(...) But at least I want to state why subscriptions suck for game development - especially for freelancers and indie devs. I think your claim of not locking developers out is just misleading- developers develop, they wont have much use in just opening a project they worked on if they cant edit it.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

I'm afraid to post things like that because my posts will seem very emotional as many others' do and I don't want to be banned. But I hardly come here anymore. Only to see if Ashley and team have changed their ideas. And they won't.

But the reason we get so emotional is that... well, most of us have an emotional bond to Construct 1, 2 and Scirra. And Scirra is/was a great company. I don't know what happened to make them change their minds. Subscriptions suck for indie games dev. Ditto. This is fact. The competition - and we're talking about Unreal, Unity, CryEngine, GMStudio, etc. - understands that. But that's Scirra's decision. And I must respect it because because it's a wonderful company that always was very close to the community.

Peace everybody.

FWIW, we are still focused on indie devs and making it a better tool for them - it's still probably the largest segment of our userbase.

Sorry but I'm gonna beat a dead horse here when I say that indie devs + subscription have nothing in common.

I will not buy C3 which I thought was a natural progression from C2 but it's not.

With the current model it doesn't benefit indie devs at all. In fact is a model that states: "take it or leave it. We are not changing it."

See this for an example of community feedback being listened:

https://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/06/16/ev ... d-pricing/

I am jumping ship but I hope others don't give up to support Scirra. My point is I feel like I'm not a customer anymore because of the changes and this weighs so bad on my side. :-/

Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

As a hobbyist that is not making money right now, I would not pay that price in any development tool.

I chose C2 because there was a Personal Edition that was affordable.

And I understood that when I started making money I'd upgrade to Business Edition. It was a simple model for me.

With C3, the way I see it, there will be no entry point for hobbyists anymore.

It's either the Free Edition (with several limitations) or pay the subscription.

How about removing the Free Edition's limitations and releasing it with less features like exporters and putting an obligatory C3 splash screen somehow. That I'd see as an entry point.

Please don't take me the wrong way.

>

> And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

> That's my two cents.

>

Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets- without silly event sheet limitations or network limitations

Very well put.

My problem is not with Scirra, which I think is a wonderful company, but it is supporting the software subscription model itself. I will never comply. NEVER.

I won't be part of the crowd that will make this model successful and make every software go for it.

Imagine every game and every software you own suddenly change to this model. You'll have dozens of "cheap" monthly fees that add up to a monster bill. I, as a user and consumer, will never let that happen.

My 99 dolars, I mean... my two cents.

Just keep in mind that there are many students and hobbyists here who don't use C2 heavily from the forum posts and comments I see. I use it maybe two months/year. I don't like any software subscription model because I can't freeze the license when I'm not using the software. Engines like UE4 ceased to offer that model for a reason.

And that annual fee may sound cheap in USA or Europe but not so much in third world countries.

That's why some online gaming services offer different prices depending on the customer's country.

That being said, Scirra is an awesome company and I'm sure they'll post some uplifting news in the next few days.

I can agree 50% with lcizzle and 50% with —

Both offer valid points.

On one hand some tools offer more benefits than others

in terms of editing and exporting features, plugins, etc.

On the other hand, there are some people who will build

a wall with a spoon. Okay, not with a spoon but you get the idea.

As a proper example, there was once a game made with Klik'n Play

(the oldest and more limited game creator ever although the easiest to use)

called Destruction Carnival. It's still one of the greatest indie games I have

ever played... to this day. So my clicheed feeling is that it's not the tools. It's

what you do with it.

I worked for Clickteam for a long time and developed around 10 or 12

extensions/plugins for them. Most of the database extensions are made

by me BTW. Jeff, Yves and Francois are very passionate about what they

do and caring about their users. The same can be said about Ashley and Tom.

Both have passionate communities and this can be major point in

a software's success or failure. I feel honored to be part of both sides.

Regards,

Andre (byo)

Exactly. That's how functions work.

You can change the return value during the function's events

but when you call a function, the expected return value is

the last operation that happened to it in a function block,

Hi, everyone.

Sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find a proper solution.

In my demo, I check WindowHeight so an object will bounce when it gets to the bottom of the screen.

The example works great when not maximized in NW.js window.

If I maximize the NW.js before the sprite gets to bottom it will not bounce like if the Width/Height coordinates have changed.

Is this a default behaviour in the letterbox scale mode?

Here's the CAPX file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s989r9o6a8bwy ... .capx?dl=0

Is there a way that I can make this work no matter if the window is maximized or not?

Thank you.

EDIT:

Sorry, guys.

I think it's the "ViewportBottom" expression that I was looking for and not the "WindowHeight".

I come from other non-HTML5 programming languages and I have missed something like:

https://www.scirra.com/tutorials/73/sup ... reen-sizes

Best regards,

Regards,

Andre Guerreiro

Looks insanely well done.

OMG, all those effects. :O

Brilliant software design makes creating a game very intuitive and fast.

I can implement an idea in minutes while it's fresh. Could not ask for anything else.

Kudos to Scirra and keep up the great work.

Very well done.

Clever puzzles.

The music fits well and the graphics look great.

Were they all done by yourself?

Prominent: Indeed.

Maybe that's not the expected behavior.

I remembered having to deal with that in the past in another code.