I haven't subbed, and I may not. I'm in too deep with C2 projects and switching will be more trouble than it's worth. I also can't really see any incentive to switch as C2 is currently doing what I need it to. I lost a lot of interest when I saw the rental scheme, C3 in action and the attitude of the devs toward ownership and access to one's own work. A real shame.

An excellent, well thought out post - thanks for taking the time.

The reality is that HTML5 isn't good for console export. It sucks for WiiU, and it'll probably suck for the switch. You probably aren't going to get good performance on a complex game with HTML5 on anything that's not a PC. The exception might be Xbox one, since they're trying to unify apps across windows based devices, so they have more incentive to get things working smoothly on that front.

If you want a game with good performance on all consoles today, don't shoot yourself in the foot from the start by using HTML5.

I think this is actually what causes a lot of issues for people using Construct. The interface is great for making games so it feels like the sky is the limit, but in reality it's probably best for making browser based web games - and who actually makes those? I've never been remotely interested in HTML5 games, I just like the interface, and I suspect it's the same for many other users too.

Same could be said for any engine.

If.

If doesn't get anything done.

If doesn't even start.

Any other engine without a lockout won't have that problem.

Having access to the assets is a different thing though. With your PSD example, at the moment there is alternative software to Photoshop with full PSD compatibility (or at least very close to) so it's not a problem. You won't be able to do that with an entire game. If Scirra got bought out by a big company and they took the guts of C3 for another project and then cancelled C3 no one would be able to edit their projects. That's an extreme example, but a valid one as stuff like that happens all the time.

> Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it.

>

That's absolutely ridiculous.

If it was only a dollar a year, you would probably pay less than $80 on the software over your lifetime and wouldn't that be as good as owning it? That would be an insanely better deal than just buying it out right for $500 or whatever price you mentioned before. I think you're so fixated on this one aspect that it's clouding your judgment.

$100 a year really isn't that expensive either. It only amounts to $8.25 a month to subscribe. That's absurdly cheap as far as subscriptions go. I pay close to 3 times that for HBO.

everyone

So how does the full version of C3 compare to C2? Is it the same or better? Should I wait to subscribe?

I feel you may have missed my point, price is not the issue so I'm not sure why you're discussing it in relation to my argument. I just used that example to illustrate that even at a ridiculous price of $1 I would still be wary of using C3 long term due to the lockout. I would happily pay $200 a year sub if the model was better but would fight to change it even if it was as low as a dollar in its current state. The issue is perpetual access to one's own work, not price.

> Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work.

>

Generally speaking, if you're putting in "hundreds" or "thousands" of hours of work into creating something, you'd probably know already what you're getting into initially and chances are you're probably gonna keep on subscribing. I'm pretty sure Scirra isn't gonna stop anyone from doing that.

Sure, ultimately the user knows what they're getting themselves into. My point is it's an artificial limitation that's being imposed that is bad for users. It's within their power to change that but they don't want to.

Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it. Price has nothing to do with it, the chosen model is the problem. Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work. Now the fact that you can open up and poke around your project if your subscription has lapsed/Scirra has collapsed is probably enough for me to subscribe - however, probably not for most people - and I still think that the system itself is unfair and people should be fighting to change it. I can't fathom the apathy that some people seem to have to this, they just roll over and take it and the more people who do that the worse it's going to get.

I don't know if it's up for debate but I'd be interested in knowing how long it will take to work out if the rental model is profitable? Don't most companies that switch to rental models lose money at least for a few years until things pick up? If C3 isn't mature/appealing enough for people to take the plunge, and new users also stop buying C2 because it's no longer considered supported, and most of your C3 users are those who transitioned over from C2 and therefore have a 50% discount, isn't it going to be a while before you 1. get any proper money coming through 2. get an accurate forecast of what you're actually going to be earning? I fear that if things go pear shaped, by the time things can be turned around people will have already abandoned C3 and moved on.

I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

> We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

>

This severely complicates support. If someone on a 6 month old version complains about a bug - what do we do? Or, Chrome introduce a breaking change. We have to go back and update every single version. This quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. We prefer to just have everyone on the latest and greatest version.

That makes a lot of sense, but could I suggest something to possibly think about:

What if all bug reports are done through C3 itself, forget the forums, e-mails etc and when the user tries to submit a report on a version that is not up to date they are informed that they are using an old version and need to upgrade to be eligible for support. Only the most current version of the software will send the bug report. C3 will just do a quick check to see if it's up to date. You could put it in your TOS etc. That way you will only ever be maintaining the current version of the software, but lapsed users who aren't experiencing bugs will be able to continue to work on their projects if they need to. I think if you had a system like this, and introduced one killer feature a year people would be pretty happy and just stay subscribed anyway. It seems like win win to both Scirra and customers. Am I missing something?

Regarding retention. I think some of the things Tom listed are good. Despite having been playing around with Construct for years I really enjoyed poking around the example games in C3 so more 'full' games in different genres is a good idea. I also think that more detailed, cohesive and professional tutorials are a must. The community tutorials are great, don't get me wrong and I want to see them continue and flourish. But many of them show very esoteric or downright inefficient ways of doing things and sometimes reading them it's like the blind leading the blind. Good quality tutorials from the devs on efficient and proper ways to do things I think will help Construct's image and bolster the overall quality of the community's output, which will in turn attract new users and retain current ones.

However I don't think these points will be enough to improve user retention and the reason is that hobbyist game devs are pretty transient. We hop between different software, trying new things, experimenting etc. All of those guys that impulse bought C2 aren't going to impulse subscribe to C3, because psychologically buying something and renting something are two different things. I've done a few team based game jams and really it depends on the team, but every time we've used different game making software. None of them have been subscription based, I don't think it would work unless everyone was already subscribed as subscriptions don't really fit into that flexible, spontaneous mentality. The monthly subscription thing might help with this, but it might harm you as well. It's quite a difficult situation.