I'm worried about the future.

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:11 am

The past few years have seen a resurgence in retro gaming. Games that were made 30 years ago such as Zelda, Megaman, Metroid etc not only have modern iterations but also a strong audience playing the original games and their variations. Companies such as Nintendo or Capcom would be tinkering with the original source code for these classics, rereleasing them on modern devices etc - so games that were made a while ago are still relevant and their popularity goes through cycles. No doubt it will be the same for the future. It is my understanding that with the C3 subscription model if it ends you will no longer be able to edit your projects. But what happens if Scirra as a company ceases to exist - does C3 rely on paid infrastructure to function? If that disappears surely the ability for anyone to edit the games goes with it. Some indies like Owlboy took 10 years to make. What happens if I commit to the subscription, but Scirra crashes and burns? Am I left with 5 years of my life wasted on a half finished product I can't edit? Please tell me that's not going to happen. Is Scirra thinking about the preservation of digital information for the future, and if so, how can that possibly fit into a subscription model? Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but from what I can see so far I'm very worried.
B
65
S
25
G
4
Posts: 209
Reputation: 7,028

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:47 am

The paid subscription model guarantees longevity.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Scirra's current business model has users paying a one-off cost for an ongoing, evolving product and services - this is not sustainable, and would, without failure, end up bankrupting Scirra if continued ad infinitum.

This concern is entirely mitigated by subscription fees.
B
59
S
21
G
10
Posts: 643
Reputation: 10,293

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:01 pm

Elliott wrote:The paid subscription model guarantees longevity.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Scirra's current business model has users paying a one-off cost for an ongoing, evolving product and services - this is not sustainable, and would, without failure, end up bankrupting Scirra if continued ad infinitum.

This concern is entirely mitigated by subscription fees.

Yes, but @Elliot has a point, what if the company does run into some unforeseen troubles, what legal ramifications might protect those subscribers who need to be able to legally continue working on their games?
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,117
Reputation: 11,253

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:14 pm

Scirra said on the forum that if the subscription won't work they would (logically) consider other options in the future. Unless Scirra evaporates instantly into nothingness, you don't have to worry about your projects. I think they would release a purchasable offline editor, etc..

But just as @Elliott wrote, the subscription model will ensure that Scirra will be in the game with continued income and support. While I understand your thinking and feelings about this topic, I don't think that we have any reason to worry about that.
B
135
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,557
Reputation: 20,717

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:06 pm

Elliott wrote:Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Actually, you'll find that these types of game designers make most of their money off those who get a rush of an idea, buy the product, run into a dead stop, and abandon their idea for something else. Don't know the stats, but I suspect that the dropout rate is high, and most wouldn't be around 12 months after buying a game designer product (from any company).
B
27
S
9
G
2
Posts: 154
Reputation: 2,833

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:44 pm

The opposite can happen as well. Scirra could become massive or develop some tech that puts them in the crosshairs of the really big fish. A few million later Scirra has been bought out and swallowed up by Valve. Construct 2 / 3 are supported for a year then discontinued. Ashley and Tom have their yachts in the Bahamas and you are left 2-3 years wasted life. It has happened to a least 4 software tools that I had invested years of my life to learning. In fact almost destroyed my career in one instance. It's all part of life. Best not to worry too much about these things.
...
B
45
S
23
G
7
Posts: 291
Reputation: 8,020

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:43 pm

Gobbled up by a bigger fish is the biggest worry to me.

Something to consider.
If Scirra was a publicly traded company, would you want them to use the subscription model or the one off license one?
Image ImageImage
B
169
S
50
G
173
Posts: 8,316
Reputation: 110,276

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:16 pm

The subscription model will secure Scirra's future and give them more resources to permanently improve Construct.

I am much more positive about Construct future with the subscription model than with a life time licensing system.

One drawback of the subscription model is that developers will become more demanding about adding new features and improvements. But that is the challenge the Scirra team has to accept.

The world of game development is moving fast. What is high tech today is outdated tomorrow. With this model, Scirra can stay on par with that moving rate.

I like the more positive attitude of the community here towards the new subscription model. Believe me, this will be an improvement for us all.
B
22
S
6
Posts: 126
Reputation: 1,796

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:12 am

Software comes, and software goes. There are no guarantees that software will be supported long term.

However, a rental model does have the disadvantage that if the company goes under, or decides to discontinue a product, developers run the risk to be stone-walled in the middle of a project.

Point in case: Adobe announced a couple of weeks ago that Director development and support will be ending sometime in March. Existing rentals ("subscriptions") will be cut off at that time as well.

Developers on the Adobe Director forum are not happy about this (understatement) - for example, one developer is in the middle of a project, and it will take him longer than March to finish. Others have projects done for clients (museums, for example) that must be maintained and updated after the March date.

Unfortunately, those developers who rented the software seem to be out of luck. They contacted Adobe, and asked for some lenience. But they will lose access to Director and with it lose access to their projects sometime this year.

Director first entered the market in 1985(!). The oldest surviving 'multimedia' producer is now dead. There are no guarantees for software survival. But Director users with a perpetual license may continue to use the software to open their older projects - renters ("subscribers") are at a distinct disadvantage in these type of situations.
Win7 64- i7 [email protected], p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb, ATI 7970 3gb, EVGA 590 3GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode
B
30
S
10
G
8
Posts: 170
Reputation: 7,074

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:26 am

Rayek wrote:Software comes, and software goes. There are no guarantees that software will be supported long term.

However, a rental model does have the disadvantage that if the company goes under, or decides to discontinue a product, developers run the risk to be stone-walled in the middle of a project.

Point in case: Adobe announced a couple of weeks ago that Director development and support will be ending sometime in March. Existing rentals ("subscriptions") will be cut off at that time as well.

Developers on the Adobe Director forum are not happy about this (understatement) - for example, one developer is in the middle of a project, and it will take him longer than March to finish. Others have projects done for clients (museums, for example) that must be maintained and updated after the March date.

Unfortunately, those developers who rented the software seem to be out of luck. They contacted Adobe, and asked for some lenience. But they will lose access to Director and with it lose access to their projects sometime this year.

Director first entered the market in 1985(!). The oldest surviving 'multimedia' producer is now dead. There are no guarantees for software survival. But Director users with a perpetual license may continue to use the software to open their older projects - renters ("subscribers") are at a distinct disadvantage in these type of situations.


This is a very good example of exactly what I'm afraid of. In a case like this it seems like an unnecessary and artificial limitation that just rubs salt into the wounds of loyal customers. Adobe is a big and ruthless multinational corporation that can do whatever it wants, but the price of progress doesn't need to be so high. Director was superseded long ago, and perhaps you could argue that people developing on it were foolish (although as you mentioned many kiosks in places such as museums still use director programs so it's not always an option). You expect this kind of behaviour in big business but I'm kind of disappointed the smaller guys aren't even fighting for something better.
B
65
S
25
G
4
Posts: 209
Reputation: 7,028

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RATS, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests