someone else, with a subscription .. could fix that bug for a small fee prospects I tell ya.

I hadn't considered that prospect. Seems like a good method of covering the cost of subscribing.

>

> Subscription will never give anyone the luxury of owning something. .

>

How about the games actually made with it ?

Let's say someone owns a game they developed but can't work on it any further due to lockout. A player discovers a game breaking bug that they'd like fixed- it can't be done because the game's developer needs to get permission from Scirra first. Access to a potential fix is held at ransom in this case because there is no other alternative to fixing it.

In this scenario Scirra has a stake in your development, and can dictate how that development is handled or how you handle the games you've made.

It's kind of like being sold an instrument that is out of tune and the only solution is to tune it, however, only Scirra knows how and you have to pay them to get it tuned and there's no guarantee it'll be tuned perfectly. Overtime it might go out of tune again, it might break, parts might need replacing. If you look at it this way, then you realize that what you are buying into is a faulty product that you have no control over at the end of the day. Yes, buying into it allows you to use it for your own benefit/enjoyment and play music, and you can earn some money by playing the music for other people. The music belongs to you, but you never own the instrument- the only instrument of its kind that can play that music that belongs to you. You can duplicate that instrument and give it to everyone on the planet, but nobody can fix it until Scirra permits it to be.

Now you can even take the argument further if you consider 3rd parties that Scirra relies on. Even if Scirra deems that you can develop the instrument further after paying up, they might provide you with tools that are faulty or unreliable. So not only do you have to appease the gatekeeper, you have to rely on other entities behind that gate that might change at any time.

Sure, this is an exaggerated example. It's not as serious as this example makes it sound. I like Construct, and I want to see it improve- and it probably will. However, a lot of things won't improve or change, let's be honest. Does that make Scirra bad or make Construct anything less than it is? No.

I think what people here are doing is just figuring out what is right for themselves. Do they see themselves using a specific instrument, does it make the kind of music they like- how can they express it now and in the future, etc..

The remove from sale button does not show because the items are in bundles that have been created by someone else back in 2014. Those bundles are still active and until they become inactive I can't remove those items from sale.

I will send an email.

Why have this forum section if Scirra doesn't use it?

Another week has gone by with my store items held hostage.

They're stuck in bundles that were created in 2014, and I can't remove the items because someone has those bundles active.

Why are my store items held hostage?

I pretty much agree with Havok. I tried Godot out for a bit- followed some tutorials and I can say that you definitely need to have a bit more advanced knowledge than compared to what you would need when using Construct. There's a definite lack of resources for Godot or at least the way they present those resources are not friendly to people who are clueless about more technical aspects of game development. So I can't recommend it as an alternative because the learning curve and workflow is too drastically different. It does appear to be a really great tool, but not for the type of user base that construct has.

Also in my opinion, C2 is a greater value than C3 at the moment considering I'm only targeting the pc market and I don't see how C3 improves any of that.

If I was a new potential customer for Scirra, I'd also be suspicious of C2 now that C3 is here, so I understand that concern. The question of how much support for C2 there will be now would probably steer me another direction.

To be honest, I will be looking at Fusion whenever that is available because there are various issues I have with the Construct editor/architecture that I am convinced won't be changed or improved.

That said, I'm sticking with C2 for now, because it is the best option I have currently.

same for me.. I posted about it too, but I guess they don't read this section or they don't have an answer/solution?

Thanks Tom, that is good to hear that there are 3 dedicated to developing the tool.

As for the impulse data- do you have data about individuals that leave for several months, like 6 months, and then return?

Tom, It just seems odd that you would use those points in response to the question of how to retain users considering the change to a subscription model. A subscription model might allow you to handle those points, but were the lack of those things the reasons people were not retained with C2- I don't believe they are.

When I speak of retention, I am considering the people who chose not to continue using the product, because if you want to address how to retain more that seems like an important part of the equation.

What evidence do you have that shows that people want to pay Scirra for official game assets/tutorials/gamejams? My understanding is that people want to pay Scirra for a game editor that allows them to make games. I want to be confident that my money is going towards that- not assets that I don't need or gamejams that I won't participate in.

I'm just trying to get a point across here- about how these choices appear to distance people from ever wanting to return.

I'm even more concerned now, based on your response- because I now feel like Scirra is focusing on other things outside the scope of developing a game making tool. It makes me feel less confident in where you are heading.

[quote:3sj5jcf0]Better learning resources would be what? Their are already plenty of people providing tutorials as well as responding to questions users have. What would you consider a better resource than this?

Better tutorial/manual systems, better language capabilities. More official tutorials. etc.

[quote:3sj5jcf0]Better community engagement? There is already a very active community of users- how do you plan to force people to engage more than they already are- seems like you'd have to somehow give them more time to do it, or make it easier

You misunderstand me, I mean we engage better. One example would might be a regular schedule of game jams and competitions. Ashley's already making progress in better engagement with a proper suggestions platform as another example.

[quote:3sj5jcf0]Free asset packs and game templates.. Users already make these, so I don't see how this improves anything for C3.

People love the 3 games we've included with Construct 3 so far (there's another on the way).

[quote:3sj5jcf0]but users would rather pay someone to make exactly what they need personally instead of have to rely on assets that are general and for use by anyone

Sounds like that's what you want, not what users generally want.

Note I used the word "better". We can always improve in all these areas. I don't really understand what you don't get about that?

But you said these are to help with retention- how does all this help with retention? How do these make people feel more inclined to subscribe?

The other languages might introduce it to more people, but that doesn't address retention.

I don't think a lack of game jams is a reason why people stopped using C2. In fact, when there were any, there was a lot of criticism the community had over it.

People may have loved the 3 games you included, but how does that help retention?

If you ask a person whether they want custom assets for their game that fit specifically for their use or a copy of assets everyone else is using, people will choose the custom ones because they suit their game more closely.

Sure it is nice to have some assets to use if you don't have any, but there are a ton of resources online that already provide them, so I don't see how this helps improve retention compared to C2.

Tom, I don't really understand how those would help retention for C3 more than C2 considering you have those already; Better learning resources would be what? Their are already plenty of people providing tutorials as well as responding to questions users have. What would you consider a better resource than this?

Better community engagement? There is already a very active community of users- how do you plan to force people to engage more than they already are- seems like you'd have to somehow give them more time to do it, or make it easier, but I don't see how this is possible to do in any significant fashion, unless you plan to have some live support system, but I'm skeptical of whether that would have a substantial effect.

Free asset packs and game templates.. Users already make these, so I don't see how this improves anything for C3. You might say that the subscription helps you make official asset packs, but users would rather pay someone to make exactly what they need personally instead of have to rely on assets that are general and for use by anyone, causing all games to look the same.

[quote:3vafh3hx] I don't think these users will be entirely trusting to dish out $100 for the first year without first testing it adequately, and from my impression the free version is very limited

We were surprised when we looked at our data at how many impulse purchases we see for Construct 2 (people who seem to buy and only use for a short period of time).

So what will you do to curb this pattern? For these users, the subscription is more incentive to never return after having fallen off the wagon for a while. I know that in the beginning of my use of C2, I spent long periods without using C2, and in the case of C3 I would feel penalized for life's unpredictability.