Well they have been locking threads with the same subject , trying to avoid bad publicity pretty much.

But once a thread like this one is removed, someone creates another one where it starts over again.

People from this community need it, in order to vent their feelings and cope with the changes that Ashley and co are applying.

When threads here get locked, what then happens is people go to other game engine forums and start discussing how crap scirra has become there and go in deep conversations about different subscription models. There they dont have to moderate what they say, because they are not afraid of getting banned.

That then creates more bad publicity for scirra.

But publicity is publicity - good or bad - that has for example made some people on the clickteam forum give construct3 a try and like it - regardless of the bad rep.

I don't think that the situation is handled very well by scirra. Some very very valuable contributors to the community have been outright banned!

I am talking about X3M , who made the babylon3d plugin:

His plugin was removed from the store.

It says that X3M is a banned user. Is this true? Also I don't see Babylon 3d on the store anymore.

Can please Tom clarify what happened there?

Putting aside alienating most users with the new rent license, the senseless way it was announced, the locking of threads and banning of users - you also have spam bots hacking the forum constantly. How are we to see you as a reliable company to pay subscription to?

Imagine the same crap happening to construct3 as a service - people who paid a yearly license will flip out. Something must be done for these hacks and spam bots!

> After the many posts and the locked thread, it seems the best option for Construct users now is to wait and see how the subscription turns out. Scirra really wants to try it, and if it works out then that's great for them (and us) !

>

> If not, they'll hopefully have a backup plan ready in time

>

> But, I would say it will be one or two years from now before we know for sure (eg: many people might try one or two years before trying something else, so it's still pretty risky for Scirra if big/long-term projects aren't being made).

>

> That's okay though, we've all been waiting many years already for HTML5 to be the high performance multi-platform export format of choice for 2D gaming anyway, what's the harm of waiting a few more?

>

The problem with this I think is that at the moment there is actually very little incentive to subscribe. The overlap between C2 and C3 is vast, and who knows how long it will take C3 to mature enough plugin wise for many to transfer their projects over? I say this as someone who is knee deep in 3 projects, all of which use plugins qhich quite frankly should be part of the base construct package. If I subscribe in the near future I'll pretty much just be throwing $99 away (or whatever discount I get from being a customer) the only incentive to subscription at the moment is support of Scirra's vision, but unfortunately some of this vision I'm not interested in. I think people will continue to discuss and criticise this model and that won't go away. We're not stirring a frenzy, the fact is it doesn't fit the needs or wants of the greater community.

How compatible are construct2 plugins with construct3 ?

I wonder as construct3's runtime continues to mature- will that compatibility continue to be maintained?

In that sense then, plugin developers will need to port their work to c3.

Do you think some paid plugins will also start moving over to a rent model too?

I wholeheartedly agree with Twinsonian 's post.

Ashley why are you trying to make it look like the lockout isn't that bad. It really is. The event sheet is everything - the game's whole logic is in there! You are trying to paint this in a different light than what it is - saying things like it being "light limitations".

Look, I know you want to force people to keep being subscribed, but why not have some faith in the updates that you deliver for that instead, huh? You have a good track record for it with construct2 and people know already that you can deliver good updates.

Why don't you trust that to do the subscription sales alone? Software updates really can keep sales going - it's proven and is still the most common model used - even with the subscription type payment!

If you already have the attitude that you also need lockouts to do that, then that shows that really you are not all that certain in scirra's ability to make sales on the base of putting out some great updates alone.

It tells me that you need the lockout, because your updates alone are not going to convince people to , well - pay to keep getting updates for another year.

I simply can't comprehend where that fear comes from in you - as scirra as a company has never actually tried it before! You have never sold a single build version upgrade- correct me if I am wrong

Guys it's not about the price, it's the license model!

I stated it before and people keep going back to the price - Scirra can charge more if they want to. I think the price is fair - no problem there!

The subscription fee payment method is quite OK too. I know many will still be against it.

The lock out kill switch is the problem. Other subscription models don't have that lockout when your subscription runs out. The user simply loses access to software updates and support. They do not lose access to the editing capabilities of the software itself!

I know that Scirra is hell bent on keeping it that way, so at this point I am simply trying to make my opinion as clear as possible. Many people seem to be confused why people are angry about the new license. No no and no - it's not the price!

It's simply the idea that we are now forced to renting it and nothing more. You don't ever get to own your copy of the software and that greatly devalues it.

Here are some other successful payment option examples:

GameMaker Studio, GameMaker Studio 2 -> Buy -> users are happy

GameMaker Studio transition to GameMaker Studio 2 -> Pay the difference for an upgraded version -> users are happy

Fusion 2, Fusion 2.5 -> Buy -> users are happy

Fusion 2 transition to Fusion 2.5 -> Pay the difference for an upgraded version -> users are happy

Unreal Engine 4 -> Free to use and Pay only if you make profit with your games -> users are happy

Unity -> Free to use and Pay only if you make profit with your games -> users are happy

Construct 2 -> Buy -> users are happy

Construct 3 -> Rent -> community gone crazy

Construct 2 transition to Construct 3 -> change from Buy (own the product) to Rent -> commuity gone crazy

why break away from this traditional upgrade fee model? Is it making any less money?

It's a matter of time until they hack construct3 too.. restrictions like these are like a honeypot for people with way too much free time on their hands.

You are right, the forum is already a hacking target for various creeps and crazy chinese spambots.

Buildbox was almost instantly leaked, when they announced that INSANE pricing and model. Everyone thinks they are scammers on different game engine forums.

What Im trying to say is that - people are people. They are either on your side or some other side. Better to have them on your side in bigger numbers

> it would be nice if a person is allotted time instead of limited amount of edits.

>

That's impossible to police. With options like changing device, renewing IPs, signing up new accounts, clearing browser storage, and changing the system time, people will easily figure out ways to use it indefinitely.

Who in the world would go through all that effort simply to run it for another 10 minutes

but yeah you are right, the clock thing is easy to cheat, unless you have a user login system - which you do.

Thus construct3 can check the user account to get the number of minutes that user has spent for the day - that stuff can be tracked on your server

Hell even this forum tracks how many minutes every user is logged in.

So regardless of their ip, hardware clock or device, the time has been clocked on your server.

That should give you some interesting activity stats - if you dont already have those.

You are just coming up with ways to avoid implementing something you dont want again. I have to admit that the 10 minute per day thing sounds annoying to put effort into making and not really worth the effort. Fixing a bug takes more than 10 minutes.

Edit: sorry, 30 minutes* a day - still not worth it.

I guess then people will start cheating by creating multiple accounts, which is still a pain in the behind to police

Subscription for updates is very open to abuse. Let's say one user on yearly subscription gets his 12 updates (1 a month), and user 2 who hasn't subbed in the last 12 months, pays 1 month sub and grabs the latest version then unsubs again. Getting the same end result as guy 1 but not really paying enough to support further development

you could still discourage it by enforcing an extra fee if the user was not subscribed in a previous year <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

For example after it runs out, the user has one month in order to subscribe again or lose 20% discount! That time window creates urgency for the user to subscribe again or lose the discount.

I would subscribe, if subscription meant software updates and support for a year.

Similar to bitwig

https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&t=477140

You subscribe to software updates - similar to how you would subscribe to a magazine.

At the end of the year - you get to keep the mag issues! But they obviously get outdated if you dont pay next year.

That creates a real incentive for the developer to actually work hard and add new features to keep people motivated to be subscribed.

Right now the definition that construct3 is using for "subscription" is really "rent" - or limited time access to use the software!

The current model forces the user to pay for "subscription" for access, regardless - as you would lose access completely to your own work (that has hundreds/thousands of events).

But hey, if that makes more money - which scirra seems to really need at the moment - hope it works out too.

The software limitations and uncertainty that is imposed as a result is simply not viable to an indie guy like me and thus probably why so many people here are angry and frustrated by the change <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused">

My Problem with scirra is that they are calling it a subscription, but it really is renting.

Here is a subscription:

https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&t=477140

you pay and you get 12 months of software upgrades and support, thats it

Construct 3 is very different - you pay for access <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

Ashley might decide to put out less software updates/features, while the user has no choice but to continue to pay in order to get access to the software.

It feels like they are misleading the users a little bit on some points too. The export in construct is still pretty bad compared to many other engines, so the price tag of 100$ per year is definitely not justified.

pay subscription to get updates and bug fixes - yes

pay subscription in order to gain limited time access to the software itself - nope

its pretty darn simple

Rent != Buy

Huge difference

I would subscribe to get monthly software updates/fixes

I will NOT subscribe to gain time limited access to the software itself- specifically the ability to use the software on my own projects that have more than x number of events

Ashley there are different types of subscription models, some of which I would support. Not this one

Well if the subscription model that construct3 has at the moment fails,

now Ashley and Tom have loads of data and suggestions by their users they can apply to the next license approach.

Right now they are ignoring their own community's voice in order to do what is based on marketing research by an unknown entity

But that is ok, the community here is used to that and can take it. I am sure that C3 will sell loads of subs in no time and there will be no need to amend the license that so many people here can't stand

Vote with your wallets guys

That is the only thing that can change it, not these petition threads. Threads are just voicing opinion, but sales figures are the only thing that can drive change. While a lot of us don't buy it, many others might. Who knows