Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

But at the end of those five years, if you didn't want to continue paying the subscription/paying for updates - you would lose all access to using the program* (not so with a pre-paid license).

*assuming the free version of C3 had similar limitations to the free version of C2, and your C3 projects exceeded those limitations (which, if you're paying for it, they would).

This is why I think the suggestion someone made, of a rent to own model (say subscribe for 3 or 4 years), and at the end of it you at least own what you've paid for up to that point (and if you stop paying you stop getting updates) seems like a really good idea you should consider/toy with. If you (the customer) were taking a break from using C3 much at that point it would make sense.

For myself I don't know about $500 for 5 years.. that's a lot up front and a long time to plan for. Well, maybe for brand new buyers (the C2 business license costs $424 CDN right now), but, assuming we could/would have gotten the C2 "upgrade deal" (read: discount) you had announced/I think everyone expected (as being for software we'd own), as a C2 business license owner, if I heard something like $200, $250, $300 for C3 (at the "upgrade deal" discount price for C2 business license owners), updates cut off after 3, 4 years, but you will own the software (& the 3 or 4 years of updates) - I would gladly pay that, I would pay that money to you today for a license before you even released the program or I had even tried the beta.

C3 ideas are good, forward thinking, just don't like the pricing & ownership/access model they come with.

[Not expecting a response but thought I'd take the opportunity to put that to you while you're talking about that.]

I realize I'm not being too specific here, but I don't think anything in your post invalidated what I had to say LittleBuilder.

My earlier posts were out of concern for "intermittent" users, ie. people who may not have time to work on this for month's at a time because things can come up in life that pull you away. They still want to make a serious go of it, and make money off their project (one day), but it's not their full-time job currently.

For marketing - well, like I said, plenty of people (and successful projects) are not marketed early on. Especially if you're new to the industry, there is plenty of reason not to put extra pressure on yourself promising something you've never delivered before/do not know (objectively speaking) if you will be able to deliver.

For your recommendation - I think you're reading too far outside the scope of my comments. I never disputed any of that, I'm just saying there's plenty of reason not to assume that will be/is the only path a successful (or budding) indie developer (1st game) would take. I was also not necessarily speaking from a personal perspective.

On budgets - again, this is outside the scope of anything I'm talking about. Intermittent users I'm referring to by definition are not doing this as a full-time job, they're doing it after work/school, whatever.

And again, I don't think it's relevant to the scope of what I was referring to but I have researched all about the processes of many successful indie games for many years.

I'd like to leave at agree to disagree, hopefully I didn't push back too hardly on any of that you were arguing for (not my intent).

I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

Because you failed to. For one reason or another (like how not everyone who starts on a diet succeeds). Or it didn't work out/turned out to be a bad idea/harder than you thought. As I say, I doubt most people who start (even wanting to release) succeed. I don't have stats on that but I think this is a known stat. for other success rates of creative endeavors (actors, singers, etc.).

Not sure what the marketing thing has to do with what I said, but in any case, I doubt most people (indie/one-man-army developers) would start marketing their games before they feel they're close to/sure of succeeding. Even if they do, plenty of people spend years on a game and come out of nowhere and release it (or almost nowhere), so I certainly wouldn't assume that.

Sry, my bad, I fixed the quotes now.

It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount...

Not my issue with it.

...if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

But you only make money if you actually end up fully following through with it.. and how many times does that happen with even people trying to release something? Probably less often than not.

For a lot of people with plans but not necessarily time/life stuff comes up (intermittent users), it's not a great value if you're not using it a lot of the year. (To say nothing of the ownership issue.)

Even for a subscription scheme, the annual buy-in still seems to me a crazy/terrible choice. It's a bad fit for intermittent users. (This is not like Spotify or something where you can find time to use the service pretty much anytime). If not month to month, at least a 6 month option should be available.

Tom is also considering changing the payment plan. So maybe things will be looking good now.

...

3) Tom is considering changing the pricing model.

That's great news, but do you have a link to where that was confirmed/could you point me where?

Last I'd seen, he had only said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "If the subscription model fails, obviously we'll re-evaluate, we're not idiots."

Done here, moving on.

>

> > What happens when you don't pay the electric bill?

> >

>

> ...

>

> Software is not analogous to electricity.

>

Try running a business and not paying some bills.

Im sure you'll see a correlation eventually.

You're on a roll. Next are you going to remark on how money doesn't grow on trees?

Let's get right to it - my issue with your post was that there are far more productive ways to disabuse people on here against the currently proposed subscription model of the error of their beliefs than to troll their threads with facile one-liner nonsense.

I'm unable to imagine that you actually believe you just made a coherent argument that you have an interest in defending, rather, I gather your priorities lie more in attempting to deliver verbal put downs against your antagonists. So long as that's the case, as has already been noted, obliging you would be asinine.

What happens when you don't pay the electric bill?

...

Software is not analogous to electricity.

Though, the offline editor will not be ready at launch, and we don't know if it will be after a year either (or ever? I don't believe it's guaranteed, just "planning to"), but you'd hope so..

I think there is some merit to this idea. Things have changed compared to what we knew on the 1st day of announcement (since we can now likely expect a standalone version of the IDE and not just a browser based version).

If the subscription were rent to own, perhaps after a certain amount of years subscribing you could own the standalone IDE. You could still subscribe for the web-based IDE and cloud services, but if you didn't want them you could keep the standalone IDE and lose access to the web version/cloud services.

Or, at least reduce the subscription fee to something minimal, at that point, if you chose (still with loss of access to the web IDE/cloud services).

Once you reached that point, perhaps after a year or two they could release C4 and start that all over again.

Modern browsers have multiprocess architectures that ensure tabs are isolated at the operating-system level. So other tabs shouldn't affect the performance or stability of Construct 3. It even means crashes in other tabs are isolated and won't take down C3 as well.

If you open 100+ tabs, you're giving your computer a huge amount of work to do. It's like opening 100 different apps on your desktop. You have a finite amount of computing resources available, and it's amazing it can even handle as much as some people throw at it.

Yes fair enough, I try not to anymore.. it just happens. Currently I'm at 70, lately I've been at 30 to 40.

As far as resources though, I wouldn't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you on this but I'm not sure that's correct. I mean, with all those tabs open I don't see it using up the majority of (or even a significant amount of) my RAM or CPU %.

I have 70 tabs open in Firefox currently at 1.2 GB of RAM and 5% CPU utilized (i7 6 core 5820k). I've never seen it go above 3 GB of RAM usage for my browser (though granted, anything close to 2 GB is excessive).

[Though, I use a load-tab-on-click setting, on startup, so maybe only about 20 or 25 tabs are currently loaded.]

Anyway, so I'm well under my resource usage, but if it's going along fine, and I either open too many more (while still having plenty of RAM & CPU free), it can crash the whole browser/slow it all to a crawl, even if you close tabs --OR-- if it's ok like it is now, but I have 20 or 30 open, and I don't open more but leave it that way a few days, I see it crash or slow to a crawl plenty as well.

My understanding is that this is caused by something called "desktop heap" from Windows that seems to be a finite resource that doesn't properly get freed up again when you close browser tabs/windows always.

An issue since XP I keep hoping they'll fix..

[I could be wrong of course, and you're not my tech support for browsers issues, but that's what I was under the impression on as causing this issue.]