Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

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.

Honestly I favor this subscription model more than paying for a month, if Scirra could consider this option I think that will cause less friction than current model.

[quote:3k146g2z]Isn't that basically what C2 is now?

No it is not - if you don't keep the C3 sub going you cant use it at all for large projects - so for a substantial game it is effectively useless..

The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.

The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.

But will construct 3 have a build in app creator or will we still have to use third party tools such as intel XDK?

Don't worry guys!

Even though Ashley and Tom have turned out to be liars and assholes we are going to help them out by releasing a C2 clone that will be completely open source so you can use all your C2 plugins and run your existing games and help develop features and exporters that actually work.

It will be completely free and community based development so just watch for the announcement here on Scirra.

Have a great day Ashley and Tom!

Do you referr to GDevelop?

I have been observing this thread from afar, but now I feel its time to make a comment.

I commend Scirra(ashley,Tom) for their business risk, Hiring staff, premises, taking a big risk in direction with an established user base, and product.

I also understand how contra people are about subscriptions, but perlexed at how vexed people can also be with this issue.

From my point of view, I think there should be Several SKU's

1) Hobbyist --no intention of monetising games--html export only--license restriction on monetisation $39 P/A Sub

2) Hobbyist/Wanna- be Developer--monetise options--All exports available, not in house, --license to monetise $99 P/A Sub

3) Developer--monetise-monetise--In house exporters--advanced features--license to monetise $149 P/A Sub

3) Educational........To be decided on an wants/needs basis

Some common sense needs to prevail within , when potentially, one size does not obviously fit all.

By lowering the price for Hobbyist, who might eventually go on to develop, is in everyones interest.

Once again, the event system is the overriding reason why we all use Construct, and I do not envy Scirra for having to make some un-populist decisions in growing their business.

For what its worth I'm still sitting on the fence with C3, waiting to see what return value it will have for me.

With the current model, you might as well drop forum support altogether.

If that's not in the plan already.

Less bandwidth, nobody arguing back.

It's a win win, er well non zero sum game.

But will construct 3 have a build in app creator or will we still have to use third party tools such as intel XDK?

https://www.scirra.com/blog/187/buildin ... onstruct-3

[quote:fxvui8jd]Isn't that basically what C2 is now?

No it is not - if you don't keep the C3 sub going you cant use it at all for large projects - so for a substantial game it is effectively useless..

I was referring to C2, not C3. If you look again, I pretty much matched up the points you made with your proposed subscription model. It was just a joke anyway.

The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.

When I bought C2 with lifetime updates, I thought that meant for the life of the product. I only really expected it to last a year or two before C3 came out. I don't think the mistake was payment model. I think the mistake was you guys kinda ran it into the ground and took too long to come out with the next version of the software. Releasing all those free features and updates was good for us, bad for you.

I think another problem is this "one size fits all" subscription model. If you take a look, nearly every successful subscription based business gives customers options. I don't think that is by chance. It's based on market analysis. And if you really want to overly simplify what everyone here is asking, it's that they want options. If you make it easy for people, they are far more willing to pay for it.

If you're not happy with the SaaS model, the #1 thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

Personally, I use Construct 2-3 months a year, usually for game jams. If there were a month-by-month subscription option, I'd probably give C3 a shot. If it's a yearly subscription, I'll check back when the new runtime is finished.

Regardless, I wish Scirra the best of luck.

If you're not happy with the SaaS model, the #1 thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

I think the point of this thread is to reason with Ashley before it comes to that. Talking about this afterwards is difficult if everyone leaves. The damage is done.

On a side note, most everyone here are event sheet junkies. And the majority of the vocal community seems to be against this subscription model. I'm curious about how many people are actually bluffing? If there was a better solution for people right now, they wouldn't be here debating about it. And if Ashley doesn't ever come around to what the community wants, which other product will fill the gap C3 leaves? I know of one other game engine that's very interested in angry construct users and are already planning to add features to sway them. That's just how the market works...

Whatever happens, it's very interesting to see what comes of all this.

Why not make C3 a one time payment.... with no subscription. Plan to release C4 in exactly one year along with a major new feature, and drop any support for C3 and all further updates for it, only offer downloadable last stable for people who wanna cling to it, once the new C4 version is released.

Make a plan to release major new version release on a yearly basis. Make it clear that no further updates and support to old versions will be available once the next version is released. Only a downloadable last stable will be available for old C3 once C4 is released.

If people try to access C3 online once c4 is released, they will get a download link or an option to upgrade to c4.

Maybe even Make the build service a seperate service for C2, C3, C4 users alike for those who wish to use it?

Problem solved?

> Don't worry guys!

>

> Even though Ashley and Tom have turned out to be liars and assholes we are going to help them out by releasing a C2 clone that will be completely open source so you can use all your C2 plugins and run your existing games and help develop features and exporters that actually work.

>

> It will be completely free and community based development so just watch for the announcement here on Scirra.

>

> Have a great day Ashley and Tom!

>

Do you referr to GDevelop?

I doubt it

Gdevelop is similar, yes. But it is already released , not to be released. it is also not compatible with construct2's plugins or shaders.

Gdevelop uses a number of different open source engines/frameworks under the hood in order to export games- depending on what you export to - it uses pixi.js(html5), sfml (native/android) and even cocos2d(native/android)

Unlike construct, it exports to native, however the editor is somewhat clunky still and has some bugs

Gdevelop is not a clone, it's development dates way back, so you can argue that it is parallel or even predates scirra

However it has much less features and the developers are not as active as Ashley and co. The project is very stale atm

If you really want to fund a clone - gdevelop is a good start to make a clone imo.

It's probably possible to make construct's plugins work on gdevelop, with some refactoring to gdevelop, however I am not sure how legal that would be.

If a good clone is announced here on scirra, the thread will be locked and deleted 5 seconds after it has been posted hahaha

Fortunately for scirra, gdevelop is still not up to that standard (yet!)

Why not make C3 a one time payment.... with no subscription. Plan to release C4 in exactly one year along with a major new feature, and drop any support for C3 and all further updates for it, only offer downloadable last stable for people who wanna cling to it, once the new C4 version is released.

Make a plan to release major new version release on a yearly basis. Make it clear that no further updates and support to old versions will be available once the next version is released. Only a downloadable last stable will be available for old C3 once C4 is released.

. . . . . . .

Problem solved?

Yes! That is pretty much what I saying with the Devcomponents model for their IDE tools.

I hardly use C2 at all atm - but would happily support C3 with this kind of model.

It is obvious Scirra need to fund the New Team and the Tech behind C3 - and who wouldn't want them to be able to do so.- - if they can eat we can play

Like Scirra Devcomponents release bug fixes and new tools incredibly often. The upside of their sub model is that if they don't have any new features or bug fixes you need when your sub ends, you can still carry on with your projects with the last build available before your sub run out. But all other support stops. That solves the Lock out issue that most are peeved about, and provides ongoing funds for Scirra.

So new must-have features, and fast turn around on bug fixes = people want to stay subscribed. But is they can't for financial reasons, or just don't need the latest greatest they still have what they paid for up until their sub ran out.