Except, XP is on almost 30% of all computers which use the internet daily. 30% is a massive factor, regardless of how old the system is. And I suspect it'll continue to be a massive factor until either Microsoft replaces its village idiot, or Chromebooks is upgraded to become truly PC (instead of PC lite).
0% is the same share IE6 had of the browser's market until march 2008. Steam stats say XP usage is around 10%, and steam's demographic is the same as the one you're probably aiming for. XP usage stats are also massively inflated due to china, so unless you're targeting chinese casual gamers during their working hours (if so, that's dumb), XP is as good as gone.
Coincidentally, construct 2 was launched officially in june 2011, and back then IE6+IE7 had a combined 9.5% share.
And as far as your 'opinion' carrying 'weight', if you've so keen to belittle such as large demographic, then no, your opinion doesn't carry any weight when it comes to commerciality.
ince when am I belittling anyone? I'm dissenting - two totally different things. Unlike some of the people in the forum, I couldn't care less about mobile. I get that people make money with mobile games, and I get that mobile is what's "hot" right now, so I don't mind, however:
If you guys want to pressure Ashley to focus on mobile exporters, then I am within my rights as a buyer to pressure Ashley to NOT focus on mobile and keep his current strategy of a pure-HTML5 product. When this product started (and when I purchased my license) it was all about the desktop, so when business decisions start impacting the quality for me (and make no mistake, if Ashley were to focus on native exporters, the desktop side would suffer), I have to speak.
Because Internet explorer 6 doesn't have the features necessary to run HTML5 games. XP does, and until recently, chrome supported hardware acceleration on it by default. That's more users that can purchase your game. It's that simple. Besides, Ashley already said he's going to make node webkit have hardware acceleration all the time.
agree, this discussion on XP is basically a moot point due to node webkit. Still, I would expect HTML5 developers, by definition on the bleeding edge of tech, to not care about outdated/unsupported platforms.
Again, I disagree. The state of MMF should not be used to assume what the state of C2 would be if they made native exporters. C2 already is vastly better than MMF, is updated way, way faster, works better and has most features that games need, and scirra working on native exporters would not send C2 back to MMF levels of problems, nor would it entirely stop progress on the IDE if they hired someone to work on them concurrently.
Why shouldn't the state of MMF be used as a baseline for comparison? You're well aware Ashley, or as he was known back then, Tigerworks, made construct due to dissatisfaction with clickteam's solutions. This is in part due to Ashley being a better developer, but the vast majority of it is due to learning from clickteam's mistakes! Let's explore some of those:
- Hardware acceleration support from the get go. While the infrastructure (read:webGL) wasn't there yet, the scaffolding was present long before.
- Open formats and technologies.
- Event sheet organization is a priority - even official plugins should adhere to standards and not be deeply dependant on engine internals (this is an area where I think c2 has been failing a bit, recently, with the new crop of official plugins requiring architectural changes).
- Open discussion of competitors in the forums.
- Short release cycle.
And now, most recently, we can say add "not wasting time developing native exporters" to that list. It's obvious that native exporters would not send C2 back to MMF levels of problems, but it would definitely slow things down. Ashley said it himself: the work involved in maintaining separate codebases grows exponentially!
Hiring someone new doesn't change anything: that is one person that is sucking money from Scirra. That same person could be developing something else instead. It's as if you all think the editor is perfect already when it's far from it! We need more modularity, we need a way to code server-side in construct (especially now with multiplayer), the tilemap needs way more features (where's isometric support? why can't tiles have attributes? why do we need a separate tilemap for a collision layer? how do we make multi-tile entities without resorting to third party tilemap plugins?), we still don't have full layout-by-layout loading, the list goes on and on...
You can't just call a platform with over 700 million devices sold overpriced hype. Even if not all of them are currently in use, a quick google search implies more than half still are. Even if you personally don't like it, lots of other people do and it has been a huge moneymaker for some.
ctually I can, and I just did. My personal grievances with Apple aside, the point is that you're always reliant on third parties: I could go reductio-ad-absurdum (as I did with my IE6 example) and suggest that Scirra becomes a mobile device manufacturer and OS vendor as well to minimize reliance on external factors. That would obviously be outlandish - my argument is that making native exporters might not be totally inviable, but it's still unreasonable. This phenomenon even has a name: Not invented here. Why do you think Ashley's solutions would be better than existing solutions?
but apple doesn't want to for some reason that they apparently don't want to disclose (or at least in my search for answers I don't recall finding an official reason)
And there's that "third parties are unreliable" issue again. Back when clickteam was developing the android exporter, they ran into some bug in the official Android SDK that prevented them from continuing. Chrome for windows 8 ARM still has many of it's capabilities artificially limited. JIT compilers for iOS are inaccessible, third parties cannot compile. Apple's software can, though, so it's not an engineering or technological problem.
This goes to show that even when making native compilers, the list of possible problems with third parties is huge! Sticking to HTML5 has its cons, but at least there you know the issues will eventually be fixed, since you have giant players throwing their weight behind HTML5's success.
Which company was that? Regardless, one company's failure does not mean another company will not succeed. There are quite a few frameworks that export native just fine.
..? The company is clickteam. But we can also talk gameSalad, gamemaker, and many others in the scene. The reason I chose C2 over them is because I think C2 is a better product. And that is due to not wasting time on exporters. Ashley keeps mentioning "what a waste it would be to develop native exporters and by then HTML5 is good enough", but can you imagine the waste it would be if we had a native blackberry exporter? Symbian? Tizen? XNA? Ouya? Windows Mobile? Ubuntu touch? Palm OS? Bada? Hindsight is always 20/20 but who could've predicted the huge success of the wii? Or the huge failure of the WiiU? Or the sudden appearance of the iPhone? Blackberry was once a huge company, so it's not like you're safe by sticking with what's established today.
It's really not. It's the result of years of work and quite a lot of code.
eep in mind I'm talking about the IDE only, not the engine powering the games or the exporter. The most complicated parts are the event editor, the image editor, and the saving/loading of it all into XML. Sounds like, at most, a few months work to convert, though only Ashley can say with any certainty.