This whole topic was a very interesting read, even if I'm pretty sure I didn't understand 90% of what's at stake.
This made me think of FLStudio. They have the same business model of "pay once get updates forever" and the program was considered a joke non-professional tool because of its roots as a virtual drum-machine called FruityLoops, but over time it has grown into an incredibly complete and complex tool, which can do anything the super-expensive DAWs do. (It was already pretty powerful before they re-branded it.) To this day, many music pros still disregard FLP, and swear by high-cost tools that are sometimes less practical (but have a reputation for seriousness due to their price tag.)
I think this is akin to what Ashley was getting at when he said people saw C2 as a "small game" tool and wouldn't even consider "big games" even though C2 can handle them. I can't chime in with insightful "veteran"commentary, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
Early in the thread someone was complaining about html5 being badly implemented someplace or other, when its specifications should be platform independent, well, remember those hilarious acidtests where no two browsers would display the test the same way? It seems reasonable to expect discrepancies.
Also : pennaneac the 1985 reference made me wonder : weren't ALL game concepts invented before 1985? Or is your complaint that you can't make visually "satisfying" mega-eye-candy games with C2 ?
Anyway, thank you, very interesting topic, that touches on concepts and problems I'm likely months from even having to think about for myself (or even understanding!)
(Disclaimer : I heard of C2 for the first time 2 weeks ago... It was mentioned by a very talented graphic artist who said to me "if I didn't have a developer to work with, I'd be using C2." Yes, that means I probably have no business commenting in this thread - sorry )