Frankly, Whats the point of c3?

Mmmm, open sauce spaghetti, and meatballs.

Mmmm, open sauce spaghetti, and meatballs.

What exactly is it that you dislike about open-source? Half of the web is open-source (and nearly every server, certainly the stable ones, are running Linux).

> Mmmm, open sauce spaghetti, and meatballs.

>

What exactly is it that you dislike about open-source? Half of the web is open-source (and nearly every server, certainly the stable ones, are running Linux).

What is it you like about trying to make it sound like someone has a preference for something?

Edit:

If you do need an example we could just go literal with a spaghetti, and meatball recipe that can only be made while using chopsticks.

Then make it open source.

I really could not care less whether software is open source or not - I look for the features I need/wish for a game project, and base the decision for a game engine on those. If it happens to be free/open source, production proven, and checks all the boxes for me, I will investigate further and make a decision.

Currently Godot tops my list. But I have been looking into Unity with one or two plugins as well. I think it is important to spend a couple of weeks testing setups in various engines before deciding which one to go with.

*Edit* Wow, just watched the Unity GDC 2017 Keynote and the new timeline/Cinemachine. Doesn't get any easier to choose, heh? So many new toys out there. C3 looks a bit old hat compared.

FWIW, we are still focused on indie devs and making it a better tool for them - it's still probably the largest segment of our userbase.

Sorry but I'm gonna beat a dead horse here when I say that indie devs + subscription have nothing in common.

I will not buy C3 which I thought was a natural progression from C2 but it's not.

With the current model it doesn't benefit indie devs at all. In fact is a model that states: "take it or leave it. We are not changing it."

See this for an example of community feedback being listened:

https://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/06/16/ev ... d-pricing/

I am jumping ship but I hope others don't give up to support Scirra. My point is I feel like I'm not a customer anymore because of the changes and this weighs so bad on my side. :-/

The pride of Scirra prevents them from listening to their authentic user base, users who bought C2 because it was cheap and because with a single payment they could export, with a payment they had everything.

And now scirra wants these users to swallow with the subscription model?

Scirra seems to want to obviate that a majority of C2 users are people with few resources or who do not want to spend a lot of money on this hobby

The subscription model is going to drive out all these people

Scirra, Do you realize this is insane?

No. It felt insane that I used c2 so much and with so many good updates with only a 50 to 100 dollar as a single payment.

I think a larger single payment or 50 dollar yearly feels fair.

> mumu64

> The point was that you can use Stencyl Free version as much as you (no limit to a number of events and even preview native exporters) and buy the 1 year subscription (100$ or 200$ depending on your needs) only when you want to export/publish native.

>

> With C3 Free you will be able to open your projects, but will not be able to edit them if they have over 100 events (or something like that).

>

> You understand now the difference ?

>

>

I know and I should have made myself more clear. Stencyl free version with editing possibility comes with a price: pay (more) for all your needs.

I don't like any version of the Stencyl example.

Yes, but you have the option to export native if you want. And you you have the option to continue to develop your project without subscription... Let's say you work at a big game for 2~3 years. You can subscribe only 1 year when you export.

Tell me how C3's subscription is better since C3 Free version will be very limited ?

> who in their right mind is going to work on larger games through a browser interface?

>

Could you further explain this thought?

Does it really need to be explained ? Short answer: stability and performance issues.

>

> > who in their right mind is going to work on larger games through a browser interface?

> >

> Could you further explain this thought?

>

Does it really need to be explained ? Short answer: stability and performance issues.

Every question is valid. Please do not question questions.

Sorry but I'm gonna beat a dead horse here when I say that indie devs + subscription have nothing in common.

I will not buy C3 which I thought was a natural progression from C2 but it's not.

With the current model it doesn't benefit indie devs at all. In fact is a model that states: "take it or leave it. We are not changing it."

See this for an example of community feedback being listened:

https://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/06/16/ev ... d-pricing/

I am jumping ship but I hope others don't give up to support Scirra. My point is I feel like I'm not a customer anymore because of the changes and this weighs so bad on my side. :-/

I see a lot of posts like these, and I'm left to wonder: is the issue the subscription model - which I know a lot of people aren't fans of - or the value proposition of C3 with a subscription model? While I'm not especially thrilled with subscriptions, it's a fact of life these days, and my issue mostly lies with the lack of a compelling reason to subscribe to C3, which still just seems like a port of the C2 IDE to the browser with some very minor updates, and that's an issue when asking for more money, more regularly.

I see a lot of posts like these, and I'm left to wonder: is the issue the subscription model - which I know a lot of people aren't fans of - or the value proposition of C3 with a subscription model? While I'm not especially thrilled with subscriptions, it's a fact of life these days, and my issue mostly lies with the lack of a compelling reason to subscribe to C3, which still just seems like a port of the C2 IDE to the browser with some very minor updates, and that's an issue when asking for more money, more regularly.

For me it's the former. I find it very hard to stomach software subscriptions. Autodesk Maya goes subscription? Fine, I'll use Blender instead. Adobe Photoshop? No prob, Gimp serves me just as well. C3, well... The new workflow improvements look nice, but C2 is already pretty solid in that regard. And C3 doesn't address my main concerns about C2 either, namely performance and portability, so yeah. I would have gladly forked out twice the price of C2 if a one-time payment option was on the table, as C2 has been a real boon for me. But subscription, nah.

Software subscriptions are not a fact of life I'm willing to just lie down and accept, and certainly not in the world of gamedev middleware where alternatives are all around.

gamedev middleware where alternatives are all around.

My guess is they want to break out of this area with C3?

I wonder if any of the c2 dev team use a browser based code editor.

I'm losing faith here.

So far c3 appears to be little more than c2 revamped into a browser, with a less intuitive save system, access to a scirra version of phonegap build (but no ipa export, so not as good) and a slightly tweaked UI for the 0% of devs who want to do work on a 5" phone screen.

Is the expectation that people will pay to do beta testing when it's released?

[quote:3hr381us]Is the expectation that people will pay to do beta testing when it's released?

Of course not

I see a lot of posts like these, and I'm left to wonder: is the issue the subscription model - which I know a lot of people aren't fans of - or the value proposition of C3 with a subscription model?

There's also a considerable number of users expressing their concerns who are afraid of getting their projects locked (with no editing) if their subscription ends.