Subscription Pricing Alternative

>

> So projects can be opened, but cannot be edited (or exported). Stop paying and you are locked out of your own projects.

>

> Now, I just do not understand why anyone (outside larger studios) as a game dev would willingly ever shut themselves in like that. Scirra sort-of holds your projects hostage, in my opinion. Unless the rent is payed.

>

> I have a real hard time understanding how this is a 'good' thing for small developers.

>

I don't understand how it's good for any game developer to stop supporting the company that provides the software they are using to make money. If you're a serious developer why would you even consider cutting small a yearly/montly fee to save a few bucks unless you're a real cheapskate... IF you're serious about your game development and decide to lock your self out from further development, and can't even spend 99 per year to keep your products up to date for your customers you should probably do something else than developing games.

If you're a pure hobbyist and don't intend on making any money on your games, 99 per year is still a very cheap hobby... if you really enjoy it, and can't stand the limitations of a free version.

You dont stop supporting them. Rather than that you are paying them for upgrades they do on the engine without having ticking DRM crap on what you paid for

Really need more information than what's being given.

I understand the need to dribble out features, but licensing has to be clearly defined, and all at one time.

All we can do is just guess as to how this is to work, and that's clearly not a good thing.

> Construct 3 rental: you stop paying, you cannot open your older projects for updates/changes.

>

How do you know that?

What if you just can't export without a subscription?

How many times a year do you export?

Would you prefer to pay each time for that?

I'm absolutely certain they've clarified that the ability to use the program ceases if and when your subscription expires.

I am in the hate subs camp too, but would happily pay more than the yearly sub - I know, weird, but subs are just that loathsome.

However I doubt it is sensible to be making the editor reliant on a third-party, especially chrome - that is super risky, rely on google lol.

As far as support the developers - yes no problem there at all, but consider:

Give all of your current user base an editor (that doesn't rely on chrome) for just:

• $1 for ever = $3,275,900 that should feed them dinner for a while
• $1 per month = $39,310,800 should be able to afford sweets now, likely every day!
• $8 per month (or what ever the current sub rate is) = 375, 686, 400 - now we're talking ( yes I know that they all won't jump on board - but they would for point 2)

But I doubt C2 in a browser will be that good....

>

> > Construct 3 rental: you stop paying, you cannot open your older projects for updates/changes.

> >

>

> How do you know that?

> What if you just can't export without a subscription?

>

> How many times a year do you export?

> Would you prefer to pay each time for that?

>

I'm absolutely certain they've clarified that the ability to use the program ceases if and when your subscription expires.

Tom said:

• 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

Tom said:

- 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

Yeah I got that, and that with the changes to the personal licence seem fair.

I just think that reducing the restriction a bit might be better in the long run, and allows for a revenue that might be left out.

>

>

> Tom said:

> - 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

>

Yeah I got that, and that with the changes to the personal licence seem fair.

I just think that reducing the restriction a bit might be better in the long run, and allows for a revenue that might be left out.

What restriction would you like to see removed?

But its like netflix? People dont mind paying for netflix or the gym.

>

>

> Tom said:

> - 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

>

Yeah I got that, and that with the changes to the personal licence seem fair.

I just think that reducing the restriction a bit might be better in the long run, and allows for a revenue that might be left out.

I think even if they wanted to, it would be hard from a technical point. And of course they need to protect their own investment and product from being exploited. Since it's online I'm guessing you're always using the latest version automatically, which will be cashed on your machine. If they removed some of the restrictions and someone bought 1 month of subscription, but could use the software for free forever (cashed offline version), to edit and use freely people would exploit it and Scirra would loose a lot of money.

How would u like if someone exploited a game you put your heart and soul into, and they found a way to block ads, hack to get free IAP or off a torrent site and play your games completely free?

The restrictions are fair, especially since they now have monthly option. Develop a few month's, unsub, take break, resub again when u need to change something, or update, unsub again when you're not using it. It doesn't get more fair than that.

Look guys, of course they can technically - and they even might do if people dont buy enough subscriptions.

They can still make tons of money by charging us for the software updates - something they have actually never done before (charging for a software update) and something that clickteam fusion and game maker have always done.

Instead they decided to go directly for the subscription model, because if adobe and autodesk does it, why not scirra too.

Except the free hook in this case (construct3 editor free edition) is weak - especially when compared to the nearest similar product sale approach - stencyl.

Stencyl has no limitations on the free edition and even exports to flash in it. The subscription there is to get the professional export capabilities- which btw there are native exporters. You can start paying it after the free editor has gotten you hooked in a project you are making and deeply invested in.

You can't get invested in an editor that limits how many events you can use.

Scirra believes this will make more money, but is approaching it in a very clumsy way. The announcement, the lack of a good hook.

I think stencyl , adobe and autodesk all have professional marketing departments who know their product well, their users well and competition well. They know exactly how to push their subscription - what to offer and how to offer it - how much to give and how much to take.

Scirra is making mistakes so far - sure. But how else can you learn - you try things.

We will see how it goes after a year or two. It might do, it might not.

The thing is - regardless of how you feel - this is how it is going to be. You can accept it or move on

I am curious yes, but not convinced. Will spend that money on something I can keep

If they were to remove the restriction for using the editor, and wanted to keep it from being abused, I would suggest tracking how much time was spent using the editor.

But, I wasn't aware there was a monthly option now.

If they were to remove the restriction for using the editor, and wanted to keep it from being abused, I would suggest tracking how much time was spent using the editor.

But, I wasn't aware there was a monthly option now.

It is much more likely that Construct 3's editor gets pirated if there is a timer or limitation on the number of events.

Just the reaction of this community should be enough of a sign.

Even you have trouble accepting the limitations that are imposed upon subscription period's expiration.

if on the other hand it was like stencyl - people who are not serious about gamedev and see it as a hobby will see no point of looking for unofficial channels to acquire it - as that takes too much effort and has a risk of malware infection. Stencyl lets them play with no limitation, but charges them at the export point - when they are serious about selling their game or sharing it with the world.

There are many people who are willing to buy C3 once, but are instead offered only with the option to rent. Many of them (excluding myself) will go for running a cracked copy with god knows what other crap injected onto it - instead of buying the subscription for a year. Some will make something with the cracked version, then decide that they want to use scirra's exporter. At that point they might buy just a single month - to get their game exported. This is how the internet works unfortunately

Scirra devs must come up with some good protection on construct3. But strong DRM comes at the cost of user client problems

If they were to remove the restriction for using the editor, and wanted to keep it from being abused, I would suggest tracking how much time was spent using the editor.

But, I wasn't aware there was a monthly option now.

They said C3 will be working offline, so how are they checking license verification if you're offline? Maybe people could still abuse it buy always running offline version? blocking license server in hosts file, or any other way around it. I doubt they will use downloadable license file like C2, download then upload to activate your license, that would be weird lol.. How are they tracking multiple users on an offline version? You log in from 10 computers same account, then stay offline.... I really hope they thought about it. Or maybe they just trust the users and the community to pay.

I know some place I've worked at that were using 1 adobe CC license for 10 designers. Millions in turnover but still so cheap they can't even provide their designers with licenses. We all shared one, single user CC license.

If big corporations don't even wanna spend money on professional tools like adobe, I bet lots of starving gamedevs would also use a similar approach if they could. I'm sure a lot of people here would happily support scirra by paying for proper licenses, but looking at threads around this forum lately regarding license costs and subscription models there's certainly a lot of stingy people who want most or all features free, not paying anything at all.

.... well maybe if they got lucky and made a somewhat successful/good game and earned some money...... maybe they would consider a personal/business license, but until then they want full software and free support.

As an aspiring dev, to see other devs talk like this sickens me. If someone spend months years, heart blood and soul into making a game, software, or anything that I enjoy, or makes my life easier and use almost daily I'd be happy to pay for it.

Free version could include more of the actual features and editing capabilities, but you shouldn't be able to export anything at all then, preview only... What if you then spent couple of months/a year creating something that u wanna share with the world or hopefully make some money on... you should pay for full licence.... but wait, then you can subscribe one month.... export.... unsub...and as Tom said you are still allowed to earn money without a subscription....

u see, it doesn't add up... at least for scirra if they allowed this.

Then you create your next game with full free software without export functions, subscribe one month again, export, then unsubscribe. People would actually do that.... People are stingy as hell, and scirra would be broke and bankrupt before you even had time to finish your game, because you only wanna pay for the software if you create a result worth releasing.... Seriously people what's wrong with you?

tunepunk the more I think about it, the more I dont see scirra making bigger profits with the model they are going for.

Yes, people will exploit it probably

That is why I have been saying that a year subscription should buy you the editor, but not lifetime updates for it. Only updates for that year that you have subscribed for + access to scirra's apk/exe export service.

At least that way scirra is not driving away a big part of the current user base to alternative methods or alternative game engines.

Give everyone a reason to want to buy the subscription and they will. Plus if they keep using the editor after their subscription has ended - scirra still has them invested and loyal, still has their time and even ability to advertise new features they will get by buying the subscription again- directly in the editor itself. If the free editor is limited in editing capabilities- guess what - people pirate it instead or dont use it - scirra loses that window where they can keep the user hooked and motivated to pay

we can go flexible there:

A month subscription could give you the editor with editing capabilities only for a month - for a taste, but you dont get the editor with editing capabilities for life. So even the monthly subscription has an upgrade path to the user with a good hook/lure --> a year subscription=the editor with editing capabilities for life. Another year subscription = updates (fixes and new features) for a year + scirra's wrapper. If people skip a year = the next year subscription for their unlocked editor is at a higher price, that is equal or less than the current initial year sub price. Scirra can offer a discount to any user who has paid for the next year in the same month their subscription has ended.

There are so many opportunities to get people invested there - and in order to succeed with this model I think they have to be aggressively rewarding loyal users to keep them on. Aggressively tempting users who have stopped paying subscription, rather than cutting them off and demotivating them

tunepunk

Money is not the issue at all (at least, not for me). I would happily pay five times more than the $99 yearly rent to own a perpetual license, and update the license every year. Renting a game engine for development just makes no sense whatsoever. It is too risky in the mid/long term in my opinion.

Stop paying the rent, and I cannot edit my existing (older) projects or update them. I think not - that is unacceptable to me. Next people will tell me to rent my computer - stop paying, sorry!

I refuse to rent my tools for development. Again, it makes sense for larger teams and game companies (depending) - but not for a single freelance developer. My opinion, of course.

As for supporting Scirra? I have been a Construct user since version one, and and early adopter of version 2. I am a teacher at various colleges and a university teaching web dev and related topics. Year after year I have promoted Construct 2 in my classes, and taught any student who was interested how to use Construct 2 - outside the official curricula - many unpaid hours.

And now you are accusing me and others of being unsupportive of Scirra? Wow. Just wow.

I love the software, and I have always supported it by introducing it to anyone I thought who would be interested. But I ABSOLUTELY HATE TO RENT SOFTWARE. This has NOTHING to do with being so-called "unsupportive of Scirra".

This is not about money. Nor about being unsupportive. Have you thought about why it is that many long-time users here react the way they do? It is precisely because they CARE.

Just provide both options: rent and perpetual licensing. But that is not going to happen, unfortunately.

Honestly, market dictates everything. I wouldn't bother coming up with alternate methods. It's hard to speculate at this point even what the end product looks like let alone the billing aspect. One thing I know above all else. hobbyist will not be buying a subscription just to play around with making simple games (ok they might buy a month or two - it wont be long term). Those that do buy a subscription will be those who are attempting to profit on the making of video games. Thus, C3 will have to deliver on the ability to create a video game and to make a profit. The cost of a subscription wouldn't matter if you are making money with your video game. That's a must for C3. Otherwise, the subscription billing will create a vacuum. If the users of C3 will be unable to generate a profit by making games, they will not subscribe. C3 will have to change their billing methods to attract those who use it for learning and hobby. Either way the market will dictate. A subscription rate will only work if C3 delivers the success of people making a living with their games.