Construct 2 - Realistic State after 1 gazilion downloads

  • Ashley

    using many optimizations tricks Construct 2 can produce smooth big 2d game for desktop using WebGL but if the computer don't support WebGL and using Canvas2d then the game will suffer from stuttering even when fps still at 40-50, how to prevent games from stuttering ?

    and for mobile platform i use CocoonJS and even when i use all optimizations tricks that i know, using small number of object, without destroy object at all and without behavior at all, my games still stutter even when fps is 50, but after playing it for awhile (2x game over and restart layout) then the game played more smoothly, why it happen?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Construct 2 is limited in optimization tricks since it relies on interpreted language, not compiled.

  • hollowthreat - Ludei now maintain the CocoonJS plugin.

  • ...wanted to think about this one for a while.

    Ashley - you made a good argument earlier, but I disagree about some of the reasons you posted.

    Exact compatibility with a browser I don't think is all that important, as games don't need everything a browser can do. Again, we don't need an entire browser engine - we just need what games need. Hundreds of thousands of games have been made without needing an entire browser engine.

    As for the issue about third party plugins - as much as I appreciate all the work put into them, even with C2 as it is now, the vast majority of games could be made without them. If C2 was feature complete, then even more so.

    By hiring someone to work on native exporters concurrently, it would reduce the impact the extra work would have on C2 itself. Tomsstudio is showing that it's possible. I agree that the path you took up to this point was the right one, though. Trying to make native exporters while also making the editor and such from the start would have been too much to take on at once.

    Yes, we'd have to create custom code for some platforms. But so does everyone else, to some extent. The HTML5 exporter would still be there for those who wanted to use it instead. It would give us a choice rather than having only one option.

    The point of asking for native exporters wasn't just about solving performance problems, though that was a big part of it - it was also about other things like the issue of no memory management on iOS and about you being able to directly control the quality of C2's own exports.

    More thoughts/feelings:

    • feeling a bit discouraged after years with less improvement than expected
    • disappointed code performance will always be behind the competition's, especially the platforms that really need it like mobile
    • no manual memory management with JavaScript can cause stutters when garbage collection is running. We just have to hope gc collection improves to the point it doesn't cause stutters anymore on every platform, since so many use different code for gc.
    • being rattled by chrome's recent xp/vista software rendering nonsense. We just have to hope the chrome team changes their mind.
    • misses out on export to a lot of platforms (3ds, vita, ps3, ps4, Xbox 360, Xbox one)
    • all we can do is hope that sony and microsoft enable support for html5 games on ps4/xb1, and that performance is acceptable - I tried a test on the ps4 browser and the performance was terrible.
    • I'm feeling better about the android situation after discovering crosswalk is capable of running a game with a lot of assets, but I'm not confident about the situation on iOS. Apple has had the tech for jit just sitting around in the operating system for years and don't let anyone else use it, which makes no sense to me. If they don't want the web competing with the app store, then why do they allow jit on the web, but not in apps? It just makes it harder to make an app using web tech, which as an app, would be on their store. They also have shown no inclination to change their stance.

    What it really boils down to is too much is based on hope. I'm just tired of relying on hope for the quality of exporters to improve, and worse, once we get them, having to hope that a quality exporter isn't later screwed up in some way. Because of the recent XP/vista chrome problem, I feel uncomfortable about the exporter situation rather than secure. Are they going to screw something else up? What am I supposed to do if they do if they do? I have no options, and neither do you, which hurts the quality of your product and your user's products. What's worse is that we don't just have to hope for one company to do things right and keep doing things right, we have to hope for a whole bunch of them to do so, and even if they all did everything perfect C2 would still lag behind in speed and miss out on several platforms it could otherwise export to.

    I think these problems detract from the perception of C2 as a 'serious' tool that can be used for serious development. When choosing an engine for a serious project that might take years and many thousands of dollars, I'm concerned about how many developers are going to look at C2 and just see too many limitations, caveats, problems and potential problems compared to the competition and use something else. There's too much uncertainty. Many people who choose C2 and discover the various issues will eventually move to other engines because of it, as seen by several people who commented they have already done so in this thread.

    I'm afraid I'm still in the native bandwagon. I see how you're playing the long term game and respect it, and I understand your point about trading one set of problems for another, but I think it is more important for your long term benefit to make native exporters, so that C2 doesn't end up as a 'getting started with game development' engine instead of being something worthy of sticking with or even switching to for more experienced developers.

  • I think anyone who is even half serious about producing games for all platforms would want a native exporter for that platform. I am also sure the same people would be happy to pay extra for that product too. Companies have to change direction all the time to ensure they grow and provide the services/ products that keep the customers happy.

    My thought is that C2 is a fantastic tool and has opened up the possibilities for me to make games and i would happily pay extra for greater flexibility.

    I would also be sad to see it missing out to other, less capable programs due to these issues.

    C2 could also be used to make non games apps giving it another avenue for income.

  • I'd be willing to pay extra for native support. Some people here have bashed Clickteam for charging for exporters but to a professional getting a game on a platform can pay for that initial investment many times over.

  • We'd also be willing to pay more for improved export options, to ALL mobile platforms.

    I've always loved using C2, and I really believe in the product. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a C2 developed mobile app, that can rival one of the top mobile games, for both complexity and performance. I find that rather sad, as I know this could be possible, with a few improvements. And the developers I've met (who choose to use C2), certainly have the talent to do it!

    The mobile marketplace is huge (and growing daily), which is a fact that just can't be ignored. For any software to be taken seriously as a professional development option, having great games, that are complex and deliver high performance on mobiles, is a must.

    Most professionals are willing to invest in the tools they use, and we're no different! If it can help us to make the money we need to continue making games, that would be a very worthwhile investment.

  • I don't know. I see that some veterans have made some strong arguments that C2 is lacking in its ability to export, and while that's true, I don't think C2 ever promised this. I was promised a capable, fast, and easy HTML5 game engine that would make rapid prototyping possible, or ease the process of creating HTML5 games or simple multi-platform games. The fact that the games can export (albeit non-natively) to so many platforms is impressive, but it's a bonus feature for me.

    There are other options for those who want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm sticking with C2 for the foreseeable future because it's in line with my goals and needs. I have every confidence that exports will get better and features will frequently be added because that has been my experience since I picked C2 up just a few months ago.

  • Exporters are essential. Being reliant on 3rd parties is ludicrous.

    Scirra needs to create a subscription based model.

    I'm not talking high, maybe $50 - $100 per annum above the personal/business purchase price, which includes multiplayer, exporters etc.

    Be Smart, Think about it guys

    Scirra needs this cash stream. For each 1000 paying $100 is $100,000 is hiring 1 more dev/programmer to the scirra team. Which will be an extra 1992 hours of dev on top of whatever ashley does per year.

    5000 paying subscription members paying $100 per year will see Construct 2 grow to become what we all need it to become.

    Business with subscription models have longivity. Business, that sell once and promise lifetime upgrades are great because we think we score, but truth is they usually close down eventually for lack of a number of things - money, motivation, etc. Things get harder as time goes on for single sale busines models.

    Its a great model, but needs to be subsidized by a small annual subscription model (Subscribers get the perks - multiplayer, exporters, support, whatever ).

  • [quote:1khs4yss]5000 paying subscription members paying $100 per year will see Construct 2 grow to become what we all need it to become.

    Nothing prevents you from donating $100 to Scirra with a check in the mail.

  • Arima

    Is your disappoint to do with mobile technology generally or C2 using an interpreted language. There are major problems with developing for a mobile platform when compared to desktop.

  • Back to the basics. Super-duper features are nice, but

    Make basic features - Ad, GameCenter, IAP, etc - work surely on every platform first.

    I think that's the real value of HTML5.

  • hollowthreat - Ludei now maintain the CocoonJS plugin.

    And we all know it'll take ludei forever to update the plugin, ios dev experience on C2 continue to be crippled

  • Back to the basics. Super-duper features are nice, but

    Make basic features - Ad, GameCenter, IAP, etc - work surely on every platform first.

    I think that's the real value of HTML5.

    I've put my game on hold to work on my Native thingy.

    Ad via Admob IOS + Android /tick

    IAP IOS + Android /tick

    Gamecenter IOS only atm /sadface

    How important is WebGL Effects on mobile to everyone? Cause these are really, really hard to code .

    I might have to hire someone to code it for me.

  • [quote:nrkdgrq2]5000 paying subscription members paying $100 per year will see Construct 2 grow to become what we all need it to become.

    Nothing prevents you from donating $100 to Scirra with a check in the mail.

    Donations do jack to fund anything of value. This thread is about the realistic state of construct2. Without a revenue stream outside of 1 sale transactions, construct 2 state is going to be none existent.

    Donations are not a business model. Donations don't pay for employees. Donations don't fund new features. Features that have been raised in this thread which will require more manpower to implement and maintain.

    Features that are absolutely necessary to keep construct2 in the marketplace.

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