Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 3:30 am

michael wrote:You pay a lump sum up front for twelve months.

    At the end of the period if you don't subscribe you get to keep and use all features in the last build you received
    You still have access to the knowledge base
    BUT
    You don't get any more features
    You don't get anymore bug fixes
    You don't have access to the forums

Renewing the sub is substantially reduced and can be renewed any time - even years down the track with no loss of savings.


Honestly I favor this subscription model more than paying for a month, if Scirra could consider this option I think that will cause less friction than current model.
B
28
S
8
G
1
Posts: 19
Reputation: 2,245

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 10:23 am

Isn't that basically what C2 is now?


No it is not - if you don't keep the C3 sub going you cant use it at all for large projects - so for a substantial game it is effectively useless..
If it can be done, someone on the web will show you how to do it!

CDASI Games Mentality Break Splat-a-bug FlapFleet Challenge
B
34
S
12
G
7
Posts: 358
Reputation: 7,148

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 10:57 am

The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
231
G
88
Posts: 24,367
Reputation: 193,694

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 11:25 am

Ashley wrote:The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.



But will construct 3 have a build in app creator or will we still have to use third party tools such as intel XDK?
B
21
S
9
G
8
Posts: 188
Reputation: 6,069

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 11:43 am

Trx123 wrote:Don't worry guys!

Even though Ashley and Tom have turned out to be liars and assholes we are going to help them out by releasing a C2 clone that will be completely open source so you can use all your C2 plugins and run your existing games and help develop features and exporters that actually work.

It will be completely free and community based development so just watch for the announcement here on Scirra.

Have a great day Ashley and Tom!


Do you referr to GDevelop?
B
21
S
9
G
8
Posts: 188
Reputation: 6,069

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 12:20 pm

I have been observing this thread from afar, but now I feel its time to make a comment.
I commend Scirra(ashley,Tom) for their business risk, Hiring staff, premises, taking a big risk in direction with an established user base, and product.
I also understand how contra people are about subscriptions, but perlexed at how vexed people can also be with this issue.
From my point of view, I think there should be Several SKU's
1) Hobbyist --no intention of monetising games--html export only--license restriction on monetisation $39 P/A Sub
2) Hobbyist/Wanna- be Developer--monetise options--All exports available, not in house, --license to monetise $99 P/A Sub
3) Developer--monetise-monetise--In house exporters--advanced features--license to monetise $149 P/A Sub
3) Educational........To be decided on an wants/needs basis
Some common sense needs to prevail within , when potentially, one size does not obviously fit all.
By lowering the price for Hobbyist, who might eventually go on to develop, is in everyones interest.

Once again, the event system is the overriding reason why we all use Construct, and I do not envy Scirra for having to make some un-populist decisions in growing their business.

For what its worth I'm still sitting on the fence with C3, waiting to see what return value it will have for me.
Bushy Ball\Boatman Bill\Sticky Web\Snake

Image ImageImageImage

During the gold rush it was a good time to be in the pick and shovel business
B
45
S
13
Posts: 246
Reputation: 5,245

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 2:08 pm

Image
B
61
S
31
G
6
Posts: 125
Reputation: 7,893

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 4:13 pm

With the current model, you might as well drop forum support altogether.
If that's not in the plan already.
Less bandwidth, nobody arguing back.

It's a win win, er well non zero sum game.
Image ImageImage
B
168
S
50
G
169
Posts: 8,282
Reputation: 108,193

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 4:24 pm

Triforce wrote:But will construct 3 have a build in app creator or will we still have to use third party tools such as intel XDK?

https://www.scirra.com/blog/187/buildin ... onstruct-3
Mistakes were made.
B
51
S
25
G
107
Posts: 1,581
Reputation: 60,458

Post » Thu May 04, 2017 4:26 pm

michael wrote:
Isn't that basically what C2 is now?


No it is not - if you don't keep the C3 sub going you cant use it at all for large projects - so for a substantial game it is effectively useless..


I was referring to C2, not C3. If you look again, I pretty much matched up the points you made with your proposed subscription model. It was just a joke anyway. :D

Ashley wrote:The model we're launching with is based on analysis of sales and customer data for the past couple of years. Please be aware that if you've not done any such analysis and you're still throwing out ideas, they may well actually be the kind of idea that likely ruins the company. It's also easy to like other people's ideas if they mean you pay less, but it's still not such a great idea if we end up firing people to try to stay afloat because the model significantly reduces our revenue. One of the risks of the "pay once" model that Construct 2 has always faced is that we could have tens of thousands of active users, and still go out of business, because the support for long-term existing users is entirely funded by new user sales, which there's a chance could end up tailing off. So if you are interested in the long-term viability of Construct and our ability to expand Construct to new areas to make it better and more powerful (of which hiring new staff and paying their salaries is a significant part), some kind of subscription or on-going payment is actually good way to do that.

On the one hand we have users baying for major new features ranging across broad areas like animation, 3D, teamwork/collaboration, modularity, even scripting or new styles of drag-and-drop system; on the other we have people who want everything cheaper, lower-cost, less investment. You should also remember you can't have it all: if the product is cheaper or less sustainable, you can assume many of those ideas will be postponed far off in to the distant future, rather than something we could conceivably approach at some point, or even actively start planning.


When I bought C2 with lifetime updates, I thought that meant for the life of the product. I only really expected it to last a year or two before C3 came out. I don't think the mistake was payment model. I think the mistake was you guys kinda ran it into the ground and took too long to come out with the next version of the software. Releasing all those free features and updates was good for us, bad for you.

I think another problem is this "one size fits all" subscription model. If you take a look, nearly every successful subscription based business gives customers options. I don't think that is by chance. It's based on market analysis. And if you really want to overly simplify what everyone here is asking, it's that they want options. If you make it easy for people, they are far more willing to pay for it.
Last edited by Moot on Thu May 04, 2017 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
B
16
S
7
Posts: 190
Reputation: 1,823

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest