Subscription for updates is very open to abuse. Let's say one user on yearly subscription gets his 12 updates (1 a month), and user 2 who hasn't subbed in the last 12 months, pays 1 month sub and grabs the latest version then unsubs again. Getting the same end result as guy 1 but not really paying enough to support further development
you could still discourage it by enforcing an extra fee if the user was not subscribed in a previous year <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">
For example after it runs out, the user has one month in order to subscribe again or lose 20% discount! That time window creates urgency for the user to subscribe again or lose the discount.
I would subscribe, if subscription meant software updates and support for a year.
Similar to bitwig
https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&t=477140
You subscribe to software updates - similar to how you would subscribe to a magazine.
At the end of the year - you get to keep the mag issues! But they obviously get outdated if you dont pay next year.
That creates a real incentive for the developer to actually work hard and add new features to keep people motivated to be subscribed.
Right now the definition that construct3 is using for "subscription" is really "rent" - or limited time access to use the software!
The current model forces the user to pay for "subscription" for access, regardless - as you would lose access completely to your own work (that has hundreds/thousands of events).
But hey, if that makes more money - which scirra seems to really need at the moment - hope it works out too.
The software limitations and uncertainty that is imposed as a result is simply not viable to an indie guy like me and thus probably why so many people here are angry and frustrated by the change <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused">