I've spent over four years building Orbem Studio (orbem.studio), a browser game engine that runs entirely on the DOM with no canvas, no WebGL, and no external libraries. Every game lives at its own URL the moment you start building, no export, no upload, no separate host. The page is the game.
It's a full no-code visual builder. Top down and side scrolling movement, NPC dialogue and branching missions, inventory, combat with multiple enemy types, cutscenes, boss fights, gravity and platformer mechanics. There's also a built in pixel art tool so creators can draw sprites and place them directly into their game with a click, no switching apps.
A few games built with it: orbem.studio/games
The signup funnel at orbem.studio is finally working well. 10-15 signups a day from a cheap small Google search campaign, real engagement, people coming back across multiple sessions, even a few subscription popups triggering when users hit the game limit.
But zero paid conversions so far.
Free plan includes 1 game. Creator is $7/mo for 3 games. Pro is $19/mo unlimited. The popup hits when someone tries to create a second game.
I think the gap is that nobody has finished a game yet. Most users get partway through, add some assets, and stop. So the upgrade moment (wanting a second game) hasn't really arrived for most people organically.
Curious what this community thinks:
Does free-to-paid for a creative tool basically require users to "finish" the free experience first, or is there a way to create upgrade intent earlier?
Is $7 the right anchor price for this audience (hobbyist pixel artists, indie devs)?
Anyone done something similar with a creative/hobbyist tool? What actually moved the needle?
Happy to answer anything about the architecture too if anyone's curious how a game engine runs without canvas.
What makes this tricky is that several very different explanations can produce the exact same outcome.
No paid conversions could mean users haven't reached the upgrade moment yet.
It could also mean they're reaching it and deciding the value isn't clear enough to act.
Those lead to very different product decisions, which is why I'd be hesitant to treat the current behavior as evidence for any one interpretation just yet.
The interesting question isn't whether users are stopping.
It's what conclusion actually deserves confidence from the fact that they're stopping.
Honestly, the fact that you've spent 4+ years building this and got people coming back across multiple sessions is already a huge signal.
My guess is the issue isn't pricing. Most users probably haven't experienced the full value of their first game yet, so paying to create a second one feels premature. I'd focus on getting more users to a playable/shareable game first.
The retention sounds much more promising than the conversion rate right now.