I just realized Construct 2 is no longer listed on Steam.

Does this mean I will not receive app updates through Steam anymore?

Is there a way I can get updates in other way?

I was agreeing with you. I was just reiterating the point.

Oh right, my bad. I agree with your agreement then.

>

> Also speaking for myself, whenever I see a software based on subscription model, it drives me away instantly. The only expection is Netflix, as its cheap enough with a huge amount of content, its just entertainment, I avoid piracy and I don't feel like I need to own a movie. Even Spotify I use for free. I'm fine with the ads.

>

>

People always bring up Netflix when talking about subscription models, but it's not the same thing. The difference consuming entertainment vs. producing entertainment.

Yeah and I agreed. See my line after that. :p

When talking about software, specially if you use it for work, its a whole different story.

> Before 27 and 7

> Now 37 and 9

>

> The progression in favor of "buy" increases more faster

>

> Is a fact to think about.. no?

>

Again, this question is about whether people would prefer the pay model over the subscription. Nobody asked them if they would actually buy it OR if they would actually subscribe. For all you know, everyone who voted for the buy model would also subscribe if it were the only option. It's highly unlikely, and I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just pointing out how stupid and pointless this thread is, since it doesn't show what the people actually would pay for, just what they would prefer.

Well, unpopular business decisions can be enough to drive costumers away, even if they would be whilling to go with the other way or not.

I may be speaking for myself, but I'm not sympathetic with this subscription model, the enough to not go for it, no matter how good the software is. I'm speculating, but I think the majority of people complaining about it and voting for per-once would do the same as well.

Also speaking for myself, whenever I see a software based on subscription model, it drives me away instantly. The only expection is Netflix, as its cheap enough with a huge amount of content, its just entertainment, I avoid piracy and I don't feel like I need to own a movie. Even Spotify I use for free. I'm fine with the ads.

When talking about software, specially if you use it for work, its a whole different story.

If I'm researching for a software and I read that it costs an amount per year for you to continue using it, I immediately start to look for alternatives. Even if the alternative its slightly worse, the fact that I pay once and own it its a huge deal for me.

So its not only about if people would pay the subscription even if they don't like it, the real thing is, they for sure will start to a least research about alternatives. And well, there are a couple of decent ones out there. Construct is still my favorite, but unfortunetely for them, its not the only one.

>

> > For what it's worth, I think you did good presenting the subscription based model first, before the features and hype and being transparent about it. This is what many of us love about Scirra.

> >

>

Thanks, seems we might be in the minority who think that was the right way of going about it though

To be fair, for me you guys didn't take the right decision, but at least were correct on the way of presenting it. I think that kind of crucial information should be released first. Props for that. Because at least for me, knowing that, unfortunetely no matter how good the features will be, I'll not be using it.

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?

> Of course this only was an example, but could expand on why its a bad idea? At least the concept of adding extras?

>

There's nothing wrong in the concept of adding extras. I was talking about the extras you listed. I don't think people would pay the subscription just for free assets, templates, etc.. They would need something more solid. Like exporting options, collaborating functions, etc.. While I think there are better ways to sell a software than paid extras, your idea would be more sustainable if they offered features, instead assets. Also, please don't take this in the wrong way. I meant no offence.

I was just doodling with my mind when listing that examples. As I said above to Tom, I after listed the same things as you now. But things like exporting options, for example, would work better being sold apart from the full software than offered in a subscription model. But that is good as well, it would be another way to generate revenue and keep the pay-once model for the base software.

All I meant is that they could've been more creative about this, that was the whole point. But I'm not trying to give them a solution here, how could I. While they're way more capable to analyze their own situation, the Evolve team was also in theory more capable of create ways to monetize their game while the community raged against their model and the game suddenly died. Just an example.

But its true that its also way easier to point out a mistake in something than to create a solution for it.

No offense taken. I was not clear enough.

A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

Because its mainly community content and you only get a share.

That is why I said its not being used creatively and in its potential.

It could easily be a feature store, that would add core elements to the software that not everyone might need, but a lot would want (like different exporters in ClickTeam Fusion). Of course that those would be things that would take time to make, it would not be simple sprites, but slices of real software, but if its something that would please a huge amount of people you could charge even up to 1/4 of the price of the full software.

But of course, decisions were already made and there is not how to go back and think of other solutions. I hope it works for you, but imo was not a smart move and you could have been more creative in terms of generating revenue instead of subscription. If it turns out to work financially, well, then good for you guys.

Make games on just about any modern device that work on just about any modern device in some form or fashion for 99 bucks a year.

How many people will sign up just for that?

My guess is way more than those that say they are leaving.

Lets see how many modern devices will handle it well before theorizing about how flexible it will be instead of just making Linux and OSX standalone versions.

Because theres absolutely no difference of having a good port to Linux and OSX than having it being browser-only, besides the inconvenience of being browser only for the majority of Windows users that doesn't want to use a software on a f*ing browser.

[quote:yu3t3ha2]I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

Of course this only was an example, but could expand on why its a bad idea? At least the concept of adding extras?

Templates, assets, plugins, would be fairly easy for them to make. If not anything of that, they could easily add "extra features" to a subscription-based model. Lets say its cloud save, lets say its the OPTION of using it on browser, IF you want to.

[quote:yu3t3ha2]While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

Oh yeah, because every developer who does not launch their products in subscription-based models are starving out there. Poor of them.

Also, a really good point:

construct3.com states 120'000 users. That's 120k*99usd 11'880'000usd to eat.... Of course, not all 120k users are payant

It's necessary somehow.

If you can't see why, then you aint got any idea how selling a product works.

How else are they going to maintain or increase the size of the team?

Tell me?

I'm really interested into your strategy to pay Scirras wages.

Please enlight me, because i can't see any common sense in your statements.

Solely selling C3 at a fixed price won't make it.

I'm sure Construct 2 reached a point where they made almost no sales anymore.

Yet they've continued to work on free updates for you, all the time.

The only way Scirra maintained some additional income was with the introduction of the store with user created content.

Going with another normal sale of C3 would be a dead end at some point.

Unless they are able to bring out C4 within just a few years, and going on with C5 ....

So they would have to release a new construct when the sales are going down.

Which holds back updates to the Construct version you're currently using (just like now when we were wating for C3)

Is that what you want?

We don't know all the details of the new subscription model just yet.

Maybe they give us the option to still use Construct 3, we just won't get any further updates.

Who the heck knows, we have to wait for their final release of all the details.

Maybe they can also lower the subscription costs at some point, we will see.

Clickteam has more than just one product to sell.

Which generates of course, more income...

And Clickteam does not have much more people employed than Scirra.

In my perspective, it's not Scirra who's greedy, but the customers who are asking for everything but who're not willing to pay for it.

It feels like you guys actually think that Scirra did not think this through.

But i guess i'm talking to a wall.

I know how it works, I sell games on Steam. And that graph is pretty accurate to how it works. If you have only one product, that is not the problem. If you have a product that worths its value and you can charge whatever you want for it, of course. From my perspective, I've seen a lot of people (including me) saying they would be whilling to pay even $500 for the software (or 5 years of subscription) if we could really own it. Of course, also if C3 is a big leap from C2.

But Clickteam is not the only one. Just compare how many pay-once and how many subscription-based are out there and you'll get what is the dominant form of selling. There is tons of software developers that only relies in one product.

Also, Scirra can generate income in other ways, like they already do, with the assets store. There is tons of different and creative revenue options. They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

They could charge for different export options. For example, I'm not interested in exporting anything else besides for Steam at the moment. But one day I might want to export to mobile, I would be whilling to pay extra for that.

I also like 3rd party plugins. Why not see what the community is making, turn into an official, easier to use and easier to install plugin, and sell it?

The idea of the assets store is good but is not being used at its full potential. After the release of C3, they could turn the attention to it a bit and literally make it a lot more profitable.

They were just not creative enough. They wanted to (in my view) prevent piracy with this browser/subscription thing. It only adds up. It only makes sense. These both decisions were both simply to avoid piracy. But will make them lose costumers as well.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to use a software on a browser. Imagine if you're a designer using Illustrator and Photoshop on Chrome.

I just think that this model of business will make them lose a lot of costumers, and in the long run will be less profitable than the previous one. Just see how many people are saying they will switch to something else. I could see this working only if C3 suddenly became a lot more user friendly and the dummest person could make a game on it. Because lets be fair, while its "no programming", there is a lot of programming logic behind it and before making a barely good game or creating something creative you'll need to learn a lot. Unless it becomes a point-and-click-make-a-game-in-one-day to attract adventurers that would be whilling to pay for one year only and let it go I don't see how this model will appeal to the more professional game developer that makes a living out of it. Especially being browser only. Unless you're only capable of learning Construct and can't deal with anything else, most of us are going to switch platforms.

- A free edition will exist that lets you make and edit games

- However, as an added benefit free edition will allow you to open games that exceed the free edition limit in read-only mode to take a look at.

* Edited for clarity.

If the free version has like 100 events limit like C2 it will be borderline useless. You cannot make anything that would make you really learn the software or that would convince you to buy it with 100 events.

Forgetting a bit that I'm not even moving to C3 if it will be cloud-only (depending on how the "offline" version will work) and if it will be a subscription model, I wouldn't even consider buying it if I cannot fully test the product.

For your future (as I won't be here for C3, unfortunetely), make it limitless in terms of events and features, but make it so you cannot export.

Lets say the free version of C2 didn't make me wanna buy at first, I was not amazed what I could do with it, so I may or may not have used a "alternative" fully functional version that really showed me how powerful the program could be in a full project, which led me to buy it. Not only to support you or anything like that, but because that would be the purpose of it: really trying before buying. You may argue the ethic in it, but I find it to be ethical enough.

With that said, because I and many others may or may not have done this, I understand you might be going to the subscription/cloud decision to exactly avoid that. But there is other ways to avoid it.