Concerns from a "Serious" developer

    That's the issue that every big Construct 2 game has faced, and it will definitely continue until the web browser stops being seen as a bonus feature on consoles (let alone as a security issue eg: browser exploits, DRM / anti-piracy woes of an open interpreted format), which is unlikely to happen any time soon/in the next generation or two of consoles anyway.

    And that's a shame because it's true. EVERY SINGLE big Construct 2 game has indeed gone through this.

    For people who think that the "serious" dev don't make up much of the community... ask yourself why? How could you build up a serious dev portion of the community when they are missing key features that we are looking for? I'm sure there will always be a bigger hobbyist portion of the community but why hold back the potential? I started off as a hobbyist as I'm sure every serious dev does.

    What makes Construct appealing is the event system. Not HTML5, not having to use wrappers for virtually every platform.

    Insanity's Blade, Super Ubie Island Remix, AirScape, Last Penelope, Sombrero, etc. are great examples of the potential of the engine. We know Construct can make good games... We just need a way for people to experience them! I seriously can't figure out why this is still an issue... Heck, even Konjak (creator of Noitu Love and Iconoclasts) jumped shipped and he was the reason why I looked into Construct in the first place.

    Serious developers really help the brand and generate awareness. Take care of us too.

    It would be different if no one were complaining about this over the years... But we as a community have. And now with the subscription model, I'm going for sure expect more out of the engine to warrant constantly paying for it. Will we ever get what we've been asking for?

    Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

    Would they develop for all of them?

    If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

    Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

    Would their current income method pay for all that?

    Edit:

    Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

    Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    Personally, I use C2 for making little HTML5 games (portfolio: http://td2tl.com) for publishers. I build my business from nothing but I bought a small apartment last year and I'm still going to college ( I should be graduated like 2 years ago lol ) . Without C2 I couldn't do anything. I've tried most of the engines, there is nothing like C2's HTML5 export and Event System. I will definitely subscribe to C3.

    But people are right, because of the export options, there isn't a killer game made with C2. We have good games like Airscape, The Next Penelope, There Is No Game etc. but we don't have games like http://www.yoyogames.com/showcase or https://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery. Most of the serious developers that were using C2 change their engines and C2 remains as a prototype tool. For example, Ori and the Blind Forest and Iconoclasts were Construct games once.

    I don't think people's performance problems would be solved by native exporters but the real problem is the 3rd party dependency. HTML5 exporter is awesome however other exporters are complicated and I don't really trust them <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

    Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

    Would they develop for all of them?

    If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

    Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

    Would their current income method pay for all that?

    Edit:

    Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

    Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

    You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved

    I was always wondering why no one did create something like Cordova/XDK/Electron/NW for consoles yet.

    Shoudn't this be possible? I mean you can most likely integrate webkit code and have that run html5.

    Something like https://github.com/gree/unity-webview wrapping HTML5 into Unity and using the native exporters for creating binaries for each platform.

    Woudn't expect it to be really performant though and maybe MS and Sony woudn't want that, but on the technical side, i believe this could be possible.

    However I do not know anything at all about limitations on console APIs, so maybe thats not possible at all <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

    This is just my opinion as a C2 hobby user who enjoys the software and has made several small games and am currently 3 years into a major project that is only about half way finished.

    Scirra is in the business of making game engine software, they are not in the business of making games. I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.

    I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.

    Absolutely. I think they'd come to some big realizations if they do that. I get the impression they just don't have that kind of understanding one naturally develops when spending lengthy amounts of time making games.

    That's one reason why I'll be trying Godot 3.0 when it is available- godot was developed by game developers, and it'll also have visual scripting in 3.0

    Godot 3.0 stable version is estimated to be released sometime in July.

    Scirra is in the business of making game engine software, they are not in the business of making games. I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.

    Definitely agree with that, I've often felt this way!

    > Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

    > Would they develop for all of them?

    > If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

    > Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

    > Would their current income method pay for all that?

    >

    > Edit:

    > Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

    > Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

    >

    You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved

    Sorry, but Im just being realistic.

    Those questions are rhetorical. I expect most people to already know what the likely answers are.

    A least Im pretty sure what they are, and that's why I look for alternatives to what the answer has been for the past 8 years.

    Nothings changed, with the exception that perhaps subscriptions might allow some of the issues of funding, and manpower to be overcome.

    The solution to this problem is simple. Don't give Construct anymore of your money. That is what I am doing. If enough people turn away from this awful "Construct 3" model then maybe they will start listening to us--THE PAYING CUSTOMERS when they're aren't making any profit.

    I've moved away from here to learn new engines and don't plan on coming back and wasting anymore of my time or money here since I don't feel like our needs have been taken seriously and nothing is really being done to improve upon the features we users actually want or we're looking forward to.

    I used to believe strongly in Construct... but with Construct 3, I've lost all hope. It's not worth the money they are asking for (when you can't do nothing at a professional level to make a professional game.)--I'm speaking of getting your game to consoles and mobile without headaches and issues that make no one--AND I MEAN NO ONE--want to play or pay for your game. I'm speaking of trying to make a masterpiece only to find out it runs like a turd on a few devices and doesn't run at all on the rest. I agree completely with everything NotionGames has said.

    Does anyone else felt like they've been bent over and $&*$#?? I know I do.

    It's up to all of us--as a community--to help Construct become what it needs to become. Don't pay anything until our needs as professional designers as well as paying customers are being met. We need to go on strike here. We as paying customers deserve better.

    Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

    Would they develop for all of them?

    If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

    Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

    Would their current income method pay for all that?

    Edit:

    Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

    Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

    ....

    Sorry, but Im just being realistic.

    Those questions are rhetorical. I expect most people to already know what the likely answers are.

    A least Im pretty sure what they are, and that's why I look for alternatives to what the answer has been for the past 8 years.

    Nothings changed, with the exception that perhaps subscriptions might allow some of the issues of funding, and manpower to be overcome.

    You're right, those questions are probably rhetorical, as the only sensible answer (aka the answer to: "With such a small team, why is Scirra bothering with any runtimes at all when they seem to only care about the editor?") is that they should really just make Construct as a plugin for another game engine. One with hundreds of team members and a very open free edition, perhaps Unity or Unreal Engine 4?

    If Scirra went that route (and it might be even easier to do now that they can just make the Construct editor a browser tab within Unity) then they have a legitimate reason to off-load the complaints about runtime to the engine they used, as they only handle the editing. It'd be a win-win, and it means Scirra gets the jump on making a complete editing environment in the other engines before they eventually do it (Blueprints is probably just the first stage of visual coding in UE4, and PlayMaker is indeed very powerful but just doesn't work/feel quite the same as event sheets).

    But, all of this is written with me assuming that Scirra wants to compete with GameMaker:Studio, Unity, Clickteam (exports to console via Chowdren), and more.

    Because if they don't, then I and every other serious commercial game developer here (who are exporting for desktop + console + mobile) is in the wrong place, and I would be happy to accept that!

    Yet, when they advertise their tool as being for a "professional game developer" (Construct 2 features page), "fast as native" (Construct 2 blog post), and "publish everywhere" (as we can see they still say on Construct3.com ) that is not the message they are sending out to the world.

    It's hopeful future optimism at best and full-on misinformation at worst, and it leads to more developers like us arriving, investing our time and money (and if we run a Kickstarter, our fanbase's money) into a dead-end solution that later leads to cancelled ports and frustration all around.

    I also feel like the Construct developers have become married to their baby, and because of this

    they are reluctant to make the huge changes we all want. HTML5 hasn't progressed like was thought, so there

    is a bit of denial here.

    If money/captilisism is an issue why not put together a kickstarter page to gain the funding needed to help

    hire a team needed to bring us the features we want and ask for? I'm sure Construct would

    get the support it needs. I'm sure current users will kick out money when they see

    the features are going to be added that they've been dying for over the years. I know I would. This isn't impossible thinking. Even if it means they have to wipe the slate clean, and start building backwards from the foundation. We would all wait if we knew we were getting what we want. Construct could be the ultimate developer tool and rise to #1 used game development tool... it could be a billion times more than what it is. It could be what we all hoped for.

    I think technical issues aside, there has been a huge ideological shift from Construct Classic to Construct 3. I understand exactly why, but it's ultimately the end user who suffers.

    I'll preface that the below is a purely subjective opinion, but here's how I see it:

    Construct Classic - it was free, so probably not motivated by money - they borrowed an events based paradigm and and improved upon it. However maybe due to inexperience the foundations it was based on was too unstable to continue, so it was abandoned. I can only assume due to not being motivated by money at the time the guys were trying to build the best game making software and community that they possibly could and that was priority number 1.

    Construct 2 - learning from some of their mistakes on CC C2 arrives, touted as innovative because of HTML 5 technology, but really I don't think anyone was too bothered about the tech behind it so much, it was a great way to work and in the end that's what mattered. I actually always considered the html 5 aspect a drawback rather than a positive thing, but different strokes for different folks... C2 kept them afloat for 5+ years and allowed the team to expand as well. But again it seems that due to its foundations many features that people were screaming for were too difficult to be implemented... so C3 is announced.... is there a pattern emerging here?

    Construct 3 - due to the stresses of expansion, it's understandable that Scirra are no longer motivated to make the best game making software but instead top priority is to keep the team growing. There has been a shift from providing the best possible software, to providing the best way for their team to stay afloat and expand. And perhaps it could be argued that this is necessary to eventually provide the best possible software - but judging from the things that are neglected and also what their competitors are doing this doesn't seem to be the case.

    Now, I understand WHY, of course. But as a customer, instead of having a rich and refined piece of software to use, we have a rehash in a browser and a subscription system. It feels like it's all starting again and it leaves a sour taste. I hate to sound so entitled, but at the end of the day the end user only really cares about the end product. Strip away all the history, the forum interactions, the pleasantries if your product isn't servicing its customers properly there's a big problem and you should re-evaluate your priorities.

    I think technical issues aside, there has been a huge ideological shift from Construct Classic to Construct 3.

    I completely agree with this. I do think they are trying to make the best 2D HTML5 game engine possible still. However they seem to be excited about C3 running in a browser, without asking why people would want it running in a browser in the first place. Yes, it's very cool that complex software can run well in-browser, with hardware acceleration and multi threading. Kudos on the execution of this. I'm impressed at what you've accomplished. But why does professional level software need to be browser-based from an end user point-of-view? One big advantage is multi-platform support. But editing a game on a phone is not useful. Any for-PC game will not even work because there's no touch controls set up and/or the game is too demanding for the hardware. Nobody does work without a mouse and keyboard, it's just not practical. Even something like music creation software is a nightmare to use on mobile devices.

    It's understandable that they're trying to reach a larger market with the multi-platform editor, but at the end of the day people just wanted another big paradigm changing upgrade. The paradigm change this time has nothing to do with the engine itself, but the editor.

    Construct Classic was exciting because it had a great event based language, and the runtime was extremely performant, both in code speed and graphics, it was IMO the best 2D game engine at the time.

    Construct 2 was exciting because it broke new ground on the HTML5 front and made the editor bug free and stable, at the cost of code execution speed (since it moved to JS from c++)(I haven't done any benchmarks recently with chrome's JS engine but I believe it's still slower than Classic). C2 was very well supported and they did their best. HTML5 based games are great in theory and they're almost there, but they aren't quite perfect. Reliance is on wrappers and device support. I'm not surprised that the Wii U can't run a "for-desktop" HTML5 game.

    Construct 3 brings.. A better editor for all platforms (good for non-windows users I guess), and that's about it. I would even call the browser based editor a downgrade for windows users, simply because almost everything that they've added could have been done to Construct 2's editor. A browser based program will never be better than a native application. Easier to write, maybe. Better for the company for control/update purposes too.

    I would never use the chrome based editor for a serious project if I were to use C3 (which is unlikely). It would be static versioned, tested, wrapped windows versions. I can't afford a chrome update breaking the IDE somehow or causing problems. Or what if chrome drops support for feature x or y which construct uses since it's so cutting edge?

    The features in C3 are just quality of life improvements to the editor, or things which won't often be used. I've read all of them. Adding them together does make the experience better, but there's no "wow" features to the engine itself to be excited about, coming from C2. Especially considering the hefty subscription fee. Using C2 just makes more sense unless you want to support Scirra.

    I think most issues ranted here are non issues. You have a pretty basic editor, with a basic toolset, and a basic setup of behaviors and plugins. Where Construct shines is that they have the Event sheet and the capability to make and add your own plugins.

    Nothing for serious developers? Out of the box no, but if you're really that serious and in need of monetization the only thing stopping you is your own ability to create the plugin to fit your needs. Blaming the devs for not providing this and that plugin is a bit childish.

    Ludei, Photon cloud, etc. etc. are providing their own plugins for C2. If there's any plugin you're missing go hunt down the service provider and ask them to provide one, or... get some skillz or invest in a coder, get the SDK's and make your own plugins exactly the way you want them.

    I wouldn't call anyone "serious" who can't even invest in their own business, blaming everyone else for not providing a smörgosbord of everything that you "might need".

    I have no need for monetization plugins, I wouldn't wanna ruin my game by slapping ads on it, so for me those kind of plugins is not something I would like them to spend their time on. But if you need it, check with the ad network to provide their own, make a case, we are so and so many who would like to use ur network, maybe they will do it. Or pay a coder to do it for you. If ADs is part of your business model and would allow you to earn money, why not invest in your own business instead of complaining? A decent coder should have you plugins done in a fairly short time provided the SDK's.

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