What you want in C3?

  • Needs more cowbell.

    hahahahahhaha

    Are we not jumping the gun here? I haven't seen any mention of C3 from anyone other than community. Can someone link the post about C3 if there is one. Curious.

    *** EDIT ***

    Nevermind... I Just found it.

  • I think C3 threads do not need to be created. Nor does Ashley need to start a "What should be in a C3" thread. Instead Ashley, big plugin developers and developers who use other systems should be involved in a discussion. Not to talk about what features such as plugins, but instead discuss the lowest technical requirements to offer the most flexibility. That way by a good foundation all requests can be developed rather than waiting for C4.

    There are a lowt of newish users in this thread. But as an FYI C1/CC was a school effort with a group of students. C2 however is a work done by Ashley as a company with a clear direction. C3 will maintain C2 same direction and thus build on top of how things work and the gritty core. Likely C2 projects will be loadable by C3. So no. It's not fair to say that Scirra will just cut C2. That shows a lack of knowledge about Scirra.

    So let the C3 threads end for now as a lot of these will just confuse new users and muddle the waters

  • jayderyu agreed, C3 is not even a clear concept yet, it was just pronounced from times to times by ashley as a potential next generation of the editor, so the hype is just wrong, too early to even start thinking about things, all we can want is for C3 to improve what C2 could not during his lifetime (which is far from finished).

  • Yeah, and they need to sort the licensing pretty quick, as noone is going to buy C2 if they think a C3 is in the works.

  • In case... they're actually going to work on C3 (i doubt it)

    But let's just consider it...

    Then i would like to know what's going on with our current projects.

    Will they be portable into the C3 engine, or do we have to stick with a no-more updating C2 infrastructure.

    I hope they're still improving C2 for now, rather than working on the next thing already.

    I think a lot of these wishes could still be implemented into Construct 2.

    And in case they're really planing Construct 3 already, it would be more than interesting to know on what their goals on the next engine may be.

  • I think the most important part is making the transition from C2 to C3 as smooth as possible:

    • The engine should be an evolution, not a revolution. C2 has a great engine; no need to start from scratch.
    • Plugin system should be backwards compatible. This is vital; it's the backbone of C2.
    • Any relatively recent capx/caproj should open right up, and run as well in C3 as in C2.

    Also important:

    • Whatever framework is chosen for the editor, please let it be one where simple requests, like universal search, can be implemented without great protest. The inflexibility of the current IDE is the most frustrating thing about C2 (outside of export woes).
    • On the interface, it should be FULLY themable. It may sound trivial, but switching to a dark interface is way easier on the eyes.
    • Canvas/Paster functionality as a built-in object. This is too important to be a third party plugin. In fact, why not do this now, for C2?
    • We don't need a recreation of photoshop/gimp/krita. An 'open in external editor' button will do. But we do need better animation/asset management tools. The following thread has some excellent, well thought out suggestions:

    Awesome (but optional):

    • Some sort of WebGL/SIMD.JS accelerated physics/collision system. As it stands, on mobile we face a disadvantage with collision logic vs a good native engine. The technology to address this isn't quite there yet, but in a year or so, it probably will be.
    • Limited 3D support. I'm not sure if Construct should venture fully into the realm of a 3d game engine. But limited support for 3d content and manipulation would be great.
    • Better support for developing apps as well as games.

    Finally:

    • More hands on deck. I don't want to see Scirra become like Unity, with a building full of developers, but I don't know how long this can go on as a 1 man show. Honestly, if I were Ashley -- and I'm probably stepping well out of bounds of my expertise here -- I would be trying my damnedest to hire rexrainbow at the very least.

    As for pricing, if C3 is another $100-$200 dollars, I really can't complain. Take a look at what Unity costs.

    Still, I would say this: subscription pricing, as a concurrent alternative to a flat fee, might open the door to potential customers unwilling or unable to shell out for a full license all at once. Just a thought.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Still, I would say this: subscription pricing, as a concurrent alternative to a flat fee, might open the door to potential customers unwilling or unable to shell out for a full license all at once. Just a thought.

    Subscription licenses are a good idea, but only if:

    • There would be regular, one time buy licenses too, just like now. Don't forget the users who don't do full time development. Their projects can last even a year or more.
    • Keep the offline license validation engine (or how do you call it?). Online can be a bit more secure, but I love the concept of the full usability offline.
  • > Still, I would say this: subscription pricing, as a concurrent alternative to a flat fee, might open the door to potential customers unwilling or unable to shell out for a full license all at once. Just a thought.

    >

    Subscription licenses are a good idea, but only if:

    - There would be regular, one time buy licenses too, just like now. Don't forget the users who don't do full time development. Their projects can last even a year or more.

    - Keep the offline license validation engine (or how do you call it?). Online can be a bit more secure, but I love the concept of the full usability offline.

    Yes, +1000 on both of those comments.

    If C3 required you to be online all the time to use it...I probably wouldn't use it. Sad to say, but there it is; I feel very strongly about programs maintaining offline functionality whenever possible.

    And there should still be a one time 'forever' license for those willing to go all in.

  • Why is this popular demand wants C3 that I found nothing about Ashley officially announced C3?

  • I think the last line of this post is what got people going:

  • anything would be cool as long as I dont need to purchase another license

  • Like many said :

    -> Timeline

    -> Animation system

    -> Advanced particle system

    -> Vectors sprites / animations (kind of like Flash / illustrator)

    A way to ignore Node Webkit (Jittering problems killing games)

    But most of all, keep C2 a priority for now please

  • anything would be cool as long as I dont need to purchase another license

    +1

    And, what will happen to C2? Will there still be updates? In license video it says "... And you will get free updates - for ever" ...

  • I do not mind paying for new C3 as long as the event system works the same so there's no whole re-learning thing. Importing old projects into new would be good but I do not need backward compatibility.

    This is if C3 exports into something that is better (and closer to machine) than HTML5.

    If it is still HTML5 just like now then I would prefer to see C2 still being worked on. If money is issue then maybe upgrade to 2.5 for a minor upgrade fee.

  • If its possible - Native IOS and Android exporters? That would make Construct the ultimate game design tool regardless of what version. I'd pay good money for exporters like that.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)