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.

Well we all have our opinions -

----

Nobody here is stupid, they know exactly what C3 as a service means - they just for the most part don't want that.

I for one would even happily pay for C2 again (even though currently I don't use it at all except with the grandkids now and again) , to help feed Scirra to keep developing that product.

The software as a service thing is becoming more common - but most people hate it.

Currently I have a CC sub, and others - so I don't mind paying for stuff at all.

The worst sub I have is the CC one since if I stop my sub I can't use the software anymore. I even have plugins for Photoshop that cost hundreds of dollars - so there is an incentive to keep my CC sub alive.

But I use it daily so it is worth the outlay.

I do photography as a hobby, and have a fairly expensive camera - I don't mind paying out good cash for upgrades and enhancements - but I don't want to keep paying for the camera.

I just doubt that the Contruct user base is ready to take on such a model - and it seams most hate the Software As A Service model.

It is really that simple.

yeah... just because a subscription model is becoming more common, it doesn't mean that it is the model everyone will use in the future- it just means that the new model has become more accessible to those interested in applying it. Whether it works for them and is suited for them is another matter. Markets evolve, and new products emerge to fill gaps that get left behind by others that no longer fill them. Construct appears to be changing direction in some way, shape or form- so it's a matter of time to see how that turns out and how everyone acclimates themselves to that. Hopefully it turns out for the better.

I will not purchase C3 while it is on a Subscription-only model.

Most people here who use & enjoy C2 are hobbyist, myself included. I will not pay a subscription fee for C3.

i agree, if you do this scirra then i think i'll just use another engine.

Well if the subscription model that construct3 has at the moment fails,

now Ashley and Tom have loads of data and suggestions by their users they can apply to the next license approach.

Right now they are ignoring their own community's voice in order to do what is based on marketing research by an unknown entity

But that is ok, the community here is used to that and can take it. I am sure that C3 will sell loads of subs in no time and there will be no need to amend the license that so many people here can't stand

Vote with your wallets guys

That is the only thing that can change it, not these petition threads. Threads are just voicing opinion, but sales figures are the only thing that can drive change. While a lot of us don't buy it, many others might. Who knows

> 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.

Look each engine is different but similar

But here we all are.

I don't think anyone here is just raging for the sake of wanting free stuff etc. People like the tool and they come to like Scirra as a company which is now going into a direction that concerns them for each of their own reasons.

Why would anyone be bluffing?

There are 6 direct competitors and at least 3 or 4 more thats indirect competitors. If you don't like what Construct 3 is there are definitely alternatives. I love the Event System, but the other tool's systems arent necessarily worse, just different so it's a learning process that you will have to invest into. I mainly used a different tool even though I own C2 and messed around with it a bit, I'm actually now looking at using C3. So I'm basically learning from scratch. People going the opposite way can do the same.

For me there is one competitor that is as good but that's only going to be out at the end of the year beginning 2018 imho and the full version would be at least $299 I reckon. That's 3 years of Construct 3 funds if the money is your only concern,but you own it and you can use it for whatever.

At the rate Scirra ads fixes and updates, in 3 years we would have a new runtime for performance and features, WebGL2.0 would have advanced even further etc.

If Ashley can sort out the "you will still be able to access and change a project that you worked on previously" then I don't see any issues really with the sub model. One thing though.....expectations are raised as well with a subscription model...which I'm sure Ashley would have realised with their "analysis of sales and customer data".

I don't know why people claim GDevelop is an alternative, it simply isn't in the league. And unless my memory is faulty, Stencyl isn't up there either. So why are they being mentioned?

GameMaker would be (personally I don't like that company-but anyway), or the next version of Clickteam, but why are people suggesting a step backwards as an alternative.

(Btw: I'm not a fan of the change [I do understand it though] - and won't buy C3, but lets not pub talk these topics)

— +1

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?

That's not a bad idea at all. I'm sure it has downsides as well, but it might worth the consideration.

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.

Business-wise it is not feasible to drop all support, especially for a relatively new software release. Customers hate having support for their product dropped. For exactly this reason, we are continuing to maintain Construct 2 for the foreseeable future. We could never say we'd dropped support for it - there would be a huge backlash.

I am sure the same thing would happen if we dropped support for the product every year and asked people to pay again. It would be a regular, annual backlash. I dread to think of that. I am certain we would be forced to maintain old versions at least a couple of years. Maintaining multiple versions would cause a significant engineering overhead and considerably slow down our ability to progress with new features.

Monthly subs. Thats the answer.

Monthly subs. Thats the answer.

Or the option to suspend your subscription if you know you're not going to use it for a few months.

> Monthly subs. Thats the answer.

>

Or the option to suspend your subscription if you know you're not going to use it for a few months.

Or that yeah.

ASHLEY. Seems most..ok not all... but most people here aren't against the subs. We just want fair / reasonable use.

Business-wise it is not feasible to drop all support, especially for a relatively new software release. Customers hate having support for their product dropped. For exactly this reason, we are continuing to maintain Construct 2 for the foreseeable future. We could never say we'd dropped support for it - there would be a huge backlash.

I am sure the same thing would happen if we dropped support for the product every year and asked people to pay again. It would be a regular, annual backlash. I dread to think of that. I am certain we would be forced to maintain old versions at least a couple of years. Maintaining multiple versions would cause a significant engineering overhead and considerably slow down our ability to progress with new features.

You could use something akin to Unity's pay-to-own:

http://www.cgchannel.com/2016/06/unity- ... ing-model/

[quote:fd0h7nlb]Exisiting owners of perpetual licences will get the option to buy either a 24-month or 36-month Pro subscription that “allows them to keep the software as a perpetual version at the end of their commitment period”.

Pricing for this pay-to-own model hasn’t been announced yet, but Unity has said that you’ll pre-pay the full cost of the subscription, so it’s effectively still a perpetual licence plus maintenance by another name.

New customers will also have access to the 36-month pay-to-own scheme.

Pay up-front for a two or three year subscription and two/three years of updates. If you communicate this clearly there shouldn't be any user backlash.

I haven't kept up with this thread. Did I say how I would be glad to pay the subscription fee? It is a great product

and I like it even better as pure browser.