> Don't worry guys!

>

> Even though Ashley and Tom have turned out to be liars and assholes we are going to help them out by releasing a C2 clone that will be completely open source so you can use all your C2 plugins and run your existing games and help develop features and exporters that actually work.

>

> It will be completely free and community based development so just watch for the announcement here on Scirra.

>

> Have a great day Ashley and Tom!

>

Do you referr to GDevelop?

I doubt it

Gdevelop is similar, yes. But it is already released , not to be released. it is also not compatible with construct2's plugins or shaders.

Gdevelop uses a number of different open source engines/frameworks under the hood in order to export games- depending on what you export to - it uses pixi.js(html5), sfml (native/android) and even cocos2d(native/android)

Unlike construct, it exports to native, however the editor is somewhat clunky still and has some bugs

Gdevelop is not a clone, it's development dates way back, so you can argue that it is parallel or even predates scirra

However it has much less features and the developers are not as active as Ashley and co. The project is very stale atm

If you really want to fund a clone - gdevelop is a good start to make a clone imo.

It's probably possible to make construct's plugins work on gdevelop, with some refactoring to gdevelop, however I am not sure how legal that would be.

If a good clone is announced here on scirra, the thread will be locked and deleted 5 seconds after it has been posted hahaha

Fortunately for scirra, gdevelop is still not up to that standard (yet!)

I think it's a very good option for everyone. But I think the thread is about people refusing any type of "renting model". Because of "reasons"....

I stated earlier Stencyl. Others noted Unreal and Unity - all of which have much more acceptable subscription models.

Construct3's subscription model is way worse and restricted than all of the above. My problem is specifically with it alone.

I am ok with the ones in the other game engines

Reasons were stated as well, yes. You can go back and read them. No need to repeat ..

Also those who are comparing a game engine to a Netflix streaming service or gym membership are just being silly here. It's like comparing oranges to tomatoes and old socks, because they may have a similar price. All of the three have completely different end goals.

You don't use netflix or the gym as a TOOL (editor) and foundation (runtime) of your business/product

Please look at how subscription works in the other game engines. Stop grabbing onto non related examples.

Please also consider that after a game is released, it will most likely require maintenance - especially if it's a html5 game.

So even after your game is out - you will need to have access to keep it working with current web technology that it relies on.

A clever subscription model would let people develop at will and even motivate them to do so. Then charge them when they make money - a percent of the profits- be it from freemium ads/microtransactions or unit sales. Charge them for added services - you know actual real web services by the engine developer, not third party services such as dropbox/etc - like the ones c3 is using.

Charge to remove splash screen. You can charge for so many other things than completely restricting developers from developing.

Why not make it a

1. one time charge for the editor,

2. with a subscription model for the exporters+ad services/other specific plugins

3. percent of profits of games that make over x amount per year?

Just throwing ideas out there.

Scirra could also try to make revenue by becoming a publisher and help developers publish their games - similarly to what clickteam is doing. That way scirra could help get more games to the market and those games can get scirra more profits

Nobody is "locked out" of their projects. When your subscription expires, it will be the same as opening a project in the free edition of C2. You can still open it and run it, you can see your events, open sprites and extract your artwork and animations, and even preview it to play it. The main thing you can't do is edit it or export it. You can see exactly how it works by opening Kiwi Story in the free edition of C3. It exceeds the free edition limits but you can still look around the project, access all the artwork and assets, and preview it. Your own projects would work similarly if your subscription was not renewed.

I think people talking about being "locked out" or "holding projects hostage" are deliberately trying to make it sound worse than it is. It's the same as going back to the free edition of C2.

Not being able to work on it = Locked out

You can look at it, but not do much of anything else

It's like being in a cell, you can still look what's beyond the bars, but you are still behind them.

Stop trying to make it look like it isn't so, because it quite obviously is exactly that

I guess the only plus of the free edition is the showing part - being able to show off construct3 and how awesome it is

Look I know you wont listen to any petitions and probably lock all of these petition threads eventually. But at least I want to state why subscriptions suck for game development - especially for freelancers and indie devs. I think your claim of not locking developers out is just misleading- developers develop, they wont have much use in just opening a project they worked on if they cant edit it.

It benefits only scirra to use the projects to show off the engine and help you improve it.

Specifically construct3's subscription is designed in that way.

Some other game engine subscriptions dont have these restrictions. Instead the exporter stops working for some platforms and also lose access to the latest and greatest (stencyl's) , but still having at least one for testing. So the dev can still work on it even when it runs out - but they still have the motivation to buy it when the have to export the game to a target platform.

Added to that I think construct3's sub deal is actually pretty bad compared to other sub deals out there, but hey it's just my opinion.

I might look like I am pulling this claim out of my robot behind, but it really looks that way once you look at the other game engines.

I stopped posting links, because I found that gets a thread locked and me warned, so use google damnit

I dont like the deal, it's a bad deal. If it was less restrictive like stencyl's - i would probably give c3 a good chance

And I'm not able to earn 10 dollars per month from construct 2 how can pay 8

Scirra doesnt care if you earn from it, they just want to make more money off you

The problem is that it discourages investment in a project - knowing that you can work on it only while you pay scirra the rent for the tools.

Scirra DOES lock you out of your projects with this model They have way more control over the future of your project than you do

It's not only the money, the editor has a number of potential business non-friendly problems as a side result of the model:

• If it cant connect to the internet to check your license - it will lock you out - even if you did pay the renting fee
• If scirra some day decides to stop developing/supporting it - surprise surprise - you are locked out of all of your projects
• Editor updates are enforced on the user and may break some things
• Scirra may increase the fee whenever they want to next year it may become 299$ - you are in such an uncertainty here
• Your project is not only locked to their editor - it's locked to their licensing model
• Let me know if you can add more points to this..

Also tell me of a single commercial game made by a game engine with this licensing model

I would argue that construct3 is less professional with that model, less business friendly, less viable for a big project

A lot of people in this thread actually argue that too and list many points why that is

There are many many many reasons that the subscription model is a terrible idea imo, but what is sums down to - at least for me is the fact that Construct3 is not really a web service - not really offering project hosting/backup - it relies on third party for that.

So the increased pricing doesnt seem justified to me - like at all.

Then adding to that is the fact that it now even relies on chrome in order to work - which again is not developed by scirra.

You also have electron and nw.js. The number of dependencies on other software has increased!

It is relying on a lot of third party technologies that are fundamentally free and can break something every time they get updated

Apart of sharing the game to be play tested, it doesn't really have any advantages that a web service could have - like collaborative editing.

So even as a web service it is not at a point where you could say it is competitive enough to justify the fee.

To add to it - it is competing with many other similar game engines that have more features, are cheaper, stabler and one time payment.

It's even competing with its more established version - construct2.

Construct2 still offers a better editor at a much better price - one time payment price.

It is also much more reliable than construct3 - it wont stop working or break when the license runs out, it fails to connect to a server to check the license or something breaks when your web browser has updated automatically

All that said, even at a lower price tag - I will never subscribe or develop my project in something that locks me to a subscription - because I feel that it is a really bad investment of my time

>

> > godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

> > Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

> >

>

> From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.

> I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.

>

I gave Godot a go because it was supposed to be like python, but it just gave me nightmares of gml. By the way, for all of you who are going to leave Construct because you don't want to pay for the sub, I highly recommend NOT going to any of the free engines. I've seen more crashes on GDevelop than when I went to a demolition derby, but do as you wish and remember you can play Battlefield 1 with 8 gigs of ram and a GTX 660.

I dont recomend gdevelop either, just saying it's the closest to construct.

As for Godot - it is probably the best choice atm for me. Gdscript is incredibly simple to learn and use and very powerful. Godot has too many advantages to list in one thread.

If you want to really use python, that is being added to godot as well:

as demonstrated this year at godotcon

All in all, I think that even if godot cost 200$ for a license, I would still buy it over construct2 or even fusion. It has three times more features and can build native games with no need of containers. Don't be mislead by the 'free' label - what it really is is open source - which means owned by the community and people who use it - not a developer who can change the licensing type and price on a whim every year. It means that if someone wants a feature - they can add it or hire someone to add it - that is one hell of a deal if you ask me <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

Signed. It is a bad business decision and will simply cause devs to move to other software that is pay once or open source. Reason I'be moved to godot already, which is adding visual scripting at some point.

http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/201 ... -Look.aspx

godot has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

If you want open source construct that runs on linux and mac natively - try gdevelop.

Gdevelop is very underdeveloped though - doesnt see updates very often and has only two contributors

> It's a question of greed really.

> A few more "serious" developers for Scirra, versus hundreds of exploitable indie games for the consoles.

>

A Serious Dev is worth a thousand shovels.

Look what FNAF did.

FNAF was made in Clickteam fusion

http://indiegames.clickteam.com/

which btw has native exporters AND whose event sheet inspired construct's

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

I have to join everyone here and say that unless scirra comes up with the greatest html5 wrapper in the world, its engine will never have many commercial games and people will always complain about the lack of native exporters.

This subscription fee license is putting nails in the coffin here, rather than solving that request.

MOST other game engines do have native exporters. Even the free open source ones!

a bit laggy in chromium, but still quite impressive.

Not worth selling your soul to the renting model though. I am not convinced yet , sorry

C2 is still > C3

will scirra continue to sell c2 licenses?

crashes , fails to start.

Reported the error and the log