
Show HN: Construct 3 – Make games in the browser - AshleysBrain
https://www.construct.net/gb?v=1
======
neovive
Ashley, Congratulations on such an ambitious release! I volunteer at a coding
club for kids and Construct 3 seems like a perfect fit for the education
market.

We primarily work with Scratch, but are always looking for a good "next step"
for kids interested in publishing more ambitious games outside of the Scratch
sandbox. We've tried a few downloadable engines or pure coding environments
(e.g. Stencyl, Gamemaker, Phaser, Corona, Unity), but run into problems with
the learning curve and installations.

Being web-based is a great advantage for Construct 3 in education. In our
school district (NYC), students share laptops on carts and rely on Google
Drive for storage. If you have additional information regarding your roll-out
plans for the education market, please let me know. I could speak to some
administrators at various schools and also teachers working with the csnyc.org
initiative.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
We're really excited for Construct 3 in education, we think we have a unique
offering here. We plan to have it rolled out and available for purchase in 8
weeks ready to go.

Always happy to chat about this stuff, feel free to email me on tom@scirra.com
if you have any specific questions and if there's anything we can do to
encourage administrators to give us a go.

~~~
neovive
Looking forward to it. Are you planning to release an Educator's Guide? Also,
are the Construct 2 docs/tutorials relevant for Construct 3? I never used v2,
so I'm unable to compare. Thanks.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
We're obviously working on C3 guides, but there are a lot of similarities so
the C2 resources should be useful until then.

------
tylermenezes
We've been using Construct 2 for years at more than 200 events to get tens of
thousands of students interested in coding at CodeDay. It's the only thing we
teach in our beginner workshops now.

Our biggest problem has always been that it was Windows-only. I'm super
excited to see that Construct 3 for the web has finally launched. (Finally, we
can use Chromebooks!)

Congrats!

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Hey Tyler! That's amazing to hear. One thing we are interested in
experimenting with in the future for Construct 3 (not possible in C2) is "free
weekends" like some games do, but even "free time-period for specific events".
If we look to experiment in this area I'll be sure to reach out to you.

~~~
tylermenezes
If it's similar to Construct 2, most of our students will probably fit in the
free plan during the event, anyway :)

------
DigitalSea
I've been an avid Construct 2 user for a long time now and I am really
impressed with Construct 3 thus far (in its limited form). The performance is
fantastic, literally feels like a desktop application running in the browser.
I couldn't see use of any framework or library, is this all custom? What
platforms will Construct 3 support exporting to, plans for supporting the
Nintendo Switch? Really nice work, this must have taken a long time to build.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
> The performance is fantastic, literally feels like a desktop application
> running in the browser.

We are so relieved to hear this, after 3 years work this was always front and
centre of our goals.

> I couldn't see use of any framework or library, is this all custom?

Yes, all custom built

> What platforms will Construct 3 support exporting to

Exports HTML5 games, which can be wrapped in various ways to run on
Win/Linux/Apple desktops, iOS, Android, Steam, FB etc etc. List goes on!

> plans for supporting the Nintendo Switch?

Would love to, but we know as much as anyone else about the Switch at this
stage. If anyone from Nintendo reads this please reach out!

~~~
contentkraft
Try to get in touch with Damon Baker (@DWBakes). He deals with Indies but
should also be able to refer you to the right people.

------
dmix
This website really needs a screencast video. The all text features page has
zero pictures. I have no idea how the product works besides the one screenshot
on the homepage.

Look at this UX: [https://www.construct.net/ca/make-
games/features](https://www.construct.net/ca/make-games/features) it's a long
list of links, all text, and you have to click each one to see the block of
text.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Yes, are aware! There is still a ton to do on the website, and we're actively
working on it. This is a beta phase which should last ~8 weeks then everything
will look a lot smarter :)

~~~
dmix
Ah, great, I shouldn't be so critical of a beta product.

Looking forward to a video of the new product. I watched one of the 2nd
version and it looked interesting.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Criticism is good, keeps up on our toes :)

------
mrspeaker
Charging per-year seems like a pretty risky move in the game-dev world. I
understand WHY you'd want to, but think game-devs tend not to be big fans of
this approach. Was it tough to decide to go with this model? How has the
feedback been from Construct 2 users?

~~~
dmix
Where do you see the pricing?

[https://www.construct.net/ca/make-games/buy-
construct-3](https://www.construct.net/ca/make-games/buy-construct-3)

It's telling me it's in beta.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Pricing is over here:
[https://www.scirra.com/forum/construct-3-pricing_t187766](https://www.scirra.com/forum/construct-3-pricing_t187766)

Won't be available to buy until beta is over.

------
Daiz
Been a longtime follower and user of Construct (all the way back from early
Construct 1 days) and the work that's been done in both Construct 2 and
Construct 3 has been extremely impressive - I was initially skeptical about
C2's move to HTML5, but over time it made a very convincing case for the fact
that web can indeed be performant. I think moving the whole IDE to web was the
logical way forward for Construct itself, and I'm glad to see it's working out
with C3.

However, as things are right now, it seems that the time has come for me to
part with Construct. I do web development for a living, and game development
is something I do for fun on the side mostly for my own enjoyment these days.
The limitations of the C2 Free Edition were too much for me (as a programmer
even my tinkering tends to be event-heavy, and even my smallest toy projects
tend to start with creation of more layers than what's available in the free
version), but this wasn't really an issue since the Personal License was
simply a one-time investment, and I've been very happy with my purchase.

However, with the move to a subscription-based payment model, this changes
completely. I can't justify paying $99 a year for how much I use the program.
The Free Edition is also not an option because it seems to be even more
restrictive than the C2 one. This is extremely unfortunate from a personal
standpoint, and I'm clearly not alone with this opinion, seeing how much
negative feedback the move to subscription model has garnered on the Construct
forums.

But there is also the business standpoint to consider. The one-time payment
was a huge pro for C2 and more than made up for the restrictions of the free
edition in my books. But now with the move to a subscription model you're
competing more directly with the likes of Unity that also uses a subscription
model. And if you look at what Unity offers in the free tier[1] and compare it
to Construct[2], the latter looks like a complete joke in comparison. With
Unity, you get a full-featured engine with all the export options that you can
make money with (with a revenue cap after which you need to upgrade, similar
to C2 Personal -> Business), with the most notable "downside" basically being
a "Made with Unity" splash screen. Something like this is what I would expect
to see with the C3 Free Edition as well in order for it to be truly
competitive. After all, game IDEs don't exist in a vacuum.

[1] [https://store.unity.com/](https://store.unity.com/)

[2]
[https://www.scirra.com/store/construct-2](https://www.scirra.com/store/construct-2)

~~~
Scirra_Tom
We don't think we directly compete with Unity. If you imagine all engines in a
pyramid, Unity is at the top and we're somewhere in the middle. Construct
users often graduate to Unity, but conversely people who try Unity and find it
too overwhelming come to us.

I think in comparison to our direct competitors in our space, our pricing is
still competitive.

~~~
Daiz
>We don't think we directly compete with Unity.

Well, you should, because both C3 and Unity using a subscription model vs the
one-time payments of many other options makes it the most direct comparison.
Both concretely and psychologically a subscription model requires a much more
serious commitment to the product compared to a one-time payment.

And beyond the payment model, I've long thought that Construct offers a
serious alternative to Unity for serious development purposes if you're making
2D games, and in fact I'd say in many ways Construct has the edge over Unity
in this space since it's built for 2D development from ground-up whereas Unity
is a 3D engine first, which makes 2D development in it more cumbersome. This
is why I was happy to see you mention in another comment that you intend to
shift the marketing of C3 to a more "serious" direction, where C2 often gave
the impression of a "toy". But that's just another reason why you should
consider yourself as a serious alternative to Unity yourself.

I assume that the "direct competitors" you're talking of are along the lines
of Clickteam Fusion and Game Maker. It's certainly true that these are both
2D-focused game IDEs, but both are sold as one-time payments, much like C2. As
someone who moved from Multimedia Fusion 2 to Construct 1 back in the day, I
personally think C2 has already been the king of this space for years, wiping
the floor with the competition when it comes to both usability and performance
as well as scaling to big projects. This is why I'm not at all fundamentally
opposed to "going bigger" with a subscription model to compete against other
subscription model game IDEs, because I believe C3 is very much capable of
competing in this space, all the while having a lower barrier to entry. But
again, to be competitive here, things should really change with the way the
free edition is handled.

Ultimately right now Construct 3 falls into a very uncomfortable position
where I would never want to downgrade to the likes of Clickteam Fusion
(neither the current 2.5 nor the upcoming 3) or Game Maker Studio 2 (because
they are both less powerful/performant as well as less usable on the whole and
scale big way worse), but I honestly wouldn't want to use Unity either because
while power-wise it's definitely capable I'd still be somewhat of a downgrade
in terms of usability for 2D development (I have actually used Unity for a
couple projects in the past, but I've stuck around with Construct 2 for this
exact reason). As a professional programmer there isn't really any
insurmountable obstacles to using any of these programs for me, so it's all
about the convenience for me, and 2D development with Construct is where I
believe the sweet spot lies in this regard. But as it is, C3 free edition is
just too restricted power-wise and the subscription is too big of an
investment. Because of this I also see myself having a hard time recommending
C3 to other people in the future, where recommending C2 used to be a no-
brainer.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
> Well, you should, because both C3 and Unity using a subscription model

Similar payment models doesn't mean you're competing. Granted there will be
some overlap, but generally we feel our customer bases are fairly well defined
and separate.

> I assume that the "direct competitors" you're talking of are along the lines
> of Clickteam Fusion and Game Maker. It's certainly true that these are both
> 2D-focused game IDEs, but both are sold as one-time payments, much like C2.
> As someone who moved from Multimedia Fusion 2 to Construct 1 back in the
> day, I personally think C2 has already been the king of this space for
> years, wiping the floor with the competition when it comes to both usability
> and performance as well as scaling to big projects.

Thank you for the kind comments, and I'm glad you consider Construct to be
wiping the floor! Shows we're doing something right ;)

We did not observe as many free edition conversions to paid as we would of
hoped with C2. For this reason, we're experimenting with locking it down more
than C2. We will see how this goes. Our philosophy has always been "give more"
not "take away", so we're starting conservatively.

And, as you put it, we are wiping the floor with the competition so we feel
reasonably comfortable at this stage experimenting with a different pricing
model.

Worth mentioning is that we're planning on selling C3 for ~$99 USD per year,
if you want all the Gamemaker export options you'll spend > $1,000. I feel in
comparison to that, our pricing is still competitive.

~~~
Daiz
>Similar payment models doesn't mean you're competing.

It inevitably invites comparison though.

>We did not observe as many free edition conversions to paid as we would of
hoped with C2.

I can understand that, and I wouldn't mind it at all if C3 was also a one-time
purchase like C2 (if that was still the case I'd be buying C3 in a heartbeat),
but I definitely think it's the wrong way forward with the change in the
payment model. I have a bunch of small C2 projects from over the years I've
used the program, and I can go back and edit them with C2 even today. However,
if I got a C3 subscription for a year and upgraded my projects to C3, then a
year later when my subscription ran out my projects would suddenly become
essentially read-only due to the free edition limitations, and this whole
thing of effectively locking me off from my own projects just completely kills
my interest in the current free/paid model of C3. (I'm not actually sure how
Unity handles this same scenario, but seeing how the free version still offers
the fully-featured engine and how the tiers differ, I'd expect the story to be
much better there.)

>Worth mentioning is that we're planning on selling C3 for ~$99 USD per year,
if you want all the Gamemaker export options you'll spend > $1,000. I feel in
comparison to that, our pricing is still competitive.

While that's true for Game Maker Studio 2, you also have to consider that both
Clickteam Fusion and Game Maker Studio 1 have shown up in several Humble
Bundles for practically pennies at this point. I actually own both CF2.5 and
GM:S along with the most important exporters available for them
(Desktop/iOS/Android/HTML5) and I only paid $15 for each (and I bought both
because I wanted to see how they stack up against C2 today, which cost more
than both combined). From usability and performance standpoints I don't see
GMS2 being that big of an upgrade, so sticking with GMS1 would certainly be a
viable option for anyone interested in it as an alternative.

>And, as you put it, we are wiping the floor with the competition so we feel
reasonably comfortable at this stage experimenting with a different pricing
model.

Well, sadly as much as I like Construct as a 2D game IDE, it pretty much kills
the program for me and also makes it way harder to recommend to other people
as well, which is something I've done a lot with C2 over the years (I got a
lot of people at my uni to use it and know several people who ended up buying
personal licenses as well).

Personally I think you could expand the free version and make the paid version
more expensive. If I ever get around to doing commercial products with
Construct, I certainly wouldn't mind paying more than $99 a year for a paid
version, even if it was just to get rid of splash screens. You could also take
cues from how Unity differentiates the tiers in other regards, like with the
cloud build queue priorities and multiplayer support etc (if you're using
Scirra-provided infrastructure).

------
Kiro
I've been following Construct since the early days and it's amazing what a
great following it has mustered. I keep seeing cool games made with Construct
being posted in various indie game groups on Facebook. I initially disregarded
it as a toy project you couldn't use to build real games but I was proven
wrong.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Thanks for the comment! We're adjusting our language around promoting
Construct 3 compared to Construct 2, we think we undersold it previously and
it's been stuck with the "toy" feel. We're hoping to shed that moving
forwards.

------
defenestration
It's like Scratch on steroids. I'm making games together with my son in
Scratch. Will give this a try when he's ready to try something more complex.
Btw. the performance of the app is great for a web-app. What were your main
challenges to get this performance?

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Thanks, and I'm happy you'll consider it to use with your son. Performance
wise, I'll let Ash talk more about that as he's the one who's been obsessively
making sure it loads and runs as good as possible.

~~~
AshleysBrain
Layout performance is the biggest problem probably - when things change the
browser too often does a full layout of the document. We use tons of CSS
containment but there are still bugs where Chrome does far more layout than
necessary, e.g.:
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667370](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667370)

Virtual DOM is completely unnecessary to us. We have minimal problems with DOM
calls. It is all to do with layout performance, and VDOM makes no difference
at all there.

------
cousin_it
When browser vendors killed Flash, it was like someone killed YouTube and
forced all amateur video creators to deal with portability themselves. It
"professionalized" the field and drove away untold numbers of people who just
wanted to show their interactive doodles to the world, not run the JS fashion
treadmill for the rest of their lives. And programmers congratulate themselves
on that!

    
    
        It looks like your browser will not be able to run Construct 3.
    

The world craves a Flash replacement suitable for amateur creators, but it
will need to take portability more seriously than every JS framework in
existence.

~~~
joshwcomeau
Hitting the same message, as my Chrome is 1 version behind.

Most people will not be willing to change their browsing habits to use your
web application. The onus is on us, as software developers, to ensure our code
runs in the user's browser, not the other way around.

Ultimately it's up to you to decide where the line is drawn; nobody supports
IE7 anymore because it's hardly used. But I suspect you'll lose a tremendous
amount of potential users by not supporting Firefox, Safari or recent Chrome.

I'm sure you guys are aware of preprocessors; is there a reason you haven't
used them to implement things like HTML imports or CSS variables?

~~~
MichaelBurge
> The onus is on us, as software developers, to ensure our code runs in the
> user's browser, not the other way around.

I assume the exported games are portable and can run in older browsers. So the
users shouldn't have to worry.

------
AshleysBrain
Sorry folks, we only launched yesterday, if you happen to see a 404 message
please just visit: [https://www.construct.net](https://www.construct.net)

------
diggan
> Currently the latest version of Chrome is the only browser that supports the
> advanced and exciting features we've built into Construct 3. We hope to add
> support for other browsers once they catch up with us!

What features are currently missing from Firefox to be allowed to use
Construct 3? Seeing more and more errors like this lately, and most of the
times the features the developers don't think Firefox supports, actually
exists.

Edit: Running Firefox 52, I get a list of features that are not supported yet
that is needed, so seems legit.

If you want to try Construct 3 anyways on Firefox, you can enable
dom.webcomponents.enabled and dom.dialog_element.enabled while running Firefox
53 in about:config, and everything should work fine. Firefox 53 is supposed to
be released 2017-04-18.

Thanks to the team behind Construct to actually use feature detection instead
of user agent sniffing to block browsers.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
We are obviously extremely incentivised to support as many browsers as we can
right now, but Chrome is the only one that can run it (nearly) out the box.

Firefox is close, but is missing HTML imports and Dialog element. If you open:
[https://editor.construct.net/](https://editor.construct.net/)

It will list the missing features.

~~~
endemic
I wasn't familiar with HTML imports, and after searching around it looks like
Firefox will never support ([https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-
web-components...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-
components/)). Any plans for polyfills, etc.?

~~~
AshleysBrain
We can potentially polyfill them - we're waiting for dialog element support
first, that's still holding back support in most other browsers. HTML imports
are outrageously under-valued as a technology for building this kind of web
app. We're hoping to do some blog posts highlighting how awesome they are and
try to turn around opinion on that.

~~~
galacticpony
Can't you just... program that stuff yourself? By relying on such "cutting-
edge" features, you get all the drawbacks of web technology with none of the
reach.

~~~
AshleysBrain
No, HTML imports are the kind of technology that are the perfect architecture
for this kind of web app and arguably are what make it possible. It'd take a
whole blog post to explain, hopefully I can write it up soon!

~~~
galacticpony
There are web applications that are way more demanding than this, that have
run on more platforms for a while and that _don 't_ need any of these
questionable experimental features.

I could understand if you said you need WebGL or WebAudio or some other
hardware/OS interface. You _don 't_ need HTML imports.

~~~
AshleysBrain
Perhaps I should have added another qualifier: for a team of three developers.
(One initially.)

~~~
galacticpony
...even for a team of _one_ developer!

Look, I understand how one might _like_ HTML imports. Once you've gone down
the rabbit hole of Web technology, all the fancy experimental features make it
look like HTML/CSS are now adequate. They're not. It's a trap.

The real answer is writing Javascript (or something that compiles to
Javascript). Always has been, always will be. Don't trust the web consortium
to specify things that _maybe_ browser vendors will implement. Do it yourself
now, thank yourself later.

~~~
AshleysBrain
We took the same bet with CSS grid, and it paid off. Lots of features can make
a massive improvement to the development experience. We used a wide range of
experimental features starting around 2014. Most of them came to fruition.
HTML imports has been the only tricky one so far, which I think is a pretty
great result on all the bets we took.

------
citeguised
Having tried lots of game-making-apps and frameworks, I always keep coming
back to Construct2, now 3. Also as web-dev I'm impressed by the good
performance and usability. (If you find the time, maybe do a blog-post about
the challenges you faced and clever solutions you came up with :-P)

I'm not a fan of apps in browsers, but on a Mac it beats having to start
VMWare and Windows by far!

For me, the hugest win over 2 is the ability to run it on the mobile device in
parallel and have almost instant testing. Maybe you could add a feature like
generating a preview-url at some point?

On my Android it didn't work with the latest updated Chrome, but it works fine
with Chrome Canary or Beta, which can be downloaded from the Play-Store.

Also great to be able to pay monthly, even if it's a bit more.

So, 1000x thanks for making Construct!

------
throwaway2016a
The link is a 404 Error.

For what it's worth though. I went to the homepage and it does seem like a
really nice product that a lot of effort was put into. When I saw game maker I
didn't expect to be as impressed but it seems far better than the other web
based game makers I've seen.

Although it requires the absolute latest Chrome (I was half a version back)
which is interesting. I wonder what is in Chrome 57 that is required and not
in Chrome 56.

~~~
AshleysBrain
CSS grid was the main reason: it's new in Chrome 57 and we use it heavily!

Sorry about the 404, shouldn't happen to everyone but we're working on it...

~~~
throwaway2016a
Do the games made with it need Chrome 57 or just the builder?

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Just the Construct 3 editor itself. The games can run as far back as IE9 (but
without WebGL). All modern browsers out the box will be able to run Construct
made games.

------
_pmf_
I've only tried Construct 2 for a short time, but the output for the HTML
target was running amazingly smooth, and the tooling was very, very nice.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Thank you really appreciate the compliment. We hope we've managed to bring
what we've learnt from outputting HTML5 games into the editor itself.

------
pjmlp
Congratulations!

Even if I prefer native to web, I have to concede you guys did a wonderful
piece of work and I had quite some fun playing around with it.

Good luck with the project.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Thanks for the message, glad you had fun playing round with it and appreciated
the amount of work that went into it!

------
galacticpony
Does anybody ever actually want to do serious work "in the browser"?

I can think of many drawbacks. Where's the benefit?

~~~
Scirra_Tom
One code base to maintain which will (theoretically with the right browser)
run on Mac's, Linux, Android, Windows etc. At the moment Construct 2 is bound
to Windows only.

Secondly, a huge feature that we're yet to show is multi language ability.
This is an insanely difficult thing to implement in a C++ program, but
reasonably trivial in HTML.

In the browser lets us reach everyone in the world, whilst only maintaining
one code base and let's us develop and iterate faster than ever before.

~~~
galacticpony
Like you said, this is all theoretical. You can reach "the whole world" with
the right browser. At that point, you might as well ship an Electron app.

But that's not even the point of my question. What I actually meant is: Where
is the benefit for _the user_? I wouldn't want to use applications in-browser,
unless there's some real value in that. For everything else, I strongly prefer
a "native" application.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
What other game dev tools can a user on a Chromebook use? Or an Android
device?

Another thing, it enables us to rapidly iterate and deploy through one code
base. Maintaining code bases for multiple platforms will be like a ball and
chain on our feet. End user will get a better product.

~~~
Razengan
End users don't get a better product just because you don't want a ball and
chain on your feet.

Apps wrapped in a browser are blatantly clunky and feel out of place from the
OS compared to something using native controls, not to mention consuming more
resources and battery. [0]

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13940014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13940014)

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Have you tried Construct 3? The feedback we're getting (some in this thread)
is that it's very responsive. We're getting feedback on social media that
people are forgetting sometimes they are using it in a browser. Making it feel
as performant as possible has always been the #1 goal. Browser apps have a bad
rep because there are a lot of badly written ones out there.

What specific parts of Construct 3 do you feel are clunky?

~~~
Razengan
Sorry, I cannot yet give feedback on Construct 3's quality as a game
development tool (though it looks promising in that regard) but being a web
app, after just a few minutes with it I am faced by too many inconsistencies
and annoyances that just. would. not. happen. in a native app.

Menus, panels, windows, controls, fonts, fullscreen support,
accessibility..too many to list, and WHY do I get the ugly red X button on the
right corner when I'm on a Mac?? Why do you force me to use Windows UI
paradigms, after making such a big deal about web apps = yay portability?

The reality remains that for now and the foreseeable future: Users do NOT, CAN
not, get the best possible experience unless you're willing to write and
maintain native apps.

------
hysan
Since you are moving to a subscription model, I'm curious as to how updates
and support will change. I usually equate subscriptions with better support
and/or more frequent updates. What differences can users expect on this front
in comparison to C2?

------
patrickg_zill
Funnily enough, I just came across this site, this morning
[http://agentsheets.com/](http://agentsheets.com/) , an academic effort to
make games in the browser.

EDIT: don't leave a comma right after the URL, add a space :-)

~~~
fuzzythinker
Link does not load

~~~
patrickg_zill
It should now, thanks!

------
alalonde
Congratulations on what looks like a very impressive piece of software. Do you
guys have any plans to add collaborative features to Construct? Where, say,
students in a remote classroom could work on the same game together?

------
j_m_b
Has anyone tried using Electron to make a desktop version of their game? I
think this is a great way to make games: release them on the web to see what
kind of traction you get and than release a desktop version with Electron!

~~~
disease
I'm considering this path. I'm currently making games for game jams with
Phaser, so I imagine porting to Electron wouldn't be too difficult. I'm not
sure what the best path for getting JavaScript games into mobile app stores
would be though.

------
MichaelBurge
How does it compare with Game Maker?

------
skanga
Will there also be an offline/desktop version of Construct 3?

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Yes, there will be. Coming soon! Also, as it is, Construct 3 will run offline.
Try bookmarking it, pulling your internet cable out then visiting it :)

------
toddnni
Very interesting. Any information about upcoming pricing?

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Full current details here:
[https://www.scirra.com/forum/construct-3-pricing_t187766](https://www.scirra.com/forum/construct-3-pricing_t187766)

For most users, it will be $99 USD p/y. Businesses/educational institutes will
have different pricing.

------
tgb
I get a 404 on this.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Fixing this now! Sorry!

Edit: Now fixed

