Subscription Pricing Alternative

    I tend to agree with Blurymind.

    In my opinion, a software rental scheme (so-called 'subscription', which it is not!) only works well if

    1) your sofware is the industry standard (people depend on the software for their living), and/or

    2) it is the best in class, and/or

    3) it is unique/fills a niche that no-one else offers, and/or

    4) it offers functionality no competitor delivers.

    Compare to Adobe:

    1) industry standard? Check.

    2) best in class? Mostly, yes. Certainly on a professional level. Check.

    3) Unique? At a professional level, yes, mostly.

    4) offers functionality no competitor can deliver? Yes, for a large part, in particular for professionals again.

    Construct 3:

    1) Nope, C3 still has to proof itself. C2 is not the industry standard either - not by a long shot.

    2) up to a point, as a visual editor, perhaps. But this is marred by its Achilles' heel: lack of native export, and other game dev environments just offer more features (animation timeline, for example!).

    3) No, Construct is not the only visual game editor in town. With competitors improving this aspect (Fusion 3, Godot, Unity&external plugins, ...) it is not unique here. The web export is outstanding, though. Trouble is, the competitors also provide web export, aside from native export.

    4) No, competitors deliver equal or more functionality at this point.

    Here's the rub: as Blurymind mentioned, software rental works well for professionals. If Construct 3 would be aiming at that segment of the market, I believe it might do well. The trouble, though, is that Construct 2 isn't really part of that market. It is mainly small developers, freelancers, and hobbyists for whom Construct 2 is an attractive proposition, and that is how Scirra are marketing their tools.

    Switch to a software rental business model, and I am pretty sure a large (if not the majority) of Construct users will leave for alternatives - or at the very least consider a switch. The market for game engines is just too open, and I can see commercial competitors such as Clickteam rubbing their hands together right now, and I assure you they will offer Construct 2 license holders a cross-update when Fusion 3 comes out later this year.

    On the other side competitors like Unity, Godot, Unreal all offer excellent FREE options for the market Scirra is operating in currently. Why pay the rent for software that is out-classed in most departments (excepting perhaps the 'easy' visual scripting) when so many free escape routes exist? Speaking for myself, I am now teaching myself Godot, and will look into Fusion 3 when it comes out. (Godot is actually quite an amazing tool.)

    Anyway, I just can't see this work out for Scirra. Perhaps I am a cynic.

    Agreeable *slow clap clap clap*. I don't think you're cynic, the arguments are rational. The really question now is what will Construct 3 free version cover? If the free version can satisfy most of the users (like unity most casual devs are ok with unity free) and Scirra will only target cost saving features, specialized features or of sorts, then Construct 3 can really put them in a better position.

    The subscription fee payment model seems to be the single biggest major issue that people have with Construct3.

    Scirra will not know if it will have a positive or negative impact on it's revenue until the first year after release. In the end it is really up to the users to make or break the jump by voting with their wallets.

    We have done our best to voice our concerns in a civilized way. Best of luck to Scirra. They are damn talented, but so controversial some times

    The frustration has come from announcing a new payment model for subscription without revealing what you would be paying for, then revealing the capabilities of C3 slowly feature by feature a day at a time. This has just angered some people. I think the $49 for first year, $99 for future years will be worth it in the end so the slow reveals don't matter too much. Also any qualms regarding the browser-based client have pretty much all been answered now.

    So Scirra has said that there will be a free Construct 3 version. If I'm making games for a hobby or I'm just starting out, I will use the free version. And it's not like 99/year is an expensive hobby. Christ, I pay 50/month for my gym membership!

    And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap! I feel like some people don't understand the value of these game creation tools like Construct. Hiring even a beginner level programmer will cost you over 2000/month easy. It really is amazing how far all of these game creation tools have come.

    That's my two cents.

    So Scirra has said that there will be a free Construct 3 version. If I'm making games for a hobby or I'm just starting out, I will use the free version. And it's not like 99/year is an expensive hobby. Christ, I pay 50/month for my gym membership!

    And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap! I feel like some people don't understand the value of these game creation tools like Construct. Hiring even a beginner level programmer will cost you over 2000/month easy. It really is amazing how far all of these game creation tools have come.

    That's my two cents.

    It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount or large % of salary, which is understandable. There's always the free version though!

    It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount...

    Not my issue with it.

    ...if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

    But you only make money if you actually end up fully following through with it.. and how many times does that happen with even people trying to release something? Probably less often than not.

    For a lot of people with plans but not necessarily time/life stuff comes up (intermittent users), it's not a great value if you're not using it a lot of the year. (To say nothing of the ownership issue.)

    Even for a subscription scheme, the annual buy-in still seems to me a crazy/terrible choice. It's a bad fit for intermittent users. (This is not like Spotify or something where you can find time to use the service pretty much anytime). If not month to month, at least a 6 month option should be available.

    >

    > It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount...

    >

    Not my issue with it.

    > ...if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

    >

    But you only make money if you actually end up fully following through with it.. and how many times does that happen with even people trying to release something? Probably less often than not.

    For a lot of people with plans but not necessarily time/life stuff comes up (intermittent users), it's not a great value if you're not using it a lot of the year. (To say nothing of the ownership issue.)

    Even for a subscription scheme, the annual buy-in still seems to me a crazy/terrible choice. It's a bad fit for intermittent users. (This is not like Spotify or something where you can find time to use the service pretty much anytime). If not month to month, at least a 6 month option should be available.

    I didn't write that..

    Sry, my bad, I fixed the quotes now.

    >

    > It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount...

    >

    Not my issue with it.

    > ...if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

    >

    But you only make money if you actually end up fully following through with it.. and how many times does that happen with even people trying to release something? Probably less often than not.

    For a lot of people with plans but not necessarily time/life stuff comes up (intermittent users), it's not a great value if you're not using it a lot of the year. (To say nothing of the ownership issue.)

    Even for a subscription scheme, the annual buy-in still seems to me a crazy/terrible choice. It's a bad fit for intermittent users. (This is not like Spotify or something where you can find time to use the service pretty much anytime). If not month to month, at least a 6 month option should be available.

    I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

    If making money is my aim, then I'm not making games for myself. I'm essentially making products for my potential customers. To find these potential customers I would need to do some market researching. Then I would have to start marketing right away to keep these people interested. All this would bring me monthly expenses without even opening Construct! If I would not follow through at this point, I would lose money AND damage my credibility.

    Now as a hobbyist, I would essentially be creating the games for my own enjoyment. This is a completely different approach to game making than the example before, because the end goal is different. In this case, I can understand not wanting to pay 99/year for the reasons you've mentioned. But isn't the free version there for this? As far as I know there hasn't been any details released regarding the limitations of the free version. It would be interesting to know what the limitations are in that one.

    I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

    Because you failed to. For one reason or another (like how not everyone who starts on a diet succeeds). Or it didn't work out/turned out to be a bad idea/harder than you thought. As I say, I doubt most people who start (even wanting to release) succeed. I don't have stats on that but I think this is a known stat. for other success rates of creative endeavors (actors, singers, etc.).

    Not sure what the marketing thing has to do with what I said, but in any case, I doubt most people (indie/one-man-army developers) would start marketing their games before they feel they're close to/sure of succeeding. Even if they do, plenty of people spend years on a game and come out of nowhere and release it (or almost nowhere), so I certainly wouldn't assume that.

    One issue to consider with the pay to export later model is that it's almost impossible to develop a game without an export to test on devices, and people you want to get input from.

    As a service you wouldn't need to export all the time, so I agree that other plans than yearly would be beneficial.

    Six months, and even quarterly might be good.

    Edit:

    On the other hand we still don't know exactly what the subscription would offer.

    Give me web hosting with that, and I would likely poop my pants to get in line to pay.

    >

    > I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

    >

    >

    Because you failed to. For one reason or another (like how not everyone who starts on a diet succeeds).

    Or it didn't work out/turned out to be a bad idea/harder than you thought.

    Which is why it's important research the subject and have a clear understanding of your goal and how to reach it. This is coming from somebody that's lost almost 70 lbs in the last two years.

    As I say, I doubt most people who start (even wanting to release) succeed. I don't have stats on that but I think this is a known stat. for other success rates of creative endeavors (actors, singers, etc.).

    Not sure what the marketing thing has to do with what I said, but in any case, I doubt most people (indie/one-man-army developers) would start marketing their games before they feel they're close to/sure of succeeding. Even if they do, plenty of people spend years on a game and come out of nowhere and release it (or almost nowhere), so I certainly wouldn't assume that.

    Anyone can fail, but there are many things you can do to give yourself a better chance to succeed. I recommend you to research how many of these great indie games succeeded. Marketing and having a connection with your customers/fans from the day one had a lot to do with it. In order to sustain them, you will have commit to certain yearly/montly budget even without Construct subscription. That's what I meant when I talked about marketing expenses when aiming for monetary success.

    As I said before, I can understand your points regarding the subscription if I'm looking at this from a hobbyist perspective. From my understanding the free basic version is there for this reason. But it's all speculation at this point. We still don't know all of the Construct 3 features or the free version features. Time will tell.

    I realize I'm not being too specific here, but I don't think anything in your post invalidated what I had to say LittleBuilder.

    My earlier posts were out of concern for "intermittent" users, ie. people who may not have time to work on this for month's at a time because things can come up in life that pull you away. They still want to make a serious go of it, and make money off their project (one day), but it's not their full-time job currently.

    For marketing - well, like I said, plenty of people (and successful projects) are not marketed early on. Especially if you're new to the industry, there is plenty of reason not to put extra pressure on yourself promising something you've never delivered before/do not know (objectively speaking) if you will be able to deliver.

    For your recommendation - I think you're reading too far outside the scope of my comments. I never disputed any of that, I'm just saying there's plenty of reason not to assume that will be/is the only path a successful (or budding) indie developer (1st game) would take. I was also not necessarily speaking from a personal perspective.

    On budgets - again, this is outside the scope of anything I'm talking about. Intermittent users I'm referring to by definition are not doing this as a full-time job, they're doing it after work/school, whatever.

    And again, I don't think it's relevant to the scope of what I was referring to but I have researched all about the processes of many successful indie games for many years.

    I'd like to leave at agree to disagree, hopefully I didn't push back too hardly on any of that you were arguing for (not my intent).

    And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

    That's my two cents.

    Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

    You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

    I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

    The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets- without silly event sheet limitations or network limitations

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    >

    > And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

    > That's my two cents.

    >

    Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

    You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

    I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

    The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model- just doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games

    Actually I was going to ask Tom if I could just get them to use some of what I've earned from the Scirra store to handle the fee for C3.

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