Understanding subscription

  • I was thinking more sinusoidal.

    But yeah this is all getting really depressing.

    I thought you said suicidal.

  • >

    > - If your subscription expires, you will not be able to edit the game (but you can open them in read only mode)

    >

    Sorry but I hate this. This makes me depressed. Can't you just charge a higher one off fee for C3 or something instead of a subscription?! I don't want to have to keep a subscription paid up, to edit games I made a couple years ago if I let it lapse. This actually feels unethical. Locking developers out of their own projects they built! Man!!! >:(

    EDIT Basically we don't get to own our own copy of the software. We just have the privilege of renting it!

    This, I feel is the most important thing here, and is being overlooked. It seems unnecessary to do this to us, and I have a real problem if a company is so shortsighted as to not see this as an issue for its user base. I can afford a subscription just fine, but I won't be supporting something that doesn't support me back.

  • Just a thought.

    How about for a subscriber who has established at least one year's paid subscription, they get x amount of time added on after dropping a subscription, but they can only edit?

    That way the customer gets some incentive to re up.

  • >

    > > We also have a cloud hosting network just to serve Construct 3 itself.

    > >

    >

    > Remind me, who asked for this "feature"?

    >

    The people who asked almost daily for Mac and Linux ports, and even some who asked for Chrome OS and even one or two who dreamed about using Construct 3 on their phone or tablet. That's how we approached the problem, and that's how we support two whole OSs nobody else in the industry has even attempted to.

    I don't really understand, there surely must have been a whole WEALTH of features that have been asked for, probably twice as many times daily that haven't been considered, is it down to developers personal discretion what features are added?

  • I don't really understand, there surely must have been a whole WEALTH of features that have been asked for, probably twice as many times daily that haven't been considered, is it down to developers personal discretion what features are added?

    This bothers me too, were there some polls that I missed? Was there any market research done? It doesn't seem that way, and it seems that C3's motivation seems more driven by the dev's desire to crack the challenge of making a web only service that does all that stuff (it's impressive, but I don't think most people actually care that much about it). Scirra needs to remember that those that complain the loudest aren't always the majority (although call me a hypocrite because in the case of your subscription system they definitely are). But that's why you need to do proper research, a few forum posts here and there from some loud complainers won't cut it.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • We don't implement features exclusively based on what people ask for, although that is a very important part of the process. For example people frequently ask for 3D, but there are good reasons why we're not going to do that. So it's not as simple as simply following what people ask for, we weigh it up with several other factors.

    BTW - what are some of the features you perceive as being asked for twice as many times daily? Just curious what specific features you're thinking of there. The main one I can think of is the mobile app build service, which we've already announced.

  • We don't implement features exclusively based on what people ask for, although that is a very important part of the process. For example people frequently ask for 3D, but there are good reasons why we're not going to do that. So it's not as simple as simply following what people ask for, we weigh it up with several other factors.

    BTW - what are some of the features you perceive as being asked for twice as many times daily? Just curious what specific features you're thinking of there. The main one I can think of is the mobile app build service, which we've already announced.

    I've seen a lot more requests for non-solid tiles without a second tilemap, for instance, than I've ever seen anyone ask for a web editor.

  • > We don't implement features exclusively based on what people ask for, although that is a very important part of the process. For example people frequently ask for 3D, but there are good reasons why we're not going to do that. So it's not as simple as simply following what people ask for, we weigh it up with several other factors.

    >

    > BTW - what are some of the features you perceive as being asked for twice as many times daily? Just curious what specific features you're thinking of there. The main one I can think of is the mobile app build service, which we've already announced.

    >

    I've seen a lot more requests for non-solid tiles without a second tilemap, for instance, than I've ever seen anyone ask for a web editor.

    I'll just leave this here:

  • I think with the half dozen threads related to C3 in the forum we have probably given Tom and Ashley enough feedback and things to consider both in pricing, subscription and features we would like to see.

    I have faith in them that they will do their best to provide a great product and while it might not please everyone hopefully it pleases the audience it is intended for.

    Releasing a new product always requires adjustment to what the market demands so let's not stress them any more and let's see what they come up with.

    The sky will not fall and the world will not end regardless!

  • I've seen a lot more requests for non-solid tiles without a second tilemap, for instance, than I've ever seen anyone ask for a web editor.

    That's on our todo list, but I'd qualify that as a fairly minor feature (especially since it has a workaround - use a second tilemap - so it doesn't really make anything possible that was previously impossible). One of our other considerations is the impact to the business, and supporting all these other OSs could potentially double our userbase - which in turn helps development of the product, such as hiring more programmers and building even more new features, which in turn even helps Windows users. It's hard to see a tweak to the tilemap plugin having the same impact. It's not to say that's not important, it's just to show how we weigh up these ideas.

  • > I've seen a lot more requests for non-solid tiles without a second tilemap, for instance, than I've ever seen anyone ask for a web editor.

    >

    That's on our todo list, but I'd qualify that as a fairly minor feature (especially since it has a workaround - use a second tilemap - so it doesn't really make anything possible that was previously impossible). One of our other considerations is the impact to the business, and supporting all these other OSs could potentially double our userbase - which in turn helps development of the product, such as hiring more programmers and building even more new features, which in turn even helps Windows users. It's hard to see a tweak to the tilemap plugin having the same impact. It's not to say that's not important, it's just to show how we weigh up these ideas.

    Not really sure a web editor makes anything specifically possible that wasn't possible before either, just the smoosh 'n jab version. How about selective solids with the platform engine? I know it's supposedly immensely complex, but it was a feature of CC, and it makes many a scenario impossible currently when the world solid on/off is the only adjustment available.

  • Not really sure a web editor makes anything specifically possible that wasn't possible before either, just the smoosh 'n jab version.

    One of our other considerations is the impact to the business, and supporting all these other OSs could potentially double our userbase - which in turn helps development of the product, such as hiring more programmers and building even more new features, which in turn even helps Windows users.

    Am I missing something? Ashely explicitly answered what's possible with the web version, didn't he?

    I have near to no experience in Construct but support for multiple platforms sounds a hell of a lot more important for business growth and thereby software progression (and ultimately new features) than something that seems to be annoying but solvable by a workaround.

  • > Not really sure a web editor makes anything specifically possible that wasn't possible before either, just the smoosh 'n jab version.

    >

    > One of our other considerations is the impact to the business, and supporting all these other OSs could potentially double our userbase - which in turn helps development of the product, such as hiring more programmers and building even more new features, which in turn even helps Windows users.

    >

    Am I missing something? Ashely explicitly answered what's possible with the web version, didn't he?

    I have near to no experience in Construct but support for multiple platforms sounds a hell of a lot more important for business growth and thereby software progression (and ultimately new features) than something that seems to be annoying but solvable by a workaround.

    Yeah, I agreed that was a workaround, solids being dependent of individual platform behaviours has no workaround. And we were talking about web editors not multi-platform which I agree, has had a LOT of requests.

  • Going web based is a far smarter decision business wise than porting the engine to multiple OSs; you get a single code base that's instantly deployable.

    Whether it not it works well has yet to be seen - Chrome is terrible for memory usage and I can't imagine C3 runs at all well on mobile devices, given Chromes penchant for nuking mobile batteries.

    That said, some of the most ambitious games made in C2 have been shown running in C3; and I doubt Scirra would commit to something that didn't work - I'm excited to try it out.

  • Going web based is a far smarter decision business wise than porting the engine to multiple OSs; you get a single code base that's instantly deployable.

    Whether it not it works well has yet to be seen - Chrome is terrible for memory usage and I can't imagine C3 runs at all well on mobile devices, given Chromes penchant for nuking mobile batteries.

    That said, some of the most ambitious games made in C2 have been shown running in C3; and I doubt Scirra would commit to something that didn't work - I'm excited to try it out.

    I've actually never doubted it would run well at all in Chrome or any browser, really, I honestly don't believe they'd work on doing this if it had even the most remotest signs of being slow or unusable; on the contrary, I expect the browser-based editor will run like a dream. If you like web-based editors (and subscriptions).

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