For number 2 they can make it like buildbox thats the ultimate easy to use game maker but the price is too much. I never seen games made as fast as buildbox games.

Buildbox is crazy expensive, but seems to be doing well. Its nice and slick but its extremely limited. It does look to be getting better over time. Buildbox is for wealthy beginners only!

This topic is polite not ranting. The reason the topics go into fights is people like the ones you see in this topic who start fights instead of answering questions.

Thanks for not ranting Nobody is starting anything here. Youre simply just repeating questions that have been asked before. Scirra have already said they will reveal more in the coming weeks. Read the blogs and FAQs. All anyone knows is whats been written there.

To keep this thread clean please only reply if you have an answer to the question.

To keep the forum clean, please use existing forum threads on the subject.

AnotherUser means split screen:

What's so special about C3 that we can't already do with C2?

We dont know yet. For me, nothing shown so far are must haves.

The site obviously wasnt built to take the amount of tears flowing from people who point blank refuse to pay Scirra a few dollars a month for C3

Fusion 3 will have a similar license model to the current version of fusion 2 - with an upgrade discount for existing users.

You buy the editor, it comes with an exporter that compiles the game natively on the platform you are on.

You can buy separately native exporters for android, ios and even html5 - they go on special offers with huge discounts a few times in the year. Things like the event sheet have been reworked to be more modern. Disadvantages such as code reusal are also being addressed in fusion 3. So scirra is in a tough spot and things will only get worse when clickteam releases it - especially if the license price for lifetime is around the same price point as the yearly subscription of construct3

No disrespect to Clickteam, but Fusion is - without a doubt - the "Fisher Price" of development tools. Its marketed squarely at the complete novice. Yes, its still possible to create some good games, but the more experienced game dev will constantly find themselves trapped and frustrated by its limitations.

I don't understand this strategy at all.

Its called a campaign. The same strategy movie/tv/game companies use. Release multiple teaser trailers, then different cut full trailers before a the content launches. Its all about generating hype and exposure over time via press, social media etc.

I've had construct 2 for like 5-6 years now?

That would be $500+

So by your own reckoning youve had 5-6 years of bug fixes and improvements, all for one price. Thats not bad value.

Like I said, myself, I'm not using construct daily. It's mostly a prototype tool. I would LOVE to develop full games with it but no exporters has really hurt my development. It seems intel and cocoon always have some issue or another.

So does every other game making platform. There has never ever been a service or workflow that has been 100% bug free all the time. Its impossible. I will admit you have to wrestle with packaging services quite a bit, but that isnt 100% on Scirra.

If I was a daily construct user. My income was coming from my use of construct 2, yes $100 a year isn't much, I still wouldn't like it but I would be fine with that price. For everyone else that isn't a daily user or isn't selling their work from construct 2 the subscription model is incredibly hard to justify.

Ill say it again and again: Theres no gun pointing at anyones head. Continue using C2 or the free C3. The only people here that stand to lose anything with the subscription model is Scirra.

>

> Show it to me running a complex C2 project, not a screenshot of a title screen.

>

I highly doubt Scirra will be pulling the wool over anyones eyes so close to public beta.

100€ per year is not much at all if you ask me.

It isnt much at all, but I really admire the communities passion on these forums the past 48 hours.

Scirra have done the research, done the math, and they know the target number of subscribers they need. They havent just pulled the idea out of a hat. No amount of anger, petitions or people threatening to leave is going to change anything.

People here dont even know what they are getting for $99 yet.

I just want to develop for mobiles, with an internal / native scirra compiler. So we can get things moving withought 3rd party bugs and issues.

You arent paying Apple $99 per year to put your apps on their app store by any chance, are you?