Open a browser? Every desktop in the world has a browser running in the taskbar 24/7!

I think that meme was an attempt at wit but failed. Seriously, Moot has a point about the slogan, but in the end I don't think a slogan on the website will sell it. It'll be the features, support and capabilities of both the engine and the devs that sell it.

A lot of software companies drip-feed their features up until the beta release or actual release. It's nothing new. The biggest problem I believe for some people was the pricing first, features later thing. But it seems to be rounding itself out pretty okay here lately I think, for some, definitely not for others, anyway.

I'm being patient.

Like a saint! Teach me, Buddha

They can't talk about security as that could lead to ways to circumvent said security.

Suffice to say it would behoove them not do anything that would get them in legal trouble.

We need a thumbs up button.

End of discussion with you.

Not quite yet.

No you are trying to attack me personally for asking questions to Tom about security while running interference. That is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

I never attacked you. You asked if you could do something; I asked if that's why you were worried about security.

Now we're done!

Tom is here and does not need you to answer or run interference for him Bleenx.

I'm not answering for him. I'm asking you questions.

For example: If I have a license C3 version and my buddy has a free version and I use my version to upload his capx and export it to a different platform is Scirra going to know of that and will they lock my engine?

Dig yourself that hole. This is making you come across as if it's something you plan to do, not something hypothetical. Is this why you're worried about security?

For example: If I have a license C3 version and my buddy has a free version and I use my version to upload his capx and export it to a different platform is Scirra going to know of that and will they lock my engine?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

....

You've asked about security several times already and Tom has to repeat himself. What is it you're so worried about that hasn't been addressed? No one is looking through your capx files. No one is stealing your "code" on the cloud. And no you can't make a side business helping to export people's files.

You don't like the sub. You're not going to sub. But you're just rehashing the same security stuff because you're looking out for the interests of others who might buy it, who are more than capable of reading the T&C regarding security? Come on.

On topic of this thread: The point of C3 is an upgrade to C2. Different look, some new features, different support. It's not a demand to upgrade. Many of us kept using Unity 4.6 long after Unity 5. You don't have to upgrade, but if you do, you do it because you want the features that C3 has which may not be in C2.

I just said a lot of stuff.

Can't tell if you're being sneaky or overly paranoid.

On a sidenote: I think only 0.1% of C2 users are unhappy and extremely vocal.

The minority is always the loudest in everything. That's how it goes. But the minority also helps shape things, so it's not always bad to have discontent. Malcontent, however, is another thing when linking to other engine forums.

I wonder if a lack of innovation is the real driving force behind Scirra switching to a subscription model? There was a short discussion about this in another thread. Most of what's change from C2 to C3 are bells and whistles. Maybe they don't really have a better choice to earn money, because the web isn't changing all that quickly and maybe they already built the best product possible?

Can you explain "lack of innovation?" I didn't see the discussion you're referring to in another thread, so I don't know what was said. I'm sure Tom and Ashley would tell you developing a game engine that runs in the web is innovative. And, my only argument here, would be that until C3 is out and has been around for at least a year, we won't really understand or know what it's truly capable of doing. It's just a big ol' poop-fest of opinions until then.

I doubt they changed to a subscription model because they couldn't come up with something "innovative" for their users. I could only imagine the conversation:

Ashley: "Look, the web isn't changing fast enough. I can't really think of anything innovative for the next version, so let's just put it in a browser, update the look and charge by the month/year for it. What do you think?

Tom: "Why not? There's no other way we can possibly earn money."

Nah. I can't buy that. They would have made the same revenue for C3 that they did for C2 had they shown us the updates and then charged the one-time fee. I think, and this is only my guess, is that they have more innovative plans for the web-based engine and want to charge a recurring fee for continual development, better support, updates and tools for the future. They grow financially, and the users get a better product in the end.

It's not out of the realm of possibility.

>

> I would look very angry at Camp Edit for this... >:(

>

>

Aren't we supposed to voice opinions?

Sure, if you enjoy rehashing those same opinions over and over again knowing full well that Scirra's plans are concrete and unchanging.