Chrome running on iOS is pretty much out of the question, because of privacy concerns and Google's collection methods. Unless C3 is sold through the App Store anyway, you aren't going to get a lot of iOS users paying for C3 or even knowing about it. iOS is a closed platform and most people find apps through the App Store.

There's already a game engine on iOS called HyperPad, if you are interested. They are absolutely horrible with marketing and branding though, so few people even know about them. Their logo (app icon) doesn't indicated at all that it's game making software. iOS users are weary of scammers, and one common indication of that is a generic app icon and stolen screenshots from other apps. Even their company name is pretty awful, UntitledD. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing"> But, it's good software though. I tried it out a couple years ago. They made a lot of updates since then. Have a look:

https://www.hyperpad.com (There's a video on it's App Store page.)

One problem HTML5 games have is that they are widely seen as a marketing tool to sell products. People get sick of that eventually. The majority of HTML5 games are garbage too on top of that, so it's hard to find something worth spending time playing. The fact that I have to sit through ads or click through them, makes me not even want to think about browser games.

The reason console and PC games sell more is because it's immersive and you don't think about product ads. It's possible the market for browser games will rise again, but it's very doubtful with the way things are.

I posted about this too back in April. It helped make my point that browser games are a dying niche market. And making C3 so reliant on Chrome is like targeting a niche market within a niche market. I don't understand the business logic in that. Good gimmick, bad idea, imo. If C3 allowed people to make games just as easily in C++, can you imagine how many people jump all over that? We wouldn't have to rely on third party wrappers and all the problems that come with that, but I digress. It is what it is.

That being said, I don't think HTML is going anywhere for a very, very long time. So I think it's safe to make games for HTML5, even though it's not a popular method of playing games. A lot of people will still have access to playing your games online, if they wanted. More people have computers, tablets, smart phones than any particular console. Trends show the market shrinking for browser games, but it can easily rise again too. Nothing is written in stone.

I do predict browsers going away though. Eventually, HTML5 will be integrated seamlessly into the operating systems. Everything is moving towards seamless connectivity, everything from children toys to automobiles. You can already get search results and information without even opening a browser. That's the future of the internet. The faster C3 becomes independent of Chrome, the better... or any browser for that matter.

And maybe not just a Game Jam. Maybe a contest for the most creative usage of C3. Lot's of good things can come from teaming up with DeviantArt:

• One of the largest artist communities means better exposure then with current partners.
• A larger pool of creatives, both amateur and professional, means a more creative usage of the product.
• People using C3 for more than just making games extends the user base by making it more attractive to more people.
• For the most part, there's a safe mode for offensive material meaning it's more kid friendly than the previous game jam partner. Good if you continue to target children and schools with C3.
• Deviant art currently only allows Flash games, so they need to eventually move in the direction. Kicking it off with a game jam would be good fun and a big step forward for them too.
• Many users there pay subscriptions, especially the professional artists, and would be very comfortable paying for a C3 subscription.

And if you get in good with the people in charge of the site, maybe you can convince them to add a My Little Pony filter, so the rest of use who are sick of seeing it can live an easier life.

We'll continue to have the gamejam license running until payments are ready - we don't want to stop anyone working on their games.

FWIW - it should be possible to buy Construct 3 tomorrow or Thursday.

That's nice of you.

Yeah, these threads always get lock locked sooner or later. The only options you have are to pay the subscription, continue to use the free limited version, or find something else.

Hi. I'm Plasmmer from this topic: .

About the current Construct 3 licensing model, what do you think? In Construct 2, we can buy a license for lifetime. In Construct 3, owners can pay monthly or yearly. Is you ok about it? Personally, I preffer the Construct 2's licensing model.

Share your throughts about it.

No monthly option. It's only yearly.

Pricing:

I don't know why Construct solely focuses on only HTML games, when you can do so much more with it, including creating other types apps. I once made a calculator with C2. You can make websites and animations too, although not as easily. Tom and Ashley are limiting their user base to only game enthusiasts, but they should open it up to more people.

What about motion comics? You can easily make something like that with C2 and C3.

http://www.madefire.com/motion-books/

I think Motion Books is flashed based, so C3 can own that space if they really wanted to. Construct could probably fill in a lot of niche markets left open by Flash and they really wouldn't have to change their software at all. The opportunities are there.

> If you really cared, you would change it.

>

I think you are just trying to force us to do it the way you want it.

I was just making a point that people should stop wasting their time trying to convince you to change your pay model because you won't. But because I said you don't care about their opinions on subscriptions, and you wanted to pretend that you do, you're in this weird spot of encouraging more posts of people trying to change your mind, and also not wanting to hear about this topic anymore. Do you really want to encourage it?

Sounds like jedi mind tricks to me !

No tricks. People made it more complicated than it really was.

The majority of us silent...

So, I think I should speak my point of view:

If you are suggesting you're part of the silent majority, I think posting here kinda defeats the purpose of being silent. Or maybe you want to speak on their behalf?

Everyone seems to want to think the silent majority is on their side. They are silent because they have people that share their views and are already defending them in this forum. Or they are silent because they disagree with what people are saying and don't want to get involved. Has anyone thought that the reason they are silent is because they are not even there at all? How many people bought C2 and don't use it? People do that all the time. Of all the people who purchased C2, I'm willing to bet a lot of them don't even know C3 exists or would even care that is exists. Everyone here seems to live in a bubble. C2 is not nearly as popular as the amount of downloads or the number of accounts suggest. The vast majority of people don't even know an HTML5 game engine exists.

So, don't act like a child to expect to get things just because you want them.

You are not special, think about others humans (Ashley, Tom...).

People will voice their opinions regardless if you like it or not. It doesn't mean the are childish. Discussing the difference in views is all part of the process of communicating. And if you are not here to communicate, what are you doing here at all?

Be long-sighted, invest in your future.

Sound advice.

>

> > The bottom line is that they don't care about your opinion.

> >

> I'm just baffled how you could come away with this view after both Tom and I have put so much time and energy in to explaining our position and our concerns with the proposed alternatives.

>

Well quit caring. I wouldn't waste any where near as much time as you do on these boards.

yours

Winkr7

You mean they should stop caring enough to argue against changing their subscription model. Again not the same thing as actually caring that people don't want it. If they actually cared about the opinions of those people, they would do something about it. They don't, so they won't. It's not rocket science. Why is this inflated to them not caring about anything? I'm sure they care about other opinions, especially those that align with their own, just not on this topic of changing the subscription model. I'm really just stating the obvious here. Ask yourself these questions:

Q. Are they going to change their subscription model to make people happy?

A. They said, "No," not unless they are forced to change it.

Q. Do they care more about the vocal minority than the silent majority on this topic of subscriptions?

A. Tom has specifically said they are waiting to see what the silent majority decides about it.

Q. So do they really care that people on this forum don't want the subscription model?

A. No.

Easy Peasy. The fact they care enough to be active on these boards is completely beside the point. I'm glad they care enough to be so active on these forums to support their products. Good product support should be expected.

Defending your ideas and reputation isn't the same as caring about users opinions about not wanting the subscription model. Don't confuse the two. Your just defending your ideas. What have you actually done to solve the problem? Nothing so far. We either pay it or we don't. Bottom line. If you really cared, you would change it. Saying you're waiting for the response the silent majority of your user base just strengthens my point. You'll only care if it effects your profits.

OK, so it's still to be seen if the model we picked will be viable/accepted by our wider customer base.

You're just reiterating the point I already made. Why respond with a quote just to say the same thing?

OK, so now we're ignoring logic common sense and the model won't work?

Can you clarify what your position exactly is?

You misunderstand. I said no amount of reason or logic will change your minds on this topic. So far, I am completely right. You haven't changed a thing.

What your actually asking is for us to change the model to your demands - what you're saying you're asking for is to us to listen. We are listening. We're reading everything. We're not changing our model unless there's a dramatic need to do so.

I'm not saying you are not reading these comments. I'm saying you don't care about those people who don't like your subscription model, because you are not doing anything about it. You are specifically saying that you are not changing your model unless there's a dramatic change. I don't understand why it's so confusing to you. It's very clear to me.

I'm just baffled how you could come away with this view after both Tom and I have put so much time and energy in to explaining our position and our concerns with the proposed alternatives.

Defending your position and ideas is caring about you, and it's not the same as caring about those who don't share the same views. You're not even willing to compromise and change the yearly subscription to something more reasonable like a monthly subscription. And before you say it, telling us you are thinking about it isn't the same as actually doing it. Again, I'm making a distinction there. Actions speak louder than words.

There´s a huge difference between caring about someones opinions and accepting these opinions. All I can hear is "Wahh wahh why don´t you cater to my needs?!?!?11"

Your entire comment is basically you crying about people complaining about the subscription model. I suppose the irony is lost on you.

And for all the hobbyists (as myself) who cry that it´s too expensive... It´s not.

Well, yeah... Good logic there, and no arguments here. I didn't say it was too expensive.

If you go to the cinema 3 times a year that´s roughly 30€ for ~6 hours, so 5$ per hour. It´s literally more expensive than using your construct subscription 1/365 of the available time. (And I haven´t even factored in popcorn & drink)

Now you're logic isn't so good. Renting tools so you can work hard to make entertainment, isn't the same thing as paying to consume entertainment. Apples and Oranges. Just because someone is willing to pay to watch a movie, doesn't mean they should be willing to pay for subscription to a HTML5 game engine. I get your point you're trying to reach though, that it's cheap, but you need to come up with some better logic. Especially when a lot of people are saying it's not really the price they are having an issue with. A subscription model takes all the security away from the consumer and gives it to the company. That's the issue. Work with that.

And while going to the cinema is fun, using Construct is fun AND........... constructive. *badumm tsshhh* (I ain´t even sorry for this one )

Nice one.

CannedEssence

I'm afraid no amount of reason or logic will change their minds on this. You can always hope for the best, but it hasn't worked so far. The bottom line is that they don't care about your opinion. Of course they'll tell you otherwise, but they have proven as much to us already.

Point being:

+1 on that, although a pricing model based purely on simply being cheaper than your competitors is widely regarded as a mistake in tech. I think it's worth stepping back a little as well, as we have orders of magnitude more users and customers than post in these sorts of threads - the financial viability of the way we've chosen is largely going to depend on the silent majority and it would be a mistake to extrapolate from these threads any commentary on our wider audience.

Basically, the jury is still out until the silent majority has spoken with their wallets. That's all they really care about at this point. They are betting everything on C3 being their cash cow with every intention to milk the subscription model for as long as they can. Until they know what they majority decides, they are just biding their time defending their ideas to us on this forum.

I'm really just biding my time too, if I'm being perfectly honest. I'll continue to use C2 until Fusion 3 is released. At that point, I'll decide if Construct 3 or Fusion 3 is the best game engine for me. It seems likely though, the longer it takes me to see the value in C3 the more likely I'll chose Fusion 3 over it. We'll see what happens though. Scirra has an opportunity to turn it all around. By the end of the year, I'll either have one really good option, or two of them. I think I'll win regardless.

Even unminified you can't just go in and edit the code.

The runtime is basically a bunch of custom functions and your events are a list of operations.

It would be a nightmare to figure out what does what.

It might be a nightmare, but it's still possible though, right? The whole selling point of C3 is to make HTML5 games easy. Never understanding or learning someone else's approach to doing things is always a risk when you pay for their services.