Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:08 am

To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.
Last edited by lamar on Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,780

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:22 am

Image

On-topic: I do agree with @NotionGames
B
49
S
15
G
6
Posts: 534
Reputation: 7,195

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:23 am

5Type wrote:
lamar wrote:Pretty much misses the point completely!

If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.


So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?
Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.


Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.

So I suggest you go back and read what I said because whether you understand it or not I am trying to save Scirra from losing a whole lot of C2 users that brought them this far.
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,780

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:44 am

signaljacker wrote:I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it.


There are obviously some users who don't like our direction, but to call our user-base alienated is hyperbole. Secondly, we haven't wasted all our time investing in this. We're receiving a lot of positive feedback as well.

They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.


It's not falling on deaf ears. We're going to execute what we've planned, and what our data shows us is this a rational path. To change direction before we've even tried the model would be irrational. We were obviously expecting some users to not like the model.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,394
Reputation: 54,100

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:45 am

lamar wrote:To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.


It's first week of the public beta, this is all expected. Re-judge the state of it when we launch.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,394
Reputation: 54,100

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:54 am

Tom wrote:
signaljacker wrote:I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it.


There are obviously some users who don't like our direction, but to call our user-base alienated is hyperbole. Secondly, we haven't wasted all our time investing in this. We're receiving a lot of positive feedback as well.

They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.


It's not falling on deaf ears. We're going to execute what we've planned, and what our data shows us is this a rational path. To change direction before we've even tried the model would be irrational. We were obviously expecting some users to not like the model.


What data is that Tom?

Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

This is why I say I think you and Ashley are not listening because for months now I have seen so many C2 users saying that is not what they want and if there is a large group of C2 users that have said they want a browser based subscription engine I would sure like to see their comments and reasons for that decision.

I could be wrong and maybe there is thousands of people requesting that but I have been watching and reading the forums for C3 opinions and I sure have not seen the data you are describing?
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,780

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:57 am

lamar wrote:What data is that Tom?


In our database and analytics

lamar wrote:Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?


Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,394
Reputation: 54,100

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:03 am

Tom wrote:
lamar wrote:What data is that Tom?


In our database and analytics

lamar wrote:Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?


Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?



I guess I just have to keep repeating what I have said because you are not listening:

Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,780

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:11 am

lamar wrote:To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.


On general principle I agree wholeheartedly, if these exporters work they should be put into an update for C2 to give us what was advertised. Sign of good faith an all.

I am getting C3 for its exporters out of desperation, which sucks but after putting many months into those games, I can't just abandon all the effort.

And following on what @lennaert said, yeah *fingers crossed* on it working. I'm certainly not desperate enough to pay for exporters that don't work let alone "bug testing" them during the first year of C3's release. I need to see them working day1.
B
21
S
6
G
2
Posts: 188
Reputation: 3,450

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:12 am

Addon package is an interesting idea but it's not on the road-map for now. The export to mobile options we're building for C3 rely on external servers which have cost to keep running so any addon would have to be subscription based.
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,394
Reputation: 54,100

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest