Understanding subscription

Post » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:17 pm

So because a handful of people wanted a feature that the masses did not, we all pay for it guess.
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 Feb 23, 2017 9:24 am

michael wrote:we all pay for it guess.

What do you mean by that? What we saw from the blog posts is that it runs great. We'll yet to try it in April, but currently I don't see any problems with the browser based editor.
B
135
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,557
Reputation: 20,717

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:37 am

Ashley wrote:The subscription covers all the features in Construct 3, not just a few services. We also have a cloud hosting network just to serve Construct 3 itself.

The cloud save feature will also work in the free edition, so that's not actually something we're charging for.

@ashley
What would those services be? You are relying on third party services to host projects

The exporters seem to be the only thing hosted on scirra's server (running costs?) - which only creates limitations on the user side.
But that doesnt have to be the case - you could have as well made the browser download the exporter and include it in the editor..

So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

Developing and updating the software itself is a service that construct2 had as well- and the one time payment approach did not seem to have trouble paying for it. Why don't you guys request payment for software updates instead, if the software has no running cost services? It makes the subscription model seem unfair to some users.

Hosting construct 3 - which can also run offline anyways - its the same as hosting construct 2's installers :)
There seems to be nothing that would increase the price of hosting there

The subscription model will decrease your bandwidth for sure though :roll:

If you want to justify the "new running cost" , at least provide something new that the user will be paying for
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:49 am

blurymind wrote:
Ashley wrote:The subscription covers all the features in Construct 3, not just a few services. We also have a cloud hosting network just to serve Construct 3 itself.

The cloud save feature will also work in the free edition, so that's not actually something we're charging for.

@ashley
What would those services be? You are relying on third party services to host projects

The exporters seem to be the only thing hosted on scirra's server (running costs?) - which only creates limitations on the user side.
But that doesnt have to be the case - you could have as well made the browser download the exporter and include it in the editor..

So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

Developing and updating the software itself is a service that construct2 had as well- and the one time payment approach did not seem to have trouble paying for it. Why don't you guys request payment for software updates instead, if the software has no running cost services? It makes the subscription model seem unfair to some users.

Hosting construct 3 - which can also run offline anyways - its the same as hosting construct 2's installers :)
There seems to be nothing that would increase the price of hosting there

The subscription model will decrease your bandwidth for sure though :roll:


You need to keep it real.
Download the exporter and include it in the editor? Not even possible in a way that people would not run around screaming it takes ages to export.

The running costs of hosting an online editor in the scope of C3 is far beyond your thoughts on it.
Multiple servers, bandwidth, it needs to be scalabe, stable, .... Its not as simple as having a file server provide C2 as a download.
B
22
S
7
G
4
Posts: 154
Reputation: 3,709

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:05 am

I would be interested to see some figures on how the bandwidth has increased for scirra after moving to a cloud.

The editor being cloud actually would allow them to decrease bandwidth, because the update doesnt have to re-download the entire installer. It can download only the parts that have been updated.

I would even go as far as argue that users downloading entire installers to update constrcut2 every time uses much more bandwidth than users web browsers downloading only updated parts of the editor to the user's hard drive when an update is available - which is what construct3 is going for.

That is what happens in the background anyway - your web browser will download the editor locally in order to load it anyways.

So it seems like a win win for scirra here. People using less bandwidth when updating means less running cost :)

Potentially new bandwidth could be used for the exporter - which uploads your project to scirra's server, but that in theory is probably going to be less than the users web browser downloading the entire exporter with the editor.
In that case I think it could help scirra improve their editor, because that will give them user projects to test with and fix bottlenecks in their wrapper
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:13 am

blurymind wrote:So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

I'm just mystified by posts like this. Obviously the mobile app building service is a major one. You also get that, plus the entire Construct 3 editor and all its features, for less than the price of PhoneGap Build, which is just the build service part alone.
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
232
G
88
Posts: 24,371
Reputation: 193,762

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:18 am

blurymind wrote:I would be interested to see some figures on how the bandwidth has increased for scirra after moving to a cloud.

The editor being cloud actually would allow them to decrease bandwidth, because the update doesnt have to re-download the entire installer. It can download only the parts that have been updated.

I would even go as far as argue that users downloading entire installers to update constrcut2 every time uses much more bandwidth than users web browsers downloading only updated parts of the editor to the user's hard drive when an update is available - which is what construct3 is going for.

That is what happens in the background anyway - your web browser will download the editor locally in order to load it anyways.

So it seems like a win win for scirra here. People using less bandwidth when updating means less running cost :)


They use service worker to cache the app. So you are right on saying you only download once, that is unless you clear cache and stuff.
Most likely people will make use of that great feature of C3 and run it on multiple machines etc...

Also not forget all the free Users that come and check things out.
Unless knowing real numbers I'd not say it is the case that they are saving bandwidth at all.

I also believe the infrastructure behind C3 is by its own more expensive than a simple AWS S3 or something for filestorage.
B
22
S
7
G
4
Posts: 154
Reputation: 3,709

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:28 am

Ashley wrote:
blurymind wrote:So far I don't see a single new service with a running cost that construct3 will provide.

I'm just mystified by posts like this. Obviously the mobile app building service is a major one. You also get that, plus the entire Construct 3 editor and all its features, for less than the price of PhoneGap Build, which is just the build service part alone.


Phonegap is an option though - and it is competing with free services such as xdk.

Construct 3 being subscription only is not an option :)
I would understand if Scirra offered subscription fees for their wrapper and offered construct3 as a one time payment - that would make it comparable with phonegap's example.
In this case scirra has made it mandatory to subscribe for the exporter service, people cant get the editor otherwise.

@ashley @Tom
That seems to be the problem that people have with construct3. If you offer your own wrapper as subscription - you would still make a huge profit out of it - even if construct3 was a one time payment type. I would argue that you would make more sales if you give people the editor for one time payment (+future upgrade fees) and make the most error free and convenient way to export a game an extra service that is subscription only. Right now this subscription license lock is just driving away people from what seems to be an excellent improvement over c2
Perhaps something to consider in the future, if the current strategy doesn't work out great?

I did note in my post that the exporter seems to be the only new running cost for scirra. Anyways, just my 2c :)
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:06 am

I think the C3 release is more focused on a small percentage of users and will attract mostly game designers that are already making some money from their games and need to have more avenues to port to mobile and consoles.

What percentage of C2 users is that?

My guess is it is less than 10% that can offset the costs of a subscription by selling games.

I also think Scirra is missing the boat and should focus on competing with Steam and Google play by turning the arcade into an instant game arcade that allows top designers to include 3rd party advertising of which Scirra takes a percentage.

That is where gaming is headed and people no longer want to download apps that may collect personal info and sell stuff to their kids without permission .

If Scirra needs ongoing revenue an instant gaming arcade would probably bring in a lot more money than a release of an engine that is focused on an elite few game designers that have other choices and do not seem all that enthused by what C3 has to offer.

ADDED: Give your game designers a way to make money and they will flock to your engine and an instant game arcade would give them that opportunity and Scirra would make revenue from both the engine and the games created.

Just my opinion!
Last edited by lamar on Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,790

Post » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:28 am

While I'd love a "subscribe to get updates and support" model, I feel like the subscription price is already justified. Hosting a cloud based exporter will be more expensive for the company than most of the users realise.

Edit: Also, keep in mind that having a constant income will help Scirra to expand in the future and provide even more features.
B
135
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,557
Reputation: 20,717

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest