Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

    Honestly, I'd be happy to even have a monthly subscription option. I'd pay $10/month (which is more expensive that paying for a year all at once) to really try it out for a month or two before deciding if I want to pay for a full year.

    At the end of the day, $100 for a year isn't bad, but I don't want to pay because I'm not sure I'll really use it enough to justify the costs. With a buy once model I can use it a bit, then come back to it two years later if I decide to jump back in for a bit. At least a monthly subscription would let me do that, too.

    I am not a fan of the subscription plan. I am an adult that works 9-10 hours a day. I can go days, weeks without using Construct 2. I'm full of ideas but because life gets in the way, it is very hard to get anything completed. Then I think of the younger users that have to save their money from chores to buy that one item that they have been wanting. One thing I loved was that Construct 2 was different than most software, seems every software company out there is doing the subscription plans. Unless you are a hard core user

    the subscription plan wouldn't phase you. But the hobbyist would be getting ripped off. I do love construct,

    so please I'm not knocking the company or the program. Great people and a great program. the subscription plan is a bad idea in my opinion.

    I am not a fan of the subscription plan. I am an adult that works 9-10 hours a day. I can go days, weeks without using Construct 2. I'm full of ideas but because life gets in the way, it is very hard to get anything completed. Then I think of the younger users that have to save their money from chores to buy that one item that they have been wanting. One thing I loved was that Construct 2 was different than most software, seems every software company out there is doing the subscription plans. Unless you are a hard core user

    the subscription plan wouldn't phase you. But the hobbyist would be getting ripped off. I do love construct,

    so please I'm not knocking the company or the program. Great people and a great program. the subscription plan is a bad idea in my opinion.

    It also screws over professionals starting out, which adds another regular expense they can barely afford.

    Or you can just buy C2, which will still be available (and can basically do everything C3 can do anyway).

    Seems to me like a matter of wanting all the nice things but not wanting to pay for it.

    I hate hate... the way life decisions work .

    Signed. It is a bad business decision and will simply cause devs to move to other software that is pay once or open source. Reason I'be moved to godot already, which is adding visual scripting at some point.

    http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/201 ... -Look.aspx

    Signed. It is a bad business decision and will simply cause devs to move to other software that is pay once or open source. Reason I'be moved to godot already, which is adding visual scripting at some point.

    http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/201 ... -Look.aspx

    godot has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    If you want open source construct that runs on linux and mac natively - try gdevelop.

    Gdevelop is very underdeveloped though - doesnt see updates very often and has only two contributors

    > Signed. It is a bad business decision and will simply cause devs to move to other software that is pay once or open source. Reason I'be moved to godot already, which is adding visual scripting at some point.

    >

    > http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/201 ... -Look.aspx

    >

    godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.

    I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    > godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    > Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    >

    From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.

    I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.

    I gave Godot a go because it was supposed to be like python, but it just gave me nightmares of gml. By the way, for all of you who are going to leave Construct because you don't want to pay for the sub, I highly recommend NOT going to any of the free engines. I've seen more crashes on GDevelop than when I went to a demolition derby, but do as you wish and remember you can play Battlefield 1 with 8 gigs of ram and a GTX 660.

    Similar enough for me and if anything a bit faster to throw a prototype together with Godot. It does require a bit more knowledge, I agree. Doing scripting myself but the visual scripting looks to be similar to event sheets in alot of ways.

    Gdevelop is garbage sadly. I appreciate the work the devs have put into it but it's just too buggy, too unstable to be usable. Needs to be rebuilt from the ground up which likely won't happen.

    Like Superpower to but that's even less like construct I suppose.

    To each there own. Use the tools that work for you and you feel you can afford. I just can't justify a $100 on what Construct 3 currently is.

    Edit: It is a good setup for the business offering the sub but horrible for the game developer. I know at least half a dozen devs who sub to Unity for over a year and still have yet to release anything. Win for unity, costly for the customer.

    So have been following this thread for a bit and just thought would put my opinion in.

    I believe the $99 sub will be worth it for me even if it's just to make use of the cloud build service. I used to use xdk and that was fine but I don't want to to go signing up to phone gap just to produce my APK files, nor do I want to do the muck around of building them locally. The cloud service will suit me perfectly. And no I have not released any games or made money from this program, in fact would probably only use it around 10-20 hours per month at most. But if we want simple app building it's going to have a cost, I would rather those costs fund further development for the app I am using to make the games.

    >

    > > godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    > > Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    > >

    >

    > From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.

    > I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.

    >

    I gave Godot a go because it was supposed to be like python, but it just gave me nightmares of gml. By the way, for all of you who are going to leave Construct because you don't want to pay for the sub, I highly recommend NOT going to any of the free engines. I've seen more crashes on GDevelop than when I went to a demolition derby, but do as you wish and remember you can play Battlefield 1 with 8 gigs of ram and a GTX 660.

    I dont recomend gdevelop either, just saying it's the closest to construct.

    As for Godot - it is probably the best choice atm for me. Gdscript is incredibly simple to learn and use and very powerful. Godot has too many advantages to list in one thread.

    If you want to really use python, that is being added to godot as well:

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    as demonstrated this year at godotcon

    All in all, I think that even if godot cost 200$ for a license, I would still buy it over construct2 or even fusion. It has three times more features and can build native games with no need of containers. Don't be mislead by the 'free' label - what it really is is open source - which means owned by the community and people who use it - not a developer who can change the licensing type and price on a whim every year. It means that if someone wants a feature - they can add it or hire someone to add it - that is one hell of a deal if you ask me <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

    Me too i don't want to pay a subscription, and i won't buy C3 if i have to pay every year.

    • Online browser interface
    • Subscription

    Hum hum, i prefer to stay on C2.

    Me too i don't want to pay a subscription, and i won't buy C3 if i have to pay every year.

    - Online browser interface

    - Subscription

    Hum hum, i prefer to stay on C2.

    My opinon is: i dont see a big reason to change to c3. I bought c2 two weeks before but there i alreasy noticed that there will come c3. But if you think: i dont use c2 for buisness. So if realess a game, i always have a risico to not get the money back that i invested. Its the sam with c3. But of course other big engines have a sub system. But exactly that was one of the biggest reason why im not using unity 2d. I can a little bit c so thats not the problem. Ashley dont lose a chance to get new users...

    Sorry to say, but I'm not going to subscribe to C3. If one time payment option comes up, I might buy it. Subscription model doesn't fit my needs when the program doesn't fill my commercial needs. If Construct 3 could make native apps the price would be more acceptable.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)