Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

I just get the feeling that a lot of people here are stingy as hell, and probably wipe their behinds with both sides of the toilet paper to save a cent, because they still want c3, but just not with a subscription model, because god forbid, you have to pay Once a year for a product that you really like to use. Pathetic.

That's a very tone-deaf attitude and very insulting. Many people posting here have very valid reasons for not liking the subscription model, just as you do for liking it.

I just get the feeling that a lot of people here are stingy as hell, and probably wipe their behinds with both sides of the toilet paper to save a cent, because they still want c3, but just not with a subscription model, because god forbid, you have to pay Once a year for a product that you really like to use. Pathetic.

This paragraph is way out of order.

Please do not make such posts again.

I think the current subsciption price is too much for what at the moment being offered is essentially C2 in a browser (C2.3). I'd have much less of an issue if C3 launched with the C3 runtime and all the new features it will hopefully bring, but for now i don't think it's worth it.

If it wasnt for the 50% off deal i wouldnt subscribe, but i'll definitely be seeing what is added over the next year to see if it will be worth renewing at the full price.

Be it subscription or not, I still don't consider C3 to be a brand new product knowing how much time I spent with C2.

Scirra should have entered the web application building market and delivered a C2 app creator edition.

And that way they would have been the first company to introduce the world's first no-coding required app creator.

But instead they spent 3 years porting C2 to the web without getting the opinion of their userbase, which made a lot of users leave the forums and look for alternatives.

Bad decision.

I don't like the subscription model either, but if C3 is just so good that it's worth is far better than the subscription rate, I'd probably pay for it. Like Netflix. I think I pay around $10 a month for unlimited movies? At Blockbuster, I use to spend between $20-150 a month on movie rentals and late fees. Netflix is a great deal for the amount of movies I watch. I use this same logic for deciding not to pay for Spotify. I don't buy new music enough to justify the subscription.

In order for me to pay a subscription to C3, the value has to be there:

• C3 has to be significantly better than C2 . Otherwise, I'll keep using C2, because it's fully paid for.
• The plugins I use for my previous projects created in C2 have to work in C3. I want that functionality available to me.
• C3 has to be truly cross platform. Working exclusively in a browser built mostly for a platform I don't support, isn't enough for me. That's band-aid to a larger problem. I already have to use Parallels in order to use C2. It works, but it's a pain. Almost everytime I boot up Parallels, I have to wait for Windows to update. Chrome is annoying for other reasons, but it's still annoying.

I think eventually, all those problems I have might be solved, but I imagine it'll take a several years. Now if the subscription was monthly, I would probably opt in sooner, because if I don't like it or I don't think C3 is progressing fast enough, I can always unsubscribe at any time. That seems really fair to me. I pay for C3 when I use it. I don't want to pay for a product I might stop using after a month or two. There are times I haven't used C2 for 6-8 months.

If Scirra is dead set on a subscription model, why can't they meet us in the middle? Take the fear of a year long commitment out of the equation?

What I really think this is all about is security.

• Scirra wants the security of a steady revenue. A yearly subscription model provides that.

• Users want security knowing they won't completely lose access to editing their games because they can afford the subscription, they want to know they are not just wasting money on a new, unproven product, etc. Paying yearly for a subscription is a risk, regardless of how insignificant some people might find it.

So why not meet in the middle and offer a monthly rate? It's not the best solution for either side, but it's a reasonable solution.

What I really think this is all about is security.

- Scirra wants the security of a steady revenue. A yearly subscription model provides that.

- Users want security knowing they won't completely lose access to editing their games because they can afford the subscription, they want to know they are not just wasting money on a new, unproven product, etc. Paying yearly for a subscription is a risk, regardless of how insignificant some people might find it.

So why not meet in the middle and offer a monthly rate? It's not the best solution for either side, but it's a reasonable solution.

I think it's a very good option for everyone. But I think the thread is about people refusing any type of "renting model". Because of "reasons"....

Why not? Because Scirra is creating a product and they can charge whatever and however they want for it.

Honestly a petition and discussion really are not necessary - the simple (in)action of not subscribing is the most effective petition there is. If they don't make satisfactory revenues, then there will likely be change. If they do, then their business strategy is justified. This isn't open source software or a charity after all. The best part about an open market is that if you don't agree with a particular provider's pricing, you can just find alternatives, and there are plenty of free or partially free ones out there.

As far as the project access goes after a subscription expires, it is an inherent problem with all subscription software services, and obviously going to turn people away. How big an impact that will have on the bottom line is something that can only be seen after C3 goes live.

In the meantime, non-subscribers can still benefit from the continued existence of the free versions and C2. I'm all for a monthly option, but the balance Scirra needs to consider is how many yearly subscribers they might lose versus users they may gain. I think monthly users would eventually lean towards yearly subscriptions anyways given that the month to month rate would probably be higher than the monthly rate for annual subscriptions.

I think it's a very good option for everyone. But I think the thread is about people refusing any type of "renting model". Because of "reasons"....

Economic reasons are valid reasons, no need to be so negative about it.

If you compare to the old model of releasing a new version of software every year or so (think Quickbooks, Photoshop, Windows), a subscription model basically takes away the choice of upgrading or not out of the user's hands - even when the older software is sufficient for their needs. Rather than upgrading based on the merit of new features, you automatically get and pay for the new versions as they come.

It is understandable that people would prefer to have the ability to decide based on their own circumstances.

I don't see how a subscription method would alienate anyone.

One reason is people don't like paying for what they aren't using.

A lot of users of C2 are hobbyists who might take several months away from it, so they would feel like they would be wasting their subscription if they did the same thing with C3.

A couple of possible solutions would be:

• allowing users to temporarily suspend their subscription, re-enabling it when they return several months later
• not removing Editor features when the subscription lapses, only removing Export options

Ashley has already said he is considering options to allow users to edit and re-export previously exported projects, so maybe he will consider these options too.

I think it's a very good option for everyone. But I think the thread is about people refusing any type of "renting model". Because of "reasons"....

I stated earlier Stencyl. Others noted Unreal and Unity - all of which have much more acceptable subscription models.

Construct3's subscription model is way worse and restricted than all of the above. My problem is specifically with it alone.

I am ok with the ones in the other game engines

Reasons were stated as well, yes. You can go back and read them. No need to repeat ..

Also those who are comparing a game engine to a Netflix streaming service or gym membership are just being silly here. It's like comparing oranges to tomatoes and old socks, because they may have a similar price. All of the three have completely different end goals.

You don't use netflix or the gym as a TOOL (editor) and foundation (runtime) of your business/product

Please look at how subscription works in the other game engines. Stop grabbing onto non related examples.

Please also consider that after a game is released, it will most likely require maintenance - especially if it's a html5 game.

So even after your game is out - you will need to have access to keep it working with current web technology that it relies on.

A clever subscription model would let people develop at will and even motivate them to do so. Then charge them when they make money - a percent of the profits- be it from freemium ads/microtransactions or unit sales. Charge them for added services - you know actual real web services by the engine developer, not third party services such as dropbox/etc - like the ones c3 is using.

Charge to remove splash screen. You can charge for so many other things than completely restricting developers from developing.

Why not make it a

1. one time charge for the editor,

2. with a subscription model for the exporters+ad services/other specific plugins

3. percent of profits of games that make over x amount per year?

Just throwing ideas out there.

Scirra could also try to make revenue by becoming a publisher and help developers publish their games - similarly to what clickteam is doing. That way scirra could help get more games to the market and those games can get scirra more profits

Ha, you think you hate subscriptions?

Try having to deal with psd's, and not owning a desktop version of Photoshop.

Edit:

Just found a way to open them.

Guess what format it has to be exported to?

Friggen base64

I don't want to live on this planet any more.

I would strongly recommend a year sub and a monthly sub not just a monthly sub because I prefer the yearly sub if It comes down to it.

First - Scirra will not listen to any pleas in a thread like this - they don't care, or have any reason to care, if you like the deal or not, regardless of how long you have been associated with them and any flavour of Construct.

Second - as already alluded to in this thread by others is the whole sub model Scirra have created is just nasty, because you have no option but to subscribe unless your game is doable in a limited amount of events\layers whatever. Scirra says you are not locked out of your project if you don't subscribe, but we all know that it is as good as being locked out - and we all know they know it.

Third - You can't compare Construct to Photoshop. PS is professional tool with years of development behind it. In Australia, PS was a $1200 - 1500 program before going to sub model. Now it is affordable for a lot more people including hobbyists.

But would you pay $1200 - $1500 for Construct - no - it is not in the same league - it is a hobbyist tool not a professional one.

PS have a monthly payment plan but it is binding for the first twelve months. - this is much better option for people who are on very low income which most hobbyists are.

The Best SUB

The best sub model I know and use is that of Devcomponents.

It is much dearer than the Scirra model but is way, way, way, more user friendly.

You pay a lump sum up front for twelve months.

At the end of the period if you don't subscribe you get to keep and use all features in the last build you received You still have access to the knowledge base BUT You don't get any more features You don't get anymore bug fixes You don't have access to the forums

Renewing the sub is substantially reduced and can be renewed any time - even years down the track with no loss of savings.

While this model is more expensive - like 2 1\2 times more - it is a lot fairer and has more incentive on both sides of the fence. Because if there are no new features you need then you just don't need to re-sub, but you get to keep what you have payed for.

That said is matters not what I or anyone else thinks - this is the Scirra model, like it or lump it.

So those who are for it - happy for you.

Those who hate it - there are options out there.

Scirra - hope it goes well for you and the new team.

The best sub model I know and use is that of Devcomponents.

It is much dearer than the Scirra model but is way, way, way, more user friendly.

You pay a lump sum up front for twelve months.

At the end of the period if you don't subscribe you get to keep and use all features in the last build you received You still have access to the knowledge base BUT You don't get any more features You don't get anymore bug fixes You don't have access to the forums

Renewing the sub is substantially reduced and can be renewed any time - even years down the track with no loss of savings.

Isn't that basically what C2 is now?

If you buy C2:

• You pay 1 large lump sum for C2
• At the end of the year, you still get to use C2
• You don't get any more features

Except:

-You do get bug fixes

-You do get access to the forums

Edit: I just checked and people are still using Construct Classic. That's crazy. Is that app still viable? Gives me hope the C2 will continue to be viable for 3-4 years at least.