You can still continue to get revenue with the standard licensing model by:
- Charging for major software updates
- Charging for premium features/addons - such as displaying ads in a game and being able to do microtransactions
- Charging for exporters - yes, ones that you actually make and maintain - and they compile to native code
- Taking a cut from sales on the asset store
- Charging subscription fees on optional integrated could services that actually do add value to the product (as noted in my previous post)
I would support this heartily. As a hobbyist who makes no money off creations, a subscription is unsustainable for me and I cannot upgrade to C3. But I would gladly purchase the software on a one-off payment with only one export option, and cheerfully pay for major updates. This is also one of the few times I would support microtransactions, and if I ever happened to make a game that required integrated services, I would also be totally fine with paying for that option.
And frankly taking cuts from assets is a no-brainer and I assumed it was already done - I am a graphic artist more than anything, and having a ready audience for assets is worth a small cut of the profits given to the host.