Subscription Pricing Alternative

Post » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:57 pm

One issue to consider with the pay to export later model is that it's almost impossible to develop a game without an export to test on devices, and people you want to get input from.

As a service you wouldn't need to export all the time, so I agree that other plans than yearly would be beneficial.
Six months, and even quarterly might be good.

Edit:

On the other hand we still don't know exactly what the subscription would offer.

Give me web hosting with that, and I would likely poop my pants to get in line to pay.
Image ImageImage
B
168
S
50
G
169
Posts: 8,281
Reputation: 108,191

Post » Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:35 pm

JMSNorthern wrote:
LittleBuilder wrote:I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

Because you failed to. For one reason or another (like how not everyone who starts on a diet succeeds).
Or it didn't work out/turned out to be a bad idea/harder than you thought.


Which is why it's important research the subject and have a clear understanding of your goal and how to reach it. This is coming from somebody that's lost almost 70 lbs in the last two years. 8-)

JMSNorthern wrote:As I say, I doubt most people who start (even wanting to release) succeed. I don't have stats on that but I think this is a known stat. for other success rates of creative endeavors (actors, singers, etc.).

Not sure what the marketing thing has to do with what I said, but in any case, I doubt most people (indie/one-man-army developers) would start marketing their games before they feel they're close to/sure of succeeding. Even if they do, plenty of people spend years on a game and come out of nowhere and release it (or almost nowhere), so I certainly wouldn't assume that.


Anyone can fail, but there are many things you can do to give yourself a better chance to succeed. I recommend you to research how many of these great indie games succeeded. Marketing and having a connection with your customers/fans from the day one had a lot to do with it. In order to sustain them, you will have commit to certain yearly/montly budget even without Construct subscription. That's what I meant when I talked about marketing expenses when aiming for monetary success.

As I said before, I can understand your points regarding the subscription if I'm looking at this from a hobbyist perspective. From my understanding the free basic version is there for this reason. But it's all speculation at this point. We still don't know all of the Construct 3 features or the free version features. Time will tell. ;)
B
10
S
4
Posts: 16
Reputation: 859

Post » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:42 pm

I realize I'm not being too specific here, but I don't think anything in your post invalidated what I had to say LittleBuilder.

My earlier posts were out of concern for "intermittent" users, ie. people who may not have time to work on this for month's at a time because things can come up in life that pull you away. They still want to make a serious go of it, and make money off their project (one day), but it's not their full-time job currently.

For marketing - well, like I said, plenty of people (and successful projects) are not marketed early on. Especially if you're new to the industry, there is plenty of reason not to put extra pressure on yourself promising something you've never delivered before/do not know (objectively speaking) if you will be able to deliver.

For your recommendation - I think you're reading too far outside the scope of my comments. I never disputed any of that, I'm just saying there's plenty of reason not to assume that will be/is the only path a successful (or budding) indie developer (1st game) would take. I was also not necessarily speaking from a personal perspective.

On budgets - again, this is outside the scope of anything I'm talking about. Intermittent users I'm referring to by definition are not doing this as a full-time job, they're doing it after work/school, whatever.

And again, I don't think it's relevant to the scope of what I was referring to but I have researched all about the processes of many successful indie games for many years.

I'd like to leave at agree to disagree, hopefully I didn't push back too hardly on any of that you were arguing for (not my intent).
B
17
S
7
G
12
Posts: 34
Reputation: 8,189

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:35 am

LittleBuilder wrote:And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!
That's my two cents. :D


Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? :roll: I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets- without silly event sheet limitations or network limitations
Last edited by blurymind on Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:43 am

blurymind wrote:
LittleBuilder wrote:And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!
That's my two cents. :D


Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? :roll: I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model- just doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games


Actually I was going to ask @Tom if I could just get them to use some of what I've earned from the Scirra store to handle the fee for C3.
Image ImageImage
B
168
S
50
G
169
Posts: 8,281
Reputation: 108,191

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:45 am

I usually buy and support various tools, I have several

But this time Construct 3 is not for me, I will never support greed

Fusion 3 is going to be awesome, it's going to have everything we really expect from a tool

Scirra wants to try their luck with the subscription model, although they have done very well with the traditional model of selling, they have made a lot of money, so maybe they want to try their luck, because they know that if something goes wrong they have an economic mattress behind

Here is where the users have the power, if many of them do not buy during the first year, Scirra will be in a tight spot and may have to go back to the traditional model
CODE FOR FUN
B
22
S
8
G
2
Posts: 74
Reputation: 2,349

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:13 pm

newt wrote:Actually I was going to ask @Tom if I could just get them to use some of what I've earned from the Scirra store to handle the fee for C3.


This would be nice I appreciate that (same as using earnings to buy items in the store), but unfortunately it's a very difficult feature to write. Part of the problem is that it significantly complicates accounting processes, and makes refunds even more complicated (they are complicated enough!)
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,394
Reputation: 54,100

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:08 pm

blurymind wrote:
LittleBuilder wrote:And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!
That's my two cents. :D


Has anyone on here actually made money from games they created in it? :roll: I would love to have a look at some statistics of users who use it as a hobby vs users who make money by selling a game they made in it.

You say it's cheap, but most people, even those who can stomach going rental are pleading for a lower price for first year, more free features or a one time payment offer combined with rent. In the end we can be cynical and say - well yeah- of course they will.

I dare to say that I can afford paying a rent for it, but still think that it ain't worth it. I just don't use it often enough to justify paying yearly and I guess I will use it even less now.

The problem is not the price. The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets- without silly event sheet limitations or network limitations


Very well put.
My problem is not with Scirra, which I think is a wonderful company, but it is supporting the software subscription model itself. I will never comply. NEVER.

I won't be part of the crowd that will make this model successful and make every software go for it.
Imagine every game and every software you own suddenly change to this model. You'll have dozens of "cheap" monthly fees that add up to a monster bill. I, as a user and consumer, will never let that happen.

My 99 dolars, I mean... my two cents. :D
B
48
S
13
Posts: 111
Reputation: 3,864

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:16 pm

blurymind wrote:The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets

Construct 2 has so many more features than a lot of these other tools, that I'd actually struggle to make a comprehensive list of them all. This is made possible by the fact we use HTML5. It makes cross-platform support a breeze and lots of sophisticated features like networking, audio and video support are provided by the browser. Some tools don't even have form controls out of the box! When comparing to other tools with different technologies, I think it's important to take in to account the actual feature sets supported. Sure, you can pick a tool which has native export for example, but how many features will you lose or gain?
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
231
G
88
Posts: 24,367
Reputation: 193,684

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:25 pm

Ashley wrote:
blurymind wrote:The problem is the payment model and the investment it asks for- doesn't justify a html5 only game engine. Even stencyl - which is very similar in pricing and target audience (perhaps inspiring scirra) can compile to native games and can still export in the free version to one of the targets

Construct 2 has so many more features than a lot of these other tools, that I'd actually struggle to make a comprehensive list of them all. This is made possible by the fact we use HTML5. It makes cross-platform support a breeze and lots of sophisticated features like networking, audio and video support are provided by the browser. Some tools don't even have form controls out of the box! When comparing to other tools with different technologies, I think it's important to take in to account the actual feature sets supported. Sure, you can pick a tool which has native export for example, but how many features will you lose or gain?


Sorry Ashley, I love Construct 2 (and you :mrgreen: !), but I'd rather switch to tools with less features than bow down to a rental model and become a serf in the digital serfdom. The feeling really runs that deep for me. It's about freedom for me.

And I am not alone in this. Renting software runs against the blood for many (most?) of us. I just CANNOT bear software rental - it just feels utterly wrong to me. Why do you think Serif is so successful with their Affinity line of products? They advertised right from the start to Adobe users who were unhappy about the rental model. And even though Affinity offers less features, those ex-Adobe users just DON'T CARE. Watch Clickteam do the same with Fusion 3, make my words. They listened to their users - and their users favoured a non-rental option.

For companies and professionals, sure. Not for me personally. I would have no qualms paying you $500 for a developer's perpetual license, though. This would be easily solved by offering both options: a full perpetual license option, and a rental option.

My depressed feeling two cents. :)


(And good luck convincing schools and colleges to rent your software - after all the Adobe rental issues experienced in educational environments, they will think twice about adding one more rent to their software lineup.)
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

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests