Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

winkr7

That is the good spirit. I also will pay gladly the yearly subscription fee. Ashley mentioned very good reasons why the "one time payment" model didn't work and how the new subscription give Scirra better revenue to keep up working on adding more exciting features.

—

I preferred the new subscription model from the very beginning, because in my humble opinion, it will secure the future development of our favourite game development tool.

And believe me, we will see more nice features added in the future. I also expect much of the rewrite of the new runtime.

In case you write your own software (like I do), or sell your own created games, do you sell lifetime licences which gives you one time payments but you have to maintain and keep updating regularly? I am sure you do not, just like myself because you will find yourself quickly without enough income to even update your software.

Only the sun comes up for free, but even with the Sun, you cannot enjoy sunshine every day.

as much as I enjoy Construct 2, I will not be moving to Construct 3, I am totally and utterly against "subscription software" in principle, regardless of the price. I want to pay once and own my software, not rent it.

After checking the competition for my level of skill (ie: low, haha) I've decided to move to Fusion 2.5 and what is soon going to be Fusion 3, as that is one price and no crazy subscription.

I hate to dump Construct but I simply cannot accept this crazy notion of subscription only and quite frankly I hope they get a huge drop off in users and have to reconsider their options.

Should Ashley & co suddenly contract a bout of "common sense" and change C3 to a one off price, there is a good chance I will return and buy it. But a subscription? no.. not at any price.

winkr7

That is the good spirit. I also will pay gladly the yearly subscription fee. Ashley mentioned very good reasons why the "one time payment" model didn't work and how the new subscription give Scirra better revenue to keep up working on adding more exciting features.

—

I preferred the new subscription model from the very beginning, because in my humble opinion, it will secure the future development of our favourite game development tool.

And believe me, we will see more nice features added in the future. I also expect much of the rewrite of the new runtime.

In case you write your own software (like I do), or sell your own created games, do you sell lifetime licences which gives you one time payments but you have to maintain and keep updating regularly? I am sure you do not, just like myself because you will find yourself quickly without enough income to even update your software.

Only the sun comes up for free, but even with the Sun, you cannot enjoy sunshine every day.

I too am a software developer, and it's pretty standard nobody gets a lifetime license. There are some companies that offer lifetime licenses, but they are few and far between. Maintenance updates are always free, new major version releases are paid for, it's a fairly standard practice and many companies survive just fine. Their subscription model will not pay the bills if nobody subscribes. I forsee the company either changing their pricing model, or fading away eventually.

winkr7

—

I preferred the new subscription model from the very beginning, because in my humble opinion, it will secure the future development of our favourite game development tool.

Pretty much. Subscription = sustainable development.

> winkr7

>

> —

> I preferred the new subscription model from the very beginning, because in my humble opinion, it will secure the future development of our favourite game development tool.

>

>

Pretty much. Subscription = sustainable development.

It doesn't have to be though, give the product a 5 year lifecycle and charge $500 up front for it - or 'rent to own' it for 5 years at $100 a year. I would much prefer this to a subscription. However I think due to the nature of C3 (ongoing server costs) this kind of model wouldn't be possible, and that's where Scirra have shot themselves in the foot. The nature of C3 boxes it into a very narrow set of options - which basically forces a subscription.

You guys need to get the whole "1 time payment" option for buying C3 out of your head. Ashley is dead set against it. It didn't work for Scirra for first time, and you can make arguments about why, but it won't change the fact that Ashley is scared to death of it. You can tell he's the kind of person that only wants to move forward and doesn't want to go back to old ways of doing things.

Ashley said he had some success offering subscriptions to schools and so they obviously want to repeat that success. You won't change their minds about that either, they have said as much. It's best just to accept it and try to work with them within those confines. It has to be a simple solution too. They said they don't want to complicate things, that's why there is only a year long subscription option. Simple and reasonable... Can you guys come up with something within those parameters? If it's reasonable and Ashley can see he can keep enough of the community so that it's worth it, he might be willing to consider it. If not, your just wasting your time.

I think a lot of us agree that we don't like the 1 year subscription model, but there's nothing close to a consensus on what the best solution will be. Everyone wants something different. If you guys can't come together for that, why would Ashley even bother considering it? It would just create more problems.

>

> On a side note, most everyone here are event sheet junkies. And the majority of the vocal community seems to be against this subscription model. I'm curious about how many people are actually bluffing? If there was a better solution for people right now, they wouldn't be here debating about it.

>

Why would anyone be bluffing?

There are 6 direct competitors and at least 3 or 4 more thats indirect competitors. If you don't like what Construct 3 is there are definitely alternatives. I love the Event System, but the other tool's systems arent necessarily worse, just different so it's a learning process that you will have to invest into. I mainly used a different tool even though I own C2 and messed around with it a bit, I'm actually now looking at using C3. So I'm basically learning from scratch. People going the opposite way can do the same.

I think it's easy to see that how hard people are fighting for this that they really want to use C3, and don't want to leave to learn a different game engine. Some people hate subscriptions so much and won't like it if Ashley can't be reasoned with that they'll feel compelled to leave. But others might stick around and bite the bullet because they can't find anything easier than Construct. How many people stick around and leave is anyone's guess.

As I mentioned before, there is an engine that wants Construct users and are building their next engine to accommodate them, but that isn't scheduled to be released until the 4th quarter of this year. Knowing that, how can Ashley take advantage of that, or if he even wants to? This is his window to retain as many current users as possible. So far it doesn't sound like he really cares all that much.

Those of us who stick around to continue to use C2 will eventually have to make a decision, because C2 won't be viable forever. We need to look a head and find the best option for us. Is that C3 or something else?

Rent != Buy

Huge difference

I would subscribe to get monthly software updates/fixes

I will NOT subscribe to gain time limited access to the software itself- specifically the ability to use the software on my own projects that have more than x number of events

Ashley there are different types of subscription models, some of which I would support. Not this one

EIDT: big chunk deleted because I Wish the best for Scirra

One thing is certain about the sub model from threads like this - some like it - a multitude don't.

There really is only two options - subscribe or move on - but they are options. Remember google is your friend.

I vote for all options that are comfortable and easy for the developers and users fairly and equally.

Id say one off payment would always be nice but not with a huge price tag

id say a yearly subscription of small amount would be good enough if not better for scirra and some users personally

id say a monthly subscription will just help their userbase alittle more and satisfy some of the airy heads

id say a DLC model is a unlikely idea but if the price is a lot cheaper 5-10 pound per dlc update every say 1 year and the aesthetic were a lot greater maybe

The best method would be to let people decide how much they want to pay within fair bothways limits and within fair both ways timeframes

and provide decent rewards that don't effect the user experience negatively but effects it positively and then not reward gating them apart

from the initial subscription just giving them free digital stuff

that is always evolving and getting better they should be more like very productive , fun , aesthetically pleasing plugins,etc and

deeper behind the scenes stuff then keep evolving and branching out from their

without burdening others in the process.

That result could possibly lead to a smaller income of say maybe up to a million dollars or pounds whatever your currency is more or less

every month and or every year or whatever but a much more consistent and stable userbase and a lot more passion and activity

then you can just charge a small one off price again every significant number version

Construct 4 , Construct 5 aslong as it's worth the upgrade just for that extra income and I don't think many people would

be pissed off with paying for alittle work right ?

Rewarding your users in evolving intelligent not going to steal your money intentionally ways is always the better way slower but fast in the longrun

it's not badly captalistic because we are paying you for the work in return we are getting a piece of software and free stuff.

I will have to pay the subscription if their is no other option so and paying yearly for me is much better then paying monthly.

At this rate, I'd advise everyone who is against the Construct 3 model to begin learning a programming language.That's the only way to get a full featured game engine without paying a subscription model or anything for that matter a few would be, Monogame(C#), Cocos2d(c++ or javascript), Phaser(Javascript), Love2d(Lua), SFML(c++ and many other language bindings) or you could make your own game engine by combining a number of different tools to make a custom game engine

At this rate, I'd advise everyone who is against the Construct 3 model to begin learning a programming language.That's the only way to get a full featured game engine without paying a subscription model or anything for that matter a few would be, Monogame(C#), Cocos2d(c++ or javascript), Phaser(Javascript), Love2d(Lua), SFML(c++ and many other language bindings) or you could make your own game engine by combining a number of different tools to make a custom game engine

If you are all for the Scirra sub Model, you may want to do that also, because if the general consensus around here is anything to go by C3 is already up the creek without a cash-flo.

This is a rather silly petition, really .....

Ashley

Just get your Exporters working as intended, then your subscription model will definitely be worth it.

My Problem with scirra is that they are calling it a subscription, but it really is renting.

Here is a subscription:

https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&t=477140

you pay and you get 12 months of software upgrades and support, thats it

Construct 3 is very different - you pay for access <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

Ashley might decide to put out less software updates/features, while the user has no choice but to continue to pay in order to get access to the software.

It feels like they are misleading the users a little bit on some points too. The export in construct is still pretty bad compared to many other engines, so the price tag of 100$ per year is definitely not justified.

My Problem with scirra is that they are calling it a subscription, but it really is renting.

Here is a subscription:

https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&t=477140

you pay and you get 12 months of software upgrades and support, thats it

Construct 3 is very different - you pay for access <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

Ashley might decide to put out less software updates/features, while the user has no choice but to continue to pay in order to get access to the software.

It feels like they are misleading the users a little bit on some points too. The export in construct is still pretty bad compared to many other engines, so the price tag of 100$ per year is definitely not justified.

You're right, if you get a magazine subscription for a year, at the end of that year the magazines stop coming but you don't have to give back the ones you've already bought.

I think the Bitwig model is fair. They did get slammed for it from a chunk of their userbase as well, but it is a necessary evil. I think this model is fairer to both users and developers, Scirra's is not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.