Pricing Suggestion 1

Ashley , Tom ... Sorry about lately, that was my disappointment striking... Now I am cooled off.

Many are complaining about the pricing because of the fact that most of us here are not yet earning or at least earning only a little.

And we have already started using C2 and you could say that we are more familiar with this engine than any other game engines out there and it is hard to move to another one but at the same time we also can't afford a subscription if we are only hobbyists.

So, how about this kind of pricing. I think something like this will be fair for all of us. Increasing the price is okay as long as there is a one time payment for hobbyists.

Business License: Subscription ($240/yr)

Personal License : Subscription ($120/yr)

Not Yet Earning: $60.00 (One Time)

One-off payments are not really a viable model for web-based services. In fact it's only a viable business model for C2 because we get a steady enough stream of new users buying it that we stay in business. With that model, if we stopped getting new users, we'd go out of business, even if we had tens of thousands of active users.

For the years I've been working on Construct 2, users have routinely asked for simultaneously more features and lower prices. We have to draw a line somewhere.

Ashley will be there monthly subscription , or only year plan ?

Ashley - I totally understand what you are trying to say, it would be bad for your company if there would be a standard one-time payment option. But please, my point might also be a good idea.

Imagine excluding the Free Version, there would be a onetime payment pricing... That feature would be only for learning the program but once you exported a game, you can't export anymore then you'd have to go upgrade to a Personal Subscription.

This would be a good idea for hobbyists if you think about it... Hobbyists can't afford it anyway so it's best to just to do this and accept their money to learn as long as the preview option is available and when they are finally ready to make a professional game, they can go and subscribe to the subscription that suits their needs.

Besides, even if they don't pay anymore, they still can't export anyway and if they make a new account, they still have to pay an additional $60.00...

So it's a win for both Scirra and User.

Ashley & Tom . It might be worth considering.

Or if you don't like that maybe a pay per export may also be an option.

If Construct 3 joins some "pay for what you use" subscriptions with some generally useful apps, such as http://setapp.com ("Netflix for software"), that would make sense for people who use C3 only occassionally, and when they use it, it generates revenue for Scirra.

Tom Ashley

Most Construct 2 users are independent developers, many make an effort to buy a license, and I think they are the majority.

Do you really think they will pay for a subscription?

If the bulk of Construct's users leave, it will happen like Stencyl, which will be used by four cats, and ClickTeam and Yoyogames will celebrate it.

You should know that those who pay subscriptions, with exceptions, are development teams that live from creating games, do you really think they will pay for Construct instead of using Unity or EU?

Please do not take it personally, I like Construct 2 and I know that Construct 3 will be a great program, but in my opinion they will lose the majority of users, which are the same ones that have made Construct great.

I have many games created with Construct, I even sold some licenses, more than 40 tutorials on youtube promoted Construct, but if that's the policy for Construct 3, I'll be thinking about Fusion 3 or GM2.

I wish you good luck, you will need it.

Tom Ashley

What about my proposal: have you thought a "Netflix" way to pay it? I mean 99 USD per year and you could use it by 5 different sessions, so that you could divide the expense with other friends

yeah,

I also find it kind of silly that if you buy a C2 license now, you get a year of free C3, but if you bought it a month ago or prior, then its only 50% off? Kind of unfair.

I can't see myself subscribing to this, it just isn't worth it, no matter how much has been added to c3.

Pretty disappointing news that's for sure.

yeah,

I also find it kind of silly that if you buy a C2 license now, you get a year of free C3, but if you bought it a month ago or prior, then its only 50% off? Kind of unfair.

I can't see myself subscribing to this, it just isn't worth it, no matter how much has been added to c3.

Pretty disappointing news that's for sure.

Yeah, i feel bad for those who bought C3 last December.

Ashley , why enforce it as a web service in the first place? It is technically possible to offer it as a desktop application, even if it was built on top of html5 technology.

Do you think that more people will prefer to use it professionally that way?

There are many other web service based game engines out there and none of them is really popular or has produced a successful title.

Most used successful game engines are desktop applications

You can offer it as a desktop application with a one off payment and on top of that offer your web services with subscription. Examples:

• Premade code and assets
• Collaborative private project hosting space ala github
• Out of the box exporters
• Support and advertisement for your game/app on scirra
• Access to bleeding edge new builds before anyone else

I can come up with a multitude of ways you can give a web service actual competitive value without alienating half of your developers on this forum. Look at how well Unity3d and Unreal are doing. Those guys are free,until you actually start to sell and make money.

You are competing with a tough crowd here, that freaking screenshot better blow everyone's mind tomorrow. The announcements today - kind of a let down to be honest

I see no new or exciting features - just a pricing model that I know I will not sign up for

One-off payments are not really a viable model for web-based services. In fact it's only a viable business model for C2 because we get a steady enough stream of new users buying it that we stay in business. With that model, if we stopped getting new users, we'd go out of business, even if we had tens of thousands of active users.

For the years I've been working on Construct 2, users have routinely asked for simultaneously more features and lower prices. We have to draw a line somewhere.

You can still continue to get revenue with the standard licensing model by:

• Charging for major software updates
• Charging for premium features/addons - such as displaying ads in a game and being able to do microtransactions
• Charging for exporters - yes, ones that you actually make and maintain - and they compile to native code
• Taking a cut from sales on the asset store
• Charging subscription fees on optional integrated could services that actually do add value to the product (as noted in my previous post)

You can still continue to get revenue with the standard licensing model by:

- Charging for major software updates

- Charging for premium features/addons - such as displaying ads in a game and being able to do microtransactions

- Charging for exporters - yes, ones that you actually make and maintain - and they compile to native code

- Taking a cut from sales on the asset store

- Charging subscription fees on optional integrated could services that actually do add value to the product (as noted in my previous post)

I would support this heartily. As a hobbyist who makes no money off creations, a subscription is unsustainable for me and I cannot upgrade to C3. But I would gladly purchase the software on a one-off payment with only one export option, and cheerfully pay for major updates. This is also one of the few times I would support microtransactions, and if I ever happened to make a game that required integrated services, I would also be totally fine with paying for that option.

And frankly taking cuts from assets is a no-brainer and I assumed it was already done - I am a graphic artist more than anything, and having a ready audience for assets is worth a small cut of the profits given to the host.