Construct 3 Subscription Fee Or Buy (Pay Once) Vote

A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

Secondly, our strength is that we do mainly focus on our core product! Spending our time creating assets/templates etc to sell would ultimately take away from that. We'd rather just play to our strengths.

A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

Because its mainly community content and you only get a share.

That is why I said its not being used creatively and in its potential.

It could easily be a feature store, that would add core elements to the software that not everyone might need, but a lot would want (like different exporters in ClickTeam Fusion). Of course that those would be things that would take time to make, it would not be simple sprites, but slices of real software, but if its something that would please a huge amount of people you could charge even up to 1/4 of the price of the full software.

But of course, decisions were already made and there is not how to go back and think of other solutions. I hope it works for you, but imo was not a smart move and you could have been more creative in terms of generating revenue instead of subscription. If it turns out to work financially, well, then good for you guys.

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

There's nothing wrong in the concept of adding extras. I was talking about the extras you listed. I don't think people would pay the subscription just for free assets, templates, etc.. They would need something more solid. Like exporting options, collaborating functions, etc.. While I think there are better ways to sell a software than paid extras, your idea would be more sustainable if they offered features, instead assets. Also, please don't take this in the wrong way. I meant no offence.

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

>

There's nothing wrong in the concept of adding extras. I was talking about the extras you listed. I don't think people would pay the subscription just for free assets, templates, etc.. They would need something more solid. Like exporting options, collaborating functions, etc.. While I think there are better ways to sell a software than paid extras, your idea would be more sustainable if they offered features, instead assets. Also, please don't take this in the wrong way. I meant no offence.

I was just doodling with my mind when listing that examples. As I said above to Tom, I after listed the same things as you now. But things like exporting options, for example, would work better being sold apart from the full software than offered in a subscription model. But that is good as well, it would be another way to generate revenue and keep the pay-once model for the base software.

All I meant is that they could've been more creative about this, that was the whole point. But I'm not trying to give them a solution here, how could I. While they're way more capable to analyze their own situation, the Evolve team was also in theory more capable of create ways to monetize their game while the community raged against their model and the game suddenly died. Just an example.

But its true that its also way easier to point out a mistake in something than to create a solution for it.

No offense taken. I was not clear enough.

A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

Secondly, our strength is that we do mainly focus on our core product! Spending our time creating assets/templates etc to sell would ultimately take away from that. We'd rather just play to our strengths.

what if Construct 3 is a one time payment for desktop builds and if people want to use it on chrome then pay a fee??

> A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

>

> Secondly, our strength is that we do mainly focus on our core product! Spending our time creating assets/templates etc to sell would ultimately take away from that. We'd rather just play to our strengths.

>

what if Construct 3 is a one time payment for desktop builds and if people want to use it on chrome then pay a fee??

I'd say yes immediately, because I don't use Chrome. But that idea is not gonna work, everybody is simply going take the desktop version don't you think? Because the desktop version is more prowerfull, the browser will never be able to access local drives and stuffs like that

Tom

What about offering both pay models? A subscription model for those that are fine with renting software, and premium price for those who are not? I'm not against you making money, but the value isn't the same for me as it would be for someone who uses it on a daily basis. I'm willing to bet there are more casual users like myself than regular users. Why does it have to be one or the other?

A problem we've always had is finding other ways to drive revenue. Asset store profit we make wouldn't cover even 1 employees salary/costs, and there are ~8 of us at the moment. It's a nice thing to have to help, but will never come close to our core product.

Secondly, our strength is that we do mainly focus on our core product! Spending our time creating assets/templates etc to sell would ultimately take away from that. We'd rather just play to our strengths.

Thats 8x 31K average programmer wages in the uk with 5-10 years experience , divided by 99 usd, You will have to have 2,505 subscriptions per year alone to cover the wages, thats not accounting for overheads !

But I'm sure you have worked all that out

Like I said earlier, I'm not judging on a product I know little about, the next few weeks will be interesting to say the least.

Before 27 and 7

Now 37 and 9

The progression in favor of "buy" increases more faster

Is a fact to think about.. no?

Again, this question is about whether people would prefer the pay model over the subscription. Nobody asked them if they would actually buy it OR if they would actually subscribe. For all you know, everyone who voted for the buy model would also subscribe if it were the only option. It's highly unlikely, and I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just pointing out how stupid and pointless this thread is, since it doesn't show what the people actually would pay for, just what they would prefer.

> Before 27 and 7

> Now 37 and 9

>

> The progression in favor of "buy" increases more faster

>

> Is a fact to think about.. no?

>

Again, this question is about whether people would prefer the pay model over the subscription. Nobody asked them if they would actually buy it OR if they would actually subscribe. For all you know, everyone who voted for the buy model would also subscribe if it were the only option. It's highly unlikely, and I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just pointing out how stupid and pointless this thread is, since it doesn't show what the people actually would pay for, just what they would prefer.

Well, unpopular business decisions can be enough to drive costumers away, even if they would be whilling to go with the other way or not.

I may be speaking for myself, but I'm not sympathetic with this subscription model, the enough to not go for it, no matter how good the software is. I'm speculating, but I think the majority of people complaining about it and voting for per-once would do the same as well.

Also speaking for myself, whenever I see a software based on subscription model, it drives me away instantly. The only expection is Netflix, as its cheap enough with a huge amount of content, its just entertainment, I avoid piracy and I don't feel like I need to own a movie. Even Spotify I use for free. I'm fine with the ads.

When talking about software, specially if you use it for work, its a whole different story.

If I'm researching for a software and I read that it costs an amount per year for you to continue using it, I immediately start to look for alternatives. Even if the alternative its slightly worse, the fact that I pay once and own it its a huge deal for me.

So its not only about if people would pay the subscription even if they don't like it, the real thing is, they for sure will start to a least research about alternatives. And well, there are a couple of decent ones out there. Construct is still my favorite, but unfortunetely for them, its not the only one.

Also speaking for myself, whenever I see a software based on subscription model, it drives me away instantly. The only expection is Netflix, as its cheap enough with a huge amount of content, its just entertainment, I avoid piracy and I don't feel like I need to own a movie. Even Spotify I use for free. I'm fine with the ads.

People always bring up Netflix when talking about subscription models, but it's not the same thing. The difference consuming entertainment vs. producing entertainment.

>

> Also speaking for myself, whenever I see a software based on subscription model, it drives me away instantly. The only expection is Netflix, as its cheap enough with a huge amount of content, its just entertainment, I avoid piracy and I don't feel like I need to own a movie. Even Spotify I use for free. I'm fine with the ads.

>

>

People always bring up Netflix when talking about subscription models, but it's not the same thing. The difference consuming entertainment vs. producing entertainment.

Yeah and I agreed. See my line after that. :p

When talking about software, specially if you use it for work, its a whole different story.

>

> >

> > Yeah and I agreed. See my line after that. :p

> >

> >

>

I was agreeing with you too. I was just reiterating the point.

I was agreeing with you. I was just reiterating the point.

Oh right, my bad. I agree with your agreement then.

Ashley

Tom

Personally, i would go with a similiar subscription plan like InvisionPowerBoard is using it.

It works similiar to this:

1. You buy the product at a fixed price, which means you own it

Which includes updates for, lets say 3~6 months.

Then you will have to pay the monthly subscription (or 3 months or whatever you choose) to get updates

2. Pay the subscription to download/install/use updates

This includes fixes

This includes new features

This way, we could ultimatively decide if we want to get the latest updates or not.

And it increases Scirras income, stable and predictable.

Some people might not pay the subscription in the first place, but once some important fixes or great features have been added, i'm sure they will jump back in and pay for another month.

This could be pretty well balanced and would probably something both sides could live with.

Or of course, the unrealistic version which will probably not happen:

Get your money from somewhere else as everyone says xD