Thanks for that, Ashley, I appreciate the response and respect the reasoning; I agree, it can even be frustrating for the OP if their own topic gets derailed with other people's separate issues. I'm glad you see the benefit of allowing people to continue discussion of the forum too (unless of course it got chaotic and out of hand).

Hey, I'm currently using C2, I was subbed to C3 but I was disappointed by the way things were handled at points, but I'm trying to convince myself to move back to C3 but after lurking the forum I keep seeing things that just scream unprofessional.

Why was the below thread locked?

construct.net/en/forum/construct-3/general-discussion-7/ios-export-stuck-loading-154229

It is really annoying that we are forced to register to github to begin with (I reluctantly did this to post bugs when I was subbed to C3 and then my bugs were not bugs in the end, so should I have posted in the forum? Should I have not?), but now I see a thread where people are discussing a possible bug, sharing solutions and people thanking each other, then it gets locked? What if there's a further solution to share, would someone making a new topic get banned for dodging a locked thread? L

This sort of thing pushes me away from wanting to spend monthly money on C3 because of unexpected outcomes when trying to communicate on the forums or towards Scirra.

I can reproduce the crash following PabloDev's instructions.

I appreciate everyone trying to figure this out, I read these posts recently and I currently have a habit to save/close C2 after I have opened the animation editor, just in case it sets off a later crash.

Ayy I'm glad this feature will be added and will benefit many people, but I do find it suprising that this thread was the way to informally announce the feature.

To me, it seems that if nobody had randomly decided to post asking about Scene Graphs, then this whole "Provide Scirra with early details so we can tailor it to our customers better" approach may not have been started.

OP did indeed post this after 3 years of creating the suggestion, but if OP never decided to post this thread, then would Scirra have made their own interpretation of Scene Graphs and then release a beta and people may have had completely different ideas?

The other notable thing is, this is not like, blog news? It's cool to hear about the future of Construct 3! A roadmap is always welcomed.

However, I'm a bit unsure about what Ashley has said, with the whole "people should put more detailed description in their suggestion." It is known that the suggestions website is a lot of administrative work for Scirra to go through, on top of everything else that they do. I'd imagine that if Scirra does not have an interest in their first impressions of a detailed suggestion, then all of rest of that suggestion you spend much time thinking and writing out, may be wasted. To even have your suggestion be acknowledged typically relies on the popularity of your suggestion.

I did post some suggestions back when I was subbed to C3, they're likely buried amongst all the other suggestions, but this thread made me wonder what would have happened if I posted on the forum about one of my own suggestions, would it gather more attention? If so, why aren't more people doing this?

I did keep in mind what Ashley said in mind, I responded to that.

I've checked game dev comparison websites and such, and I can't find a comparable product to C3, one that ticks the three boxes that caused my concern when combined:

• Is subscription based only
• Is Web based only
• Creates a file format that is designed to run in one application (yes its a zip file technically, no you cannot easily view or edit it by extracting it if C3 was closed, minus assets)

If I could find some products comparable to the above, I would have checked their t&c's before being more worried in my replies.

The closest comparable products to C3 to me are C2, CC, Gdevelop, GameMaker, clickteam fusion. But these don't tick the above 3 tick boxes I listed.

I don't know why I'm battling how to spend my time and money, it's crazy, I've never had such an experience like this, I really thought you guys would empathise with the concept at least, even if you had to state a firm "No" to my request.

Tom But I'm not only talking about a "Closed Scirra", it could be any hypothetical, perhaps the "New lead CEO that shuts C3 down" one is more understandable? I don't know... I've never really dealt with this sort of debate before, I just want a game dev tool and to go back to making stuff.

I really don't want the possible risk of losing access to my c3p files as I've mentioned, unlike C2 which does not have this risk. It matters far too much to me, maybe not to many others I guess.

I have unsubscribed, sorry guys. I appreciate the time and replies.

Ashley

I'm not really sure about other companies terms and conditions either, I only ever compared Construct 3 to Construct 2, and Construct Classic, and I mentioned Klick and Play once. And if I was about to go read a bunch of other products Terms and Conditions (I really just want to make games and apps, not read this stuff, jeez), then I'd be stuck because I don't know any other Game Development software that is both browser-based only, and subscription based (there's the one free competitor but, that's free and has an offline installer).

Construct 3 is the first software subscription I've ever paid for, perhaps maybe that's why I'm panicing now about the future, and perhaps that's why I'm coming off as uneducated and frustrated. If it's the case that all "browser based subscription software" do not have these terms and no company wants to add them, then I think this is a very valuable lesson for me and I will have to be much more careful with subscriptions and then... I don't know, pay money based on pure trust that Scirra will sunset C3 gracefully.

I want to emphasise again, the money that I will have paid:

Construct 2 is 8 years old, and people still use it and can open all their project files indefinitely, for £70, and edit them if they have their licence key file.

Construct 3 for 8 years, minimum, £679.92.

You cannot brush this off for a hopeful third party to be able to rewrite the Construct 3 editor/runtime.

Am I missing something here? Because I'm feeling very alone in my opinion. I'm happy to pay Scirra £679 over 8 years, as long as there was a legally binding item in the terms and conditions as I've mentioned in this thread.

Without a legally binding item in terms and conditions, what if "the next Scirra CEO" decides "eh, nah, close C3 down", then ALL of us customers have no way to continue with their projects, and we have no legal grounds to do anything about this.

In a lighter tone, perhaps Scirra could take the stance in an industry first, and provide what I'm suggesting which will give customers a sense of security and will make committing long-term to C3 much more appealing. Or not. It's up to you guys, it just striked me that this would be something Scirra would stand up for, I don't know why I had this idea.

AllanR

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with many programming environments that are browser-based and subscription-based to research this, I did assume that this concept of browser-based subscriptions was a new thing as most people weren't on board a few years ago with C3 being browser-based to begin with.

Exported projects are our only hope for preservation of our work (IF something happened to C3), and within the c3p file, if the code is that readable and it's that simple to not require C3, then wouldn't Scirra be concerned about a third-party runtime appearing right now?

We can recover assets from a c3p file, sure, but if you backed up your files, then, you probably backed up your assets and original files if organised and backed up correctly (although it is nice to be able to recover if ALL you had was your c3p file).

If there was a legally binding requirement that Scirra must provide a solution to open c3p files in the end, then this would NOT be able to be negated by a new Scirra leader, or any, ANY, hypothetical situation. Hypothetical does not mean impossible, sure it could mean unlikely.

Some very rare case exceptions where I think everyone would agree that it's very different would be if scirra's staff caught covid or a fire happened at Scirra, that would be very tragic and I don't have answers about that.

But general business situations, this is not acceptable and I'm surprised you do not seem to agree with this.

Ashley

... So basically we have no guarantee, and that's that? ALL c3 users have the risk of never having access to their c3p files, IF a situation happened.

Do you have a backup solution in place in event of file loss for C3's builds? I ask because that's also not exactly stated anywhere as far as I can see. This information needs to be told (not locations or what software you use to make backups, just reassurance for gods sake).

Your replies here don't even attempt to convince me that my project files that I may spend £100's if not £1000's on may not be openable IF a situation happened in future. There really should be a clear stance on this, especially legally.

People are still using C2 now; for the record I have spent a few hours of convo trying to convince this person to move over to C3 as they're still not sold on C3, if anything they've enlightened me to something I strongly feel about but embarrassingly missed, I was sold mostly on how great the editor looks and the C3 runtime, as well as a monthly sub option.

Some projects I spent so many years on in C2 cannot be opened in c3 due to addons, (I'm trying to avoid using addons in my C3 projects due to this, but had been forced to for one thing) so I do no have faith that c3p files will be 100% compatible with the concept of a "future product" IF that happened.

I'm sorry Ashley but the c2 comment you made is simply not correct, virtual machines exist, old hardware exists, and these methods are possible due to installer files and licence key files. C3 does not have these options, which as of now I respect as this is probably a great anti-piracy measure to not have local licence key files, and other reasons. But having no legal obligation that Scirra should release a way to open c3p files IF a situation happened, then I cannot defend c3 in this case.

Ive already started 3 projects and was really committed to C3 but this question and your answers are really making me lose confidence.

By the way, if by the end of this discussion Scirra did decide "no we are not going to legally guarantee that you can access your c3p files in the event that c3 is inaccessible" then I would be EXTREMELY ticked off if I paid for a year as I know this cannot be refunded, sure it would have been my fault for not spotting the lack of statement before subscribing, but I thought Scirra was better than that.

Ashley Many thanks for the response, but I think I wasn't clear with my questions.

I mentioned C4 as a small joke, not as an expectation or the discussion, but my original question is very important to me. My main concern is, and lets be realistic here as we all don't know what the future holds:

Lets fast forward a random amount of years, e.g. 5 years. Lets say for whatever reason:

Scirra makes a new product and ends C3 and the new product doesn't load some aspect of c3p files therefore rendering c3p files unusable. Or maybe Scirra doesn't receive payments and must shut down, there's many possibilites, positive or negative (I wish for great things for Scirra, of course!) whatever the reason, the main point is that C3 becomes inaccessible and the verification servers are inactive. Let me stress, I'm not suggesting there's going to be a new product, and I'm not thinking Scirra is going downhill, but please follow the hypothetical situation.

So my concern is, that I cannot find in the terms and conditions that there is a legal requirement that Scirra will provide a solution to opening c3p files if Scirra must retire C3 for whatever reason.

Whereas right now, we can open Construct Classic CAP files indefinitely, and Construct 2 CAPX files indefinitely, as long as we have the installer (and licence key file for Construct 2).

So, 5 years pass, C3 is down and the verification servers are offline. Now: the person I was talking to that uses Construct 2, they would had continued to use a very dated C2 which can be potentially maintained by custom builds and downloading NodeWebkit updates. C2 will always generate the HTML5 code in the end, plugins can still be made indefinitely to expand C2.

This means they would have spent about £70 one-time, and they will confidently know that they can open their .capx files indefinitely, even in 30 years time if they kept their capx files. All the source code is previewable/buildable so long as they keep an installer of C2 and the licence key file.

Compare that to me, who would have have either paid monthly (£839 for 5 years) or yearly (£424 for 5 years). And without the legal requirement that Scirra will provide a way to open c3p files, then Scirra "could" simply close the Construct 3 website down, close the verification servers, and there would be no way to locally open, build, or edit our source code (our c3p files).

I'm sure a third-party individual would try and find a way to preserve the offline version of C3, but would we seriously be expected to rely on this after spending the above money over the years (and that's only 5 years, imagine more), simply to have a risk of having all those years of work just locked away?

I still have my KickNPlay (released in 1994) games from when I was young, and personally these are very sentimental, so long as I keep backups of the installer and game, I can still find a way to view them if I wish even after 25+ years. But with C3, I'd be extremely ticked off if I lost even 5 years of real game development work (which may need to be maintained, updating old games, etc.) simply because there was no legally binding reason for Scirra to release a solution to open c3p files.

I am not complaining about the subscription model, I must clarify, the cost is absolutely fine, and I'm not asking for an offline way to read/edit c3p files whilst C3's verification servers are active (although an downloadable Offline "Construct 3 Player" with event sheet view stripped out and only preview mode available would be great for archival/preservation reasons).