socksmoment Well, you're 100% correct about one thing...you're not very good at this. :P
While you're definitely entitled to your opinion, I have to disagree with most of your points.
1. This may technically be true right now. But, what are you going to do when Android makes system changes and your game ends up broken and unfixable? Good luck waiting for Scirra to put out a fix that'll never come.
2. This is subjective. While it's true that some game engines have more successful releases of games, it mostly comes down to how successful you are at marketing your game. As the Showcase reveals, there are some pretty nice looking games that have come from Construct. Also, looking at itch.io's Most used Engines list as a small example, Construct is up there with the competition. As far as mobile games are concerned, I'm betting 99.9% of all 2D games you see in the app stores can be recreated with C3.
3. C2 has monetization already built in, like Admob and IAP. But again, what happens when Android decides to makes changes to their code or policies? Yes, there are a few 3rd parties that make plugins for it. But, how long do you think they are going to keep updating a plugin for a dead game engine?
4. For C2, no more than any other game engine...and Scirra has been pretty consistent and quick to fix most of them. For C3 specifically, their track record for fixing bugs speaks for itself. Most of the time, when you google any of them, it brings you right back to this site for the fix.
5. There are tons of free/paid sites on the web, and even Scirra's own Asset Store, where you can get pre-made assets to make games without having to be an artist.
And, that last sentence is just another tired old argument against subscription services without any logical reason. In order to do everything Construct does, you'd have to pay several hundred dollars UP FRONT with engines like CTF2.5 or GMS2. With CTF2.5, it's over $700 (including all export options) and they have the nerve to charge extra for a recent DLC quality-of-life addon that should've been included in the program for free. Most likely to fund CTF3 that's just right around the corner, which of course is more money out of your pocket. With GMS2, you're paying about the same and the life cycle between GMS and GMS2 was only about 5 years.
For that price you'll be using C3 for about 7 years and I can only guess at how many new features we'll be enjoying in that time. So, it's misleading to say OP will be "spending a lot of money over time" when it's no more than any other rival game engine.
Personally, I think it's ill-advised to suggest to anyone to use a game engine that, as Ashley stated, will be EOL/dead in 3 months and it's pointless to answer questions about any future usage of it.