It's only inevitable if people let it happen. There is certainly a worrying trend with larger corporations trying to push this as they can milk customers far more than with one off payments. Companies like Adobe and Autodesk were in a strong position to strongarm this as they are the industry leaders in their respective software fields with huge established customer bases that are completely reliant on their services. I was surprised when Scirra pulled this idea out as they are in no way the same position as those two business giants. If you look at other software industries - eg the pro audio scene, hardly anyone is using subscription services (and those that have tried - such as Roland with their cloud service have been heavily ridiculed and criticised) as they simply cannot justify the ongoing prices with their updates. I sincerely doubt that a 2d engine would be able to innovate fast enough to justify this either and everyone knows it. There's only so far you can go and it won't take long to hit the ceiling because we're almost there. In short though, people who are against systems like this should vote with their wallets. If we end up in a world full of subscriptions for everything it's because we've let it happen. There are good alternatives out there for Adobe and Autodesk products, and the same goes for game making software. Subs work fine for companies, but for individuals they are terrible. We're looking at a future of every service being a subscription, slowly draining our bank accounts from every direction, once it happens we'll be trapped. Don't let it happen.

I agree with you. Adobe's tactic has always been to make their user base dependent on them, all the way from acquiring Macromedia, to now with their "free" mobile apps requiring you to have a CC account. I don't think a lot of these companies switching to a subscription model seem to realize that.

I think Ultima Online (1997) was probably the first software that required subscriptions. Unless you want to count websites.

Maybe Adobe had a big hand in subscription models gaining traction, but Adobe kind of had to switch to a subscription model. Their users were skipping every other upgrade or so for the software, because people didn't see the value. The software already did what they needed it to do and many of the new features seemed insignificant. Not to mention that their software was already bloated and their features started to overlap their other software. That's what killed Adobe Fireworks.

That might also explain C3 going subscription. A lot of the new features seem insignificant. It's more or less C2 in a browser with cloud service. Maybe they don't think they can improve the software enough to justify charging people every few years to upgrade. Maybe because the web is changing slowly, it's hard to come up with new features? Maybe Scirra kinda has to go this route.

> Are you any good?

>

I'm not half bad honestly. Thanks for asking! But you got me...I use c2 to prototype and Unity for the actual 3d game. But the only reason I really do that is I can't use C2 for developing for the PS, Xbox and soon-to-be Switch shops in 3d. Construct is more than capable, but it takes capable devs who commit to it and then understand they're limiting themselves only to desktop and maybe mobile. Like I said, take up the challenge to show people what it can do. You are the one, after all, asking the questions. You don't plan to be a hobbyist forever, do you? If so, then it doesn't matter since it's perfectly capable of handling hobbyist needs.

Asking a question doesn't mean I think I can do it better than anyone else here. If I thought I could do it, I wouldn't post a comment here. I'd contact them directly. But If you think you can do it, you should. You seem confident enough.

I do plan to remain a hobbyist forever. I work in advertising and most of what I do with C2 wouldn't really be considered "games." It's more like interactive media. And I don't really use C2 for a lot of it. I use Hype 3. So again, I'm not the best person for the job.

As to my earlier point, take a look at Buildbox. It's engine is far less capable than C2, yet it has numerous games in the top 100 of the App Store. They created their own games, and said, "Look at what we can do with our software, you can do it too." And if you play any of their games, they are all pretty simple.

Someone not knowing anything about either game engine, would think Buildbox is far more successful and it would give them the best shot at making money.

We who sell our games on Steam are not really allowed to share any exact figures and cuts. So it is a bit hard to give you "solid proof".

And to be honest I really don't care. But I really don't see any point in lying about it.

Just my game on Steam has sold for a lot more than I made a year as a e-commerce manager here in Sweden so that much I can say and that is just a simple html5 game without any marketing whatsoever. But feel free to think whatever you want. I don't hold it against you And I wish you the best of luck with your future projects.

I'm not calling you a liar. I said I took your word, but I'd still would like to see where you are getting your information from. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to know all the facts.

I vote for you to do it. Let Moot be the one to make a great game so we can all see his example and C2/C3's capabilities to be seen as anything other than hobbyist software! Hear, hear!

If it's not too obvious by my comments, I'm a hobbyist. Are you any good? Maybe you are up to the challenge. It wouldn't hurt to contact Scirra and offer your services. Show them some of the great games made by you. How could they turn you down?

Moot I understand that you are sceptical. Here in Sweden html5 is widely used by almost every major company and therefore we have tons of companies that produce and sell html5 products. I won't make a list but it should be a no brainer to understand that this market is pretty big. And Sweden is far from the only country.

I have my own studio here in Sweden and I can make a good living out of my html5 products.

So yes, html5 has its drawbacks with compability issues on consoles and 3rd party wrappers but that doesn't stop you from making a lot of money with it.

I'll take you at your word, but you are not really offering any proof.

Back to an earlier point that there are few hit games made with C2, why doesn't Scirra make their own games, or commission some talent to do it? That's really what is going to sell this engine. A promise you can make great games and possibly earn a living isn't enough. People need to see examples. Until then, Construct will always be seen as hobby software.

Must feel important to be single-handedly leading the charge (and with such eloquent and elaborate wit, as always). Not even Tom and Ash defend themselves or their product like you can.

Heheh. He tries really hard. I'll give him that.

I think we pretty much answered Mr. BereLaDD33 questions as honest as possible. Mr. cjbruce said he made around $10,000 over the years using C2, which is nice. And If Mr. Anonnymitet can give some example of people who make a fortune off of C2, great. If not, no problem. I believe Mr. BereLaDD33 has a good enough picture now.

These type of posts are getting pretty tiresome. Asking if it is even possible to make money from a HTML5 game? Why wouldn't it?

You could easily make an exact clone of many hit games like hotline miami to name one. So it has more to do with the developers here and not the engine. So if someone here came up with and could market such a game then you would have a giant c2 hit game.

There are tons of big companies that makes a fortune out of html5 products. You can make games, banners and websites to make money with C2.

So to say that you can't make a profit out of C2 is just ignorance and lack of experience...

I will happily subscribe for a business license of C3. And like all my softwares C2 is awesome for some things and other engines are good at something else. No engine is perfect for everything.

But in the end. There is no limitation of c2 that makes it impossible to become a millionaire. It just takes a good developer to do it.

And $99 a year is less than a netflix subscribtion for god sake

Not saying you can't make money from HTML5. I'm just skeptical that a lot of people make a living using C2 to make games. If there are companies that make a fortune, perhaps provide some examples. The more you come up with, the stronger your point will be. If you can't though, that's fine too. I'm not really expecting you to be be able to defend any criticism of C2 or the subscription model. A criticism of C2 is not a criticism of you.

Edit: Btw, I really like C2. That doesn't mean I'm blind to these things.

Speaking of but in the end, the term "butthurt" comes to mind.

Im sure someone calling themselves Moot, would be able to explain that one.

No need for me to explain it. Your response to me is a good enough example. Well done.

Magic 8-Ball: Outlook not so good, but you can try this:

https:// howtogeek. com/169344/how-to-recover-a-deleted-file-the-ultimate-guide/

(Just remove the spaces. Apparently new users can't post URLs.)

I mean, can anyone name any big HTML5 games that make this profitable?

The Construct 2 "big HTML5 games" are listed on the homepage. Outside the bubble, I don't think there are many "big" name games made with C2. A few people have claimed to make a living from HTML5 games, but they never really offered any proof. Maybe they do.

Is there a free version that has a forced splash screen? LIke unity?

There's a free version of C2 and I think they said there will be a free version of C3. Neither will be like Unity. Why do people care about forced splash screens anyway? I haven't played a AAA game that didn't have a splash screen. Are people embarrassed of the C2 logo or something?

What are the benefits to paying this subscription VS one time fee?

The benefits to you are speculative and explained on their blog. Scirra stands to make more money with a subscription model. Users will pay every year to use their software and continue to pay if they want be able to edit and publish the games they make with C3 for the foreseeable future. Before with C2, a person could pay once for it, start a project, not touch it for a few years and then come back to it to finish it. With C3, you will have to pay for the software again.

I would still really like to add MFi controller support for my iOS game and would appreciate any help I can get on the topic.