> Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it.

>

That's absolutely ridiculous.

If it was only a dollar a year, you would probably pay less than $80 on the software over your lifetime and wouldn't that be as good as owning it? That would be an insanely better deal than just buying it out right for $500 or whatever price you mentioned before. I think you're so fixated on this one aspect that it's clouding your judgment.

$100 a year really isn't that expensive either. It only amounts to $8.25 a month to subscribe. That's absurdly cheap as far as subscriptions go. I pay close to 3 times that for HBO.

everyone

So how does the full version of C3 compare to C2? Is it the same or better? Should I wait to subscribe?

I feel you may have missed my point, price is not the issue so I'm not sure why you're discussing it in relation to my argument. I just used that example to illustrate that even at a ridiculous price of $1 I would still be wary of using C3 long term due to the lockout. I would happily pay $200 a year sub if the model was better but would fight to change it even if it was as low as a dollar in its current state. The issue is perpetual access to one's own work, not price.

> Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work.

>

Generally speaking, if you're putting in "hundreds" or "thousands" of hours of work into creating something, you'd probably know already what you're getting into initially and chances are you're probably gonna keep on subscribing. I'm pretty sure Scirra isn't gonna stop anyone from doing that.

Sure, ultimately the user knows what they're getting themselves into. My point is it's an artificial limitation that's being imposed that is bad for users. It's within their power to change that but they don't want to.

Even if C3's subscription was $1 a year I would still fight hard to change it. Price has nothing to do with it, the chosen model is the problem. Stopping people who have put in hundreds or maybe thousands of hours work into creating something from accessing that thing, is in my opinion a blatant disregard for their work. Now the fact that you can open up and poke around your project if your subscription has lapsed/Scirra has collapsed is probably enough for me to subscribe - however, probably not for most people - and I still think that the system itself is unfair and people should be fighting to change it. I can't fathom the apathy that some people seem to have to this, they just roll over and take it and the more people who do that the worse it's going to get.

I don't know if it's up for debate but I'd be interested in knowing how long it will take to work out if the rental model is profitable? Don't most companies that switch to rental models lose money at least for a few years until things pick up? If C3 isn't mature/appealing enough for people to take the plunge, and new users also stop buying C2 because it's no longer considered supported, and most of your C3 users are those who transitioned over from C2 and therefore have a 50% discount, isn't it going to be a while before you 1. get any proper money coming through 2. get an accurate forecast of what you're actually going to be earning? I fear that if things go pear shaped, by the time things can be turned around people will have already abandoned C3 and moved on.

I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

> We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

>

This severely complicates support. If someone on a 6 month old version complains about a bug - what do we do? Or, Chrome introduce a breaking change. We have to go back and update every single version. This quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. We prefer to just have everyone on the latest and greatest version.

That makes a lot of sense, but could I suggest something to possibly think about:

What if all bug reports are done through C3 itself, forget the forums, e-mails etc and when the user tries to submit a report on a version that is not up to date they are informed that they are using an old version and need to upgrade to be eligible for support. Only the most current version of the software will send the bug report. C3 will just do a quick check to see if it's up to date. You could put it in your TOS etc. That way you will only ever be maintaining the current version of the software, but lapsed users who aren't experiencing bugs will be able to continue to work on their projects if they need to. I think if you had a system like this, and introduced one killer feature a year people would be pretty happy and just stay subscribed anyway. It seems like win win to both Scirra and customers. Am I missing something?

Regarding retention. I think some of the things Tom listed are good. Despite having been playing around with Construct for years I really enjoyed poking around the example games in C3 so more 'full' games in different genres is a good idea. I also think that more detailed, cohesive and professional tutorials are a must. The community tutorials are great, don't get me wrong and I want to see them continue and flourish. But many of them show very esoteric or downright inefficient ways of doing things and sometimes reading them it's like the blind leading the blind. Good quality tutorials from the devs on efficient and proper ways to do things I think will help Construct's image and bolster the overall quality of the community's output, which will in turn attract new users and retain current ones.

However I don't think these points will be enough to improve user retention and the reason is that hobbyist game devs are pretty transient. We hop between different software, trying new things, experimenting etc. All of those guys that impulse bought C2 aren't going to impulse subscribe to C3, because psychologically buying something and renting something are two different things. I've done a few team based game jams and really it depends on the team, but every time we've used different game making software. None of them have been subscription based, I don't think it would work unless everyone was already subscribed as subscriptions don't really fit into that flexible, spontaneous mentality. The monthly subscription thing might help with this, but it might harm you as well. It's quite a difficult situation.

For those still sceptical about subscription model, I'm going to try explaining why I think they chose that way.

Why pay once is not a good idea for scirra.

Let's say 1 user buys a licence for 100€ ... Scirra earn some cash... 100€

Now let's go to the cost for running their business:

Scirra has some costs to keep their business running. We all know that right? Server costs, staff costs, tax, licenses, phone and internet bills, office rent, printer paper, etc etc. Let's say scirra has a running cost of 1000€ / week (just as an example) If they are using a pay once model, they have to make sure they sell AT LEAST 10 new licences per week just to cover all the costs.

They have to earn 1000€ per week, to be able to pay their bills for 1000€ per week. But if they sell 10 licences per weeks, that means they get more active users, so most of their costs would increase as well.... After a year, maybe the weekly costs will be 1500 per week, they are forced to sell 15 licences per week to keep up with the costs.

So after a while.... Maybe you payed, 100€ for a licence, but every month you will cost them a little. You are using their software, You are using their forums, maybe you need support, you expect updates, bug fixes etc. Let's say every customer cost scirra 1€ per week just to keep them happy. After 100 weeks (about 2 years). You will still cost them money 1€/week, to keep you as a satisfied customer. You're still using the forums, and you're still using the software, and their support and getting updates. The only way to make sure you are not costing them money from that point is to release a new product, that hopefully you will buy. But now they have 2 products they need to maintain... the old product AND the new product. Double work to keep both groups happy.... that both expect updates, support, access to forums, etc etc.

Instead of releasing a new product every other year or so, hoping old and new users will buy it, they created C3 with a subscription model, so that they can make sure they get a steady income without having to start planning for C4 already, and taking care of all old customers, that are still costing them money. If they made C3 a pay once model, they are back to step one, they have to make sure they sell enough C3 licences every week, to cover all the costs, they have to update, and release new features to keep existing customers happy.

Locked out?

So why are you locked out when you are paying a subscription? Because..... if you subscribe for one year, but still can use, the software, the forums, get support, etc you are still costing them money...They NEED your income on a regular basis to keep scirra going as a business and continue to update their product, with new features and bug fixes.

They are not punishing anyone, getting greedy, or locking people out, they are trying to find a way to make sure you will continue to support their continued development. If they gave people full access to editing after the subscription ran out, you're still costing them money, as long as you don't subscribe again. It would be the same as selling a pay once licence. I totally understand why they moved over to a subscription model, but sadly many people here still don't...

I understand why they get frustrated, when people don't understand their decision to move to a subscription model. Many customers don't see that scirra NEED their support on a regular basis to continue to provide a good product, without having to worry about get X amount of new users every week just to keep scirra alive as a business...

Principles aside

If you like C2/C3, please put your "principles" aside, and try to understand WHY they moved to a subscription model. They are doing a great job, they are active to answer to your concerns, and it's not an overpriced product, for what you get. Asking you to pay once a year for a product that you love to use, is not too much to ask... hobbyist or professional. It's still worth the money... I would also hope for a monthly option, because I can also be inactive and during extended periods of time, but they probably have a reason for not offering that at the moment, but maybe it will come.

Keep up the good work, Scirra team..., and people still sceptic towards "renting model" read through my post again, and maybe you will understand. It's purely a business decision to stay afloat, and to be able to provide updates, bugfixes, features, support for years to come for existing customers, without the worry to get more sales and getting new customers to stay afloat.

Everyone understands why they're doing it. People are fighting to make it better. There is an opportunity for Scirra to get exactly what they need from us and us to get exactly what we need from them if a proper dialogue can be established but there is a barrier and it's a refusal to change. C3's wonky launch reminds me of that time Valve tried to introduce paid mods on Steam. There was a huge backlash and in no time at all they had (quite sensibly) completely reversed that decision. Scirra's rental model, compared to many other software subscription models is shortsighted, with little attention payed to the needs or wants of its users as demonstrated by the lock out. If they want respect and loyalty they need to be less dismissive of concerns such as people being locked out of their own hard work, which is quite frankly insulting.

Now I realise that the wheels are already in motion, and Ashley has said they want to try to go ahead with their current plans. That's fair enough and it's his right to do that. They probably can't change course at this stage even if they wanted to. I will probably subscribe to C3, but I will remain highly critical of its rental model if changes aren't brought about for better users rights. As many have pointed out, others are already copying the event system - your competition is all over this. You guys really need to up your game so hear me loud and clear - your proposed rental system sucks but you can still fix it. And by fix it I don't mean go back to one off payments. I'm happy to subscribe, just work out a solution for the lock out - no one wants to live in a future like that.

>

> > 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'm not sure on compatibility between C2 and C3 plugins, but it is certainly something that worries me. I'm very glad that people can write plugins for Construct, but I actually feel that Construct itself is lacking some very important features that plugin developers have picked up the slack for. I've always found it odd that there is no native tweening, or even audio fade in/out for instance. And for software that touts itself as being easy to use this seems like such a glaring oversight. And I know you can do all that stuff if you jump through some hoops, but honestly plugins save a lot of time and those kind of things should be in the base program.

My worry about the proposed rental system is that the timing is so weird for it. I don't really need to jump to new software yet because C2 is still fulfilling my needs and probably will for a while yet. But because C3 is coming, C2 sales will probably drop off a cliff as people perceive it to be dead or dying (even if that isn't the case as Scirra has said they will maintain it for the foreseeable future). So if C2 sales dry up completely as psychologically people perceive it to be dead, but no one jumps to C3 because they don't need to yet, that's going to be quite a long period with little sales to Scirra.

When I bought C2 I didn't really need it, for one it wasn't mature enough compared to Classic (and at the moment I feel the same about C3 to C2). I bought it as a kind of future investment, to learn slowly and transition over to and it worked well. If C3 had been a one off payment (no matter how much, name your price) I would have done the same. But if I were to subscribe any time soon I would probably still spend most time in C2 and would pretty much be wasting money on the C3 sub at least for a couple of years... I work slowly and on fairly big projects and I don't like paying for something I'm not constantly using or won't have access to use in the future.

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.

I think it's pretty obvious if you ask a question which amounts to "do you want to pay more or less?" people are going to click the "less" option. Or if you ask "what other payment models should Scirra use?" the answer will be "the one I hardly have to pay anything at all". The business has to also at least survive, and ideally be able to keep improving the product.

I don't think the poll really shows that, there is no price on the one time payment so who says it's cheaper? It just demonstrates that people don't want to rent software. If you charged $500 for C3 and I could buy it outright, I wouldn't even hesitate. Bang, it would be bought. You've already proven yourselves to be excellent developers with C2 and I want to continue using that kind of workflow. And you'd have 5 years of 'subscription' money from me straight away, you wouldn't even need to wait for it. With a rental system, I am hesitating a lot. Very ambivalent. Most of your critics of the rental system don't want your company to fail, we want it to keep improving and want to keep being a part of it and in a lot of cases money hasn't really got anything to do with it, it's the direction it's going that is the problem. But that's just me, someone else in the community might be horrified at paying $500 up front for a piece of software, or might not be able to afford it etc. It will be impossible to keep everyone happy.

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.

You're right, if you get a magazine subscription for a year, at the end of that year the magazines stop coming but you don't have to give back the ones you've already bought.

I think the Bitwig model is fair. They did get slammed for it from a chunk of their userbase as well, but it is a necessary evil. I think this model is fairer to both users and developers, Scirra's is not.