I will try to participate, and hopefully the time limit is long enough for me to make the deadline. As I know myself being too picky and quite lazy sometimes, I really have to push myself in order to make an entry.. lol.

Anyway, looking forward to see what cool stuff people will create.

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.

Seems very strange. First the shop item goes down, then he get hacked/banned? I also bought the plugin quite recently, and was looking forward to try future updates.

> Take pride in your work,

>

Seems a little insulting?

How is that insulting? If you love what you're doing, why not go the extra mile to give your creations a bit of extra love, than just setting a time limit of 12 hours, publish and hope for the best?

If you're not a good artist, team up with one, or practice & try learn from other artwork, or find free assets. There's plenty of good free to use assets around if you look.

The "idle slayer" game you linked is a perfect example of that. I'm sure it's a pretty fun idle game, and he would probably have gotten WAY MORE plays if he spent some time on the artwork, some sound FX, etc. If I was browsing around and saw a game with this level of artwork, I probably wouldn't click on it, and rather chose a similar game that looks much nicer.

Not trying to be insulting at all, but to give some good suggestions.

Good points by tunepunk here. If I am looking through a list of games, the first thing that catches my eye is the art. If I am looking through the Scirra arcade, for example, I am more likely to click on artwork that incites an emotional response.

Artwork that incites this response typically takes effort. Concept sketches can be quick, but polishing and refining might take many hours or days for each character.

I wonder if the better approach to see what attracts an audience might be a beautifully crafted character in a convincing pose. Once you have people's attention, then work on the game itself.

Yeah but it's good to remember that even if you spend a lot of time on beautiful art, that does not mean the game is fun to play. Beautiful Artwork will certainly catch the eye, but game has to be fun also. If your art is pretty but the game is boring - maybe you will have bad reviews and comments on it. If the game has very low quality artwork but fun to play, chances are low that people would not download in the first place. It's better to make a simple game, but do everything well, and very good. Good artwork, music, and fun gameplay. That's why i think 15 hours is very very low.

I can only speak for myself. I would never ever release something I'm not proud of. I've spent almost 2 years (on and off) on my first game already, and it's mostly because I'm learning as I'm doing it, and I'm very critical of my own work. If i'm not satisfied with a certain feature, I start over and try again. Like for example the touch controls. I spent a lot of time to just to tweak one small part to make that feel perfect. For my characters i did several drawings until i found a style that I was happy with. I'm pretty sure I could have been finished with the game long long time ago, but it would probably not be something i would be proud of, and not a very good and pretty game.

I'm not really suggesting you spend hundreds and hundreds of hours, but 15 hours seems way too little if you want to compete on any level. Even if you want to make small short games, and clones, I still think it's good to invest a bit in some nice unique art style, or some unique feature for example to stand out of the crowd a bit, and at least polish it, to make if feel polished and professional.

And also. If you spend 15 hours developing, i would suggest spending just as much or even more in marketing. Contact reviewers, youtubers, etc etc, to get some feedback and exposure. If no-one even knows the game exists it's hard to get downloads. If you only rely on people stumbling across the game in an app store, you should probably spend another 15 hours, tweaking description, screenshots, etc optimizing your chances of people finding the game, and wanting to download it.

I'm just saying that 15 hours development time and then just uploading somewhere hoping for the best, seems wayyyy tooo little, for any decent quality production at all.

Multilply those 15 hours a bit.

15 hours developing

15 hours artwork and animations

15 hours testing and feedback, bug fixes and polish.

15 hours marketing, description, video trailer...

Take pride in your work, make something to the best of your ability and that looks fun and is fun to play. Even if it's short, small games. The effort will shine through.

I think it's really hard say what will draw an audience. If you're only spending 15 hours per game, I assume you're not really aiming for very high quality games with so little time, but produce more average games in general?

I probably would suggest to invest time in these things instead of just pushing out games like a factory.

* Find an eye catching and unique art style. Nice graphics and screenshots will always attract more. Ugly games are probably less likely to be played.

* Nice music and sound effects can enhance the overall feeling of the games.

* Spend some time with a good description of the game. When people search they are more likely to find it.

* Make a good video trailer.

* And also (but obvious) make fun games, that people would recommend to their friends.

* If you plan on earning money from AD's, you want to make a game that lasts long time, or people play very often, with high replayability.

And I would also suggest to spend way more time than 15 hours on a game. Make something fun, and unique. There's plenty of shovelware and copies already.

I don't want to invest in C3 if the roadmap is to put all the future development into reaching more people by making the application more accessible and eventually adding 3D.

I havn't seen many people requesting Construct to become a full 3D engine, and I don't think it should become one either. But I think some form of rudimentary 3D transforms would be cool. Kind of like what you can do CSS, for flipping cards, UI elements, and rotating stuff in more than one direction, at most possibility to add some simple models like coins, pickups, etc in 2D games would be cool.

And maybe at least taken into consideration for 3rd party plugin developers if they wish to do some 3D plugin.

Why not make C3 a one time payment.... with no subscription. Plan to release C4 in exactly one year along with a major new feature, and drop any support for C3 and all further updates for it, only offer downloadable last stable for people who wanna cling to it, once the new C4 version is released.

Make a plan to release major new version release on a yearly basis. Make it clear that no further updates and support to old versions will be available once the next version is released. Only a downloadable last stable will be available for old C3 once C4 is released.

If people try to access C3 online once c4 is released, they will get a download link or an option to upgrade to c4.

Maybe even Make the build service a seperate service for C2, C3, C4 users alike for those who wish to use it?

Problem solved?

Nice work! Especially the multiple levels isometric. That's pretty tricky!

What I really think this is all about is security.

- Scirra wants the security of a steady revenue. A yearly subscription model provides that.

- Users want security knowing they won't completely lose access to editing their games because they can afford the subscription, they want to know they are not just wasting money on a new, unproven product, etc. Paying yearly for a subscription is a risk, regardless of how insignificant some people might find it.

So why not meet in the middle and offer a monthly rate? It's not the best solution for either side, but it's a reasonable solution.

I think it's a very good option for everyone. But I think the thread is about people refusing any type of "renting model". Because of "reasons"....

tunepunk

People understand, they just aren't going to buy the product. Making C3 a service is alienating a huge chunk of the userbase, and largely seems to be done as a step to get more money from schools.

I don't see how a subscription method would alienate anyone. The only valid arguments I've seen on the forum is probably only questioning their browser based move, but that was probably decided long ago. No one is forcing schools to use C3 instead of C2. If they teach in c2, future users can easily move over to c3 if they like. It's pretty much the same thing. And people who still buy C2, get C3 one year "for free".

Scirra now has two major products. C2 and C3 for sale, both very similar.. Just because something has a higher number and is "newer" doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, unless you're like an apple fanboy and have to buy everything they sell. Yeah I guess people have been waiting a long time for C3, some like it some don't. But what does the payment method have to do with the product? If it's a good product and worth the price.

I just get the feeling that a lot of people here are stingy as hell, and probably wipe their behinds with both sides of the toilet paper to save a cent, because they still want c3, but just not with a subscription model, because god forbid, you have to pay Once a year for a product that you really like to use. Pathetic.