C3 developers give real info so we stop arguing features

Tom

Ok so we can run C3 with no browser at all just as a desktop app?

I ask because now you said its an option which means you don't need Chrome at all. If so you need to clarify that with the community in your main post because thats why there is an uproar.

Tom

Ok so we can run C3 with no browser at all just as a desktop app?

I ask because now you said its an option which means you don't need Chrome at all. If so you need to clarify that with the community in your main post because thats why there is an uproar.

There are plans for an offline desktop version, yes.

Much like how you can export Construct 2 games to the desktop rather than a webpage.

C3 running in the browser however would be a non-issue about updates because

1) Any breaking updates will be known months in advanced (on the beta Canary build) and fixed by the time the update goes official with chrome

2) You can always tell Chrome to never update if you're concerned.

3) You can always get a portable installation of Chrome just to use C3 in (If they don't have the desktop app out yet)

4) If by chance (a very very very low chance due to #1) Chrome somehow does release a breaking update that got past Canary and into the official Chrome app, Scirra will update C3 quickly. This is something they have a good track record for in C2 releases.

[quote:sadlp5y5]A lot of people seem to be upset that there's the option to run it in the browser or on the mobile. Even if it's not something you're going to make use of, can you not understand that others might see benefits from it and it's a nice to have feature?

Sounds kind a ironic coming from you — How many times did you shot down a feature request simply because you couldn't see/understand the benefits that it brings? I remember the number quite well. And I too was like "oh gee what problems do you have this time with adding such a small bit".

For the record - I have nothing against adding new features. I am all in for it. But I'm baffled and borderline insulted to hear you using this argument now. A very valid argument, as I've said. But apparently it sounds fine only when leaving your lips. Not someone elses. Double standards or what?

EDIT:

You know what? Frak that. That's enough. That was the last straw. I'm Out. At this point I don't even care what you have to say. What new excuse you will come up with. You guys are a lost cause. I am crawling back to effects/plugins section. I am too old and too tired for this bias. But say farewell to any traffic I was sending back to you with my creations and games. And from now on - if someone ask me what do I think of Scirra and Construct - I will give them a full, detailed reply, this time around.

Maybe think of hiring people from Hello Games, to join your team.

You guys are perfect match.

[quote:24ajvp39]A lot of people seem to be upset that there's the option to run it in the browser or on the mobile. Even if it's not something you're going to make use of, can you not understand that others might see benefits from it and it's a nice to have feature?

Sounds kind a ironic coming from you — How many times did you shot down a feature request simply because you couldn't see/understand the benefits that it brings? I remember the number quite well. And I too was like "oh gee what problems do you have this time with adding such a small bit".

For the record - I have nothing against adding new features. I am all in for it. But I'm baffled and borderline insulted to hear you using this argument now. A very valid argument, as I've said. But apparently it sounds fine only when leaving your lips. Not someone elses. Double standards or what?

The same could be said of your post.

Tom's message is stating that it seems people are saying they do not like that with the way the engine was developed and -that showing off a neat consequence of that decision and how powerful optimized HTML5 programs can be- is something that was unnecessary. The loudest of users so far since the announcement have complained that Scirra is putting their money where their mouth is in order to accommodate the years of request for multi-platform rather than making native applications for each OS, or they believe that a mobile version they will never use is taking too much time from Scirra to make (which is the opposite case)

Many people even skipped over that there will be a desktop app so you don't have to always visit a webpage to use it, thinking it will not be supported on the desktop.

Ultimately Tom at this point isn't talking about a request for a feature that may take tons of work to even get working correctly (Multiplayer came after a very long time), but a consequential feature that they could do due to the engine they used to create the product.

EDIT:

You know what? Frak that. That's enough. That was the last straw. I'm Out.

No problem, you're free to do as you wish. Good luck.

>

> EDIT:

> You know what? Frak that. That's enough. That was the last straw. I'm Out.

>

No problem, you're free to do as you wish. Good luck.

Tom all we need for you to do is to abandon that subscription fee crap

For what it's worth, I'll point out we've been maintaining the HTML5 runtime for years, and cases where Chrome updates it are very rare, and most of those were deliberate changes by Google that they warned everyone about for months. Any browser maker's job is to stay compatible with all the billions of websites on the Internet, so they tend to be extremely cautious with any changes that are not 100% backwards compatible.

And in any cases that slip through the net? Simple, we just fix it! We have done in the past - and can do in the future - same-day updates to fix any critical problems like that.

The desktop builds are entirely independent of the Chrome update process, so those will be the same regardless of what happens to Chrome updates. But we'll still be issuing regular updates of those as well, so the option to stay up-to-date is there.

For what it's worth, I'll point out we've been maintaining the HTML5 runtime for years, and cases where Chrome updates it are very rare, and most of those were deliberate changes by Google that they warned everyone about for months. Any browser maker's job is to stay compatible with all the billions of websites on the Internet, so they tend to be extremely cautious with any changes that are not 100% backwards compatible.

And in any cases that slip through the net? Simple, we just fix it! We have done in the past - and can do in the future - same-day updates to fix any critical problems like that.

The desktop builds are entirely independent of the Chrome update process, so those will be the same regardless of what happens to Chrome updates. But we'll still be issuing regular updates of those as well, so the option to stay up-to-date is there.

So, now the editor will run as well as the games do, via node-webkit?

node-webkit?

Or with Electron. From what I can tell, Electron is more popular in terms of running desktop versions of applications.

> node-webkit?

>

Or with Electron. From what I can tell, Electron is more popular in terms of running desktop versions of applications.

"run as well" is relative.