Petition to change Construct3 subscription payment

Post » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:06 pm

neverk wrote:Sorry to say, but I'm not going to subscribe to C3. If one time payment option comes up, I might buy it. Subscription model doesn't fit my needs when the program doesn't fill my commercial needs. If Construct 3 could make native apps the price would be more acceptable.

It would still be able to make apps via NW.js as far as I understand.

Not native though I guess.

To me the question is again...is it fast enough for your game?
I mean if it runs everywhere...the player won't know it runs "in a browser" right?
If Scirra can show that html5/Webgl2.0 is fast enough running.EXE / Mac Apps then I don't think it will be an issue. Most see the whole html5 /Chrome browser the issue for non performance though.

I'm still debating it. Playing with C3 I'm over the...it's not a desktop application. What grates me though is if I stop paying I lose access to my content. That to me is a the main issue. If Scirra can find a way around this I'll be more inclined to pay the $99 a year. The affordability is not my main issue.
The technology or performance is something you decide on any case on various engines. I can lose a bit there if ease of use and power is better than the competition as long as I can still run at least 30fps.

I'm waiting to see where they go with C3 after beta...
I'm playing with Unity and have a few demo games. It works well with Playmaker/Blocks/ Gameflow so the option is there but it's definitely not as fast to throw stuff together.
I do feel Fusion 3 is without a doubt a direct competitor to Construct 3 and launching in this year stil with what the community seems to think every main issue with events and so on got fixedl. I'm keeping that option open. I got the $15 Humble bundle deal for Fusion 2.5 but have not really looked at that yet mainly because of lack of native Mac support. Fusion 3 will have that though.
Construct has that now and the Beta works well. I'm also not minding the in browser anymore either for the most part it works well enough.

So for me it's still 50/50 if I go with C3 or Fusion 3. Currently I'm really hoping Scirra can have the exporters for.exe/mac executable, iOS and android available for us somehow easily.
My main platform I want to try release on is Steam. All others are secondary to me. If C3 doesn't cater for that I'll have to look elsewhere even though I really like Construct and really hope somehow that Scirra listens or gives us some options here. Again I don't mind the $99 a year so much as I mind that if I stop paying I can't open a previous project etc.
B
28
S
7
G
4
Posts: 204
Reputation: 4,863

Post » Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:09 am

Definitely will not subscribe. Am a hobbyist and just play with construct when I have time. This would be a huge waste of money for me. Specially when it is from my point of view still construct 2.5 in a browser. I hate working in a browser. It is just so uncomfortable. Then no native export. I really dont see the point.
B
6
S
1
Posts: 40
Reputation: 464

Post » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:26 pm

Subscription for something I use for fun occasionally = No
Subscription for a tool that needs Chrome to run = No (chrome is not allowed to be installed on my machine)
Subscription for a tool that runs in any browser = No
Subscription so I can use cloud services = No (I don't want a cloud service/complier whatever)

I already have C2 Business edition, and C3 has nothing new that compels me to upgrade to it, and even if it did, the above reasons just rule out buying it.

The only advantage with this browser model is cross platform, but in my book cross platform is not a browser, it is a properly compiled native application.

Also the subscription model is really only viable for professional use, and we all know that those that did make successful games with C2, have for various reasons moved to develop their product with other technologies.

C2 and its successor C3 are great for either hobbyist use or prototyping - but not for commercial interests. For this reason alone a subscription model is not a viable option.

If you are a hobbyist that has a few hours here and there to play - you may as well just use C2.
If you are a professional who uses the tool for prototyping - you may as well just use C2.

To me, there is no incentive to subscribe to this model at all.

So while I appreciate the work Scirra have put into this, I just find the whole C3 deal a real let down, not just the subscription, but the whole direction it has gone in.

EDIT: This has been designed from the ground up to be a subscription\cloud based product - so the op 'petition' will not likely be considered.

Oh so after all that I guess it is obvious I won't buy C3 - sorry :(
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
35
S
13
G
7
Posts: 363
Reputation: 7,283

Post » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:04 am

I think a subscription model just doesn't fit with the use case of a game engine. You work on a game for potentially *years* at a time without releasing it, and need to maintain your ability to work on the project, save old versions of the engine so you have at least some semblance of version control, and have a static work environment that wont change in any way so that you can always make updates, access source files etc.

Being browser based already opens up construct 3 to all kinds of issues with the browser engine misbehaving and potentially screwing up potentially years of work, but to have to pay just for the privilege of working on your project is really not something a serious developer would consider acceptable. The idea of being locked out from your tools is something anyone using Construct 3 will become aware of, even if they aren't right now. Construct 3 isn't enterprise software, yet you're expecting individual persons to throw money at it as if they're businesses who can afford the fixed cost and write it off as an operational fee.

I cant afford to pay the subscription fee. I might potentially use the product once every few months, it's just not justifiable. I think a lot of users who would have gotten Construct 3 as a 'toy' were it another normal piece of software they could install and open from time to time, wont anymore. 100$ to play around every couple of months is too much, and the subscription model makes you reluctant to work on anything that you might wanna get back to at a later date.

And as someone who STILL uses construct classic, I feel kind of burned that Construct 3 is moving further and further from what made Construct good in the first place. Construct 2, and now 3, still lack core usability features that would improve the engine significantly for serious developers such as storing object references, lists , SOL's, Arrays, in object variables, and building prefabs of objects in a general class based system rather than having to rely on the botched container and family features that always wind up requiring weird work arounds when structural changes have to be made. Instead we're encumbered with the overhead of storing UID's in other objects and having to a search over N objects every-time we want to make an object reference, so even building prefabs, constructors/destructors in events carries a severe overhead. The event engine/SOL system is great, it can be used for rapid prototyping and really quick development, but it needs improvements to actually be usable for performant code in a large game. The same issues that were in construct classic are largely unaddressed even in Construct 3. There needs to be more types than just string and numbers, and more control and object oriented paradigms implemented into the core workflow.

Construct 3 seems to want to be professional development software with a fee that's even steeper than Unity's, yet the features that have been added are largely unimportant to anyone using the tool as a professional developer. dictionary/array editors, the "real equation" expression feature that makes things more unreadable, the "work anywhere on any device" (really who will be able to code with any capability on the subway on a tablet/phone without a mouse or keyboard?), the useless cloud integration, all feel like additions that are meant to make the software appealing to the most novice of users, yet the pricing is set so that only serious professional users will pay it. It kind of feels patronizing to your own user base.

Why wasn't more done to actually appeal to advanced users if that's the audience the pricing targets? If that's not the audience you wanted, a subscription model, especially at such a high cost, is really not the right way to go.
B
78
S
13
G
8
Posts: 1,975
Reputation: 9,920

Post » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:11 am

QuaziGNRLnose wrote:"improve the engine significantly for serious developers such as storing object references, lists , SOL's, Arrays, in object variables, and building prefabs of objects in a general class based system rather than having to rely on the botched container and family features that always wind up requiring weird work arounds when structural changes have to be made. Instead we're encumbered with the overhead of storing UID's in other objects and having to a search over N objects every-time we want to make an object reference, so even building prefabs, constructors/destructors in events carries a severe overhead. The event engine/SOL system is great, it can be used for rapid prototyping and really quick development, but it needs improvements to actually be usable for performant code in a large game.


Even as a hobbyist the subscription model doesn't really bother me. Take up any other hobby, and you usually have a club membership fee, gym card, renting place for your band to practice, etc. That they are going from a "free updates to for life" model, (which is a very stupid business model, in terms of securing income their continued development) to Yearly fee is a wise decision. But on a personal note, I would rather have that they would have some kind of IAP model, where you buy features, plugins, and behaviours based on your need. I think that's the way the free versions engines like unity stay afloat. Lots asset packs and plugins in store. Scirra's store selection isn't very big or great though. But considering that they made the decision to go for an online tool (which has running costs) the last thing you want is too many free or one time pay users, if they are not continuously buying assets or plugins either.

Although I do agree on some points above. I absolutely love the Event Sheet way of working, but I also feel I have to rely too much on inefficient and weird workarounds in some cases, or third party plugins to do some simple things, like raycasting and tweening, custom SOL lists etc. I absolutely agree that they should consider spending more time on those kind of features you mentioned. I'm quite hopeful though that once C3 matures, and after new runtime they will have more time for that. I'm patient... i will support C3, but my main projects I will do in C2 until C3 matures, and get a bigger plugin library and more features.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
40
S
17
G
17
Posts: 992
Reputation: 12,656

Post » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:49 am

There are many many many reasons that the subscription model is a terrible idea imo, but what is sums down to - at least for me is the fact that Construct3 is not really a web service - not really offering project hosting/backup - it relies on third party for that.
So the increased pricing doesnt seem justified to me - like at all.

Then adding to that is the fact that it now even relies on chrome in order to work - which again is not developed by scirra.
You also have electron and nw.js. The number of dependencies on other software has increased!
It is relying on a lot of third party technologies that are fundamentally free and can break something every time they get updated :o

Apart of sharing the game to be play tested, it doesn't really have any advantages that a web service could have - like collaborative editing.

So even as a web service it is not at a point where you could say it is competitive enough to justify the fee.

To add to it - it is competing with many other similar game engines that have more features, are cheaper, stabler and one time payment.
It's even competing with its more established version - construct2.
Construct2 still offers a better editor at a much better price - one time payment price.
It is also much more reliable than construct3 - it wont stop working or break when the license runs out, it fails to connect to a server to check the license or something breaks when your web browser has updated automatically

All that said, even at a lower price tag - I will never subscribe or develop my project in something that locks me to a subscription - because I feel that it is a really bad investment of my time
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:09 am

Well you have to look at the math.
Even with the decimation from the loss of "hobbyist" users they will still have a viable business even with a subscriber base of just a few thousand.
Of course that means they will have to try to retain those users by offering a better product.
It also means they can try to retain those users by locking them out of the ability to edit their own content if they were to unsubscribe.

You should probably stop asking for for that. It's just not going to happen.
No company would ever give up that kind of control.

Sadly, more professional, feels a lot less friendly.
Image ImageImage
B
169
S
50
G
174
Posts: 8,331
Reputation: 110,806

Post » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:56 am

I would argue that construct3 is less professional with that model, less business friendly, less viable for a big project

A lot of people in this thread actually argue that too and list many points why that is
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:44 am

probably better model would be like still add new features to construct 2 to attract new buyers, and use subscription for browser editor or something like that
B
12
S
3
Posts: 15
Reputation: 731

Post » Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:54 am

I've never seen a web application which does not use the subscription model, so I don't know if a pay once model will work since the costs of running C3 on a server and maintaining it must be quite high.
Although I think that the best way to do so is by making the payment model pay-once and charging extra per each exporter or feature. In short, the only other option besides the subscription model is the pay-once/pay-extra-per-package model:
- Construct 3 lifetime registration = xxx $
- Android exporter package = xxx $
- iOS exporter package = xxx $
- NWJS/Electron exporter package = xxx $
- Marketing boost package = xxx $
etc ...


Even so, I don't think that it will cover their monthly bills.
Banned User
B
17
S
7
G
24
Posts: 388
Reputation: 14,494

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest