It's a Construct 2 SALE...in a way [ENDED]

  • Save $70 USD buying it before March 12th!

    Source: https://www.scirra.com/blog/222/constru ... 12th-march

    EDIT: Blog update changed the URLs around and shut down the comments, for anyone coming back to look there's a cache at: https://web.archive.org/save/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cesTbpsVdVEJ:www.scirra.com/blog/222/construct-2-price-increasing-on-12th-march+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab

    As images:

  • Fire sale maybe.

  • What's going on here? I've been away for a year and the prices/subscription model have gone crazy. Construct has many issues that go unfixed ad the prices increases?

    Is the company under new financial management or something? The prices are ridiculous.

  • I wasn't aware of this.. Seems kind of strange..

    [quote:2xjmxbpm]Our focus is to encourage new customers to buy Construct 3 and not Construct 2.

    because, I would have thought that instead of increasing the price, lowering the price of C2 would do more to encourage people to buy into C3. Since a lower price of C2 would attract more customers in general, which would then let them decide when they feel comfortable to upgrade to C3. A product they feel is less relevant should have the price decreased- not increased.

    Forcing new users to essentially pay subscription for testing a product doesn't seem good to me- since that is what new users have to do. It's not like they'll just begin completing games- at least ones that are profitable. Its like they want to rely on selling a dream with empty promises rather than a tool with realistic expectations- that's how it comes across to me. It's bad marketing.

  • Don't forget that people who buy C2 now receive a one year 100% discount on C3.

  • I signed up just to comment. As someone who was looking at Construct as a viable solution to make mobile games, this price increase did not drive me to buy C3. It actually drove me away from C3 and Construct completely.

    If you think about it for a second, if a company is willing to increase the price of a product no longer getting features that is already full of bugs according to the bug reports then it is only a matter of time before they jack up the price of C3.

    With the announcement of the new C3 runtime, you bet the subscription cost is going up in the near future.

    A very shady tactic. It is encouraging alright, encouraging people to go with alternatives.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Wow Lol. I've been away like... one or two months... on and off on this forum and look at that! Price increases for Construct 2? Hahaha... It's so crazy... Shouldn't it be lower instead of... that? It will not be updated frequently like before, the price increased, what more? In-app purchases for Construct 2? "You'll need to pay 5.99 for this Browser plugin and 2.99 to make more than 5 layers. Bought all together and you'll get one month free for C3!" What an as....................................

  • If you think about it for a second, if a company is willing to increase the price of a product no longer getting features that is already full of bugs according to the bug reports then it is only a matter of time before they jack up the price of C3.

    With the announcement of the new C3 runtime, you bet the subscription cost is going up in the near future.

    I was thinking the same thing. There's nothing stopping them from increasing the subscription price when the new runtime comes around.

    I also made a related point a long time ago- when they talked about browsers always changing and being up to date, etc..

    [quote:2d0x4hfg]Scirra can argue that the reliance on browsers forces having to do maintenance, etc, and charging for keeping everything working with the changing browser vendors. Will these users understand that? I doubt this is something they would consider in their purchase (probably not the primary consideration), and if anything it might be more of a deterrent if they do because they'd realize that things can change whenever a browser updates.

    But maybe that will improve over time? If it does then why the subscription model? If it improves, then maintenance will become lighter for Scirra. The subscription kind of gives the impression that the stability will never improve.

    There's also this that was said by a Scirra employee:

    [quote:2d0x4hfg]We were surprised when we looked at our data at how many impulse purchases we see for Construct 2 (people who seem to buy and only use for a short period of time).

    Which suggests, that people pick up Construct, use it for a little while and then never use it again. A subscription model doesn't encourage users to work at their own pace. When I began working with Construct, I took several months off doing other stuff. It wasn't a tool I used everyday. So for new users, a subscription model leaves a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not it's worth going through the year or so having to learn and start at the beginning, etc..

    Then there was this response:

    [quote:2d0x4hfg]Previously with Construct 2, these users didn't really have any impact on what we do. They are happy to pay us, use it for a brief while then move on for whatever reason (we think it was mainly impulse purchasing - I've bought AAA games on Steam before that I've barely played, guessing it's the same sort of behaviour).

    With Construct 3, we're wanting to keep and engage users more, we're obviously incentivised to do so.

    The shift from Construct 2 to Construct 3 will force us to invest more in retention rather than purely attracting new customers. This can come in lots of forms, better learning resources, better community engagement, free asset packs/game templates etc etc. I know I would say this, but even if you're cynical about the whole subscription thing that has to be a positive for customers.

    The fact is we feel the market is fairly saturated, and we're relying on a steady flow of new customers. Nothing wrong with this, but we have bigger plans. We feel adjusting our revenue model is our best shot at achieving those plans.

    Currently due to new hires, expenditures etc we're running marginally profitable/break even. This is fine as we're on the cusp of a new product launch (a lot of companies lose money in this period!) but we've pretty much hit the ceiling of how far we can grow the Scirra team with our current revenue levels.

    So yeah... they want to "invest more in

    retention

    rather than purely attracting new customers"

    You can read into that however you want I guess... :/

    For me it reads that they want more control of the userbase, and not give them the freedom to leave or work at their own pace.

    I don't want them to dangle a carrot in front of me and try to lead me into some cage where it is difficult to get out of, etc.. They should focus on make the product good and then new users will use it longer. If they are concerned about new users not continuing to use their product, maybe that is because the users had reasonable reason why.

  • We have no plans to increase the price of the existing C3 personal license for the foreseeable future.

    Retention means keeping existing customers. That's all. The subscription model actually provides a strong incentive to keep C3 regularly updated and well maintained over time in order to keep existing customers.

    If you think the existing C2 price is acceptable, but the new price is unacceptable, why not buy it now? It's still available at the lower price until the announced date of 12th March.

    Any time we've ever mentioned price over the history of the company, we've always got comments along the lines of "lol omg you should charge $5 that's all it's worth". Obviously the less we charge the harder it is for us to add the features our paying users are asking for, and ensure the product is well-maintained and reliable. Bear that in mind next time you ask for a feature or improvement. We also believe the price is fair and competitive with many other tools on the market. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, but there are plenty of people out there who are happy to purchase.

  • Ashley The price of C2 has stayed the same for a LOOOOONG time right? It has more features now and has not been adjusted for inflation.

    TBH it's good value even at increased price. Comparing to Fusion, it's in the same ballpark if you account for the paid exporter modules.

    You could even say it's been on a sale since the beginning

  • Ashley The price of C2 has stayed the same for a LOOOOONG time right?

    That's a good point - the last time we had a price increase of C2 that wasn't just adjusting for exchange rates or inflation, was for r100 in August 2012, over five years ago! We've had over 150 releases of Construct 2 since then - more than half all of Construct 2's releases in its lifetime.

  • Retention means keeping existing customers. That's all. The subscription model actually provides a strong incentive to keep C3 regularly updated and well maintained over time in order to keep existing customers.

    You kept C2 updated and maintained over time as well, so how will it be any different with C3? I don't really see how that helps with "retention."

    You want to know why I stick around and use C2? It is because I became comfortable with the product and it allows me to create games that I want to create. Because I can comfortably use the product, I've spent a long time developing on a project and so it makes more sense to continue using the product to finish the game.

    Updates are great, but most of the updates haven't helped my project. Probably 90% of the updates were for things I never use. And there are still many things that I wish were improved.. Yet I'm still using C2 because I can get by with it- because I am comfortable using it in comparison to other options. I am willing to sacrifice some things I wish I had, and be content with certain limits, because overall I can make something I am satisfied with.

    So I don't think updates and maintenance are the primary reasons for retention- because those updates may not address what users want. If they do, then that's great. Having the feature suggestions for the new runtime is a great start. I'm really interested in seeing where that leads.

    Edit:

    also, as one example of what I choose to sacrifice- I am purposely choosing not to use any effects in my current game due to webgl compatibility issues I've experienced in the past. And because I know I can make a decent game without them.

  • .. I also had another thought occur to me..

    If you want to focus on retention, then you shouldn't be so gun-ho about being up to date with latest technology and trends.

    Following latest tech trends focuses more on attracting NEW users- it doesn't help with retention with the OLD userbase.

    If I wanted to use the latest tech, trends, etc, I'd be more inclined to create 3d VR games.

    Maybe that is stretching things too much, but I'm just trying to emphasize the contrast/sides here. There is a lot that can be done to improve retention without having to reinvent everything. Reinventing stuff doesn't make those problems disappear, it just resets the clock and gives people something else to think about for the moment.

  • Updates are great, but most of the updates haven't helped my project. Probably 90% of the updates were for things I never use.

    Believe it or not, we have other users, and to some of them, the updates were important.

  • I know that- I'm just giving you my perspective. I would hope to think that you'd care about my views, but your post just gives me the impression that I'm some kind of minority or something.

    Considering I'm someone who has been retained to some degree- perhaps you'd be interested in what makes me continue using your product. It doesn't really matter what a person thinks is important if they are just going to lose interest eventually- if retaining is your concern. What is important to someone changes all the time.

    I guess my point was that there are a lot of features that people believe are important, but there are also many features we have that we choose not to use because they haven't been implemented in a way that is conducive to our goals. And that if these features were improved, users would have less to be concerned with. Adding new features just masks the problems with features we have already but choose not to use because they are poorly implemented.

    At least with a new runtime, a lot of stuff will be addressed. It should have been done sooner in my opinion. It's still to be seen how much exactly it will solve, considering the pattern that has been shown where there is hesitation in changing what is "by design".

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)