>

> >

> > There are way more people that like the basic idea of browser based subscription engine.

> > However not everyone participates in the forums or wants to add to the discussion. People with hate will always be more visible than people who love something.

> >

> > I guess the discussion is over.

> >

>

Well that makes Three of you?

The same three on all these discussions unless you count your comments multiple times.

Still waiting for the thousand or even hundreds that support your position and want a chrome based subscription browser?

Here are 11 pages of real long time C2 users that disagree with you three:

The quote oft attributed to Ford applies here:

[quote:1biju84q]If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

People don't know they want cutting edge until they have it.

I didn't realise how helpful a browser based editor would be until I realised when I was at work that I could just login to C3 and work on my files; what's more, the editor actually updated automatically, and told me so with a pop-up. I'll confess I was impressed.

C3 is the evolution of a product, Scirra aren't going to compromise their vision of progress to cater to the vocal minority. Ultimately the effectiveness of their decisions will be determined in sales figures, of which a subscription model is infinitely better suited to their constant maintenance and upgrades business plan.

If Scirra are able to provide the same level of improvement and growth that C2 experienced before the work on C3 cut into the dev time, I'll be a customer for life. C3 isn't a product, it's a service.

OK so that makes you and Tunepunk that want a chrome browser based subscription engine.

If there are more than two of you get them to post here or start a thread and when you get a thousand people that agree with you or even a hundred then you have a case to support your opinion.

There are that many that disagree with you though and they have made that clear!

lamar LOL, it's not a big conspiracy theory you just uncovered. It's basic business 101 ...

They chose to make an online dev tool, with running costs, and subscription makes sense. To me at least... Even if I skipped Business Economics class in school.

Basic business 101 is to give your customers what they want and to honor your license and advertising.

Scirra advertised those exporters in C2 and we paid for our licenses based on that advertising.

I have suggested a reasonable compromise that would still make Scirra money and would keep their base happy but a few people like you still seem to want to follow a Scirra road map that has very few people supporting it and that makes no sense to me and is probably cutting your own throat (figure of speech).

If you or Tom or Ashley can show me the thread with thousands of people like you asking for a Chrome browser based subscription engine then I will consider your reasons?

Addon package is an interesting idea but it's not on the road-map for now. The export to mobile options we're building for C3 rely on external servers which have cost to keep running so any addon would have to be subscription based.

AND there in lays the REAL answer and it is because Scirra wants to tie people to a subscription instead of a one time payment for exporters that were advertised to already be in C2.

> What data is that Tom?

>

In our database and analytics

> Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

>

Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?

This is also data Tom and is 11 pages of long time C2 users most of whom are disappointed in C3 and now looking for another engine:

If you have data in the form of thousands of people requesting a browser based subscription engine then I would like to see that because maybe they have some reason we have not considered but just saying you have data in your database and analytics without actual people supporting that data looks to be flawed.

> What data is that Tom?

>

In our database and analytics

> Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

>

Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?

I guess I just have to keep repeating what I have said because you are not listening:

Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.

> I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it.

>

There are obviously some users who don't like our direction, but to call our user-base alienated is hyperbole. Secondly, we haven't wasted all our time investing in this. We're receiving a lot of positive feedback as well.

[quote:108a52pn]They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.

It's not falling on deaf ears. We're going to execute what we've planned, and what our data shows us is this a rational path. To change direction before we've even tried the model would be irrational. We were obviously expecting some users to not like the model.

What data is that Tom?

Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

This is why I say I think you and Ashley are not listening because for months now I have seen so many C2 users saying that is not what they want and if there is a large group of C2 users that have said they want a browser based subscription engine I would sure like to see their comments and reasons for that decision.

I could be wrong and maybe there is thousands of people requesting that but I have been watching and reading the forums for C3 opinions and I sure have not seen the data you are describing?

> Use a global variable trigger.

>

> When you are not attacking set it to a number and when you are attacking set it to a different number.

>

> On Key Press Left: Set animation player to "walk"

> Movement=1

>

> On Key Press Attack: Set Movement=0

>

> On Movement=0: Set animation "Attack

> ............................. Wait X seconds

> ............................. Set Movement=1

>

> That way your player will not move when attacking.

>

Yeah the animation stops but when I press the right arrow while attacking the player still slides left and right just no walking animation.

What movement control are you using?

You can set controls to disabled for platformer and 8 direction movement control.

>

> Pretty much misses the point completely!

>

> If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

>

>

So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?

Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.

Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.

So I suggest you go back and read what I said because whether you understand it or not I am trying to save Scirra from losing a whole lot of C2 users that brought them this far.

To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.

> I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon C2

>

You could've said just this.

Which of course while they have answered individual posts about it, its sunsetting plan could be in a well placed FAQ somewhere as the communication problem isn't them not listening, more of the information about the concerns are not apparent/easily accessible enough.

You are welcome to your opinion. I have had many long discussions with Tom and Ashley here in the forum on these issues and I have my opinion.

>

> I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

>

> You did not answer the question?

>

> There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

>

> Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

>

> There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

>

Rephrasing questions:

Are you not worried about bugs that pop up with Chrome and Chrome Updates?

I am not worried about Chrome issues as they are the same issues you would get with Construct 2 for your exported games. If you're worried you can get the Desktop wrapped version when it's out, or in the meantime download Chrome Portable and use that as an instance. I actually recommend it for testing exports too.

You could disable auto-updates on Chrome too.

With Construct 2, Scirra notified us and fixed many issues that did pop up so there is confidence in that happening. Plus if you look at Chrome versioning you will see that the canary and beta builds are far enough ahead of stable that any issues will be known well before they affect the general populous.

Why do you want an app that is a cloud based program with subscription for it's monetization?

I can't really say much about the monetization method but I do prefer my own fully featured offline client. But while I do prefer it, other methods may be more feasible for them as a company and it's their job to make sure it inconveniences me as little as possible like any other distribution method/DRM. Chromes Persistent App feature makes the cloud based nature less of an issue on both desktop and android in terms of offline access.

What if Scirra suddenly just disappears?

For the Scirra disappearing thing there's 2 scenarios:

1) Website offline due to outage // User takes computer offline

How long can they use all features? Is it 30 days like Steam Offline mode?

2) Scirra stops existing

In the end if Scirra has to disappear, what is their sunsetting plan? Do they even have one?

This is something that we should have Ashley answer and have them put into a FAQ since there is much uncertainty over it.

For the scenario if Scirra exists and your sub ends it's less complicated as you own the code, but due to the model you don't own the right to access the full features of the engine. I have no opinion on that myself as of yet.

>

> No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

>

> So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

>

The problem is in any discussion like this both sides say they're the majority or the target for the software. You're turning it into an Us vs Them discussion and that's not productive at all. What I'm trying to do is to get the points articulated without that sort of divisiveness.

You have valid complaints and concerns, but your assumed solution to those complaints and concerns are not the cause itself.

The cause itself is Ashley not listening to the majority of C2 users that have said repeatedly they do not want a browser based subscription engine.

If you can show me any majority of people that want that then they sure are not posting in the forum and maybe you should start a thread and ask people in the forum if that is what they want and see the response and maybe I am wrong?

My suggestion has been a compromise all along:

Scirra can go ahead and finish C3 and see if it is profitable and enough people want it to focus on that in the future.

They can also use that new team of designers they hired to fix the bugs in C2 and create a C2 update version with the exporters and features we have been asking for for years or make a package of features and exporters as an addon that I believe many C2 users would be happy to pay a reasonable price for without a subscription.

It is not a one or the other decision and from your own post you have said you would prefer a standalone engine and so would most C2 users so if Ashley and Tom are listening to us that is what they should be doing.

You might want to look through my C3 thread and this thread and read the many responses of C2 users that are disappointed with the direction Scirra is taking with C3 but as I said I only speak for myself and I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon the C2 users that got them to this point as that will bite them in the end and is what causes businesses to fail.

Have a good night!