Concerns from a "Serious" developer

  • Engines come and go and never a good idea to put all your eggs or games in one basket.

    To put this in perspective, I am old and started writing commercial games in BASIC for the Commodore 64.

    agreed.

    and C64 was my first love! That's where I learned to love games and coding in BASIC.

  • >

    > Pretty much misses the point completely!

    >

    > If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

    > ome of us like that the direction they chose is HTML5.

    "Some don't like a browser based engine" is not a problem on the developer listening, but more of what you the consumer wants and is demanding they go towards. Scirra has made it clear for many many years that HTML5 is the direction they're going.

    From your further complaints you even admit that you don't care what kind of engine it uses, only that you want specific features:

    > We paid for a C2 license based on the expectation those exporters worked and they don't and you have been making promises to fix bugs and exporters for how many years now?

    >

    > Instead you spend lots of time and get a new team to develop features and fix the bugs and make exporters for a subscription engine that very few C2 users even seem to want.

    >

    Your complaint is really that the options provided did not meet a standard you wish that they would have. This is independent of the engine itself and more about the ecosystem.

    Yes, there is an ecosystem problem with HTML5 games in regards of compatibility/accessibility as it's a new ecosystem compared to Windows/Mac/Linux native libraries that link to already existing solutions/dependencies. Back when Construct 2 was first started it was seen as a fools errand, just like before Valve put into the effort to support Vulkan and Linux making a cross platform game for linux was also a fool's errand.

    (and Linux is a native platform)

    If you look at the state of HTML5 technology now as well as their offer of cloud-packaging C3 apps for mobile export what can be done now it has vastly improved. Games run faster on the same PC using more recent versions of Chrome. I'm on a Phenom II X4 925 which isn't the greatest CPU but I've had little issue outside of browser/driver support, which thanks to Vulkan we have better Open/WebGL support now than ever.

    (kinda like linux!)

    I do agree that with the confusion surrounding the best way to export for a platform and the issues that the Construct 2 side of things should've been a simple process, but I don't agree that Scirra should be ultimately responsible for optimizing every platform wrapper. They should provide a flow that allows a simple export process, even if it involves just shoving an exported zip file into a third party compiler/wrapper program. They seem to have an automated flow setup on their end for C3 projects, so documentation on that could be adequate.

    Where did I say anything about HTML5?

    We all know C2 and C3 are HTML5 based and if someone does not want that format why would they get an HTML5 based engine?

    You are trying to put your words in my mouth and we are NOT asking for special features. We are asking for exporters that were advertised when we bought our licenses and the bugs to be fixed and the features Scirra has been promoting that now are only included in a C3 Browser subscription engine that very few C2 users seem to want.

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    I have been following these thread for months now and I have heard from less than a handful of people that want a browser based subscription engine and many many C2 users that do not want that so I would like to know specifically why you want that format and how you think that is a solution for your game design?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • > Engines come and go and never a good idea to put all your eggs or games in one basket.

    >

    > To put this in perspective, I am old and started writing commercial games in BASIC for the Commodore 64.

    >

    >

    agreed.

    and C64 was my first love! That's where I learned to love games and coding in BASIC.

    I actually started on the Vic20 when I was about 15 and I was so excited to get a Commodore 32 and then when the C64 came out I was like wow now I can really write some great programs lol!

    I wrote one of the first typing tutors for the C64 and it was just getting some commercial attention when Commodore folded. Sold it on floppy disk.

    So I have seen lots of changes in game languages and engines over the years. Today I program games for fun and to fill a unique niche and C2 is fast and easy to edit so I hope Scirra will continue to support it but if not I also have experience with Fusion and 001 so I will just switch to using those and I prefer standalone exe games anyway.

  • Where did I say anything about HTML5?

    What else do browser based programs run on?

    We all know C2 and C3 are HTML5 based and if someone does not want that format why would they get an HTML5 based engine?

    You are trying to put your words in my mouth and we are NOT asking for special features. We are asking for exporters that were advertised when we bought our licenses and the bugs to be fixed and the features Scirra has been promoting that now are only included in a C3 Browser subscription engine that very few C2 users seem to want.

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    I have been following these thread for months now and I have heard from less than a handful of people that want a browser based subscription engine and many many C2 users that do not want that so I would like to know specifically why you want that format and how you think that is a solution for your game design?

    It sounds more like that you have 2 issues

    1) You feel you were advertised the exporters instead of support of being able to publish to the platforms for Construct 2

    2) You do not like the monetization model (subscription) Construct 3 is going towards.

    I already addressed my opinion on #1 in my prior post.

    For #2 because you're getting the cloud based automated wrapping as part of the sub is still cheaper for many people than the other engines, and it addresses you concerns with Construct 2's process due to the issue with #1 (at least for mobile exports, which is a large demographic)

    Is this correct? You keep repeating Browser Based Sub Model when the browser based part seems like a non-issue from you very own statements, so I hope you can forgive me for trying to clarify the issues rather than relying on the monolith of "HTML5 isn't good enough yet" as the reason to not even use HTML5. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth as I do understand the pains, but wish the core issues can be better communicated.

  • >

    > Where did I say anything about HTML5?

    >

    What else do browser based programs run on?

    >

    > We all know C2 and C3 are HTML5 based and if someone does not want that format why would they get an HTML5 based engine?

    >

    > You are trying to put your words in my mouth and we are NOT asking for special features. We are asking for exporters that were advertised when we bought our licenses and the bugs to be fixed and the features Scirra has been promoting that now are only included in a C3 Browser subscription engine that very few C2 users seem to want.

    >

    > Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    >

    > Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    >

    > I have been following these thread for months now and I have heard from less than a handful of people that want a browser based subscription engine and many many C2 users that do not want that so I would like to know specifically why you want that format and how you think that is a solution for your game design?

    >

    It sounds more like that you have 2 issues

    1) You feel you were advertised the exporters instead of support of being able to publish to the platforms for Construct 2

    2) You do not like the monetization model (subscription) Construct 3 is going towards.

    I already addressed my opinion on #1 in my prior post.

    For #2 because you're getting the cloud based automated wrapping as part of the sub is still cheaper for many people than the other engines, and it addresses you concerns with Construct 2's process due to the issue with #1 (at least for mobile exports, which is a large demographic)

    Is this correct? You keep repeating Browser Based Sub Model when the browser based part seems like a non-issue from you very own statements, so I hope you can forgive me for trying to clarify the issues rather than relying on the monolith of "HTML5 isn't good enough yet" as the reason to not even use HTML5. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth as I do understand the pains, but wish the core issues can be better communicated.

    I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

    You did not answer the question?

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

    There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

    How do you plan on offsetting the cost for that subscription?

    Do you make enough from your games for that because I will bet over 90% of the C2 users are hobby and small time game designers that will not make enough to cover the cost of a subscription.

    No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

    So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

  • I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

    You did not answer the question?

    There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

    Rephrasing questions:

    Are you not worried about bugs that pop up with Chrome and Chrome Updates?

    I am not worried about Chrome issues as they are the same issues you would get with Construct 2 for your exported games. If you're worried you can get the Desktop wrapped version when it's out, or in the meantime download Chrome Portable and use that as an instance. I actually recommend it for testing exports too.

    You could disable auto-updates on Chrome too.

    With Construct 2, Scirra notified us and fixed many issues that did pop up so there is confidence in that happening. Plus if you look at Chrome versioning you will see that the canary and beta builds are far enough ahead of stable that any issues will be known well before they affect the general populous.

    Why do you want an app that is a cloud based program with subscription for it's monetization?

    I can't really say much about the monetization method but I do prefer my own fully featured offline client. But while I do prefer it, other methods may be more feasible for them as a company and it's their job to make sure it inconveniences me as little as possible like any other distribution method/DRM. Chromes Persistent App feature makes the cloud based nature less of an issue on both desktop and android in terms of offline access.

    What if Scirra suddenly just disappears?

    For the Scirra disappearing thing there's 2 scenarios:

    1) Website offline due to outage // User takes computer offline

    How long can they use all features? Is it 30 days like Steam Offline mode?

    2) Scirra stops existing

    In the end if Scirra has to disappear, what is their sunsetting plan? Do they even have one?

    This is something that we should have Ashley answer and have them put into a FAQ since there is much uncertainty over it.

    For the scenario if Scirra exists and your sub ends it's less complicated as you own the code, but due to the model you don't own the right to access the full features of the engine. I have no opinion on that myself as of yet.

    No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

    So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

    The problem is in any discussion like this both sides say they're the majority or the target for the software. You're turning it into an Us vs Them discussion and that's not productive at all. What I'm trying to do is to get the points articulated without that sort of divisiveness.

    You have valid complaints and concerns, but your assumed solution to those complaints and concerns are not the cause itself.

  • >

    > I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

    >

    > You did not answer the question?

    >

    > There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

    >

    > Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    >

    > There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

    >

    Rephrasing questions:

    Are you not worried about bugs that pop up with Chrome and Chrome Updates?

    I am not worried about Chrome issues as they are the same issues you would get with Construct 2 for your exported games. If you're worried you can get the Desktop wrapped version when it's out, or in the meantime download Chrome Portable and use that as an instance. I actually recommend it for testing exports too.

    You could disable auto-updates on Chrome too.

    With Construct 2, Scirra notified us and fixed many issues that did pop up so there is confidence in that happening. Plus if you look at Chrome versioning you will see that the canary and beta builds are far enough ahead of stable that any issues will be known well before they affect the general populous.

    Why do you want an app that is a cloud based program with subscription for it's monetization?

    I can't really say much about the monetization method but I do prefer my own fully featured offline client. But while I do prefer it, other methods may be more feasible for them as a company and it's their job to make sure it inconveniences me as little as possible like any other distribution method/DRM. Chromes Persistent App feature makes the cloud based nature less of an issue on both desktop and android in terms of offline access.

    What if Scirra suddenly just disappears?

    For the Scirra disappearing thing there's 2 scenarios:

    1) Website offline due to outage // User takes computer offline

    How long can they use all features? Is it 30 days like Steam Offline mode?

    2) Scirra stops existing

    In the end if Scirra has to disappear, what is their sunsetting plan? Do they even have one?

    This is something that we should have Ashley answer and have them put into a FAQ since there is much uncertainty over it.

    For the scenario if Scirra exists and your sub ends it's less complicated as you own the code, but due to the model you don't own the right to access the full features of the engine. I have no opinion on that myself as of yet.

    >

    > No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

    >

    > So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

    >

    The problem is in any discussion like this both sides say they're the majority or the target for the software. You're turning it into an Us vs Them discussion and that's not productive at all. What I'm trying to do is to get the points articulated without that sort of divisiveness.

    You have valid complaints and concerns, but your assumed solution to those complaints and concerns are not the cause itself.

    The cause itself is Ashley not listening to the majority of C2 users that have said repeatedly they do not want a browser based subscription engine.

    If you can show me any majority of people that want that then they sure are not posting in the forum and maybe you should start a thread and ask people in the forum if that is what they want and see the response and maybe I am wrong?

    My suggestion has been a compromise all along:

    Scirra can go ahead and finish C3 and see if it is profitable and enough people want it to focus on that in the future.

    They can also use that new team of designers they hired to fix the bugs in C2 and create a C2 update version with the exporters and features we have been asking for for years or make a package of features and exporters as an addon that I believe many C2 users would be happy to pay a reasonable price for without a subscription.

    It is not a one or the other decision and from your own post you have said you would prefer a standalone engine and so would most C2 users so if Ashley and Tom are listening to us that is what they should be doing.

    You might want to look through my C3 thread and this thread and read the many responses of C2 users that are disappointed with the direction Scirra is taking with C3 but as I said I only speak for myself and I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon the C2 users that got them to this point as that will bite them in the end and is what causes businesses to fail.

    Have a good night!

  • I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon C2

    You could've said just this.

    Which of course while they have answered individual posts about it, its sunsetting plan could be in a well placed FAQ somewhere as the communication problem isn't them not listening, more of the information about the concerns are not apparent/easily accessible enough.

  • > I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon C2

    >

    You could've said just this.

    Which of course while they have answered individual posts about it, its sunsetting plan could be in a well placed FAQ somewhere as the communication problem isn't them not listening, more of the information about the concerns are not apparent/easily accessible enough.

    You are welcome to your opinion. I have had many long discussions with Tom and Ashley here in the forum on these issues and I have my opinion.

  • Pretty much misses the point completely!

    If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

    So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?

    Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

    Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

    Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

    I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.

  • That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.

    Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

    Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore

    as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

    Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

    Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

    We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it

    could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

    I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

    *Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

    R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.

  • That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.

    Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

    Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore

    as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

    Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

    Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

    We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it

    could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

    I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

    *Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

    R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.

    Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?

    Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.

    C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.

    I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.

    In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.

    P.S.

    We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.

    Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.

  • Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?

    Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.

    C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.

    I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.

    In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.

    P.S.

    We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.

    Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.

    Scirra chose the price and how to market their tool / what features to advertise it was capable of. And when discussing the potential for commercial success it should be safe to assume these are users who purchased Construct 2 for the maximum (business) priced license.

    Construct 3 isn't really like No Man's Sky, because GDevelop and many other tools have allowed people to make "hobby games" and given access to "educational coding / learning to program" in the browser before C3. If anything, it's like C3 is the clone of No Man's Sky that does a better job of it (Astroneer? )

    However, you do raise a good point. The few people complaining on the Scirra forums are just some of the biggest games made in C2 / the games Scirra uses in their Showcase.

    They might not represent a majority of the Construct 2 userbase, but they are being used to try and sell Construct 2 as a professional tool / to act as bait for other unsuspecting developers looking to bring their 2D games to desktop + mobile + console "faster" than coding-based engines like UE4 and Unity.

    If Scirra came out and said "Construct is intended for hobbyists, students, web games, and educators" then these kinds of big commercial games would still be made from time to time (as there are some people who are happy with desktop/Windows only), but there would be less upset developers as they know in advance that serious WiiU / Xbox One / Mobile development is not going to happen here.

    The problem is that means the amount of people looking to make commercial products in Construct also decreases, so there's less customers buying the more expensive business license. It also means that Construct then becomes more directly competing with "Scratch" and "Kodu" than the other game making software that is commercially available. Very different marketing tactics would be needed too.

    So with the current marketing, it's almost like Scirra is thinking "Who cares if customers of our users eat them up alive on Steam reviews and forums?" (eg: when we can't make the game work on average-level Steam PC hardware or bring our game to Wii U), and that's what makes the developers here / in past threads upset.

    An idea that came around earlier was for Scirra to try making their own commercial large game (I'd even suggest specifically make it a platformer, to experience the joys of jank, which still occurs even in C3), and I'd rather put money towards that than a C3 license right now, just so that they understand these frustrations.

    Anyway, it's been said a lot and jayrp1 is right, I'll save my breath on this now because, as I had mentioned earlier, we've had to move on at our small studio and C# isn't so bad after all.

  • Continuing a little on what Jayjay said I purchased C2 before the "big devs" were showcasing.

    I believed the marketing speil on the front page and thought it should delivered (hint hint, it hasn't)

    The recent push of showcase games in the last 3 years, didn't therefore intice me to buy, just motivated me to continue and defend C2, if these guys could do it, I can. (Super Ubie Land was a big one with the Wii-u promises)

    Only in the end, they couldn't, no fault of their own. Hindsight I wish it became more apparent that C2 was at fault largely and not outside reasons. It's have saved me the last few years of time on 2 mobile games that failed to export with well enough performance and 2 "PC" games that barely run on mid-range PCs. (Yes optimized to the hilt, lowered the scope to bare minimum)

    Every attempt to jump to a different engine has bounced me back to C2 because of "ease of use", but its a ridiculous situation because my time is ultimately wasted in C2.

    Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently and jump ship to Fusion 3. Following the devblog, looking real promising.

  • Continuing a little on what Jayjay said I purchased C2 before the "big devs" were showcasing.

    I believed the marketing speil on the front page and thought it should delivered (hint hint, it hasn't)

    The recent push of showcase games in the last 3 years, didn't therefore intice me to buy, just motivated me to continue and defend C2, if these guys could do it, I can. (Super Ubie Land was a big one with the Wii-u promises)

    Only in the end, they couldn't, no fault of their own. Hindsight I wish it became more apparent that C2 was at fault largely and not outside reasons. It's have saved me the last few years of time on 2 mobile games that failed to export with well enough performance and 2 "PC" games that barely run on mid-range PCs. (Yes optimized to the hilt, lowered the scope to bare minimum)

    Every attempt to jump to a different engine has bounced me back to C2 because of "ease of use", but its a ridiculous situation because my time is ultimately wasted in C2.

    Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently and jump ship to Fusion 3. Following the devblog, looking real promising.

    Can I see those PC games in a video or can they be downloaded ?. I'm making a PC game and I'd like to see if NWjs will work fine. I have investigated some games like pinkman and according to the critics of steam it seems that NWjs works well. There are no problems or criticisms about that.

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