Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

>

> (...) 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

>

> >

> > (...) 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.

Hopefully the HTML5 / Online Editor etc attracts more javascript developers so we keep on getting useful behaviors since the track record of getting these done is less than stellar.

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.

Havok I'm sorta in your boat I like construct 3 regardless but I do think their's some ignorance or delusion going on in the development

of the construct engine which should be publically announced officially unless It has already in which case ignore that little part.

Ashley I respect your work by the way and I don't consider you a bad person and I'm not trying to discredit your success.

It's like being in a cell, you can still look what's beyond the bars, but you are still behind them.

That's ridiculous. It's a product for sale, not incarceration.

>

> >

> >

> > 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.

>

>

Penelope made over 300,000$ before the WiiU port, you start to pay 5% per quarter if you make over 3,000$, So yea, They would have hit the threshold to start paying

> It's like being in a cell, you can still look what's beyond the bars, but you are still behind them.

>

That's ridiculous. It's a product for sale, not incarceration.

Firstly, it's just a metaphor for things being out of reach. Secondly, your product is not for sale, it's for rent. If it was for sale, we wouldn't have this issue.

Ok, how about this comparison:

Imagine you're an artist and you bought the best brushes for your art style and used them for years, now the company that made those brushes have brought out better brushes but you can't buy them, no, you have to rent them.

Now these new brushes a great and you want to use them, so you rent them and work on your masterpiece, but oh, no, you're at the end of the rental period, you can't afford to rent again because you're not finished yet and haven't sold anything, and the company takes your brushes away.

All you can do is stare forlornly at your unfinished work while you figure out how you can rent the brushes again because you can't go back to your old brushes to finish it.

As I've said before, we're looking in to adding a special option for people who have had exported projects in the past, so they won't have to sign up for another full year just to export again or make a few quick changes. Assuming we have something like that in place, I don't think it's fair to say any work is "held hostage" either.

That's good news that you're considering options like that, and should probably be more widely publicized since I if I missed it, then I'm sure others missed it too.

Could that be extended to allow people to edit existing scenarios if they've subscribed in the past, not just those that have exported?

I don't think people would mind too much if they have to re-subscribe to export, I think it's not being able to continue editing your work that is the real sticking point.

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.

Yeah I have noticed a similar case with the "make multiplayer games" showcase.

While these cases don't necessarily fall into the category of "false marketing", they are still quite misleading in my opinion.

The explanation for why my case could be misleading: Sombrero: Spaghetti Western Mayhem is actually not using the native multiplayer plugin, it's using Photon.

Photon is a 3rd party (ironically subscription based) service, which offers multiplayer features using a traversal/cloud server.

A traversal server is generally more stable compared to the traditional "peer to peer" system that the native multiplayer plugin uses.

Not only that but I guess that Photon probably also offers features which the current native multiplayer plugin doesn't have.

Important notice: I'm not suggesting that Scirra should remove the promotion!

I'm just recommending to add a small "hint" (maybe using an * as Havok suggested), which makes it clear that the showcased game is using 3rd party services.

Wanted to get this off my chest for quite some time now, keep up the great work Scirra and I'm going back into lurk-mode.

Penelope made over 300,000$ before the WiiU port, you start to pay 5% per quarter if you make over 3,000$, So yea, They would have hit the threshold to start paying

...per calendar quarter though.

But really interesting and awesome for the devs that it did well.

Although my statement still stands. How many more people would have been paying Scirra now from successful games?

> It's like being in a cell, you can still look what's beyond the bars, but you are still behind them.

>

That's ridiculous. It's a product for sale, not incarceration.

I just think people doesn't get that C3 has moved to being more of a service than a standalone app. I can't think of any services that you only pay once, and then continue to use it forever.

Maybe it will start to sink in eventually, once people realize C3 is more of a service provided online than a traditional software.

C3 has moved to being more of an online tool for creating games, that you get access to while you subscribe.... I don't know what's so hard to comprehend about that? I guess people just got used paying once and getting an all you can eat buffet for years after paying once. I wouldn't worry about it too much. 99$ per years is by no means expensive, even as a hobbyist, (if you like the software).

Although I feel some are using "locked out" as an argument, to be able to get continuous service for free, or only want to pay IF & WHEN they actually manage to make something worth exporting. I don't think it's worth overcomplicating stuff, by special access for previously exported projects and such. It's probably better to add a monthly option so they at least can subscribe shorter periods, especially for quick fixes, new exports, and updates to earlier projects, or for those who don't want to subscribe on a yearly basis.

That's just my two cents.

In a way, the community provides a service to scirra. We find bugs for them as well as create educational content for their product, we also create plugins and behaviors that improve their product. Can Scirra start compensating us for this service that we provide?

I doubt scirra wants to do that, they prefer getting it for free.. hmmm..

I think some market investigation would help a lot.

Find out if the main objection is to the subscription model, and what would cancel that out.

The lack of having full features, and no guarantee of when or if they will be added, versus the price point at release.

Surely a lower yearly rate would sway some users.

Then for fairness, offered as a early adopters price as was done of C2.

An exclusive for existing users if there are any objections from Scirra.

Or just nuke em all, and start from scratch.

Hoping enough subscribers pop up out of the rubble.

We use C2 as a hobby of learning to make games. We have had issues with the platform we wanted to publish on (IOS) and after having a bug resolved , still have issues.

we paid for C2 and use it to teach in our Home School Groups. we are now researching other options out there as C3 is enticing (as we only have iMacs in our computer labs) however the subscription model has been nightmarish with Unity3D as hobbyists.

We also will be moving from our GOOGLE FIBER ENABLED home to a home with less of an internet connection, which worries us as we want to build anything and save it to the cloud via C3.

We will not be paying for C3 if it is a subscription model and we don't have option for one time fee or upgrade from C3 license.

I would assume most of your paying users are hobbyists like ourselves who end up frustrated after a few months of trying to get a game going only to find issues with IOS.

tunepunk

People understand, they just aren't going to buy the product. Making C3 a service is alienating a huge chunk of the userbase, and largely seems to be done as a step to get more money from schools.

An exclusive for existing users if there are any objections from Scirra.

this is a no-brainer and it's crazy missed opportunity if Scirra does NOT do this...

they should absolutely grandfather-in all their current C2 licensees and give them a discounted rate for life, or until they cancel. Going forward with a new product and such a dramatic change to their finances, they need to make sure their user-base is strong. What better way than to give incentive and benefits to solidify your current userbase? They would instantly have a fleet of C3 advocates, spreading the word of positiveness.

The mantra should be: take care of your customers and they will bend over backwards for you.. even if it means at a cost to you in the long run. Success does not happen with using the "nickel and diming" method. Take cues from successful companies and think.. would they do this? doesn't matter how small you are, it still applies.

just my .02

tunepunk

People understand, they just aren't going to buy the product. Making C3 a service is alienating a huge chunk of the userbase, and largely seems to be done as a step to get more money from schools.

I don't see how a subscription method would alienate anyone. The only valid arguments I've seen on the forum is probably only questioning their browser based move, but that was probably decided long ago. No one is forcing schools to use C3 instead of C2. If they teach in c2, future users can easily move over to c3 if they like. It's pretty much the same thing. And people who still buy C2, get C3 one year "for free".

Scirra now has two major products. C2 and C3 for sale, both very similar.. Just because something has a higher number and is "newer" doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, unless you're like an apple fanboy and have to buy everything they sell. Yeah I guess people have been waiting a long time for C3, some like it some don't. But what does the payment method have to do with the product? If it's a good product and worth the price.

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.