> > (...) But at least I want to state why subscriptions suck for game development - especially for freelancers and indie devs. I think your claim of not locking developers out is just misleading- developers develop, they wont have much use in just opening a project they worked on if they cant edit it.
> Thank you. My thoughts exactly.
> I'm afraid to post things like that because my posts will seem very emotional as many others' do and I don't want to be banned. But I hardly come here anymore. Only to see if Ashley and team have changed their ideas. And they won't.
> But the reason we get so emotional is that... well, most of us have an emotional bond to Construct 1, 2 and Scirra. And Scirra is/was a great company. I don't know what happened to make them change their minds. Subscriptions suck for indie games dev. Ditto. This is fact. The competition - and we're talking about Unreal, Unity, CryEngine, GMStudio, etc. - understands that. But that's Scirra's decision. And I must respect it because because it's a wonderful company that always was very close to the community.
> Peace everybody.
You do have to technically pay a subscription model with UE4 and Unity, But at least with their models they don't start taking money until you make money, so the amount they take is low in comparison to taking money without you even starting something
The difference is that their engines are proven tech and "Professionals" use it.
If Scirra goes the same way they might never make a cent.
As far as I'm aware "The Next Penelope" is Construct 2's most successful game. Probably financially.
I doubt that game made the Unreal Engine's type budget for them to have had to start paying. Even then to get it on Wii U they are porting the game to Unity since Wii U HTML5 support is weak.
I love Construct for the Event System and the quick turnaround times to features and updates even though Ashley will argue and argue if a feature is needed. I've almost never seen a feature requested by the community being implemented because they really asked for it other than the Multiplayer and this is used as a stick to enforce the "fact that people don't know what they really want".
I'm not sure how many games Ashley has developed but sometimes just because it's thought not to be important for the engine doesn't mean it's not important for game developers/ designers.
However, despite this, useful things get added anyway and I do feel that they at least have a finger on the pulse when it comes to UI, Ease of use but still being powerful to use etc.
I'm here because I find Construct clicks with me and they way I like to work. There is a flow to using it that I appreciate and now that C3 can work on the Mac easier than using Bootcamp or Parallels I intend to actually use it properly as supposed to another tool I was using.
Maybe I can use this forum to also say that imho this needs to change.
At least have an asterix * stating that it's reliant on 3rd party exporters for some of the platforms.
What I do think though is that now we are going to have a split/Fragmented community. We are definitely worse off for it.
Some plugin makers won't be getting C3, so that means less behaviors and plugins perhaps etc.
The new plugin manager was an excellent idea though.
Anycase, I decided to sign up for the first year and then see how it goes and what's what. It may be a bit premature to judge C3 and Scirra till I haven't actually made a bigger project with it.
The fact that it runs on the Mac now (even if it's in the browser) is welcomed. I'll give Scirra the benefit of the doubt for now. So far C3 is fine for me and I'm cautiously excited for when it gets out of Beta - barring any unforeseen performance issues down the line.