pointless discussing it among the community at this point guys, Tom's all but confirmed they are sticking to this model no matter what.

> [quote:2b4j1sst]But just one question, while the decision is already made, lets say this model of subscription don't work as intended, would you guys be whilling to reconsider it and go back to pay-once model? Or at least that kind of discussion between you could happen?

>

Well yes, if the model fails we'd of course have to re-evaluate otherwise we'd be fools!

I think you are being foolish now.

You have such a large audience but seemed to have completely failed in monetizing them.

Should release Construct 3, in the same manner and pricepoint as Construct 2.

Don't offer a discount any higher than 20% off for existing customers.

Make the next incremental version of Construct (4) in 2.5/3 years from now.

The money should tide you over during that time.

The length of time C2 has been out with free updates released has been far too long, most businesses would hemorrhage money in that situation.

2.5/3 years seems to be the rate a lot of software releases new increments at.

just my 2 cents.

Do not pressure them, and their decisions, not ours.

Let them try, if all goes wrong, they will learn their mistakes.

how it does gonna work? a server will export the game for us? and if it does, all the game files will have to be uploaded to the cloud, then compiled and after that downloaded??? i mean, if my game DLIFO took 25 minutes to export each time for cordova, now i will have to use the speed of my internet to upload the project and download it again??? here in latin america the most normal speed is 5MB!!

so lets say we have a project that is around 120MB, C3 will have to upload it all to a cloud using my internet speed for upload that is around 2MB, that means around 15minutes waiting, then waiting who know how much for the project to compile and then after that i still have to wait more so its get downloaded with my same low internet speed???

how this was a good idea??

You could upload separated files such as sprites, sound files, data files, etc. Not to worry about this because they must contain less than 1 mb. The cloud can take care of this, doesn't matter how much GB you need. (Scirra assumes each user may use more than 500 mb per project).

Then, downloading a compiled project... we never know but I hope they use mega.nz style.

Change the name of Construct 3 to Construct Cloud Services (or something related to cloud services)

the Construct 3 game engine as how far as it looks is just a cloud service that will do exactly the same that Construct 2 does, there is no "3" or move forward, or big change to call it a sequel, i see this more of a new tool than an entire new engine that will shadow Construct 2

I agree with you, Construct Cloud Service for $ 99 per year makes sense.

To the people that only want the C3 they can purchase one time by $99 and use it always, they will have lifetime bug fixes but only 1 year of free updates/improvements.

So people will enjoy the new C3 version with one year of great upgrades for only one payment. Some people not needs much more, like people is doing games only for fun, as hobby or even sell some small games or whatever.(That well, they can still doing that with C2).

In case there is some features and improvements that are added that gives to a developer a good reason to update the product they can decide to pay again $99 and enjoy of all the previous updates until now and 1 year forward.

With this people with non-profit/hobby,etc... expectations that want the new version can afford that, and for the more advanced developers that needs the last updates they can pay the subscription each year to be updated.

What you think? is possible Tom Ashley ?

I except there will have no "Closed. Won't fix."

I think it's ridiculous to be asking this question to the members, when it's not the community's decision. It's the business owners who make the business plans.

It's like me making a poll about "should C3 be $99 a month or a $1 one time payment". Obviously what most people would want is the one that benefits themselves and not the business more.

Yeah, this thread is useless but fun, I don't think it will change the mind of Scirra team, anyway the real game developer choose carefully which is engine is right for the job.

After of testing C3 in april, here comes the conclussion about C3 functionality and subscription model.

If they don't believe the clients are always right, their business is complete failure.

Otherwise, they are basically Apple's customers.

>

> If they made mobile support to work with C3, I will be impressed.

>

>

GDevelop has a mobile app, by using which you can make games with your phone. And that is yet not as powerful as their desktop version, may still make you feel impressed

I guess I'm going to stick with GDevelop

Beautiful post!

This is exactly what i have been thinking.

I have no idea what they were thinking. This is without any doubt the way they should have done it.

Native compiler/exporter is a MUST!

I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

- but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

Does that make sense?

Uh... the normans?

So it'll be like Google Docs where anyone can add and modify events|actions at any time?

Yes, I'm not sure how it affects for my companions who do not pay the subscription fee.

calling a website multiplatform...

If they made mobile support to work with C3, I will be impressed.

Guys, you criticize something before even seeing it. Come on. Yes, nobody likes subscription model, but if the tool is like C2 but better (don't talk about browser-based issues, we don't know yet how it'll perform) and is very efficient, if somebody wants to do it professionally it's ok to pay a sub fee. Otherwise, stick with the free version or with C2.

Wait and see.

I agree, anyway you know "$99 per year" it's easy to trigger everyone.

Hey guys , i have been looking at all of your reactions on Construct 3 news , and guys all you are talking about is 99$/Year and the Offline mode .

Well 99$/year I find that pretty perfect , it's 8$/Month , it's almost the cost of a Kebab in Paris , i don't really see where is the problem with that , and I am a still a student and i have no extra support .

About the offline mode , as a developer I know that HTML5 has good Offline features which can allow the App to work in offline mode and you can go where ever you want to.

What i liked the most is that , it does have a cloud side , that's good , it means :

- Cloud-Compilation or Cloud-Export

- Projects production can be more easy

- Projects collaboration can be more easy too

- Good versioning of your projects

- No worries about your computer and it's data getting erased or stolen

- etc....

finally don't judge a book by its cover , don't Jude a full application by it's 5 new news

Let's wait and test , and test again and as a community we can give them the support and ideas to make Construct 3 a perfect product to use

I agree with you, I doubt we can meet the exceptations from the experiences of C2.

Does C3 offer this feature real time collaboration?