Ashley

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. I understand the points you made, but I disagree that they all justify a subscription model though. We don't really need C3 to work in a browser. It's an unnecessary feature. We don't really need another cloud service, and not everyone uses the Scirra Arcade to publish their games. The real reason for the subscription model is that you know you stand to profit from the services not everyone will use, but you continue to charge for. Also the incentive that people will need to subscribe or lose access to both the C3 engine and their C3 game files is too good to pass up. It's not about what is in the best interest of the community anymore. It's whatever makes the most money.

I guess at the end of the day, if you absolutely cannot stand subscriptions, you can either stick with C2 or look for a different tool.

I came to the same conclusion. Best of luck to everyone!

The fact is no one buys C2 because they think they are going to get rich making HTML5 games. The majority of us buy it because we like making games. If we make money from it, even better. I think Scirra is losing sight of that few of us are professional game makers. This software doesn't appeal to studios with share holders that require profits from their games. Those studios hire programmers and use more elaborate software.

Well, for what it's worth, Construct 2's education license is already a subscription, and that seems to have been working out fine.

If that is true, I stand corrected. The schools and colleges where I teach abhor rental software.

No where near the same thing. Schools profit from renting the C2 software for their students regardless if students make money from games, or finish any games at all. Individuals on the other hand only recoup what they pay for C2 if they make money from the games they sell. There's no equivalent there.

drzanuff

That was an amazing, well written defense of C3. And although it was inspiring, I really wish it had come from maybe Tom or Ashley. It seems the most positive views are presented by people far removed from the inner workings of Scirra. Although well meaning, these posts are always very careful not to criticize anything.

Want I want to know is why won't Tom or Ashley explain the sudden shift in business ethics. Why won't they explain why it's necessary for users not to own what they pay for? Why are they threatening users who down vote blog posts, and locking threads because they are tired to reading opposing view points?

For example Multiplayer, Scirra made a great job with it, people asked a lot and nobody use it. It’s cool to have, but the time spent on it could’ve be spent in a more important feature. If i’m not mistaken, they decided to go with it because a forum pool. We voted for it and we don’t use it.

It's often thrown back in our face that we voted for multiplayer, but no one really uses it. Was it wrong for use to expect Ashley to make multiplayer easy for us, when he was so successful in making programming games easy for non-programmers? I don't think so. Did we throw that back in his face when he couldn't make multiplayer easy for us? No. I don't remember seeing any post criticizing him for it. Yet that blame is shifted to us. I don't think that is fair. I had confidence in him, and he failed, but I don't blame him for trying. I really appreciate the effort. I wish Ashley appreciated the confidence we had in him. I simply don't see it though. I see that he's been regretting it. I can't help but think, if Ashley had made the multiplayer feature successful, would things be different now?

You might consider the one click export C3 will provide.

Especially when you pay the Apple dev "rent".

Another trolling comment. Yes, it is like rent. It's like you are renting space in a mall to sell your goods. What it isn't is relevant to this conversation.

Edit: If you want to argue the value of an Apple Dev account, create a new thread and invite me. We can discuss it there.

I never expected to make a penny with C2, which is why I paid one-off. Someone just told me they couldn't even play my excuse for a game cos it gives them a black screen because I had to compile it with Cocoon, because XDK/PhoneGap was too slow. I have no reason to believe C2 will come up with a cloud compiler any better than XDK, and I certainly don't expect it to reach speeds of Cocoon, even if it is more stable for the tradeoff.

That's a similar problem I have. I've tried to submit 2 games to Apple. Both games work fine in the browser, work fine on my iPhone as a web app, but when I submit my games to apple, they get rejected because of a black screen. I have no confidence in Coccon or PhoneGap.

>

> > Please keep it civil - making an analogy doesn't warrant a negative response.

> >

>

> If that was an overly negative response, I apologize to gameglaux. I may have overstated how much people care about his MacBook.

>

zenox98 Sebastian

No apologies needed here

It just irks me to see people feeling they are being forced or pressured into paying for something, when they clearly are not. I dont thing ive ever seen a free version match the full version of a product.

C2 users can either continue using c2, pay for c3 or pay for/use an alternative product. Theres no arm twisting going on. Scirra are the only ones here that stand to lose out from their new business model.

I understand how you feel, but people are being forced to subscribe to C3 if they want full access to the software, because there are no other pay options being made available by Scirra. Of course, people have the option not to pay at all, and that's the decision we'll all have to make when C3 becomes available.

Worth is an entirely subjective value; discussing it does little to change what is a fundamentally personal perception.

One off payments vs subscription is ultimately an ideological debate; and one that I find people shift from left to right on as they get older. Much like taxes, the older you get the more you realise they're not only necessary but vital for society.

Anyway...

One off payments effectively floor the amount of money Scirra can earn each software cycle, sure they might make more initially, but once they've made a single sale, they've removed that consumer from the market. This is completely fine if you're selling a static product, but Scirra are selling software, software that they continuously update and improve, that dramatically changes throughout it's lifespan (Compare C2 of 4 years ago to C2 today!), and services like multiplayer servers and mobile builders.

Subscription is the only logical commerce for a product like this - to say otherwise is damaging and needlessly consumerist. To sell it at a fixed one-off price and make sound business sense Scirra would have to hack the product into modules and sell it ala carte; which is terrible.

That's the strongest argument I've heard so far for a subscription model. It's understandable that the company wants to make lots of money from their product, but it's also understandable that the consumer wants to get value out of what they pay for. It's important to find a middle ground or someone loses. I really feel that the consumer loses when they are renting software tools.

The value doesn't come from the experience in using the tool. The value comes from the hard work the consumer puts into the game and creating something fun for other's to play. The recoup value is if you make money from those games. How many of the 120K registered users make more than $120 off their games? How many success stories does C2 have? How many people are getting their value out of paying once for C2? And now Scirra wants us to pay forever to use C3? Where can we meet in the middle to make it fair for the most people?

Please keep it civil - making an analogy doesn't warrant a negative response.

If that was an overly negative response, I apologize to gameglaux. I may have overstated how much people care about his MacBook.

>

> > I really appreciate these updates on what Fusion 3 will do.

> > I wonder if we would be welcome to go over there and keep them updated on C3's progress.

> >

>

> Who cares?

>

Generally when people want to find out about a product they will go to that product's website.

Constantly making references here seems a bit petty.

This is also coming from a person with a pig snout for an avatar and who is constantly trolling people in these threads. The comparison to Fusion 3 (or any similar engine) is relevant to this conversation, because we are discussing the value of C3 and whether or not it's worth subscribing to or only paying once for it.

>

> If you want to use C3, you are forced to subscribe to it. There's no way around it.

>

The free version?

"but the free version will be limited"

Then you pay. Youre not being forced to subscribe. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I have a Macbook that Apple doesnt support anymore. Apple arent forcing me to go buy a new Macbook.

I'm sorry you don't understand what I meant by "forcing" people to subscribe. I'll rephrase it. You have to subscribe if you want full access to C3. The free version is useless for making a game because it's so limited. The "free" version is a demo.

Btw, no one cares if you have a really old MacBook. I really don't see what that has to do with anything.

I really appreciate these updates on what Fusion 3 will do.

I wonder if we would be welcome to go over there and keep them updated on C3's progress.

Who cares?