I wonder if a lack of innovation is the real driving force behind Scirra switching to a subscription model? There was a short discussion about this in another thread. Most of what's change from C2 to C3 are bells and whistles. Maybe they don't really have a better choice to earn money, because the web isn't changing all that quickly and maybe they already built the best product possible?
Can you explain "lack of innovation?" I didn't see the discussion you're referring to in another thread, so I don't know what was said. I'm sure Tom and Ashley would tell you developing a game engine that runs in the web is innovative. And, my only argument here, would be that until C3 is out and has been around for at least a year, we won't really understand or know what it's truly capable of doing. It's just a big ol' poop-fest of opinions until then.
I doubt they changed to a subscription model because they couldn't come up with something "innovative" for their users. I could only imagine the conversation:
Ashley: "Look, the web isn't changing fast enough. I can't really think of anything innovative for the next version, so let's just put it in a browser, update the look and charge by the month/year for it. What do you think?
Tom: "Why not? There's no other way we can possibly earn money."
Nah. I can't buy that. They would have made the same revenue for C3 that they did for C2 had they shown us the updates and then charged the one-time fee. I think, and this is only my guess, is that they have more innovative plans for the web-based engine and want to charge a recurring fee for continual development, better support, updates and tools for the future. They grow financially, and the users get a better product in the end.
It's not out of the realm of possibility.