Construct 3 Subscription Fee Or Buy (Pay Once) Vote

    Personally I'd much rather it be subscription based with free future updates (and opt to get out if I so choose) than have to pay a lump sum of say 400-500 dollars at once for a single version # of Construct and be stuck with it for the next 5 years. Let's face it, price had to increase with Scirra expanding etc, and there was no way it was going to be $99 dollars one-off.

    It all comes down to the features and usability in the end, but based on price alone I feel 2 years for 150 bucks (if you own C2 license) is quite affordable and certainly nothing to make a scene about. Also, I wouldn't take this poll as any real proof of anything as the voting / first post is clearly skewed towards one option to begin with and directs voters to vote for one option over the other.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    > is right. Nobody would choose to subscribe. But If Scirra thinks that subscription suits best I don't mind to paying even more than $99/year.

    >

    True. Nobody will vote for subscribe because the "buy" model doesn't event exist, so everyone will assume it is cheaper. What if buy once cost 500USD? Will you still take the vote?

    .

    I believe the natural assumption would be that C3 would get the same prices (for personal & business licenses) that C2 has with feature support for the same amount of years that C2 got (say 4, but at least 3).

    So for $500 USD, with a discount of %50 for existing owners (50% for business license owners, at least, less for personal license owners) would I buy it? Yes, without thought, immediately. Even before it was released.

    (Of course, that would also assume it had a standalone IDE like C2 that didn't run in a browser..)

    Cheap buy + extra fee for platform specific exporters

    > we felt we needed to increase communication with the user base

    >

    The last 24-hours would have been a good time.

    For the program itself - definitely buy. Maybe a subscription for extra services.

    Buy only for me. Consider additional fees modules or major upgrades as they are rolled out.

    BUY

    I understand that Scirra is moving towards a subscription model.

    Am I happy about it? No

    Is it necesary ? Yes

    Scirra is working on Construct for a living.

    Since their team has grown, they have to pay some more wages than before.

    You guys were asking for a bigger team in the first place... what do you expect, a miracle?

    A subscription based model gives them the possiblity to be able to actually predict a stable income for their entire team.

    Depending on how much customers are following the subscription plan, they might be able to hire even more developers.

    This is exactly what each one of you has been asking for.

    And now, when Scirra finally reached that point of a bigger dev team to push Construct to the next level you're all crying out loud.

    Yes, other engines/tools use a model where you have to pay once you're making money with your project.

    But due the fact that Construct Customers do not create AAA titles or anything that comes close, that model would never work out.

    So please, just shut the **** up, seriously.

    If you're so upset about it, share it with your imaginary plush.

    This is the real world.

    And to the other point:

    We all knew that C3 is building up on the core of C2.

    Yes, no one asked for a web based editor.

    But going crazy before you've even seen what they've been working on exactly is nuts.

    I'm sure they have been listening to us, but that does not mean that they are going to realize every single thing we're asking for.

    This is Scirra's vision, not yours.

    The native situation has been discussed for years.

    And you've known the answer before they have announced C3.

    There's no reason to bring it back up each freaking time you get the chance to do so.

    Let's wait and see what they've been working on.

    And once the beta comes out, create topics with proper feedback.

    Thank you

    Is it necessary, tho?

    Clickteam Fusion 3 is going to one-payment model. And their software is almost exactly aimed to the same niche as Construct, not for big AAA titles.

    They also have a team, family to feed, etc.

    You say like the subscription model is the ONLY way to mantain a good service with a big team.

    Well unless the only services you know are Spotify and Netflix, I think you're missing a huge majority of the market of softwares where you actually own what you buy.

    I don't see ANY reason why this is "NEEDED", all I see is a bit of greediness.

    It's necessary somehow.

    If you can't see why, then you aint got any idea how selling a product works.

    How else are they going to maintain or increase the size of the team?

    Tell me?

    I'm really interested into your strategy to pay Scirras wages.

    Please enlight me, because i can't see any common sense in your statements.

    Solely selling C3 at a fixed price won't make it.

    I'm sure Construct 2 reached a point where they made almost no sales anymore.

    Yet they've continued to work on free updates for you, all the time.

    The only way Scirra maintained some additional income was with the introduction of the store with user created content.

    Going with another normal sale of C3 would be a dead end at some point.

    Unless they are able to bring out C4 within just a few years, and going on with C5 ....

    So they would have to release a new construct when the sales are going down.

    Which holds back updates to the Construct version you're currently using (just like now when we were wating for C3)

    Is that what you want?

    We don't know all the details of the new subscription model just yet.

    Maybe they give us the option to still use Construct 3, we just won't get any further updates.

    Who the heck knows, we have to wait for their final release of all the details.

    Maybe they can also lower the subscription costs at some point, we will see.

    Clickteam has more than just one product to sell.

    Which generates of course, more income...

    And Clickteam does not have much more people employed than Scirra.

    In my perspective, it's not Scirra who's greedy, but the customers who are asking for everything but who're not willing to pay for it.

    It feels like you guys actually think that Scirra did not think this through.

    But i guess i'm talking to a wall.

    I despise subscription models. I simply refuse to rent software. It's just another way for a company to keep you on the hook. At the end of the day, they get your money and you own nothing. I can't express how disappointed I am. Now that I know C2 isn't getting any new features, I'm going to have look for alternative software.

    If anyone can suggest a noteworthy equivalent to C2/C3, I would really appreciate it. Wasn't there another HTML5 game editor just like C2? I think it was by a French developer? I wish I kept that link...

    It's necessary somehow.

    If you can't see why, then you aint got any idea how selling a product works.

    How else are they going to maintain or increase the size of the team?

    Tell me?

    I'm really interested into your strategy to pay Scirras wages.

    Please enlight me, because i can't see any common sense in your statements.

    Solely selling C3 at a fixed price won't make it.

    I'm sure Construct 2 reached a point where they made almost no sales anymore.

    Yet they've continued to work on free updates for you, all the time.

    The only way Scirra maintained some additional income was with the introduction of the store with user created content.

    Going with another normal sale of C3 would be a dead end at some point.

    Unless they are able to bring out C4 within just a few years, and going on with C5 ....

    So they would have to release a new construct when the sales are going down.

    Which holds back updates to the Construct version you're currently using (just like now when we were wating for C3)

    Is that what you want?

    We don't know all the details of the new subscription model just yet.

    Maybe they give us the option to still use Construct 3, we just won't get any further updates.

    Who the heck knows, we have to wait for their final release of all the details.

    Maybe they can also lower the subscription costs at some point, we will see.

    Clickteam has more than just one product to sell.

    Which generates of course, more income...

    And Clickteam does not have much more people employed than Scirra.

    In my perspective, it's not Scirra who's greedy, but the customers who are asking for everything but who're not willing to pay for it.

    It feels like you guys actually think that Scirra did not think this through.

    But i guess i'm talking to a wall.

    I know how it works, I sell games on Steam. And that graph is pretty accurate to how it works. If you have only one product, that is not the problem. If you have a product that worths its value and you can charge whatever you want for it, of course. From my perspective, I've seen a lot of people (including me) saying they would be whilling to pay even $500 for the software (or 5 years of subscription) if we could really own it. Of course, also if C3 is a big leap from C2.

    But Clickteam is not the only one. Just compare how many pay-once and how many subscription-based are out there and you'll get what is the dominant form of selling. There is tons of software developers that only relies in one product.

    Also, Scirra can generate income in other ways, like they already do, with the assets store. There is tons of different and creative revenue options. They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

    They could charge for different export options. For example, I'm not interested in exporting anything else besides for Steam at the moment. But one day I might want to export to mobile, I would be whilling to pay extra for that.

    I also like 3rd party plugins. Why not see what the community is making, turn into an official, easier to use and easier to install plugin, and sell it?

    The idea of the assets store is good but is not being used at its full potential. After the release of C3, they could turn the attention to it a bit and literally make it a lot more profitable.

    They were just not creative enough. They wanted to (in my view) prevent piracy with this browser/subscription thing. It only adds up. It only makes sense. These both decisions were both simply to avoid piracy. But will make them lose costumers as well.

    Speaking for myself, I don't want to use a software on a browser. Imagine if you're a designer using Illustrator and Photoshop on Chrome.

    I just think that this model of business will make them lose a lot of costumers, and in the long run will be less profitable than the previous one. Just see how many people are saying they will switch to something else. I could see this working only if C3 suddenly became a lot more user friendly and the dummest person could make a game on it. Because lets be fair, while its "no programming", there is a lot of programming logic behind it and before making a barely good game or creating something creative you'll need to learn a lot. Unless it becomes a point-and-click-make-a-game-in-one-day to attract adventurers that would be whilling to pay for one year only and let it go I don't see how this model will appeal to the more professional game developer that makes a living out of it. Especially being browser only. Unless you're only capable of learning Construct and can't deal with anything else, most of us are going to switch platforms.

    Everade Well said.

    They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

    I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

    While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

    Everade Well said.

    > They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

    >

    I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

    While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

    https://www.construct3.com/ states 120'000 users. That's 120k*99usd 11'880'000usd to eat.... Of course, not all 120k users are payant

    [quote:yu3t3ha2]I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

    Of course this only was an example, but could expand on why its a bad idea? At least the concept of adding extras?

    Templates, assets, plugins, would be fairly easy for them to make. If not anything of that, they could easily add "extra features" to a subscription-based model. Lets say its cloud save, lets say its the OPTION of using it on browser, IF you want to.

    [quote:yu3t3ha2]While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

    Oh yeah, because every developer who does not launch their products in subscription-based models are starving out there. Poor of them.

    Also, a really good point:

    construct3.com states 120'000 users. That's 120k*99usd 11'880'000usd to eat.... Of course, not all 120k users are payant

    Everade Well said.

    > They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

    >

    I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

    While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

    You don't eat...?

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