When users with promising projects begin to dislike the direction of the engine, I think it should be taken into account.

In my years of experience in game companies changes were made to make the community happy, after all, companies wouldn't survive without a user base.

In this case, I was quite optimistic using C2 and quite happy with Scirra work, but their lack of response to my comments made me believe that they simply dont care about their user base.

During GDC Unity announced Unity 2017 and promised features for Artists and Designers which leads me to go into that direction if changes arent made sadly. It represents a lot of work in the current state but business are business.

I switched to Unity this summer, it was about 2 months of solid work getting my project ported and that didn't count the time learning unity. It was a huge investment and difficult choice. I wanted to release as a c2 title, but I didn't feel scirra was sincere in terms of addressing a portion of the communities issues. That is fine, but I feel they pitch and advertise c2 as being a fully capable game maker when it simply isn't. It can make good games, of a certain scope... beyond that, things get complicated super quickly. While I like c2 workflow and found it to be better than unity (for a basic 2d game), I just couldn't make my game in c2. I also, obviously like the c2 community, which is why I am still here on the forums from time to time...

I just want Scirra to take their game maker as a serious game maker. By pandering to the simple they will have nothing but mostly hobbiests... and you cant use the rental model with hobbiests. I would have bought it, even though I rarely use it these days, but I WILL not rent under those conditions.

I got the impression C3 came into being because C2's editor was too tangled up with an outdated codebase or somesuch. So, to get rid of that limitation they had to rewrite the whole thing. I was perfectly happy to pay full price again for an editor overhaul, but now that it turns out to be subscription-based (wha??) I'll be needing some hefty incentives to switch from C2.

The Construct community simply isn't the right market for this kind of payment model. Businesses will just roll with it, but hobbyists won't. Unity ltd recognizes this with their pay-to-own variant. Keeps hobbyists satisfied knowing they can "own" the software if they wish while businesses will keep on subscribing for updates and support regardless.

I think this, in a nut shell, is spot on. I agree 100%

Please tread carefully, folks.

Some posts are skimming the 'no personal attacks' rule a little too closely.

Cheers

For the purpose of academics, which posts are you referring to?

newt

watch this (Financial Summary)

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/scirra

Believe me they are not poor, they have been doing very well selling software

There was no reason to switch to subscriptions model

Just to win more money

But wanting to win more money can lose everything

Well, half a million pounds isn't necessarily that much working capital for a software company... I don't know what there income/ expedentures was, but a million can fly out the window if you have to contract others, etc...

But given their small size of team, the asset store, the new asset store for c3, I shouldn't think they need to go rental model. If they said they are going rental for financial security, then I would say there needs to be an argument of semantics.

>

> > Well there you go folks.

> > Another reason they don't share is that the members get to call them greedy, but people get all triggered if they respond as negatively.

> > The positive side to that is that those members will go away.

> > Of course those that can't deal with it will stick around to try to disrupt things.

> > Or is that already happening?

> >

>

> You do realise you are in the minority of actually being pro-subscription, don't you? I'm not sure what kind of brownie points you're trying to score here?

>

I'm not pro anything.

Just anti-hypocrisy.

I do think being vocal about about ones displeasure before leaving should be of value though. Scirra is making a product. It is a product I thought I may want but I don't think so- Given the huge amount of negative feedback, I would hope scrirra would respond in a way that addresses those complaints... if they value those customers - otherwise they are playing poker, assuming we will buy it either way. Other companies (like photoshop) did this too, but they had all of the cards - Scirra doesn't have all of the cards, thats part of the reason I think everyone is so negative about it.... imo idk

Maybe the subscriptions system is due to the fear they have because the tools are getting better and already has little room for improvement ...

I kind of agree - but in a different way, I don't feel like a team the size of scirra, can actually bring the rent price worth of features every year...

In my mind, the problem is that a subscription is stupidly expensive. C3 may be worth $125 out right, but it is not worth that much each year! Thats is a very steep price to pay. I could see a subscription costing like $50 a year... but lets face it, the scirra team is tiny - they don't push $125 worth of features in a year. I mean, come on, I would be happier with a product, that has a life, but you own it. You buy it because of what it is... not rent it so you can alsways rent it.

The subscription model is one of the most dishonest ways to get more money than your product is worth to most people. Sure some can pony up the cash, but hobiests are always left out to dry with this model. Then of course... no editing your project this year if you didn't pay up. Stupid. Stupid . stupid.

I bought adobe cs6, but I will not rent css. I'll use gimp, or something else before I rent software. Its a dumb financial move for everyone except a business.

> Random idea ( U know what would be awesome ?, Scirra to make a unity plugin with their visual approach charging 150 per year. No problem there. I would happily depend on unity's devs faults rather than ludei, intel etc..)[/size]

>

Random idea, my butt I already stated this idea in another C3 thread.

Lol, I would buy it in a heart beat. I really do like c2's event editor for alot of things!

From what I have seen... c3 is basically c2 that you have to rent. Whats the point? I feel as though I am part of a c2 community that begged for just a few simple features. Features that you sort of need to actually make a decent game (something beyond flappy phone games)... Heck, even working box2d physics sure would have been nice. We weren't asking for 3d, we were asking for the basic tools any game engine needs. (collision filtering, raytracing, collision callbacks, swept shapes, ... I could go on) Not to mention extreme scalability issues when making complex games. And javascipt is stupid for games (but thats obviously a given, a compromise that wont be changed)

Is c3 going to address these problems? I haven't heard, frankly, I don't care because I got sick of not having the tools needed for really making a game in c2 and so dropped it.

And I'm not someone who thinks a behavior should make my game. I program. I have rolled 3 different platform engines on my own, and a custom retro based physics behavior for c2. I just wanted basic features literally almost every other engine has.

I've been happily using Unity for free. With c#. Why would I rent c3 when I only use c2 for simple prototypes ?

I don't care that it is on mac (see above). I don't care that its in the cloud (see above). I don't care that it has a 3 in its name if it doesn't actually fundamentally address the major issues with making a game with c2.

Anyone have any insight?

Zebbi did you ever hear back on this other than in this forum?

A tutorial would be great on this topic.

Working on it!