I'm worried about the future.

The past few years have seen a resurgence in retro gaming. Games that were made 30 years ago such as Zelda, Megaman, Metroid etc not only have modern iterations but also a strong audience playing the original games and their variations. Companies such as Nintendo or Capcom would be tinkering with the original source code for these classics, rereleasing them on modern devices etc - so games that were made a while ago are still relevant and their popularity goes through cycles. No doubt it will be the same for the future. It is my understanding that with the C3 subscription model if it ends you will no longer be able to edit your projects. But what happens if Scirra as a company ceases to exist - does C3 rely on paid infrastructure to function? If that disappears surely the ability for anyone to edit the games goes with it. Some indies like Owlboy took 10 years to make. What happens if I commit to the subscription, but Scirra crashes and burns? Am I left with 5 years of my life wasted on a half finished product I can't edit? Please tell me that's not going to happen. Is Scirra thinking about the preservation of digital information for the future, and if so, how can that possibly fit into a subscription model? Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but from what I can see so far I'm very worried.

The paid subscription model guarantees longevity.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Scirra's current business model has users paying a one-off cost for an ongoing, evolving product and services - this is not sustainable, and would, without failure, end up bankrupting Scirra if continued ad infinitum.

This concern is entirely mitigated by subscription fees.

The paid subscription model guarantees longevity.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Scirra's current business model has users paying a one-off cost for an ongoing, evolving product and services - this is not sustainable, and would, without failure, end up bankrupting Scirra if continued ad infinitum.

This concern is entirely mitigated by subscription fees.

Yes, but elliot has a point, what if the company does run into some unforeseen troubles, what legal ramifications might protect those subscribers who need to be able to legally continue working on their games?

Scirra said on the forum that if the subscription won't work they would (logically) consider other options in the future. Unless Scirra evaporates instantly into nothingness, you don't have to worry about your projects. I think they would release a purchasable offline editor, etc..

But just as Elliott wrote, the subscription model will ensure that Scirra will be in the game with continued income and support. While I understand your thinking and feelings about this topic, I don't think that we have any reason to worry about that.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Actually, you'll find that these types of game designers make most of their money off those who get a rush of an idea, buy the product, run into a dead stop, and abandon their idea for something else. Don't know the stats, but I suspect that the dropout rate is high, and most wouldn't be around 12 months after buying a game designer product (from any company).

The opposite can happen as well. Scirra could become massive or develop some tech that puts them in the crosshairs of the really big fish. A few million later Scirra has been bought out and swallowed up by Valve. Construct 2 / 3 are supported for a year then discontinued. Ashley and Tom have their yachts in the Bahamas and you are left 2-3 years wasted life. It has happened to a least 4 software tools that I had invested years of my life to learning. In fact almost destroyed my career in one instance. It's all part of life. Best not to worry too much about these things.

Gobbled up by a bigger fish is the biggest worry to me.

Something to consider.

If Scirra was a publicly traded company, would you want them to use the subscription model or the one off license one?

The subscription model will secure Scirra's future and give them more resources to permanently improve Construct.

I am much more positive about Construct future with the subscription model than with a life time licensing system.

One drawback of the subscription model is that developers will become more demanding about adding new features and improvements. But that is the challenge the Scirra team has to accept.

The world of game development is moving fast. What is high tech today is outdated tomorrow. With this model, Scirra can stay on par with that moving rate.

I like the more positive attitude of the community here towards the new subscription model. Believe me, this will be an improvement for us all.

Software comes, and software goes. There are no guarantees that software will be supported long term.

However, a rental model does have the disadvantage that if the company goes under, or decides to discontinue a product, developers run the risk to be stone-walled in the middle of a project.

Point in case: Adobe announced a couple of weeks ago that Director development and support will be ending sometime in March. Existing rentals ("subscriptions") will be cut off at that time as well.

Developers on the Adobe Director forum are not happy about this (understatement) - for example, one developer is in the middle of a project, and it will take him longer than March to finish. Others have projects done for clients (museums, for example) that must be maintained and updated after the March date.

Unfortunately, those developers who rented the software seem to be out of luck. They contacted Adobe, and asked for some lenience. But they will lose access to Director and with it lose access to their projects sometime this year.

Director first entered the market in 1985(!). The oldest surviving 'multimedia' producer is now dead. There are no guarantees for software survival. But Director users with a perpetual license may continue to use the software to open their older projects - renters ("subscribers") are at a distinct disadvantage in these type of situations.

Software comes, and software goes. There are no guarantees that software will be supported long term.

However, a rental model does have the disadvantage that if the company goes under, or decides to discontinue a product, developers run the risk to be stone-walled in the middle of a project.

Point in case: Adobe announced a couple of weeks ago that Director development and support will be ending sometime in March. Existing rentals ("subscriptions") will be cut off at that time as well.

Developers on the Adobe Director forum are not happy about this (understatement) - for example, one developer is in the middle of a project, and it will take him longer than March to finish. Others have projects done for clients (museums, for example) that must be maintained and updated after the March date.

Unfortunately, those developers who rented the software seem to be out of luck. They contacted Adobe, and asked for some lenience. But they will lose access to Director and with it lose access to their projects sometime this year.

Director first entered the market in 1985(!). The oldest surviving 'multimedia' producer is now dead. There are no guarantees for software survival. But Director users with a perpetual license may continue to use the software to open their older projects - renters ("subscribers") are at a distinct disadvantage in these type of situations.

This is a very good example of exactly what I'm afraid of. In a case like this it seems like an unnecessary and artificial limitation that just rubs salt into the wounds of loyal customers. Adobe is a big and ruthless multinational corporation that can do whatever it wants, but the price of progress doesn't need to be so high. Director was superseded long ago, and perhaps you could argue that people developing on it were foolish (although as you mentioned many kiosks in places such as museums still use director programs so it's not always an option). You expect this kind of behaviour in big business but I'm kind of disappointed the smaller guys aren't even fighting for something better.

We can at least hope when in like 5 years they want to make Construct 4 or go on, they will change the license to become normal license so there's no risk of inability to run your files.. Of course providing you download your files to your own computer from cloud if it get closed down. (providing there's truth to the 100% offline standalone mode)

Sometimes I do like to open files I made back in early 90s to see them. Harder and harder to do so.

Indeed, situations as with Adobe Director are a disadvantage of subscription based licensing models.

However, remember that there is also an offline version which will continue to work. I asume that as a cool game developer, you not only store your projects in the cloud but also on your own backup disks.

This mean, there is no risk at all. In case Scirra end development of Construct or they stop being in busines, there will be time enough to seek another solution.

Anyway, even with the local Construct 2, if Scirra ended development, you also would be in trouble because very soon Construct 2 would have become outdated.

Support for consoles like Xbox, PlayStation... needs to be realised in the future.

People can change from Construct 2 to Gamemaker, Unity or anything else. However when you changed and your new platform also change to the subscription model, it is even worse. Think about that!

When you develop games in Construct 2, I do not find it wise to change for the reason of the subscription model. Also for current license holders of Construct 2, there is a discounted subscription fee for the first year. I think it was 42$ instead of 99$.

There will also be a free Construct 3 edition but with severe limitations.

When I see concerns as explained by Helena, believe me, when you setup a proper backup structure, they are unnecessary. Remember again, you have Construct2 (which will keep working) and you have the offline version of Construct 3 and as a smart developer you backup your projects also to a backup disk. What can go wrong then?

Edit :

Please read the message of the original poster by clicking the link below. It is very long but very well written.

https://www.scirra.com/forum/c3-love_t187536

Software comes, and software goes. There are no guarantees that software will be supported long term.

However, a rental model does have the disadvantage that if the company goes under, or decides to discontinue a product, developers run the risk to be stone-walled in the middle of a project.

Point in case: Adobe announced a couple of weeks ago that Director development and support will be ending sometime in March. Existing rentals ("subscriptions") will be cut off at that time as well.

Developers on the Adobe Director forum are not happy about this (understatement) - for example, one developer is in the middle of a project, and it will take him longer than March to finish. Others have projects done for clients (museums, for example) that must be maintained and updated after the March date.

Unfortunately, those developers who rented the software seem to be out of luck. They contacted Adobe, and asked for some lenience. But they will lose access to Director and with it lose access to their projects sometime this year.

Director first entered the market in 1985(!). The oldest surviving 'multimedia' producer is now dead. There are no guarantees for software survival. But Director users with a perpetual license may continue to use the software to open their older projects - renters ("subscribers") are at a distinct disadvantage in these type of situations.

I agree with Rayek on this one!

That paid subscription model - quite on the contrary guarantees that one day you will no longer be able to open your game project. History has shown us many times - users being left out to dry

It does not in any way help your project or you. It's there simply to lock you on continued payment, regardless if you actually make money from the game engine or not or need to update it for new features.

I would be ok if the rent payments were so that the engine gets new features. But they really aren't - the developer can then continue charging you simply for using the software. Once they have enough users locked to that model, they will no longer worry about meeting any feature requests - as pressure on their side to improve the software so people buy the update is gone.

One day when they decide to drop support for the software, even if you want to pay rent- you will be locked out of the house - with all of your stuff still in it.

However, remember that there is also an offline version which will continue to work.

Scirra still has to confirm this. Right now they said that you won't be able to edit your projects after your subscription ended. I think that goes for the offline versions as well.

> However, remember that there is also an offline version which will continue to work.

>

Scirra still has to confirm this. Right now they said that you won't be able to edit your projects after your subscription ended. I think that goes for the offline versions as well.

That should be enough of a reason not to buy into it. It makes the investment very shaky