then I might consider go buy.

You mean you will consider renting it for a year.

Will you do it if they tell you it's on the roadmap, but it is not clear if it will be there in the year you subscribed for?

As it stands

Speaking of Rivals, go google gdevelop.

gdevelop tried doing the web thing years before c3 was announced, and even offered it free.. Nobody is using it, as many of the native version features are missing <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing">

https://gdevapp.com/

ironically the link to that seems to be dead atm

everyone still uses the native editor - as that is multiplatform anyways

http://compilgames.net/

Gdevelop is made by a french guy called Florian Rival and another guy called Victor - as a free open source project.

I think they do it in their free time, because the engine is still somewhat buggy and rough around the edges when compared to construct2.

An interesting development there is that recently they started using cocos2d under it's hood and made it an export option over pixi. Now the engine can export to native android, html5, native mac,ios, windows and linux ..

Florian is too busy with the successful kickstarter game he is making with it atm, so updates have been scarce

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ia ... e-video-ga

I like paying for updates every year, if they are optional and actually bring new features that I want - i get those new features upon payment for the update - at a discount.

That is how fusion 2 to fusion 2.5 transition worked. Guess what, I still have the installers of both products and there is no timer

Another problem of the renting model is that you do not get to keep old versions of the game engine and can't roll back. But game engines constantly break backwards compatibility in order to improve old designs via complete refactoring.

One day when construct 3 becomes phased out for construct 4, nobody will be able to run it, because the thing is not pinging the discontinued server to check their license status - or it is by design forcing them to upgrade

Once support is dropped, the product can not become abandonware even. Your old game projects tied to it's version - dead

Here is a list of extensions that Ashley made for fusion back in the days before construct:

[quote:3cdp16av]Easy Grid, by Ashley Gullen (Tigerworks)

Icon View, by Ashley Gullen (Tigerworks)

Int64, by Ashley Gullen (Tigerworks)

ISO Grid 2, by Ashley Gullen (Tigerworks)

https://community.clickteam.com/threads ... Extensions

Some of the old users remember him well

http://www.create-games.com/forum_post. ... 4&show=all

The clickteam devs still look at it as a betrayal

https://community.clickteam.com/threads ... post713996

But yeah, it's interesting when you start digging. Scirra and Clickteam have a competition going on <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

To be honest, I love both products as both have something to offer. Fusion's event sheet is clunkier and code reusal is bad. if they address that - which they have, they will be hands down the better game engine. Even if they dont address it - they already are, as their licensing is better in my eyes.

I think scirra's biggest mistake with construct 2 is in releasing one single major version of it once - without any paid major upgrade fees

They have not even tried the annual/biannual upgrade fee model and are now jumping straight to the rent the trial of my software model that most people dislike

Ashley and Tom

When we pay a fee for an upgrade, we know in advance what the new features are - that puts you the devs in a position where you have to convince us the new is better than the old.

In contrast, when you require the user to pay in advance just to rent the software - you put them at a huge disadvantage

There are lots of great games made with fusion:

http://indiegames.clickteam.com

Edit. Too slow

The truth is many of us here come from Fusion and have been using construct2 for the similarities of the event sheet

No disrespect to Clickteam, but Fusion is - without a doubt - the "Fisher Price" of development tools. Its marketed squarely at the complete novice. Yes, its still possible to create some good games, but the more experienced game dev will constantly find themselves trapped and frustrated by its limitations.

No disrespect but there are much more successful and popular fusion 2 made games than construct + cosntruct2 combined

a few examples on the top of my head

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/al ... rth-alicia

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ga ... tform-game

https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/ ... t-freddys/

http://store.steampowered.com/app/233450/

here is a list for you my friend:

http://indiegames.clickteam.com/

Simplicity is deceiving

it may look limited, but it is far from that

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing">

This is why I think construct3 is in trouble and their release timing is unfortunate <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused">

I think it would be much more than half the community that leaves. This vote alone shows that, but I would wager in the wider community it would be more like 70-90% Hobbyist game designers are absolutely the wrong audience for subscriptions and won't bite. Especially with other viable options about like clickteam fusion which aren't too difficult to jump ship to as the Construct paradigm was based off them. But maybe Scirra have done the math and having 10% of the current user base on a sub will be enough to sustain them? At any rate it's an incredibly risky move.

Their current customers are not generating new revenue for them, so losing them is not a loss to scirra directly.

It will however affect sales on their upgrade offer. A reduced community cloud affect the engine's activity - less content generated for it means less value for it's existing users, less popularity

We can only wait and see. We might be wrong

> Currently fusion 2.5's event sheet is clunkier than construct's, but previews of fusion 3 show that clickteam is working hard to make the event sheet and code reusal way better than construct's current design.

>

Can you show me how are they trying to make it better? For what I've heard they'll keep the old event system. I was surprised by that, but if they do remake, I'd take a look at how they plan on doing so.

Fusion 3 that is coming out later this year has a development blog

The new event sheet will have sub events and you will be able to create event sheet hierarchies

http://www.clickteam.com/fusion-3-devel ... ?f3id=8656

http://www.clickteam.com/fusion-3-devel ... ?f3id=8607

You will be also able to create plugins for the engine by using the event sheet - no programming knowledge required.

Check out the other entries in the dev blog, some of the new features are very interesting

http://www.clickteam.com/fusion-3-development-blog

If you would like to request features for the event sheet, feel free to drop by ct's forum and state your thoughts

We all know that people will prefer the traditional licensing model over renting

I do not think Ashley and Tom would change what they already have decided on though.

Those of you who are against the subscription fee, just vote with your wallets and don't buy it - go to another game engine instead. If many people do that and start leaving the community, Scirra will start to lose money and will then consider changing the license model.

It's the only way to trigger a change.

Keep the subscription, with a catch.

$100 a year. This gets you 1 year of updates and support. It also gives you construct 3 permanently up to the version until your subscription runs out.

After a year, if you want further updates and support you must pay for that annual subscription again. Otherwise you can continue using the version up to when your subscription expired.

Personally, that's the only way I can see myself supporting construct 3. I don't use construct as much as I used to. But I love using it for very quick prototyping. Occasionally I'll do a full project in construct, but the exporter issue always bothers me because the mobile market is so massive.

I simply can't justify $100 annually on something I won't use all time.

On top of that, I still haven't seen any big changes construct 3 immediately brings to the table that construct 2 is lacking.

I suggested this and others have suggested it as well, but Ashley and Tom have very firmly decided to keep on course with the model they have announced - selling us a trial version of their next software

Once your subscription period ends - you can no longer edit your projects if they were made in construct 3