1) C2 - game maker - website:
For me the whole construct2-website says that construct2 is a "html5 game maker". That's probably true when opening c2 and marvelling at the interface but in my opinion constuct2 is a html5-creator and editorsoftware. It's a software to create "whatever" with the html5-technology - that is much more than creating "only" html5-games and I think the website can/should have an article to point out that not only html5-game-developement is possible.
2) "no programming":
The website says no programming required. I've read some other posts about this topic and I personally think that this statement is really wrong. When somebody uses construct, she/he programms (visually with events) nearly the whole time. I think "no coding" points the workflow much more better out.
3) price - license:
"only a one-off payment": As a customer this sounds perfect but when I think of the developement I can't imagine that this can go well in the future. Other companies take for bad-software more money in a year as c2 costs for lifetime.
Perhaps something similar to the developement of Spriter can guarantee that the c2-developer(s) can stay as customer friendly with the licenses as they are now and he(they) has/have the ressources to focus on the developement.
Just to think about it..