Kevin Cross wrote: "That being said if the current model is working for TGC then stick with it. I wouldn't mind either way. I used to pay $20 or something for GameSalad. I think the only problem with subscriptions is that if they fail to deliver on promises or seem really slow in giving what people keep asking for then it's a lot easier to get annoyed and fed up with the company and move on."
Has it though?
Look, TGC has been in Business since 1999 when they first released Dark BASIC.
They were not only amongst the first to offer affordable and approachable Middleware for Independant / Bedroom / New Developers, but they also were by far the most Dominant in said field.
In fact they were the inspritation for Blitz BASIC, Pure BASIC and even the current Dominant Middleware., Unity 3D... unless people have forgotten that the original Developer was seeking to create a Dark BASIC Professional like Product for MacOS and was quite an active member in the Early 2000s.
Blender also started out as a competing Middleware Engine, although has since switched to focus on being a 3D Modelling / Rendering Application.
They've only recently (2.80 Beta) removed the Middleware Component.
Now I'm not saying this to blow smoke up TGCs backside... but rather ask the simple question.
Why isn't Dark BASIC (or AppGameKit as they chose to rename it) currently competing fiercing against Unity 3D?
Why did they need Kickstarter Campaigns (if they're doing "Fine") in order to cover the costs of Developing AGK., or more importantly why are they selling Pre-Order and Early Access ... sure at a Lower Price, but still that's just an enticement to convince people to Early Adopt... assuming that AppGameKit is actually doing as well as people assume it is.
< • >
Look, the biggest problem with a Point-of-Sale (with a Royalty Free License Agreement) Retail is...
Annual Releases, either require Large / Substantial Improvements., else most of the Consumer Base will simply pass on purchasing it.
Such a scenario results in having to support Multiple Annual SKU over a Longer Period; thus this actually limits you from making bigger changes / fixes least you break compatability and double the workload to support said Products.
2-3 Year Releases, mean that update MUST be Substantial / Fundimental., but also you're looking at loosing existing Consumers because you're not splitting your attention between maintaining your Old Product and Developing your New Product. Sure, having more than 1 Team helps with this; but conversely it also means you have to make that much more from each Release Cash Injection.
Now as a note, Games work well under Point-of-Sale because realistically outside of Continual Expanding Games (like MMOs or Persistant World Games) ... essentially a few months bug fixing, while most of the Development Team are on their Holidays between Projects; then you jump right into the Next Project, not really looking back.
On top of this... most Gamers aren't looking for "Major" Changes, but just New Stories or little Changes that are Cool / Interesting to shake up how their favourite game works, so you can for the most part keep churning out almost identical products and be fairly secure knowing you've got a product that WILL Sell just fine provides it's marketed well enough.
In both cases though., remember we're looking at whatever is made over 1-3 Years as "Injections" MUST then cover the costs of the next 1-3 Years.
And as noted... this doesn't really put the company in a position to specifically provide what Consumers Want (per se) as much as just be enticing enough to encourage them to Reinvest in the Latest Version.
I mean take the current AppGameKit Studio., a major selling point (on the Website) is better support for GLSL / SPIV-R Shaders... alright, but they're engineering on Vulkan (a whole new API) to do this.
Yet, what is stopping them from supporting the same thing in AppGameKit Classic?
Nothing. Supporting OpenGL 4.6 / OpenGL ES 3.3 / WebGL 2.0... provides complete access to said Shader Models.
Yet... instead the focus for AppGameKit remains on supporting OpenGL 3.0 / OpenGL ES 1.1 for "Platform Compatibility and Support"
Support for what exactly... OpenGL 4.3 / OpenGL ES 3.0 / WebGL 1.0 were all 2-3 years old by the time AppGameKit was released in 2014., and there was near universal support for them by said point.
So what was the purpose of supporting the targetting of devices of a version of the API that was released in 2005?
In many ways Dark BASIC Professional using DirectX 9.0c (albeit the TGC implementation doesn't take advantage of this) was strictly speaking MORE Modern and Feature Rich.
AGK as a result was in essence a step backwards... it just doesn't seem that way because OpenGL Support has remained relatively stable because it isn't OS Dependant like DirectX.
Now I'm not saying that it was a Deliberate / Conscious decision to hold back providing Modern Support until the switch to Vulkan... nor am I saying that the AppGameKit 3.0 Engine using Vulkan isn't sensible for Future Compatibility / Support.
Rather what I'm saying is... especially given how it's being used as a key selling point (New Graphics Fidelity Capabilities, despite AppGameKit 1.x / 2.x focus being more primarily on Showcasing it's 2D / Mobile Capabilities)., well it's a result of this need for Major Overhaul Update that will "Wow" people into purchasing the Next-Gen AGK; but is also in some ways the least difficult (thus fasted) way to do that.
I mean why Overhaul the BASIC Language and Interop VM to actually make it more Full Featured rather than a Stripped down Dark BASIC Professional., which would be quite time consuming and difficult; when you can just port OpenGL > Vulkan with very few headaches.
They have the bonus of Better Performance, some enhanced Functionality, the ability to showcase High-Quality Graphics ... looks appealing when in reality, well it's basically identical to AppGameKit v2.0
And again, things like the Editor / Debug UI Definitions is a nice feature... bringing back Project Media Management... etc. again these are nice features; but not really again that time consuming or difficult.
•
Look I'm not saying any of this just to sound overly negative.
It's just a pragmatic look at what's going on... and in fairness, of course this is something TGC want to do and focus on because it's what'll draw the necessary sales.
Still as I noted, consider ... how much of those New Features are ACTUALLY for those who'll be using it for Development Purposes, and how much is essentially just an attempt to gussy up AppGameKit v2.0 in order to get people to drop another £75 / €99 / €90?
That's the problem with the Point-of-Sale Model... the stress and pressure of getting those regular large cash injections just to keep a Studios Doors open., change how and what are prioritised; less for the benefit of making a BETTER or more CAPABLE Product., but rather as a means to Generate Short-Term Sales.
This isn't slight against TGC., but the Business Model itself.
•
With this said., I don't believe a Pure Subscription Model would be the correct change.
Instead it would make more sense to have a Tiered Subscription Model, along side Yearly Perpetual Licenses.
Honestly, I don't think the reason people want a Perpetual License over a Subscription has anything to do with "Not Owning the Software" ... it's a High-Horse Justification., and those who make such an argument know full well that it is.
Autodesk as a note currently provide their Products via Monthly / Yearly / Perpetual License.
I current have a 5 Seat Maya LT License... this costs me £235 / Year., but it is available for £32 / Month or I could just purchase the Current Release Perpetually (which also provides access to the last 3 Releases) for £1,995.
This works well for my Studio., just as our Multi-Seat Creative Cloud, Office, Visual Studio Professional Subscription does.
I actually quite like the ability to Add / Remove Users allowed to Sign-In and have access via said Subscriptions; be it someone "In-House" or a someone being Contracted that we want to use the same Toolchain, access the Team Developer Services, etc.
Of course I could always get a Perpetual License for Maya... Creative Cloud... etc. these Companies didn't suddenly stop producing them; but you know what they do, is they stop supporting them.
On top of this with a Perpetual License it becomes more difficult to provide access to Contracted Employees., so you kinda have to say "Well you need to have your OWN ability to work within our Toolchain"
Yet perhaps most importantly of all... is that well because Subscriptions can easily be discontinued whenever we chose to; well this provides us (as the consumers) A LOT of Power to Financially Hurt them should they not listen to Feature Requests / Updates.
There's also no longer pressure on them to hold off on features for Major Releases... instead, when something is ready or could be pushed out in Beta; they do so, because... well why not?
After all, what's the difference between additional subscriptions when the feature is releases Vs. waiting months for the Yearly Update?
Of course from the Consumer Perspective., it can SEEM like very little is actually happening from Year-to-Year ... but for those products you can download the previous yearly releases; well do so... actually notice just how much those small constant changes quickly add up to a MUCH better product.
And that's the power of a Subscription / Software-as-a-Service approach.
It frees Developers to focus on just making the Software BETTER... rather than "OMG... OMG... We're not going to make enough to Pay everyone! Quick throw in something Shiney and Enticing!"
We get the updates and improvements that ACTUALLY improve the Software; rather than what are little more than Technical Showcases that are rather useless in day-to-day usage.
The Software Suppliers also are capable of being much more Agile and Focused. As... you see a drop in Subscriptions; clearly whatever you WERE doing, yeah THAT ISN'T what people wanted and they're showing that they're unhappy about it. It allows you to then take that on-board and change directions before you've spend 6-12 months crafting something; honestly no one even asked for or wanted, but YOU thought it was a good idea at the Team Meeting where it was proposed.
I mean it's one thing to Plan what MIGHT be needed by your Consumer Base... it's another to actually see and react to how they're ACTUALLY using it.
Like if there's one thing I've learned over the past 2 Decades., it's that people have a habit of not using your Software or Playing your Games quite how you THOUGHT they would.
Thousands of Monkies... Thousands of Type-Writers... you can't plan for all of the possible outcomes.
So... don't. Just provide a Solid Foundation, then build based upon what and how people are using it; in that regards you might not be building an "On Paper" Checks all of the Important Boxes Product., but instead what you end up with is one that does cater exceptionally well to what people want / need. As noted, it keeps you focused on the small problems and solutions; as opposed to an epically complex gamble.
< • >
As I noted above... personally speaking I think there should be a Tiered Subscription along side a Perpetual License.
I'd suggest:
AGK Core • £Free ... but is restricted to a limited "Core" Command Set, no C++ Support, Limited to TGC Signed (Store) Extensions, all Built Applications have a TGC/AGK Watermark
AGK Developer • £5.99 / Month or £150 Perpetual License ... basically AGK's "Premium" Package, C++ Support, Supports Unsigned Extensions
AGK Studio • £19.99 / Month / 5 Seats (£9.99 / Additional 5 Seats or £19.99 / Additional 20 Seats) with £Quote Perpetual License ... similar to Standard, but Supports GitHub / Team Project Management / Chat / Annotations / etc. as well as Access to In-Development Builds. Possibly Console (Switch, Xbox, PlayStation) Support.
This to me would make the most sense.
As you need something more than the "Trial" (and branding it a Trial is a 'bad' idea) ... for people to get started and wet their appetite.
The "Base" Version, should essentially be something people Subscribe and forget about., because it's just not really much; while Studio showcases that you take Professional Development more seriously.
Yes... it's a considerably leap in investment., arguably for very "little" actual bonus aspects; but remember, image and branding is important... if you look like you're too "Cheap" then it'll just be assumed the product itself is cheap and cheerful... not very "Professional", so you're more pricing to give the impression of Prestiege.
People can be quite simple at times... the more expensive something is... the more they'll assume it's just "Better Quality"., regardless if you're more or less just paying for the slightly different logo.