Subscription Pricing Alternative

All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

Much fairer system I think.

I would be happy with this type of payment.

All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

Much fairer system I think.

#qftt

Edit.: Also, I think the users would feel more eased with the subscription model, and wouldn't consider subscribing and developing in C3 as risky as some of the users expressed.

I think that would make a massive difference. Also, they'd best do it soon imo. It takes time to build a loyal user base. It takes some time to tear it down too. People don't jump ships that easily, but when they do they're gone. And I think the subscription deal (at least in it's current shape) is a big enough push to force many people to do it. I'm scoping for alternatives myself, checking out tutorials and getting a feel for things. Once I commit to a different tool I won't make it back here probably, regardless of how glorious C3 ends up becoming.

Another thing to consider. If even loyal C2 users are starting to consider alternatives, despite everything, what does that say of how enticing this sort of deal appears for potential newcomers? I mean I have to assume Scirra have been considering all this hard, but in my own head it just doesn't make sense.

All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

Much fairer system I think.

The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base that would require a bigger server capacity and other things.

If you are a corporation with other products that are profitable, then yes it's possible but if you're a company with a one time fee product, then there's no steady income to make such a business model possible.

You may not have access to the cloud anymore, but you can still download your stuff and work offline as far as I have understood.

The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base and bigger capacity and other things.

Well it begs the question, why on earth did they commit to a cloud-based service in the first place? Was there popular demand for it? Maybe I'm missing something. But speaking for myself at least, I have no interest in it. Sync.com. pCloud etc, plenty of free and secure cloud services to go around.

>

> The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base and bigger capacity and other things.

>

>

Well it begs the question, why on earth did they commit to a cloud-based service in the first place? Was there popular demand for it? Maybe I'm missing something. But speaking for myself at least, I have no interest in it. Sync.com. pCloud etc, plenty of free and secure cloud services to go around.

Steady income and preventing piracy, those two are the main reasons why they switched.

>

> The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base and bigger capacity and other things.

>

>

Well it begs the question, why on earth did they commit to a cloud-based service in the first place? Was there popular demand for it? Maybe I'm missing something. But speaking for myself at least, I have no interest in it. Sync.com. pCloud etc, plenty of free and secure cloud services to go around.

Presumably because they are running out of money and want a more reliable way of being profitable and make their company bigger. I'm not exactly ecstatic about it either... I would have preferred if they had gone the route of Superpowers which makes it possible to setup your own web server.

> All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

>

> I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

>

> I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

>

> This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

>

> Much fairer system I think.

>

The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base that would require a bigger server capacity and other things.

If you are a corporation with other products that are profitable, then yes it's possible but if you're a company with a one time fee product, then there's no steady income to make such a business model possible.

You may not have access to the cloud anymore, but you can still download your stuff and work offline as far as I have understood.

This is why they should launch with the desktop version. I wouldn't even consider it if it's going to be purely internet-based saves and browser-based work. To be honest, I've skipped over all this, it doesn't make any sense to me. Isn't that stuff usually for applet-type tools?

>

> >

> > The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base and bigger capacity and other things.

> >

> >

> Well it begs the question, why on earth did they commit to a cloud-based service in the first place? Was there popular demand for it? Maybe I'm missing something. But speaking for myself at least, I have no interest in it. Sync.com. pCloud etc, plenty of free and secure cloud services to go around.

>

Presumably because they are running out of money and want a more reliable way of being profitable and make their company bigger. I'm not exactly ecstatic about it either... I would have preferred if they had gone the route of Superpowers which makes it possible to setup your own web server.

They HAD a great ethos towards piracy, back when updates to C2 were regular. Much like GoG, the idea being it's more beneficial to be legal than pirate, you used to get frequent updates and access to the community, all of which you really miss from pirating (since you'd have to wait for the pirates to update each version and you wouldn't have as easy access to help from the forums if you're only ever a "free" user). I agree, lifetime updates aren't necessarily profitable, but it works for Fruity Loops: https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... p_free.htm http://www.image-line.com/flstudio/life ... pdates.php

> All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

>

> I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

>

> I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

>

> This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

>

> Much fairer system I think.

>

The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base that would require a bigger server capacity and other things.

If you are a corporation with other products that are profitable, then yes it's possible but if you're a company with a one time fee product, then there's no steady income to make such a business model possible.

You may not have access to the cloud anymore, but you can still download your stuff and work offline as far as I have understood.

Then following up on the idea above: For users who stop paying, only allow to use the offline version. Also, since they won't have any updates, any potential browser update that breaks games or introduces new features would be out of those users' reach, unless they subscribe again. Btw, Tom stated, that users won't be able to edit their projects after the subscription ends, only open them. This goes for the offline version as well I think.

I agree with ErekT as well. The constant complaints on the forum proves that a lot of the users are not yet left this Community. There's still a chance to save the old userbase.

Then following up on the idea above: For users who stop paying, only allow to use the offline version. Also, since they won't have any updates, any potential browser update that breaks games or introduces new features would be out of those users' reach, unless they subscribe again. Btw, Tom stated, that users won't be able to edit their projects after the subscription ends, only open them. This goes for the offline version as well I think.

Hmm I'm sure I saw somewhere that you would still be able to open and work on your project offline after the subscription period, though i can't find that information anymore. Ashley could you please clarify this, because it isn't mentioned in the FAQ nor on the announcement page.

> All they need to do is drop the being locked out of your project after twelve month and it would be fine.

>

> I mentioned somewhere else on these forums that I have a suite of components for UI dev in VS which is a twelve month sub type system. But if you don't renew the sub you can't get updates, additions. or bug fixes - you do however get to keep and use the components forever after that. Additionally you can renew your sub at any time you want - even years later - at a reduced price.

>

> I can renew it now if I want, although I haven't done so for nearly two years, because there is nothing new added that I need.

>

> This way you are not milking them by expecting never ending work done to the tools, and they are not milking you by expecting you to keep paying to use the tools.

>

> Much fairer system I think.

>

The problem with that idea though is that you would indeed still be milking them, since you don't pay to keep the server running anymore, yet you still have access to it. At some point there wouldn't be money to pay for the cloud server anymore without a loss because nobody would be paying annually, yet their server would possibly need upgrades because of a larger user-base that would require a bigger server capacity and other things.

If you are a corporation with other products that are profitable, then yes it's possible but if you're a company with a one time fee product, then there's no steady income to make such a business model possible.

You may not have access to the cloud anymore, but you can still download your stuff and work offline as far as I have understood.

No, they have already said several times, you can not edit if you are not subscribed. For some reason Scirra loves dependencies, now you depend on being subscribed to edit your project.

No, they have already said several times, you can not edit if you are not subscribed. For some reason Scirra loves dependencies, now you depend on being subscribed to edit your project.

You sure that's both offline and online? I can't find any information about that anywhere.

Don't know about offline but from the official thread,

- You can continue to collect revenues from published games if your subscription ends, that's fine

- You will not be able to edit or publish games if your subscription has expired, but you can open in read only

Don't know about offline but from the official thread,

> - You can continue to collect revenues from published games if your subscription ends, that's fine

> - You will not be able to edit or publish games if your subscription has expired, but you can open in read only

>

The question then becomes as a small developer: why would you ever lock yourself into a rental model that may hold your files hostage after you stop paying the rent? That part will never make sense to me. Why run that risk?