What payment option would you like to see for Construct 3?

  • It's difficult to figure out what you need before you know what you're doing, even when the tools are made available for trial.

    Some people tend to use a "hope for the best" method and pick something reasonably priced.

    A subscription may alleviate some issues with buyer's remorse, but I doubt highly that it was a huge issue any way.

    It's like that Star Trek sweater you got from your aunt sitting in the back of the closet. Nobody's taking that thing back.

    And maybe you'll use it one day, when it's cold at the Treky convention.

  • I'm even more concerned now, based on your response- because I now feel like Scirra is focusing on other things outside the scope of developing a game making tool. It makes me feel less confident in where you are heading.

    We have 3 full time engineers working on C3. Don't be concerned there is no work going into the tool itself.

  • Tom Thank you for addressing all my questions. I am still very invested in construct and thus why i keep reading the threads and following any news. I would like to readdress the line of discussion on the standalone version:

    With many other subscription based software, when the subscription ends you stop getting updates but you still have the last available version to access and edit your projects. That's why people are complaining about a edit lockout.

    We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

    I quite like the idea to make the standalone version of construct 3 unaffected by the editing lockout imposed on the user once their yearly license period runs out - in the online version. If you allow to keep edit access to the last standalone version that the user downloaded during their subscription- you will eliminate all the technical problems and uncertainy the license lockout is imposing! This will also make people actually feel that they are purchasing something they get to own when they make their initial investment.

    [quote:2hx31oe3]As with C2, if someone complains about a bug in an old version, they are told they need to update first, which in this case would mean re-subscribing - which to me is fair enough, as one of the benefits of subscription is updates and bug fixes.

    If a breaking change is implemented by Chrome, the old version could be rendered completely useless. So what's the point? I can imagine the uproar from that, bad publicity and a bad taste left in everyone's mouth.

    Your reasoning here not to do it is not very justified, and you even negate it yourself in a later post by saying:

    Are you saying the stand alone version will use and be reliant on the current Chrome version rather than be a self contained package?

    No sorry, I mispoke. It could be in a self contained package.

    If the stand alone version has no dependency on chrome web browser, that means that the developer can continue to work on their project even if their version of construct3 is outdated compared to the latest version of chrome - as it is standalone and games can be playtested in it.

    Please consider removing the editing lockout after a license runs out on the standalone version. You can replace it with a startup pop up that warns the user that they wont get technical support, that they are running an outdated version and that they might have issues with web browsers for that reason.

    Once the license period runs out, the user:

    • Can continue working on the project with the last standalone version they downloaded while their license was active
    • However the user no longer gets updates or technical support from scirra, unless they subscribe again!
    • The online version of the software has the editing capabilities limited - they can not really edit their projects in it anyway- unless they subscribe again!

    The user still has the incentive to continue their subscription- to update and get the bug fixes + new features and be able to properly export their game as well.

    That way the user will be

    • Motivated to buy their first yearly license, in order to get the standalone version and updates to it for a year, without the worry and uncertainty of the lockout being present to stop them from making that initial investment in C3
    • Motivated to continue working on their project - and continue to be invested - when using the standalone version of the product which they purchased - even after the license has run out
    • As a result of opening the editor more often - see that "Buy another subscription" startup banner remind them more often and not move onto another game engine. With the edit lockout they will stop opening the editor
    • keep them happy and on your side, keep them producing tutorials and content for the community - keep them from moving to another engine
    • There is still the incentive to buy another subscription in order to continue to be able to edit your games on a tablet device via a web browser

    Please consider meeting us halfway with this license at least. Many of us love scirra and construct and are still very much invested in it. But the license as it is atm is stopping us from moving forward with the company and the product.

  • Regarding retention. I think some of the things Tom listed are good. Despite having been playing around with Construct for years I really enjoyed poking around the example games in C3 so more 'full' games in different genres is a good idea. I also think that more detailed, cohesive and professional tutorials are a must. The community tutorials are great, don't get me wrong and I want to see them continue and flourish. But many of them show very esoteric or downright inefficient ways of doing things and sometimes reading them it's like the blind leading the blind. Good quality tutorials from the devs on efficient and proper ways to do things I think will help Construct's image and bolster the overall quality of the community's output, which will in turn attract new users and retain current ones.

    However I don't think these points will be enough to improve user retention and the reason is that hobbyist game devs are pretty transient. We hop between different software, trying new things, experimenting etc. All of those guys that impulse bought C2 aren't going to impulse subscribe to C3, because psychologically buying something and renting something are two different things. I've done a few team based game jams and really it depends on the team, but every time we've used different game making software. None of them have been subscription based, I don't think it would work unless everyone was already subscribed as subscriptions don't really fit into that flexible, spontaneous mentality. The monthly subscription thing might help with this, but it might harm you as well. It's quite a difficult situation.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • > We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

    >

    This severely complicates support. If someone on a 6 month old version complains about a bug - what do we do? Or, Chrome introduce a breaking change. We have to go back and update every single version. This quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. We prefer to just have everyone on the latest and greatest version.

    That makes a lot of sense, but could I suggest something to possibly think about:

    What if all bug reports are done through C3 itself, forget the forums, e-mails etc and when the user tries to submit a report on a version that is not up to date they are informed that they are using an old version and need to upgrade to be eligible for support. Only the most current version of the software will send the bug report. C3 will just do a quick check to see if it's up to date. You could put it in your TOS etc. That way you will only ever be maintaining the current version of the software, but lapsed users who aren't experiencing bugs will be able to continue to work on their projects if they need to. I think if you had a system like this, and introduced one killer feature a year people would be pretty happy and just stay subscribed anyway. It seems like win win to both Scirra and customers. Am I missing something?

  • > We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

    >

    This severely complicates support. If someone on a 6 month old version complains about a bug - what do we do? Or, Chrome introduce a breaking change. We have to go back and update every single version. This quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. We prefer to just have everyone on the latest and greatest version.

    No - It simplifies support.

    Subscription equals updates, new features and bug fixes - in other words ongoing support. One your sub runs out you get to keep a standalone version. You don't get updates period. If you find a bug then re-subscribe.

    You even loose forum support with some subs-models out there. EG members only forums. Knowledge base for everyone

    Tom, if this was the nature of your sub model I would pay more for it.

  • agree with michael, it would simplify support. Maybe even possible to add a nag screen to, standalone if unsubscribed?

    -You are using an outdateted version, click "here" to resubscribe ,and get access to latest updates, and all features.

    I still don't get why people are still,driving this agenda. It's like they already set their mind that they wouldn't pay again in a year, but gladly continue to use the softwre, until they feel like it's time to upgrade...

    If I was Scirra I wouldn't consider it unless I could make sure the limitations were severe enough.

    * Pre subscription customer. Access to limited online 50 event online version.

    * Subscription customer. full access. Ability to download standalone version.

    * Post subscription customer. Full editing capabilities in Standalone version, but no export options at all. Not even html. Only preview option.

    I do see a few major exploit possibilities here:

    *Latest standalone version could probably always be found online, somewhere else. Since every subscriber would have access to it. You would probably need an account status check here. If someone using a standalone version later than they should be allowed all access should be blocked, or limited to 50 events.

    *Same Standalone version installed on many machines in a team, but only one person need a valid subscription with export option. Big loss in business.

    *People could start offering export services to standalone (post subscription) users, who, pretty much has full software but without export.

    *People spending months and years to create full games but only pay when they are done, and need to export?

    I don't think that a standalone version with full edit capabilities should be a post subscription benefit, unless you can make sure you can severely limit it, and have the proper security measures to not be exploited.

    Using a standalone version: you should have to log in to use it... a check if you are entitled to use this release, according to, your latest subscription info, if not you would be limited to 50 events like other free users.

    The ammount of work just to accommodate people who clearly don't want to pay more than once, I would rather have the devs spend on new features, for people who don't mind playing. And I don't think that people without an active subscription should be able to work on their 50+ event projects at all.

    Don't buy in to it Scirra. Don't spend time and energy to accommodate people who clearly don't have any intention to continue to subscribe after the first year. They want a feature that will allow, them to create full games without paying, and only pay when they need need to export. (Unless they send the c3p to someone with a valid subscription and askmthem to export it)

    I just see soo many warning signs here..... Maybe they don't have bad intentions, but the possibilities for exploits just shot through the roof. I would rather have the devs focus on making a good software, and awesome features, than working on security measures and accommodating non subscribers, so, they can work on their stuff without a license?

    If they threaten with "i'll go somewhere else if I can't edit my games without paying" then so be it, you're not losing any valuable business, as they clearly stated, they don't want to continue subscribing, but be able to use the software, past the subscription.

  • We hear you loud and clear RE monthly option. Right now as someone else guessed we're too close to change anything. We've had discussions in the office which we're all quite positive about where once you've paid for your first year you can then pay monthly.

    Again, this is only internal discussions at the moment, and there's no rush to implement this as we've got a lot of other things to be getting on with and if we did implement it it would take a year before anyone could take advantage of it anyway.

    Perfect and thanks!

    Finally!

    Happy to rent now!

    For the record:

    What will retain me more than game jams and examples are:

    More behaviours

    More plugins

    Better / more features

    Better performance

    More export options

    Advertising integration etc.

    Don't waste time on examples etc. Please.

  • We were surprised when we looked at our data at how many impulse purchases we see for Construct 2 (people who seem to buy and only use for a short period of time).

    No, the real way to finish that sentence is: ...and we'd love to find an infailable method of stamping out this suprisingly large proportion of our customers; subscription was the answer.

  • >

    > We were surprised when we looked at our data at how many impulse purchases we see for Construct 2 (people who seem to buy and only use for a short period of time).

    >

    No, the real way to finish that sentence is: ...and we'd love to find an infailable method of stamping out this suprisingly large proportion of our customers; subscription was the answer.

    What do you mean? I don't understand.

  • I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

  • Thanks Tom, that is good to hear that there are 3 dedicated to developing the tool.

    As for the impulse data- do you have data about individuals that leave for several months, like 6 months, and then return?

  • I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

    I didn't read the article, but there's a simple reason people don't impulse rent/subscribe. The consequences last much longer. Subscriptions encourage people to think long term and consider the value of the product. All these small gimmick ideas they are coming up with (free assets, templates, game jams, etc.) won't work nearly as well to sell a subscription model. Subscription model gives all the security to the company and takes it all away from the consumer. There needs to be balance...

    I don't understand why Tom keeps inviting all this dialog when Ashley is just going to shut him down. I grow tired of the mixed messages. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

  • I think he just means that the impulse buying crowd aren't going to be enticed by a rental system so you'll likely lose all of those sales. People impulse buy because it gives them a buzz and makes them feel good for a bit. You don't hear about impulse renting because people simply don't do it.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consumer-behavior/201303/five-reasons-we-impulse-buy

    Well, the yearly subscription price is much smaller than the C2 license. That fits the impulse buyer profile.

    The ability to not resubscribe even more so.

    That coupled with the availability of the editor makes for a very strong impulse buying presence.

    Imagine what would happen with a monthly option.

  • Imagine what would happen with a monthly option.

    Exactly. You make it easier for people to buy your product and you increase the likelihood that they will. They seem to really want to keep things simple, but running a business is never simple. It's complicated. But, it's less complicated when you have happy customers.

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