Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?
Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.
C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.
I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.
In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.
We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.
Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.
Scirra chose the price and how to market their tool / what features to advertise it was capable of. And when discussing the potential for commercial success it should be safe to assume these are users who purchased Construct 2 for the maximum (business) priced license.
Construct 3 isn't really like No Man's Sky, because GDevelop and many other tools have allowed people to make "hobby games" and given access to "educational coding / learning to program" in the browser before C3. If anything, it's like C3 is the clone of No Man's Sky that does a better job of it (Astroneer? )
However, you do raise a good point. The few people complaining on the Scirra forums are just some of the biggest games made in C2 / the games Scirra uses in their Showcase.
They might not represent a majority of the Construct 2 userbase, but they are being used to try and sell Construct 2 as a professional tool / to act as bait for other unsuspecting developers looking to bring their 2D games to desktop + mobile + console "faster" than coding-based engines like UE4 and Unity.
If Scirra came out and said "Construct is intended for hobbyists, students, web games, and educators" then these kinds of big commercial games would still be made from time to time (as there are some people who are happy with desktop/Windows only), but there would be less upset developers as they know in advance that serious WiiU / Xbox One / Mobile development is not going to happen here.
The problem is that means the amount of people looking to make commercial products in Construct also decreases, so there's less customers buying the more expensive business license. It also means that Construct then becomes more directly competing with "Scratch" and "Kodu" than the other game making software that is commercially available. Very different marketing tactics would be needed too.
So with the current marketing, it's almost like Scirra is thinking "Who cares if customers of our users eat them up alive on Steam reviews and forums?" (eg: when we can't make the game work on average-level Steam PC hardware or bring our game to Wii U), and that's what makes the developers here / in past threads upset.
An idea that came around earlier was for Scirra to try making their own commercial large game (I'd even suggest specifically make it a platformer, to experience the joys of jank, which still occurs even in C3), and I'd rather put money towards that than a C3 license right now, just so that they understand these frustrations.
Anyway, it's been said a lot and jayrp1 is right, I'll save my breath on this now because, as I had mentioned earlier, we've had to move on at our small studio and C# isn't so bad after all.