About construct 3 free version limitations (and it's popularity)

It's a little disingenuous to say we basically want C3 to be free though just because we say the free trial version is so constrained that it will often prevent people to not even bother ^^

But ultimately I suppose we only have anecdotal experiences and Scirra has a bigger picture in mind.

I have a feeling what this discussion is pretty much asking to have all Construct for free (500 events is bonkers, C2 only allowed you 100, why should C3 offer 5X more ?), which, as already explained in previous posts, would simply end up with Scirra going bankrupt and no more support for either C2 or C3.

That's not the intetion at all. You can ask around the discord server for example and you'll see most of the people use thousands of events for creating their games(me included). I see how you guys can think 500 events is a lot (I honestly think it is not) but come on... 50 events is just too little.

I think we're also negleting the fact that there are also other limitations other than the number of events, that looks like they're being disconsidered in this discussion, that is a high incentive for the users to buy construct 3 like the use of scripts, timelines, families and exporting methods.

Anyway, as Sam said we most have anecdotal experiences and scirra must have a bigger picture, so I trust you guys will make the better decision for the company regardeless of what it is. I'm just here to give my two cents about the matter.

I have some simpler games with close to 1000 events and a really nice top down racing game complete with only about 375 events. I am sure those simpler games could be done in fewer than 500 events too, but I like to use my own events instead of behaviors whenever it makes sense ( doesn't take too much time ).

So yeah, 500 in the free version would pretty much be free Construct for 90%+ of developers

I don't see the free version as something you're meant to make games with, although it is possible.

50 events is more than enough to get a feel of the workflow you would use with Construct, to see if it suits your style. It's nice so you can see if you like the software before you purchase a license.

I'm sure Tom and Ashley have given much consideration over what features to allow into the free version, and if they are continuing to see steady conversion to subscriptions then there seems little reason to fiddle with the formula.

That said, it's a shame that free-users are unable share a completed game. As such they miss out on an end-to-end development experience, which could be a incentive to upgrade to a subscription, and there's a missed opportunity for some free advertising for the platform. Maybe there's a way to restrict their exports to the Scirra Arcade, so they can share their games AND funnel traffic to the Construct site?

it's a shame that free-users are unable share a completed game

A free trial version of a software is just a trial version... Should be used to test functionality, not create completed stuff.

I think 50 events is fair.

mekonbekon free edition does allow you to export to the arcade

A free trial version of a software is just a trial version... Should be used to test functionality, not create completed stuff.

A critical part of that functionality is the ease with which the software handles publishing games. Personally, before committing to a subscription I'd like to be confident that the software can handle the development process from start to finish.

Ultimately, the purpose of the free version is to encourage users to take out a subscription; perhaps it doesn't lead to a greater conversion rate after all, or the technical and logistical hurdles of restricting exports to just the arcade render it non-viable, but if being able to share a game easily increases that likelihood and it's not unfeasible to implement then it would be a feature to consider.

But like I said, Tom and Ashley have their reasons for the current model and I'm cool with that :-)

That's a good thing we could highlight next time I review the pages, thanks for suggestion.

construct.net/en/make-games/manuals/construct-3/overview/publishing-projects

Rory

> I see very little reason why being a small company would stop Scirra from making their free tier more appealing. I'm no business expert but I've been running a F2P MMORPG for 7 years now and if the free to play model has taught me anything is that if you get people invested into your product in time, they're more likely to spend money on it.

>

they need capitol to run day-to-day. they simply can't afford that.

I think you are looking at it like how Unreal and Unity are free. But you may not realize that those companies are huge with lots of other income.

If somehow Jeff Bezos gave Scirra some 10s of million dollars, then sure they could easily make it a free engine. After a few years, and with proper marketing and dev successes Construct would be a serious "contender" in the 3rd party game engine world. And they would eventually see returns from many more people using it which would carry the cost of the casual user. Although this is a big "if", you can't really count on a plan like that. Having used all the major engines I do think Construct is special and there is definitely something there, but its a huge gamble that I doubt they are willing to risk. and doesn't seem currently viable.

Although I think Google would be smart to buy Scirra - and keep them autonomous - and sink in some serious capitol... now that would be great. but who knows, maybe ashley doesn't even want that.

I think you’re missing my point, I’m talking about optimising the free tier to be a better introduction to Construct 3 with the sole intention of better conversion rates from free to paid users. Because as it is, the free tier makes Construct 3 look and feel like a toy and most people won’t pay $99USD to unlock those features that make it powerful, like feeling the power of > 25 events and 2 layers to try an engine. Especially not in modern times now with free alternatives.

But this is a pointless discussion now. As Tom has said, there is probably room for optimisation but they are happy with the growth for now.

All this discussion about the limitations of the free version and what it should or should not include, comes across to me as quite irrelevant if not even outright irritating.

A free version of a commercial product is by definition limited. When you list all the benefits of the free edition, I feel that the kind folks at Scirra are being amazingly generous.

If you want more, then for an attractive and reasonable yearly subscription you get a very advanced game engine providing hours of fun and late night entertainment.

The pleasure and satisfaction outweighs a million fold any downsides to paying a meager amount of money.