Understanding subscription

  • So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

    I'm just mystified by posts like this. Obviously the mobile app building service is a major one. You also get that, plus the entire Construct 3 editor and all its features, for less than the price of PhoneGap Build, which is just the build service part alone.

  • I would be interested to see some figures on how the bandwidth has increased for scirra after moving to a cloud.

    The editor being cloud actually would allow them to decrease bandwidth, because the update doesnt have to re-download the entire installer. It can download only the parts that have been updated.

    I would even go as far as argue that users downloading entire installers to update constrcut2 every time uses much more bandwidth than users web browsers downloading only updated parts of the editor to the user's hard drive when an update is available - which is what construct3 is going for.

    That is what happens in the background anyway - your web browser will download the editor locally in order to load it anyways.

    So it seems like a win win for scirra here. People using less bandwidth when updating means less running cost

    They use service worker to cache the app. So you are right on saying you only download once, that is unless you clear cache and stuff.

    Most likely people will make use of that great feature of C3 and run it on multiple machines etc...

    Also not forget all the free Users that come and check things out.

    Unless knowing real numbers I'd not say it is the case that they are saving bandwidth at all.

    I also believe the infrastructure behind C3 is by its own more expensive than a simple AWS S3 or something for filestorage.

  • > So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

    >

    I'm just mystified by posts like this. Obviously the mobile app building service is a major one. You also get that, plus the entire Construct 3 editor and all its features, for less than the price of PhoneGap Build, which is just the build service part alone.

    Phonegap is an option though - and it is competing with free services such as xdk.

    Construct 3 being subscription only is not an option

    I would understand if Scirra offered subscription fees for their wrapper and offered construct3 as a one time payment - that would make it comparable with phonegap's example.

    In this case scirra has made it mandatory to subscribe for the exporter service, people cant get the editor otherwise.

    Ashley Tom

    That seems to be the problem that people have with construct3. If you offer your own wrapper as subscription - you would still make a huge profit out of it - even if construct3 was a one time payment type. I would argue that you would make more sales if you give people the editor for one time payment (+future upgrade fees) and make the most error free and convenient way to export a game an extra service that is subscription only. Right now this subscription license lock is just driving away people from what seems to be an excellent improvement over c2

    Perhaps something to consider in the future, if the current strategy doesn't work out great?

    I did note in my post that the exporter seems to be the only new running cost for scirra. Anyways, just my 2c

  • I think the C3 release is more focused on a small percentage of users and will attract mostly game designers that are already making some money from their games and need to have more avenues to port to mobile and consoles.

    What percentage of C2 users is that?

    My guess is it is less than 10% that can offset the costs of a subscription by selling games.

    I also think Scirra is missing the boat and should focus on competing with Steam and Google play by turning the arcade into an instant game arcade that allows top designers to include 3rd party advertising of which Scirra takes a percentage.

    That is where gaming is headed and people no longer want to download apps that may collect personal info and sell stuff to their kids without permission .

    If Scirra needs ongoing revenue an instant gaming arcade would probably bring in a lot more money than a release of an engine that is focused on an elite few game designers that have other choices and do not seem all that enthused by what C3 has to offer.

    ADDED: Give your game designers a way to make money and they will flock to your engine and an instant game arcade would give them that opportunity and Scirra would make revenue from both the engine and the games created.

    Just my opinion!

  • While I'd love a "subscribe to get updates and support" model, I feel like the subscription price is already justified. Hosting a cloud based exporter will be more expensive for the company than most of the users realise.

    Edit: Also, keep in mind that having a constant income will help Scirra to expand in the future and provide even more features.

  • What I'm reading in the other posts here leads me to wonder if there aren't different subscription packages for different kinds of users.

    I want to support Scirra, and invest in Construct. It's the only engine I use, and I play with it constantly. The new features and constant updates just give me more to play with.

    But I only play with it. I export with NW.js, if at all. I'll never use Phonegap, XDK, and I'll never build a mobile app. And unless I misunderstand this feature, won't ever need a cloud-based exporter. It sounds like there are others in this camp.

    So I guess I don't understand why there's only one subscription choice. It feels like it's either pro edition or no edition.

    I'd pay $49/year for a local-only exporting model, without all of the extra / costly features, and without the ability to profit off of my work. I'd absolutely upgrade my subscription to $99/year if I decided to build a mobile app, and then downgrade afterwards.

    I think it's worth considering each segment of the construct userbase. The pricing model can still be subscription-based, but different things to subscribe to.

  • > we all pay for it guess.

    >

    What do you mean by that? What we saw from the blog posts is that it runs great. We'll yet to try it in April, but currently I don't see any problems with the browser based editor.

    Well, I mean it is now cloud based because of the handful of people that wanted Mac and Linux flavours of C2. The vast majority didn't want that.

    The problem with the subscription model is it is only useful and affordable to those who can make it pay. Most C2 users are hobbyists and tinkerers, and will not be able to pay that much for it every year. It doesn't matter if it is cheaper than PhoneGap - why ever that matters - it is still expensive.

    So what has happened is that the majority of C2 users will have to stay with C2, because C3 is out priced for them - either that or they get a cut down version\limitations or whatever.

    It doesn't really bother me either way, I will give my free version a shot and see how good it is, but to have to pay like $200 or whatever it is after the monetary conversion every year it will have to way better than C2 - but yeah we'll see.

    The other thing to remember is that just because other companies are going down the Subscription based path doesn't mean you have to do it as well. The vast majority of people loath this pricing method and rightly so, it is akin to local dairy farmer - and you will loose a multitude of current and potential customers as a result.

    Just my 2 cents

  • What I'm reading in the other posts here leads me to wonder if there aren't different subscription packages for different kinds of users.

    I want to support Scirra, and invest in Construct. It's the only engine I use, and I play with it constantly. The new features and constant updates just give me more to play with.

    But I only play with it. I export with NW.js, if at all. I'll never use Phonegap, XDK, and I'll never build a mobile app. And unless I misunderstand this feature, won't ever need a cloud-based exporter. It sounds like there are others in this camp.

    So I guess I don't understand why there's only one subscription choice. It feels like it's either pro edition or no edition.

    I'd pay $49/year for a local-only exporting model, without all of the extra / costly features, and without the ability to profit off of my work. I'd absolutely upgrade my subscription to $99/year if I decided to build a mobile app, and then downgrade afterwards.

    I think it's worth considering each segment of the construct userbase. The pricing model can still be subscription-based, but different things to subscribe to.

    I absolutely think the same thing. Scirra can make way more sales if they approached the market with a more flexible licensing model that accommodates more types of users. A lot of people here do want to buy construct 3, but do not want the subscription fee license model or the new wrapper/exporter

    If you offer your own wrapper as subscription - you would still make a huge profit out of it - even if construct3 was a one time payment type. I would argue that you would make more sales if you give people the editor for one time payment (+future upgrade fees) and make the most error free and convenient way to export a game an extra service that is subscription only. Right now this subscription license lock is just driving away people from what seems to be an excellent improvement over c2

    Perhaps something to consider in the future, if the current strategy doesn't work out great?

    I like using nw.js too

    I think the problem at the moment is having scirra's wrapper compete with all of these free wrappers that are kind of crap atm, but they do work.

    Scirra could make it less easy to export the games to the free wrappers in construct3 - leaving it to manual steps for the user if they choose to use nw.js

  • What I wanna know is how will the C3 desktop version work in relation with the subscription model.

  • What I'm reading in the other posts here leads me to wonder if there aren't different subscription packages for different kinds of users.

    I want to support Scirra, and invest in Construct. It's the only engine I use, and I play with it constantly. The new features and constant updates just give me more to play with.

    But I only play with it. I export with NW.js, if at all. I'll never use Phonegap, XDK, and I'll never build a mobile app. And unless I misunderstand this feature, won't ever need a cloud-based exporter. It sounds like there are others in this camp.

    So I guess I don't understand why there's only one subscription choice. It feels like it's either pro edition or no edition.

    I'd pay $49/year for a local-only exporting model, without all of the extra / costly features, and without the ability to profit off of my work. I'd absolutely upgrade my subscription to $99/year if I decided to build a mobile app, and then downgrade afterwards.

    I think it's worth considering each segment of the construct userbase. The pricing model can still be subscription-based, but different things to subscribe to.

    This is my view as well, completely agree.

    The main 'upgrade' features for C3 are browser based, cloud, and mobile services. What if you don't need those features? Other than that, the new features seem like things that should be in C2.

    I've had tons of fun with C2, but never published to mobile and probably never will. Like brushfe, if I ever do it would be a one-off.

    A feature based pricing model seems much more attractive to me.

  • What I wanna know is how will the C3 desktop version work in relation with the subscription model.

    I want to know that too!

    If for example it continues to work after the subscription period has ended - with disabled scirra exporter and disabled updates, but nothing else affected - then users would technically be using a classic licensing model and paying for software updates and an exporter/wrapper.

    Without having scirra's exporter/wrapper:

    • construct3 could still be able to export the game to html5, however it will take more manual effort to package it
    • everyone here hates xdk, so if scirra's wrapper is better supported- they will have an incentive to buy the subscription to it
    • Scirra's exporter could not only work better than phonegap, but be more integrated with construct3's export process

    People will still have the incentive to buy it - especially those who target mobile!

    People will still have the incentive to buy the subscription - because they get software updates for an entire year as well.

    That would then be a nice way to counter the problem with all the currently leaving users who hate the subscription model.

    That would be a genius move imo- and it will in no way hurt the incentive of users to pay every year. Announcing that and adding it to the FAQ would keep a lot of people here from moving to other software or staying with construct 2

    Having to maintain and develop two applications is difficult and eventually Ashley and scirra will have to come up with a way to get unconvinced construct2 users to move on to construct3

    Unfortunately right now buying a construct 3 subscription gives you

    1.access to the editor with editing capabilities on projects that are more than a simple demo/test for a year

    2. access to the exporter by scirra for a year

    3. the editor + software updates for a year

    People are ok with 2 and 3 , but point 1 is a deal breaker!

    I would buy it if buying a subscription meant:

    1. access to the exporter by scirra for a year

    2. the editor for life + software updates for a year

    That would also stimulate first time yearly subscription sales

  • I would buy it if buying a subscription meant:

    1. access to the exporter by scirra for a year

    2. the editor for life + software updates for a year

    That would also stimulate first time yearly subscription sales

    I don't think that's how it'll go, but that would certainly help users to accept the subscription model (myself included).

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I guess I will share my probably unpopular opinion here as well.

    The Case

    A Construct 3 license costs about $99 USD per annum.

    For all people that don't know what annum means, it basically means $99 USD per year (365 days).

    This roughly translates to $8,25 a month if you would put money aside each month.

    My Statement

    $8,25 a month are quite frankly peanuts if you live in a 1st world country and have a job in my opinion.

    Let's look at this from the perspective of an individual/hobbyist and a start-up "business".

    The Individual/Hobbyist

    I would define this group of people to be C3 users which like to work on games and would like to share their work to the public.

    Individual/Hobbyist generally have the intention do games as a hobby and usually don't plan on having a large and successful game.

    Now to my statement, I believe that if you really consider something as a "hobby", you should also be willing to spend money on it.

    To proof that a C3 license doesn't cost that much more than any other hobby costs, let's do a quick comparison to make things a little more clear.

    Common Hobbies Around The World & Their Approx. Costs**:

    Construct 3 > Total Costs: $100 (per year) > Monthly Costs (Savings): $8,25

    Cycling > Total Costs: $130 (per year) > Monthly Costs (Tires): $12,99

    Gaming > Total Costs: $220 (per year) > Monthly Costs (Games): $20

    Musician (Guitar) > Total Costs: $70 (per year) > Monthly Costs (Strings): $5,99

    and many more...

    My point is:

    If you're doing something as a hobby, you should be willing to cover the costs for it.

    Start-up "Business"

    The case for start-ups, specifically aspiring indie dev's is fairly simple in my opinion.

    You would like to make money, you've got to invest money and a price of $149 is reasonable and should be no problem.

    The most of the aspiring indie's (including myself) plan to sell their games on Steam.

    By selling games on the biggest gaming platform of all time, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll make at least ~$500 within the first 3 months.

    My point again:

    Consider the license costs as an investment.

    In Conclusion

    I think that Scirra should keep on going with the current pricing model and not make it unnecessarily complex by introducing "modules" (sell parts of the engine for an additional price). If you're not living in a 3rd world country* you should be able to cover the costs of the Personal License, even if you just consider game development as a hobby. Let's be real for a second, you get 365 days to work on your game, isn't that more than enough for just $100?

    *This is

    not meant to be an insult!

    **This is meant to be an example, don't expect accurate numbers please.

  • In my case nothing is going to change my thinking, I will not pay rent of any software.

    One of the reasons is that if you leave C3 and future Scirra software then you will no longer be able to edit your projects in the future.

    My kids will be able to open C2 (maybe in a virtual windows) and see what I did and even edit it.

    That will not happen with C3.

    Another reason for me is that there are even free alternatives, I know programming, I do not see difficulty in adapting to another tool.

    When I finish my project in C2, then I plan to start adapting to the new engine.

  • I guess I will share my probably unpopular opinion here as well.

    The Case

    A Construct 3 license costs about $99 USD per annum.

    You left out one factor. If you stop the subscription you lose some functionality of C3.

    Tom I would like to know also if the business license is dependent on the subscription?

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