Time to move forward?

What about C2/C3 own exporters?

This has been done to death already. But in terms of reliability, look at the situation I described in the blog post: our own exporters could actually prove to have *worse* bugs. Currently, the major browser vendors have already implemented workarounds for a wide range of such issues like graphics driver bugs.

I don't care if it's Node-Webkit that is broken, I paid Scirra for a tool that they say will work...

Consider the exact equivalent in native: graphics driver bugs cause your game to crash on startup on *all* Intel HD 4000 series cards. (All graphics vendors have issues, don't think just AMD or Intel are affected.) After having to buy a new PC and build it with the given graphics card so we can test it, we waste days guessing what the problem might be and come up with nothing. Somebody says "I don't care if it's the graphics driver that is broken, I paid Scirra for a tool they say will work". Despite the frustration being understandable, it is a completely hopeless situation and there is nothing we can do, and it's still not our fault. As I described this is by no means theoretical, and already happened with the Construct 2 editor.

So this happens regardless of the technology choices we make, and switching to other technologies doesn't necessarily improve anything. It's easy to imagine us making some change and everything being perfect, but it could actually be worse!

In the end, even if you build a flawlessly working bike, a pothole can wreck you.

I think this is the best analogy. A bike is not useful without a surface to ride it on. But not all road surfaces are perfect, and some can damage the bike. This does not mean the bike is flawed, but you still might be understandably upset.

Why not look into Vulkan for C3?

Vulkan is only supported with certain drivers on certain systems with the latest hardware. It's promising, but I doubt it will be on a majority of systems like OpenGL is for a long time to come. If waiting for technical improvements is unacceptable, then Vulkan doesn't fix that. There's also a huge pile of other issues, graphics certainly isn't the only significant component involved. As I say this has been done to death.

I must add people here are raising issues I am not aware of there being open bug reports for. Current browsers can all hit within 0.1ms of v-sync according to my measurements. I haven't seen any recent activity in the Bugs forum regarding NW.js issues on Mac/Linux. If you have trouble please file reports following all the guidelines - sometimes we can work around them or forward on a technical report to a third party, like we just did with the iOS bug.

Personally I think the main issue is the lack of monetization options.

Right now it's like trying to sell screen doors to a boat factory.

FMFM You might find what you are looking for in Unity, UE4, etc., but as I said before it will never be bug free. Every software has it's issues, we just happen to see on the issues comes with Construct 2 because we are using it.

This issue is not about whether C2 bugs free or not. Of course every software contains bugs. It's about how many bugs there are. What I mean? I developing for the iOS platform, right. So. In the best case (if we have own exporters) my every bugs is C2 between Apple. Now it is between C2-Apple-Cocoon.io-IntelXDK etc. Do you see my logic here?

C2 - Apple = a less of bugs.

C2 - Apple - Cocoon.io - Intel XDK - Visual Studio - Monaca - PhoneGap - = a lot of bugs.

Very simple math.

When you buy food. Do you go to 3 different small shop and you buy separately in one store milk, in another store eggs and another store bacon? Or you will go to the one supermarket and buy everything what you need?

This has been done to death already. But in terms of reliability, look at the situation I described in the blog post: our own exporters could actually prove to have *worse* bugs. Currently, the major browser vendors have already implemented workarounds for a wide range of such issues like graphics driver bugs.

Right. So what are you saying? Hands up because "not can do"? Why all the other software have own exporters? Unity, Unreal Engine, Game Maker, Stencyl, GameSalad, Clickteam Fusion? Because they are so stupid that do extra work and build own exporters? Right. And I mean now iOS and Android exporters.

I think this is the best analogy. A bike is not useful without a surface to ride it on. But not all road surfaces are perfect, and some can damage the bike. This does not mean the bike is flawed, but you still might be understandably upset.

In my analogy we were talking about it is ethical or not to sell the bike without wheels. You're a seller and I'm a buyer. It was not about what happens after the bike has already been purchased. It was not about do I know how I drive it or not (of course I cannot ride, if I do not have wheels!).

Right. So what are you saying? Hands up because "not can do"? Why all the other software have own exporters? Unity, Unreal Engine, Game Maker, Stencyl, GameSalad, Clickteam Fusion? Because they are so stupid that do extra work and build own exporters? Right. And I mean now iOS and Android exporters.

They have bigger teams and more (sometimes way-more) expensive pricing.

C2 - Apple = a less of bugs.

I see what you are trying to say here, but it's not that simple. Go back to Jayjay 's post to see the layers involved with native export.

They have bigger teams and more (sometimes way-more) expensive pricing.

I know. So we go back on first page of the topic:

It's not my problem if Scirra Ltd don't have employees. It's not my problem if Scirra Ltd does not know how to make money in order to be able to hire workers. I am happy if I can pay monthly fee (for example monthly fee) and I know that my money be spent on development of the program.

However, I do not believe that this debate should continue. We each have their own view on this. Nothing changes with C3 or C4 or C5. Scirra Ltd can do what they wants. It is their right as a company. I just tried to say what we really needed on C2. By my own opinion.

> Consider the exact equivalent in native: graphics driver bugs cause your game to crash on startup on *all* Intel HD 4000 series cards. (All graphics vendors have issues, don't think just AMD or Intel are affected.) After having to buy a new PC and build it with the given graphics card so we can test it, we waste days guessing what the problem might be and come up with nothing. Somebody says "I don't care if it's the graphics driver that is broken, I paid Scirra for a tool they say will work". Despite the frustration being understandable, it is a completely hopeless situation and there is nothing we can do, and it's still not our fault. As I described this is by no means theoretical, and already happened with the Construct 2 editor.

>

Sure, desktop will never be perfect since there's too many combinations, but having something that either works perfectly or doesn't work at all is actually better than something that works seemingly-randomly. I'd rather see customers leaving angry reviews like "I couldn't start the game!" than "I fell through floors and teleported all over the map and etc...".

However, your response also ignores that there are some platforms which have exactly the same hardware across their entire install base including consoles, and Apple devices.

As long as the exporters are geared towards working perfectly on the latest generation of Xbox, Sony, Nintendo, iPhones, Macbooks, and iPod Touches then a developer is guaranteed a large install base for the games they make with Construct 2, and can better expect their game to work the same on all devices.

Perhaps then expand to the latest Google Nexus and Samsung Android devices, maybe even the latest Windows phone, then it's okay for the export to get buggy with other devices.

For anything else or web games, that's where C2's HTML5 could be a fallback option.

However, I do not believe that this debate should continue. We each have their own view on this. Nothing changes with C3 or C4 or C5. Scirra Ltd can do what they wants. It is their right as a company. I just tried to say what we really needed on C2. By my own opinion.

True, but I think part of the reason for these debates occurring is because the customers care about the product and Scirra. If they didn't they would silently move onto another tool or leave a single topic saying their goodbyes, but with C3 still in development they feel there is hope for the final steps of improvement needed for Construct to be a viable tool for commercial indie game developers.

I am afraid the vast majority of people who buy C2 (or game maker or unity etc) never get close to publishing a game. The first steps of game development are far more important (and far more common) than the last. Most of us are very happy with the first coding experience in C2 and though we say we care about publishing it never happens. From this point of view their time would be well spent in working on C3 and getting an even easier to use starting experience than in fooling with publishing work-arounds.

yours

winkr7

winkr7 publising is as important as development. What's the point of development if you cannot publish what you have made? Maybe you are taking about hobbyst but many people put their trust and hope in making a living by making apps with C2. There are business companies even. So fixing publishing problems is not fooling around. It's usually a critical issue.

I completely agree — As much as I enjoy working on games, I am not doing it as a hobby. I plan to make some money on what I create!

FMFM "Now, canvas goes to wrong size on an iPhone)." - Is there a forum discussion on this? I am seeing this as well. Out of nowhere, my game seems to magnify and only a portion of it fits on my screen.

winkr7 publising is as important as development. What's the point of development if you cannot publish what you have made? Maybe you are taking about hobbyst but many people put their trust and hope in making a living by making apps with C2. There are business companies even. So fixing publishing problems is not fooling around. It's usually a critical issue.

Well said. Wisely said.

FMFM "Now, canvas goes to wrong size on an iPhone)." - Is there a forum discussion on this? I am seeing this as well. Out of nowhere, my game seems to magnify and only a portion of it fits on my screen.

It is a new bug in beta r223. Make a bug report, if you have time for it. Personally, I'm too tired to say anything about it to Ashley (I'm pretty sure, he cannot reproduce it. Again. Because in his own paradise all works well).

Actually I'm a little curious now. If every other visual development environment has the desired "native exporters" built in and they supposedly work flawlessly, why is anyone still here? Maybe the price, ease of use, and support? Practically non existent barrier to entry? If these are not of consideration to you anymore, yes move on. Start with why DO I use construct, and why am I posting on construct forums hoping for a future changes I envision (low chance of actually happening, unless you join the development team yourself) when I am aware of an alternative that has the functionality I seek today?

Ashley, I'm afraid you've spoiled everyone by actually listening to people and responding well and releasing so many fixes and improvements over the past years and building a flexible system that does allow for people to extend the base software for whatever might be missing through plugins and using wrappers. What a tragedy.

And why does it seem like no one brings up compiler bugs and issues, or problems with varieties of hardware configurations and drivers that have been causing developers headaches since the dawn of programming? People who write code directly IN "native" language still have to deal with problems out of their control, and often! And this is for a single platform. Now we expect a single piece of software to generate code flawlessly for all platforms each with their own multitudes of unique problems? Is that realistic? The best way to pull that off would be to start in a platform independent language, being as standards compliant as possible, and rely on wrappers to function with any and all future operating environments... Oh wait.

As for single platforms with predictable hardware like ios or play station consoles being bug free... luls. Maybe there are less bugs if you work SPECIFICALLY for that platform, but that is decidedly not the goal here.

There does seem to be a major preconception issue. I came in to C2 from flash, to develop for html5. I found all the other exporters as a bonus. Some people read universal exporters as the main draw. I can understand that, as that would be the holy grail. It could be better represented that construct relies on wrappers in marketing materials.

Too bad that's not how marketing works.

C2's greatest strength is it's superiour event system. Then there is the large collection of behaviours (both built in and user made) and lets not forget the forums and tutorials.

The only weakness is the export to mobile as it is 100% dependant on 3rd party wrappers.

I will echo what some other have mentioned. If you are not happy with Construct 2, try another development environment, but you are Naive to think they don't have problems as well (the grass isn't always greener on the other side). Also other software packages with exporters can run individuals close to $1k, so think long and hard if your money is actually going to a better product.

Ashley I overall think the direction of Construct 2 is fairly spot on, since everything is being built on industry backed frameworks i.e. Cordova and Crosswalk. You and your team at Scirra are doing great work. Please keep it up.

+1 oosyrag

I remember when Ashley first decided to go with html5.

Developing for web, at the time, had been a nightmare what with all the issues between the different browsers.

Anything even slightly advanced had to have hacks for the fall backs. Many of which wound up being a link to Firefox.

..why is anyone still here? … yes move on.

I'm happy for you, if you have enough time for switch from one software to the other software. Let's talk about it. What it is mean? It's NOT move on if you try another program a little bit. If you want to get the game/app done 0% to 100%, and publish it, you must really UNDERSTAND how it program works. If you do the next Flappy Bird, then ok. No matter how well you know the program. But what if you REALLY try to do some work? And make MONEY? What if you have CUSTOMERS?

Ashley, I'm afraid you've spoiled everyone

Heh, right. Ashley has helped me here every day, of course.

I just want that he do his own work so that I can make my own. I ask only the necessary tools for it. And I'm willing to pay for it.

Summary: Jumping from one program (which you have worked for 2,5 years) to another, it is not economically feasible. It is actually a bad bet. It is done if you don't have any options anymore.