At 5/19/17 04:37 AM, WarpZone wrote:
What happened is Construct, just like Unity before it, moved from a "buy it and you own it" model to a "rent your tools from us forever" model. The prize feels bad because there's no good-feeling prize to be had.
Construct 3, just like Unity, is no longer a boon to indies. It's an obligation to make your game profitable. It's a monthly interest payment on a loan you can never fully pay off. It's a liability. It's Red Ink.
If you win this contest, and it takes you more than a year to make your first commercial game, you'll have to start paying for your prize out-of-pocket.
That's why the prize feels bad. Because it's basically a bad prize.
Use at your own risk.
I believe that it's a good business model, mutually. Let us observe the following case:
If your games become popular and in demand, then when technology moves on, you'll want to move your games to the new technology.
And if Construct had been behind by months and was discontinued suddenly, then it would most likely be costly to reproduce those games, especially for new technology.
Someone has to develop new features and update Construct, continuously. So it's a symbiotic relationship.
I would only have one recommendation: provide complete access to students with .edu email accounts (for non-commercial use), if it wouldn't be too costly on resources. That's also a good addition to the business model. Allow students to get used to, and master, the full product and that's what they'll want when they join/start their future companies.