signaljacker's Forum Posts

  • Looks pretty good, feels pretty good. But with such limitations what's the incentive to actually make anything to test out? I pretty much opened it up and said yep, this is C2 with a couple of nice useabilty tweaks that should have been in C2 from the start and a whole bunch of limitations. I'll give it another look later on. Expectations were already drastically lowered for this.

  • I'm glad the devs have noted that their marketing image might have missed the mark a bit in the past and are rectifying. I think Construct is a great tool and very powerful, but I kind of cringe when I visit the website a because it looks like it's marketed as a toy (although has improved somewhat - at one point it said something like "Make games effortlessly" which we all know can't really be done well and I think someone called them out on this). Early on many other devs using unity kind of scoffed or talked down to me a bit because of the image - that's fine if you're hoping to attract amateurs and hobbyists but you're obviously hoping to expand out from that. Someone on another thread suggested also changing the name from Construct 3 to something more descriptive eg Construct Cloud (I think was the example someone used). That seemed like a very good suggestion as it keeps your branding, but if you're hoping to attract a new crowd there isn't that psychological barrier of them having not used previous versions of the software and for current users it also clearly marks it as a very different product from Construct 2.

    Subscriptions to get updates, new plugins and features on a regular basis is worth paying for BUT holding your projects hostage so they can not be edited if you don't pay a subscription ransom is unethical in my opinion.

    Agree 100%, it is most certainly an ethical issue.

    I think innovative is subjective. For the devs, it's a technical achievement to have built all this for the web. It is innovative in that sense, but for the end user whether or not it's built for the web is probably of little consequence. I actually think the fact that I can edit stuff on my mobile or tablet is very very cool - but most people won't care about that at all - and if I'm honest with myself, it's pretty impractical to do and probably almost useless for getting any real work done. Maybe in 5 years we'll see a lot of this stuff, but at the moment any advantages it may have don't seem to be obvious. One of the main things I see people saying is 'yeah that's cool, but we didn't actually ask for that feature' so it could just be a case of 'we don't want this because we're not ready for it'. I think perhaps it turned into too much of a passion project for the devs and they neglected to notice it wasn't actually what people wanted. That said though, I think if people are paying a subscription fee - they expect more than just access to a service, they expect the software to be dynamic and cutting edge - and really there's only so far you can go with 2d game dev.

  • It's only inevitable if people let it happen. There is certainly a worrying trend with larger corporations trying to push this as they can milk customers far more than with one off payments. Companies like Adobe and Autodesk were in a strong position to strongarm this as they are the industry leaders in their respective software fields with huge established customer bases that are completely reliant on their services. I was surprised when Scirra pulled this idea out as they are in no way the same position as those two business giants. If you look at other software industries - eg the pro audio scene, hardly anyone is using subscription services (and those that have tried - such as Roland with their cloud service have been heavily ridiculed and criticised) as they simply cannot justify the ongoing prices with their updates. I sincerely doubt that a 2d engine would be able to innovate fast enough to justify this either and everyone knows it. There's only so far you can go and it won't take long to hit the ceiling because we're almost there. In short though, people who are against systems like this should vote with their wallets. If we end up in a world full of subscriptions for everything it's because we've let it happen. There are good alternatives out there for Adobe and Autodesk products, and the same goes for game making software. Subs work fine for companies, but for individuals they are terrible. We're looking at a future of every service being a subscription, slowly draining our bank accounts from every direction, once it happens we'll be trapped. Don't let it happen.

    signaljacker I think you misunderstood me.

    I'm using Photoshop instead of Gimp because that's what I'm comfortable with, and it has all the features I need to work efficiently.

    I'm using Maya instead of Blender because I know all the ins and outs of that software, and been using it for 15+ years.

    I'm using afterEffects for Motion Graphics etc, because I'm comfortable with the software.

    I'm using C2 for my hobby game making mostly because of the Event Sheet on my free time, because I can't stand to learning coding.

    For me payment model is secondary, as long as I'm comfortable with the software. Apart from my employment, Graphic design is also my hobby on my spare time, but I still put up with a personal CC subscription, because I just can't force myself to use gimp at home, when I use photoshop at work.

    Fair enough, I can relate to all of that. But it's not the payment model that bothers me, it's the artificial limitation of locking us out of our projects. The $99 a year is cheap enough, I don't have a problem paying it. But I think it's unnecessary to lock us out of our own work, it's a depressing trend and its absolutely awful for the preservation of digital media and it has really disappointed me that a company I thought was forward thinking is actually incredibly myopic to the needs/wants of its core audience. It may not bother you that your subscription model won't allow you to open your files after it ends and that's fair enough, but I think that in general people are really put off by it and I certainly am. If they'd fix that, then sign me up.

    >

    > >

    > > For something I use almost daily. If someone offered me 2 option. 1st option is a hammer for one time payment, but it takes 30 seconds get one nail in. The other option is a rental nailgun that allows me to get to punch out 10 nails per minute in, I'll definitely choose the nailgun.

    > >

    > >

    >

    > Good luck keeping your walls up when the nails magically vanish when you give the nailgun back!

    >

    C'mon The walls and nails are still there. It's if i need to put more nails in the same pace I just rent again.

    Professionally as a Graphic Designer / Animator / Video Editor, I'm using a lot of heavy duty software From Adobe and Autodesk like

    Photoshop, Illustrator, AfterEffects, Premiere, Maya, etc etc. If I stop paying my projects don't magically disappear, I still have all the source files. Even if I unsub, If i ever need to change or edit something I just make sure my licence is active again. What's the biggie?

    Well, for me it's more of a personal thing than a professional one. I'm in the same line of work as you, so as an artist and multimedia creator I'm sure you understand the divide between your professional work and your personal work. I would be willing to relinquish control of my professional work, but never my personal work - if that makes sense. I do game dev as a hobby, if I make money off it great, but it's not first and foremost my goal. I also don't think that these particular subscription systems are really good for us in the long run and that we should be fighting for something better rather than just 'taking it'. Often in my line of work I come across many print shops for instance who are still holding on to old software and won't update to creative cloud. It's pretty standard to export legacy files because of this. I also know of at least one big multinational corporation who I won't name who is still using Adobe CS6 products - there are probably many, I know of many graphic designers who are stubbornly holding on to software they spend several thousand dollars on several years ago. There are certainly both pros and cons of a subscription system. I'm not entirely against them, but I would ideally like something where both users and developers can be happy, and I think we both need to make compromises for that to happen.

    For something I use almost daily. If someone offered me 2 option. 1st option is a hammer for one time payment, but it takes 30 seconds get one nail in. The other option is a rental nailgun that allows me to get to punch out 10 nails per minute in, I'll definitely choose the nailgun.

    Good luck keeping your walls up when the nails magically vanish when you give the nailgun back!

    Best of luck. I think many of your posts criticising the flaws in the subscription model were very valid. If such things aren't properly addressed many others will be joining you in a Construct free world. I don't want that, so please start listening to us Scirra.

  • Personally, I'm hoping for lock-out of cloud services (to spare Scirra from additional server load from non-paying users) and updates (users will need to update to keep up with the evolving C3 and HTML5, and also for getting bug fixes) till the users renew their subscription, but letting them edit and in some form, export their projects. But that's just my opinion.

    I think this would be the most ideal solution (for users anyway), if C3 is built in such a way to accommodate this. If development is as frequent is as hoped most users will stay subscribed anyway, but it's important for us to have that safety net of being able to still open our files if not subscribed, even just for personal reasons. Some of the other proposals such as small fees for quick fixes etc are not appealing and miss the point.

  • Another approach is to award loyalty: For example, Unity subscribers have the option to own a perpetual license of Unity after two years. This also mitigates the problem of not being able to open your files later.

    I call this a "real" subscription - after all, a subscription gives the subscriber something in return to own (even though it might be in the long run).

    Adobe's and Scirra's rental models, however, leave you standing with nothing once you stop paying the rent. A marked difference between how Unity treats their customers, and how Scirra would treat theirs.

    Aside from the fact that Unity also offers a completely free, fully functional version (well, aside from the dark GUI, I believe ).

    I like the loyalty idea. Hell I'd happily sign up for 5 years if it meant that after those 5 years I was guaranteed a perpetual license for the software at the state it was in when my rental ended. My gripe with the subscription isn't the price, I think it's pretty reasonable, even cheap. But I have huge issues with the lockout. It seems unnecessary - if there was a technical reason eg it was tied up in online infrastructure it would be a different story, but from what I can gather it seems to just be a business decision. One that is really bad for users. With a couple of tweaks here and there Scirra could probably make the subscription model work and save a chunk of their clientele and I think what will tip the scales will be whether or not we're locked out of our own projects. There are many companies out there who do subs, or paid updates with some tact and respect for their users.

  • The problem is that no matter how amazing Construct 3 will be, it isn't worth it if you're going to lock us out of our own projects if we stop subscribing.

    Think of it in different terms. An artist buys paints and a canvas and paints a beautiful picture. Because they've paid for the materials they can do whatever they want with the painting, it's theirs. They can hang it on the mantlepiece or sell it, or give it to a friend etc. I see this as kind of how Construct 2 license worked, you pay for something and then you create something with it and then it's up to you what you do with that creation.

    With the new system (the way I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong) it's more like. Scirra goes to the artist - hey I'll rent you a canvas and some paints, and you can paint a beautiful picture - and as long as you keep paying me every year you can do what you want with that. But if you ever stop, we'll take away the paints and the canvas, and we'll lock your painting in a room and you can't get it out again until you start paying us again.

    This is very unfair for the users. I realise you have to be firm when you have a vision. And you have to take risks. But you absolutely don't have to remove our rights as CREATORS. It's either a huge oversight or a real dick move. No one is ever going to like the rental scheme, but it could be tailored to be acceptable by protecting users creative rights a little, a little compromise isn't a weakness it's pretty much a necessity if you're going to be successful with this.

  • Probably a combination of things - one being that after the reveal of it all being web only a few of the other reveals were taken as obvious, so didn't come as any surprise. Also the stigma of a subscription would be enough to put most people off. No one wants to be judged by their facebook friends for being one of the small cogs in the system responsible for the ongoing trend of software rental schemes It's like telling people you're into pyramid marketing.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post