it doesn't pays itself...

Have you thought a "Netflix" way to pay it? I mean 99 USD per year and you could use it by 5 different sessions, so that you could divide the expense with other friends...

Any kind of "you only have xx uses left" or "you only have 1 month left" make me stressful, first I would never use software in fear of using time to only dabble and second I would feel stressful for not using software.

Also I made thinking about exporters etc. Well, to be honest we haven't seen anything new other than this sour egg of subscription model. I do not know anything about c3. but if it is basically browser wrapped C2 with a few new stuff, it will not be worth it (the subscription model).

(in my humble opinion)

I think I've posted my opinions to death in the other thread, but I'll do it here too.

Well, i think exporting will be easy if they use a vm in their servers to make directly the apk file and the xcode project.

About the pricing model, we need to consider the server maintenance costs, etc.

I left this comment in Scirra blog, and now leave it here:

"I am disappointed - subscription is not for me, I am ready to pay one-time fee. At the time I bought a construct 2 for $99 but now will have to do it every year. It is expensive at least."

Well, i think exporting will be easy if they use a vm in their servers to make directly the apk file and the xcode project.

About the pricing model, we need to consider the server maintenance costs, etc.

Think about server costs for a feature so few of us want/need and they haven't demonstrated why we need it. (unless you are a Linux/Mac user, which is a very small group)

The server services should be optional. There is no problem having the entire editor work offline.

All they have to do is bundle it in electron or nw.js - if its web based

If it uses a service to create the apk - then the users should keep the option to use the FREE xdk service instead

I recognize that for professional use, paying the annual subscription is not a head warming .... but I hope at least some small advantage has free use of construct3. Could we be in time to evaluate other options? Another business model? ... I hope more news for me ... greetings scirra.

Sounds like C3 is more for the professional than the hobbiest, that's a shame as I'm a hobbiest. Gamemaker it is then.