Is there an easy way to change the background behind the HTML5 game in C2? I'm referring specifically to the exported index.html. I know I can edit it after the fact, I just like to know if I can do it from within C2? I'm hoping there is a plugin...

Damn I remember back in 2011, I made the same post lol

I read your post using an old man's voice.

I'm very interested in this as well. looking forward to the blog post.

>

>

> >

> > but yeah you are right, the clock thing is easy to cheat, unless you have a user login system - which you do.

> >

> Exactly what I was thinking.

>

I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but you can sign up new accounts for free, which entirely circumvents that.

I meant the timer would imply if you already had a subscription and the subscription ran out. That means it would be a former paying customer who had already spent $99 on C3 and just wanted to update their game. The limited time in part is suppose to be a bit troublesome to encourage the user to subscribe again, but not completely punish them for not being able to afford it. Previous paid customer account = free time to fix bugs.

That last part about timers for free users wasn't really thought out, I admit. I just came up with that as I typed my suggestion for previous subscribers. But whatever. It was only a suggestion. I wasn't trying to cause a frenzy or anything. It's insane how out of control these threads can get. People get worked up over the most insignificant things...

I'm a little relieved this debate is over. Subscription it is. Pay it or don't.

Ashley

Just a suggestion on allowing people to continue to edit their projects after their subscription runs out, it would be nice if a person is allotted time instead of limited amount of edits. No one knows how many edits it's going to take to fix a bug. I'm not sure what you are currently considering, but please consider this:

Idea #1:

• 30 minutes a day
• Time resets every day
• Unused time is not accumulated

Idea #2:

• About 10 hours a month
• Time resets every month
• 20 minutes a day is accumulated until the end of the month.

Now that C3 is in a browser, there is no reason you can control how many hours people use it for free. So instead of limited events and sprites like you are currently doing, maybe allow people full access for a limited amount of time. Currently, the free version isn't enough to give people a good understanding of what C3 is capable of, but a full featured trial will.

EasyPolls.net can easily be manipulated. I voted twice. I could vote more if I wanted.

Besides, we already took a poll in an earlier thread that's now locked and a significant majority dislikes subscriptions. What these polls don't show is that Ashley is 100% against a one time payment option, which makes the most popular option in this poll not valid. If Ashley changes his mind on a one time payment option, I will quit my job in marketing. It simply won't happen.

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?

If you're not happy with the SaaS model, the #1 thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

I think the point of this thread is to reason with Ashley before it comes to that. Talking about this afterwards is difficult if everyone leaves. The damage is done.

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. And if Ashley doesn't ever come around to what the community wants, which other product will fill the gap C3 leaves? I know of one other game engine that's very interested in angry construct users and are already planning to add features to sway them. That's just how the market works...

Whatever happens, it's very interesting to see what comes of all this.

[quote:fxvui8jd]Isn't that basically what C2 is now?

No it is not - if you don't keep the C3 sub going you cant use it at all for large projects - so for a substantial game it is effectively useless..

I was referring to C2, not C3. If you look again, I pretty much matched up the points you made with your proposed subscription model. It was just a joke anyway.

The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.

When I bought C2 with lifetime updates, I thought that meant for the life of the product. I only really expected it to last a year or two before C3 came out. I don't think the mistake was payment model. I think the mistake was you guys kinda ran it into the ground and took too long to come out with the next version of the software. Releasing all those free features and updates was good for us, bad for you.

I think another problem is this "one size fits all" subscription model. If you take a look, nearly every successful subscription based business gives customers options. I don't think that is by chance. It's based on market analysis. And if you really want to overly simplify what everyone here is asking, it's that they want options. If you make it easy for people, they are far more willing to pay for it.

The best sub model I know and use is that of Devcomponents.

It is much dearer than the Scirra model but is way, way, way, more user friendly.

You pay a lump sum up front for twelve months.

At the end of the period if you don't subscribe you get to keep and use all features in the last build you received You still have access to the knowledge base BUT You don't get any more features You don't get anymore bug fixes You don't have access to the forums

Renewing the sub is substantially reduced and can be renewed any time - even years down the track with no loss of savings.

Isn't that basically what C2 is now?

If you buy C2:

• You pay 1 large lump sum for C2
• At the end of the year, you still get to use C2
• You don't get any more features

Except:

-You do get bug fixes

-You do get access to the forums

Edit: I just checked and people are still using Construct Classic. That's crazy. Is that app still viable? Gives me hope the C2 will continue to be viable for 3-4 years at least.

What I really think this is all about is security.

• Scirra wants the security of a steady revenue. A yearly subscription model provides that.

• Users want security knowing they won't completely lose access to editing their games because they can afford the subscription, they want to know they are not just wasting money on a new, unproven product, etc. Paying yearly for a subscription is a risk, regardless of how insignificant some people might find it.

So why not meet in the middle and offer a monthly rate? It's not the best solution for either side, but it's a reasonable solution.

I don't like the subscription model either, but if C3 is just so good that it's worth is far better than the subscription rate, I'd probably pay for it. Like Netflix. I think I pay around $10 a month for unlimited movies? At Blockbuster, I use to spend between $20-150 a month on movie rentals and late fees. Netflix is a great deal for the amount of movies I watch. I use this same logic for deciding not to pay for Spotify. I don't buy new music enough to justify the subscription.

In order for me to pay a subscription to C3, the value has to be there:

• C3 has to be significantly better than C2 . Otherwise, I'll keep using C2, because it's fully paid for.
• The plugins I use for my previous projects created in C2 have to work in C3. I want that functionality available to me.
• C3 has to be truly cross platform. Working exclusively in a browser built mostly for a platform I don't support, isn't enough for me. That's band-aid to a larger problem. I already have to use Parallels in order to use C2. It works, but it's a pain. Almost everytime I boot up Parallels, I have to wait for Windows to update. Chrome is annoying for other reasons, but it's still annoying.

I think eventually, all those problems I have might be solved, but I imagine it'll take a several years. Now if the subscription was monthly, I would probably opt in sooner, because if I don't like it or I don't think C3 is progressing fast enough, I can always unsubscribe at any time. That seems really fair to me. I pay for C3 when I use it. I don't want to pay for a product I might stop using after a month or two. There are times I haven't used C2 for 6-8 months.

If Scirra is dead set on a subscription model, why can't they meet us in the middle? Take the fear of a year long commitment out of the equation?