Too bad...

C3 has so much potential but I've lost interest for now. Maybe I'll try again after the Alpha testing phase is over.

Well it's not like they are paying you to test it.

Then again, at some point you have to pay to use it.

Kinda feels like deja vu actually.

Is there anything in particular that's put you off?

Just that at this point it really feels more like an alpha build then a beta ready for public testing. There's not much that can be done properly with it at this point. I'll give it another look once it's more properly developed.

It feels to much like a C2 2.0 So far. I know there's mention of a few upgrades. But we are testing pretty much C2 on browser.

It is basically that now due to the locked features. That's why I am going to wait until more features has been opened to actually test new stuff. Also Addons for me.

But we are testing pretty much C2 on browser.

That is expressly what we are testing, yes. Read Isn't that really enough, for now?

On launch, C2 didn't include an image editor, a physics engine, tilemapping, social media integration, complex collision polygons, multiplayer, not even half the exporters or publishing plugins, web-font support, lighting, positioned audio, LOS, debugger or profiler... the list goes on. I know a lot of these things are missing from C3 at present - but this team is no slouch! Have a little faith.

mrtumbles

I have to disagree. Porting C2 into a browser is not enough to merit a C3 beta. That would be a Proof-of-Concept at best.

> But we are testing pretty much C2 on browser.

>

That is expressly what we are testing, yes. Read http://www.scirra.com/blog/ - the team are working on getting C2 functionality working in-browser first - so... yeah, it's going to be C2 on a browser <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused"> Isn't that really enough, for now?

On launch, C2 didn't include an image editor, a physics engine, tilemapping, social media integration, complex collision polygons, multiplayer, not even half the exporters or publishing plugins, web-font support, lighting, positioned audio, LOS, debugger or profiler... the list goes on. I know a lot of these things are missing from C3 at present - but this team is no slouch! Have a little faith.

That's a great point and I want to add something I feel a lot of people don't realize.

While Ashley and team has not mentioned money being a big part of their decisions recently (as they shouldn't) all those features were possible, and C2 is the great engine we have now, because people paid for it, supported it and they were able to constantly add onto it.

Cash flow must be tight selling one off licenses to an ever-shrinking target audience.

Although it would have been great to have gotten more than quality of life and performance updates for the launch of C3, I will support it, because that money will be used to fund Construct's Team to continue building on it.

That would be a Proof-of-Concept at best.

Personally, I think that a proof of concept is absolutely enough. We know, as HTML5 devs, how quickly you can iterate, how easily you can bug-stomp and test new features, and open up your work to new platforms. Scirra are now working with the same advantage we've always had. I don't think it will be long before we see all of C2's features carried across to C3, and more.

I also think that what's 'enough' for the team to produce is entirely up to them. It's up to us as consumers to vote with our wallets, and produce useful feedback where we can.

3 years work being labelled as proof of concept is a bit harsh - I don't feel this is an accurate representation of what we're put up so far at all. People are already making games in it. Proof of concept would not be anywhere near as functional.

> But we are testing pretty much C2 on browser.

>

On launch, C2 didn't include an image editor, a physics engine, tilemapping, social media integration, complex collision polygons, multiplayer, not even half the exporters or publishing plugins, web-font support, lighting, positioned audio, LOS, debugger or profiler... the list goes on. I know a lot of these things are missing from C3 at present - but this team is no slouch! Have a little faith.

I was one of the first adopters of C2, and the thing that sold it to me was the physics engine

Tom I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that simply porting C2 to the browser would be a proof-of-concept. I personally believe that C3 is more then that. My view is simply that the stage C3 is in right now is more like an alpha testing phase (squashing hundreds of bugs) then a public beta (allowing the public to test out the programs features and give usability feedback before release).

I will support it, because that money will be used to fund Construct's Team to continue building on it.

I agree for the most part, however this makes me look at all the times people have requested new features and also the response scirra gave to those requests. Based on all of it, it draws a picture of what scirra wants the end product to look like. From my perspective I get the feeling that scirra has settled on the stuff that is already within it and aren't looking to improve or change those parts that much. I think what they focused on most for c3 was how to make it work in a browser- and during this process there were things they could add that made sense to have because the browser let them have it- like css and fonts, etc. Were these things stuff that they wanted to add before the idea of a browser editor? probably not.. Basically, I get the impression they are satisfied with what construct is before the idea of putting it in the browser.

I could be wrong, and maybe they have some goals for other ways to improve construct- I'm still waiting to see what those are. What will the sdk be like? How will they move forward with development of C3 after bug fixes are mostly solved? There is still plenty of things to look forward to, but we don't know what they are yet- at least I don't.

When I first saw Construct 3 running inside the Chrome browser, I was a little bit sceptical. However, I have to say it is stable here, but I only was browsing and looking to the user interface.

then I played the Kiwi game, just to see how the new engine was performing. I received an error that not all features where supported by the free version of C3 (which is normal warning).

I found the Kiwi game performing better than I expected before. I was afraid that the Chrome browser would influence Construct 3 performance. That was not the case, at first sight I do not see anything slowing down.

Saturday, I will meet my companion because we like to workout a new game idea. We will see if we can use C3 for this new game. Nevertheless, we prefer the full paid subscription version, which we use the moment it becomes available.

Maybe following a tutorial first to see where that leads us. Especially a tutorial written for the free version of Construct 2.

It seems logical to me first test the free version. It may look now C2, however keeping things simple gives Scirra the possibility to fix bugs and improve the initial edition much easier. I look forward to see more features appearing near the end of the beta cycle.

I am sure Construct 3 will be an ever developing product. I like very much what I see in Construct 3.

After trying out the demo projects and giving the program a quick test, I'm split. From an engineering standpoint this an amazing feat. Achieving all of this in a browser is very impressive. The editor runs smoothly, at least for the simple sample projects that were provided. It runs on iOS and Android now, as well as Mac and Linux. Great. But I don't care about that as a Windows developer. Running in a browser is more of a hindrance than anything. Running in a browser is better for Scirra, since they can easily port the editor to all platforms. But why would I want an additional point of failure/slowdown in my IDE? Answer: I wouldn't. It's cool to be able to edit a project on a phone or tablet (the main feature of being in a browser) but it's more of a novelty than a useful feature.

It's basically just Construct 2.

The "free edition" is essentially useless. 25 events, and for some reason even more strict restrictions on layers and effects, as if "25 events" wasn't enough. The free edition is for you to try the thing, and then subscribe. There is no useful free version like Unity has. I was thinking they would make the free version actually usable with Construct 3 since it costs so much more, but I guess I was wrong.

I see this as being a very good program for education or schools, since it works on all platforms.

But as developer on windows (as is everyone here) there's no point to using it over C2. Construct 2 does everything I need if I want to make a HTML5 game. The small amount of features it adds to 2 just aren't worth the cost. It's a marvel of engineering, but why bother using it when Construct 2 exists if you're on windows? If this was a new product and there was no Construct 2, it would be much better received by the community.

Many people are upset with it because it really adds nothing new, yet costs so much more.