Subscription Pricing Alternative

I usually buy and support various tools, I have several

But this time Construct 3 is not for me, I will never support greed

Fusion 3 is going to be awesome, it's going to have everything we really expect from a tool

Scirra wants to try their luck with the subscription model, although they have done very well with the traditional model of selling, they have made a lot of money, so maybe they want to try their luck, because they know that if something goes wrong they have an economic mattress behind

Here is where the users have the power, if many of them do not buy during the first year, Scirra will be in a tight spot and may have to go back to the traditional model

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.

This would be nice I appreciate that (same as using earnings to buy items in the store), but unfortunately it's a very difficult feature to write. Part of the problem is that it significantly complicates accounting processes, and makes refunds even more complicated (they are complicated enough!)

>

> 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

Very well put.

My problem is not with Scirra, which I think is a wonderful company, but it is supporting the software subscription model itself. I will never comply. NEVER.

I won't be part of the crowd that will make this model successful and make every software go for it.

Imagine every game and every software you own suddenly change to this model. You'll have dozens of "cheap" monthly fees that add up to a monster bill. I, as a user and consumer, will never let that happen.

My 99 dolars, I mean... my two cents.

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

Construct 2 has so many more features than a lot of these other tools, that I'd actually struggle to make a comprehensive list of them all. This is made possible by the fact we use HTML5. It makes cross-platform support a breeze and lots of sophisticated features like networking, audio and video support are provided by the browser. Some tools don't even have form controls out of the box! When comparing to other tools with different technologies, I think it's important to take in to account the actual feature sets supported. Sure, you can pick a tool which has native export for example, but how many features will you lose or gain?

> 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

>

Construct 2 has so many more features than a lot of these other tools, that I'd actually struggle to make a comprehensive list of them all. This is made possible by the fact we use HTML5. It makes cross-platform support a breeze and lots of sophisticated features like networking, audio and video support are provided by the browser. Some tools don't even have form controls out of the box! When comparing to other tools with different technologies, I think it's important to take in to account the actual feature sets supported. Sure, you can pick a tool which has native export for example, but how many features will you lose or gain?

Sorry Ashley, I love Construct 2 (and you !), but I'd rather switch to tools with less features than bow down to a rental model and become a serf in the digital serfdom. The feeling really runs that deep for me. It's about freedom for me.

And I am not alone in this. Renting software runs against the blood for many (most?) of us. I just CANNOT bear software rental - it just feels utterly wrong to me. Why do you think Serif is so successful with their Affinity line of products? They advertised right from the start to Adobe users who were unhappy about the rental model. And even though Affinity offers less features, those ex-Adobe users just DON'T CARE. Watch Clickteam do the same with Fusion 3, make my words. They listened to their users - and their users favoured a non-rental option.

For companies and professionals, sure. Not for me personally. I would have no qualms paying you $500 for a developer's perpetual license, though. This would be easily solved by offering both options: a full perpetual license option, and a rental option.

My depressed feeling two cents.

(And good luck convincing schools and colleges to rent your software - after all the Adobe rental issues experienced in educational environments, they will think twice about adding one more rent to their software lineup.)

>

> >

> > 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.

You making loads of money mate I was going to buy a account in the store but c3 Subscription Fee change my mind

[ > > Very well put. > My problem is not with Scirra, which I think is a wonderful company, but it is supporting the software subscription model itself. I will never comply. NEVER. > > I won't be part of the crowd that will make this model successful and make every software go for it. > Imagine every game and every software you own suddenly change to this model. You'll have dozens of "cheap" monthly fees that add up to a monster bill. I, as a user and consumer, will never let that happen. > > My 99 dolars, I mean... my two cents. > Hear, hear.

Since we're doing memes, and I'm positive no other model works for a browser based editor.....

(And good luck convincing schools and colleges to rent your software - after all the Adobe rental issues experienced in educational environments, they will think twice about adding one more rent to their software lineup.)

Well, for what it's worth, Construct 2's education license is already a subscription, and that seems to have been working out fine.

Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

> (And good luck convincing schools and colleges to rent your software - after all the Adobe rental issues experienced in educational environments, they will think twice about adding one more rent to their software lineup.)

>

Well, for what it's worth, Construct 2's education license is already a subscription, and that seems to have been working out fine.

If that is true, I stand corrected. The schools and colleges where I teach abhor rental software.

Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

Again, you are not getting it. I give up.

Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

As a hobbyist that is not making money right now, I would not pay that price in any development tool.

I chose C2 because there was a Personal Edition that was affordable.

And I understood that when I started making money I'd upgrade to Business Edition. It was a simple model for me.

With C3, the way I see it, there will be no entry point for hobbyists anymore.

It's either the Free Edition (with several limitations) or pay the subscription.

How about removing the Free Edition's limitations and releasing it with less features like exporters and putting an obligatory C3 splash screen somehow. That I'd see as an entry point.

Please don't take me the wrong way.

Also, you'd rather pay $500 up-front? That gets you five years of usage...

But at the end of those five years, if you didn't want to continue paying the subscription/paying for updates - you would lose all access to using the program* (not so with a pre-paid license).

*assuming the free version of C3 had similar limitations to the free version of C2, and your C3 projects exceeded those limitations (which, if you're paying for it, they would).

This is why I think the suggestion someone made, of a rent to own model (say subscribe for 3 or 4 years), and at the end of it you at least own what you've paid for up to that point (and if you stop paying you stop getting updates) seems like a really good idea you should consider/toy with. If you (the customer) were taking a break from using C3 much at that point it would make sense.

For myself I don't know about $500 for 5 years.. that's a lot up front and a long time to plan for. Well, maybe for brand new buyers (the C2 business license costs $424 CDN right now), but, assuming we could/would have gotten the C2 "upgrade deal" (read: discount) you had announced/I think everyone expected (as being for software we'd own), as a C2 business license owner, if I heard something like $200, $250, $300 for C3 (at the "upgrade deal" discount price for C2 business license owners), updates cut off after 3, 4 years, but you will own the software (& the 3 or 4 years of updates) - I would gladly pay that, I would pay that money to you today for a license before you even released the program or I had even tried the beta.

C3 ideas are good, forward thinking, just don't like the pricing & ownership/access model they come with.

[Not expecting a response but thought I'd take the opportunity to put that to you while you're talking about that.]

Not expecting a response

Interesting point...

Well, for what it's worth, Construct 2's education license is already a subscription, and that seems to have been working out fine.

If that is true, I stand corrected. The schools and colleges where I teach abhor rental software.

No where near the same thing. Schools profit from renting the C2 software for their students regardless if students make money from games, or finish any games at all. Individuals on the other hand only recoup what they pay for C2 if they make money from the games they sell. There's no equivalent there.

> 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

>

Construct 2 has so many more features than a lot of these other tools, that I'd actually struggle to make a comprehensive list of them all. This is made possible by the fact we use HTML5. It makes cross-platform support a breeze and lots of sophisticated features like networking, audio and video support are provided by the browser. Some tools don't even have form controls out of the box! When comparing to other tools with different technologies, I think it's important to take in to account the actual feature sets supported. Sure, you can pick a tool which has native export for example, but how many features will you lose or gain?

I think you will have quite a lot of trouble making a list that justifies that extraordinary claim of it having much more features

Just looking at the number of games made by construct2 on the market - or any other pure html5 game engine alone should be proof enough to anyone that it is certainly not a popular choice of serious game developers. Most games on the market are native code. Even the mobile stuff.

the only reason you make the engine purely html5 is so that you don't have to do as much work creating exporters and supporting them. less work for the game engine dev, but not for the game dev using the engine.

Most of the community on this forum has been unhappy by how poor the export to apk/exe is - how inconsistent the game plays after you package it with a web browser in the apk, how much more extra space it takes being bundled with a browser

Meanwhile other game engines - some of which free - offer much more features than construct2 + native exporters +html5 export.

Godot for example is excellent and has you beat on features and architecture for free - but you gotta learn its scripting language/api. Let's not even mention Unity3d and Unreal. Whats the point even.

The only advantage of construct is the event sheet that makes it look like no programming skills are required. This is the honeypot that attracts new users as it lowers the entry point bar to non programmers.

I think you know that very well, as your focus with construct3 was the editor- wasn't it? make it more userfriendly, forget about new API functionality or improvements in the actual runtime. Perhaps some of the weekly updates will prove me wrong - but so far scirra has made it's focus clear - user friendly editor

With that subscription fee model, you are essentially raising that bar back up there on the hobbyists

Please share with us why people should rent construct3 for a year, instead of downloading the unlimited events+flash export free editor of stencyl- developing a game in that instead, and finally buying a sub from stencyl when they are very invested not only in the engine there, but also in the game they have been developing in it.

A free editor with no event sheet limitation and at least one export option for testing is something that will get hobbyists invested in the engine, the more developed their project - the more invested. That will then get them to pay for a subscription/exporters.

The sub fee announcement prior to demonstrating value was like proposing an engagement ring on a first date. Hey, they are plenty of other fish in the sea - also being so pushy is not attractive on a first date