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?
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.