0 Favourites

Why Construct 3 goes backwards instead of forward

  • This is not a rant about technology, but it is about the game industry, and why Scirra is no more one of the "good guys".

    I'm fine with it being online/offline with Electron/NW.js, I'm fine with anything that uses HTML5 for good.

    But in all, forcing users to pay an expensive annual subscription fee to being able to earn money with the software, it's too 2010 for anyone's taste. And what's more important, it heavily caters to a certain demographic of developers.

    This are the users that Construct 3 are leaving out in the dark:

    * Students

    * People living in poor countries

    * People having a bad financial situation

    * Designers focusing on non-profits

    * Designers focusing on experimentation

    * Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free

    No, the free version of Construct 3 won't do, since we cannot earn money with it.

    What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor). And it's very, very dangerous.

    So, in good faith, I cannot recommend Construct 3 to anyone, and I won't be able to recommend Construct 2 in a year or two.

    ---

    I'm a strong supporter of FOSS (Free and Open Source Sofware) applications, mentality, and their community. I believe the future of anything we do in software has a viable alternative in FOSS. We can currently see that in Android, where thanks to FOSS developers we have a good ecosystem and we can have an awesome, full-featured phone for very little money - remember the old "A laptop for every child" program? Now we have it.

    Scirra is going against that.

    Therefore, due to my work ethics, I must definitely move to another software for game development. I recommend Godot, Unity, Twine, Ren'Py or Unreal Engine, all free solutions, that focus on being enablers. There are many more free software solutions out there. I suggest people to start using them if they care about the future of the game industry.

    Cheers, and hopefully Scirra will change their minds. Personally, I'm kinda devastated about this because I always believed in this software and how good it was for first-timers.

  • Construct 2 is good, I would recommend this for anyone who wants to make prototype or web, but C3.

    C3 is a different story, I personally do not believe it's an upgrade due to experiences from C2. I'm just saying you can stay with C2 and ignore C3.

  • But C2 won't have upgrades in, say, two years. And then it's dead. And when new technologies arise, and new incompatibilites appears, our software is dead.

    I think in very, very, very long terms (around 30-40 years) because I'm super concerned about "digital death". So I only use or tend to use stuff that has a very long longevity. I believe HTML5 (and 6, 7, 8, 9) will be around forever.

    But why should I pay for C3 when Unity already has a WebGL export? Also Godot. Also UE4, and many other engines.

  • Can't wait to see their announcement tomorrow

  • But C2 won't have upgrades in, say, two years. And then it's dead. And when new technologies arise, and new incompatibilites appears, our software is dead.

    I think in very, very, very long terms (around 30-40 years) because I'm super concerned about "digital death". So I only use or tend to use stuff that has a very long longevity. I believe HTML5 (and 6, 7, 8, 9) will be around forever.

    But why should I pay for C3 when Unity already has a WebGL export? Also Godot. Also UE4, and many other engines.

    True, besides if C3 brings WebAssembly, I'd pay a subscription fee.

    Well, Unity WebGL export is very experimental, I wouldn't recommend you to use it for production because it will have low fps in iPad.

  • This is not a rant about technology, but it is about the game industry, and why Scirra is no more one of the "good guys".

    What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor). And it's very, very dangerous.

    You nailed right there.

  • Isn't subscription really better for poorer people or those in poorer countries though? They've said there will still be a free version, and this way when you outgrow free or need a licence the up-front payment is smaller than it would have otherwise been.

    As long as the offline support works well and it performs well on potentially weaker hardware I see it as a win for those users.

    Native exporters would be nice though, although unless I missed it in the announcement I don't think we've been told whether or not we might be getting those yet.

  • Isn't subscription really better for poorer people or those in poorer countries though? They've said there will still be a free version, and this way when you outgrow free or need a licence the up-front payment is smaller than it would have otherwise been.

    As long as the offline support works well and it performs well on potentially weaker hardware I see it as a win for those users.

    Native exporters would be nice though, although unless I missed it in the announcement I don't think we've been told whether or not we might be getting those yet.

    I live in one of developing countries and I can say that subscription based is pretty much not popular around here. We live in strong believe that if we pay for a thing, then we own it and we can use it as long as we wish. Which is not possible if it's subscription based.

    I only develop games in my spare time along with my other projects. I don't invest my time on Construct everyday, so paying for a time-limited software feels like a huge waste to me.

  • Subscription is just a marketing name for renting. Someone else made this point in another thread - with a magazine subscription you have physical ownership of the magazines you pay for. With software, you can't use it once you stop renting it.

  • ...

    What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor).

    ...

    As other user pointed out too, this is what Construct3 seems to be about. Couldn't agree more with notnsane, so you can count me out of Construct3.

    As an addition to alternative engines pointed out, I'd recommend HaxeFlixel.

    Thanks, Scirra, because C2 has been great to me, but I think it's time to move on

  • Isn't subscription really better for poorer people or those in poorer countries though? They've said there will still be a free version, and this way when you outgrow free or need a licence the up-front payment is smaller than it would have otherwise been.

    I live in Romania (which may not classify as a poor country, but is also far from being rich) and I would chose a one time fee over a monthly fee any time of the week (yes, even if it is much more than the monthly fee)

    I know if I were to buy a product like C3/C2, there is no point wasting money on a subscription on a product I would use a long long time.

    Also, paying the price of C2 every month would be an enormous investment, for something that has not yet shown why it deserves it, that I simply cannot ask my parents to make. Especially considering 1USD is 4.20RON right now...

    EDIT: It's actually 100$ per year, so it's not as bad, but still way too much when C2 FLOWERS EXISTS

    It would be much better if it was like this: 100$ upfront for the engine and 20/30$ subscription for online. That way you would pay once a reasonable amount and if you wanted the online feature, you would pay monthly a reasonable amount.

    As long as the offline support works well and it performs well on potentially weaker hardware I see it as a win for those users.

    I have used C2 on this laptop for a couple of months:

    http://www.emag.ro/laptop-sony-vaio-cu- ... EYT9KBBBM/

    (AMD E2-1800 processor; Radeon HD 7340)

    And it worked on it really well!

    Also, if you are going into game development seriously, you are not going to do it on grandma's 20 year old laptop...

    And those who are starting in game development aren't going to use C3 because it isn't the first thing that comes up when you google "How to make a video game"... (In fact Construct 1/2 (or 3 obviously) aren't even mentioned on the first 10 pages...)

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • * Students - There is still a free version of C3, why do you need a full verion for learning. I used C2 free version for a year learning it before I bought it.

    * People living in poor countries - I think C3 is still one of the cheapest options out there. Should they get discount to people because of where you're from? Imagine the rage from others. I think the price is very affordable, even in poor countries. About 8$ per month?, get some support from family and friends if they want to support your game making.

    * People having a bad financial situation - Are you suggesting a pity discount for poor people?

    * Designers focusing on non-profits - There is still a free version of C3. If you are a non profit, why not collect money for a licence by donations?

    * Designers focusing on experimentation - There is still a free version of C3, I bet it's perfectly fine to experiment with.

    * Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free. There is still a free version of C3

    All in all, from what I've read C3 will have a free option just like C2. How is that not catering for all of the above mentioned?

    If you will only be using C3 for the above reasons, why would you need a full licence?

  • * Students - There is still a free version of C3, why do you need a full verion for learning. I used C2 free version for a year learning it before I bought it.

    * People living in poor countries - I think C3 is still one of the cheapest options out there. Should they get discount to people because of where you're from? Imagine the rage from others. I think the price is very affordable, even in poor countries. About 8$ per month?, get some support from family and friends if they want to support your game making.

    * People having a bad financial situation - Are you suggesting a pity discount for poor people?

    * Designers focusing on non-profits - There is still a free version of C3. If you are a non profit, why not collect money for a licence by donations?

    * Designers focusing on experimentation - There is still a free version of C3, I bet it's perfectly fine to experiment with.

    * Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free. There is still a free version of C3

    All in all, from what I've read C3 will have a free option just like C2. How is that not catering for all of the above mentioned?

    If you will only be using C3 for the above reasons, why would you need a full licence?

    Yea, but why choose C3 vs C2?

    All of the things said above apply to C2 and it has a much more lenient payment method. (You know, for those who don't have the money to throw around for nothing in return...)

  • You can continue to use Construct 2, there are no plans to stop updates to it. It will continue as it has done for the last year or so. We're not forcing anyone onto Construct 3, and we think Construct 2 still has a healthy life ahead as a powerful tool!

  • * Students - There is still a free version of C3, why do you need a full verion for learning. I used C2 free version for a year learning it before I bought it.

    * People living in poor countries - I think C3 is still one of the cheapest options out there. Should they get discount to people because of where you're from? Imagine the rage from others. I think the price is very affordable, even in poor countries. About 8$ per month?, get some support from family and friends if they want to support your game making.

    * People having a bad financial situation - Are you suggesting a pity discount for poor people?

    * Designers focusing on non-profits - There is still a free version of C3. If you are a non profit, why not collect money for a licence by donations?

    * Designers focusing on experimentation - There is still a free version of C3, I bet it's perfectly fine to experiment with.

    * Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free. There is still a free version of C3

    All in all, from what I've read C3 will have a free option just like C2. How is that not catering for all of the above mentioned?

    If you will only be using C3 for the above reasons, why would you need a full licence?

    Why mention so much the "free" version of C3?

    If its like the "free" version of C2, it will be borderline useless.

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