What payment option would you like to see for Construct 3?

Post » Sun May 14, 2017 1:15 pm

There are thousands of examples and tutorials on the net and on the forum though with more being done daily.
If it's between examples and new features / behaviors I'd take the latter every time.
B
28
S
7
G
4
Posts: 204
Reputation: 4,863

Post » Sun May 14, 2017 1:36 pm

@glerikud

It was not a suggestion I was trying to prove a point why full editing capabilities without subscription is not a good idea. From an exploitability/business perspective. If you read the whole post. ;)

Some kind of lockout has to be in place. Otherwise it would be exploited. As a user I rather have the lockout, than have the devs spend all their time on security/exploit issues and losing business, instead of adding new features and updates.

I can live with paying once a year for software that I like. No biggie. The payment model/lockout is the least of my worries.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
38
S
15
G
17
Posts: 949
Reputation: 12,320

Post » Sun May 14, 2017 4:56 pm

tunepunk wrote:It was not a suggestion I was trying to prove a point why full editing capabilities without subscription is not a good idea. From an exploitability/business perspective. If you read the whole post. ;)

Then I missed the point of your post. I'm sorry, my mistake.
B
135
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,557
Reputation: 20,715

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 2:26 pm

The standalone versions are intended as a supplement to the browser-based version, to cover a few features that can't be done in the browser like direct disk access. We'd prefer to unify our offering across all the products, because it's simpler for us and easier for customers to understand. Having mixed patterns depending on where you use the product is pretty confusing for a new user IMO.

In addition to that, we can't produce standalone versions for every platform. Standalone on Android - which already has surprisingly large usage, comparable to Mac - would mean sacrificing 30% of our revenue via the Play Store, which we really want to avoid, and may in fact be infeasible to integrate with our own payment system (Google has an entirely separate payment system and rules about how it can be used). "Add to homescreen" is also very much app-like and does not involve any revenue cut at all, so providing a standalone version would be difficult, provide little functional benefit, and cost us a significant amount of revenue. Chrome OS - where we have no other major competitors and a great opportunity, particularly in education - cannot provide any standalone version at all. We can't tell Chrome OS users to switch to a different OS to use a standalone product. We'd rather come up with one system focused on browser usage that covers everything. The standalone versions are basically a bonus for Windows, Mac and Linux users only.

When I make posts like this, some people seem to accuse me of "shutting down the conversation" - that's not what I'm setting out to do, I'm pointing out the difficulties with all of these alternatives. It's easy to sit back in your armchair and claim all the solutions are obvious. It's really not: every approach we could take has tradeoffs like this, and there are a lot of different angles to consider.
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
232
G
88
Posts: 24,368
Reputation: 193,746

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 3:14 pm

@Ashley does Apple have some weird policy that forbids the use of their service for distribution of a product that runs licensing from a third party?
Image ImageImage
B
169
S
50
G
169
Posts: 8,284
Reputation: 108,212

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 4:40 pm

You mean Google, right? Yeah, it's pretty standard that they ban you from circumventing their payment system, so they can collect their 30%.
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
232
G
88
Posts: 24,368
Reputation: 193,746

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 5:13 pm

An interesting thing happened today. A co-worker decided to cancel their Adobe CC subscription/rental.
Before completely canceling, a box popped up with another offer of only $8 a month..
Wow, all this time they have been paying almost 4 times that a month, I wish this offer was made from the beginning.
I guess this is what Tom was talking about with 'retention of customers', in the end something is better than nothing.
B
29
S
14
G
9
Posts: 80
Reputation: 5,993

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 6:25 pm

Ashley wrote:You mean Google, right? Yeah, it's pretty standard that they ban you from circumventing their payment system, so they can collect their 30%.


Right, except most users can side load apks.
Ios, not so much.
Image ImageImage
B
169
S
50
G
169
Posts: 8,284
Reputation: 108,212

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 7:55 pm

newt wrote:Right, except most users can side load apks.

AFAIK most Android devices by default only allow APK installation from the Play store unless you modify the settings, which makes side-loading unsuitable for mass market distribution (probably another intentional side-effect).
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
232
G
88
Posts: 24,368
Reputation: 193,746

Post » Mon May 15, 2017 8:37 pm

Ashley wrote:
newt wrote:Right, except most users can side load apks.

AFAIK most Android devices by default only allow APK installation from the Play store unless you modify the settings, which makes side-loading unsuitable for mass market distribution (probably another intentional side-effect).


Nah, you just put a file manager on, it's designed to allow you to enjoy your device, unlike Apple.
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,117
Reputation: 11,253

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests