Concerns from a "Serious" developer

    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.

    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".

    A functioning export is a pretty fair request of a game engine you're paying for. I bought my C2 business license for the same price as Visual Studio 2010 Professional which came with a whole lot more content than Construct 2, but it's not designed specifically for making 2D games so of course I didn't expect it to do the things I expect C2 to do out of the box (and similarly I don't expect C2 to do programming specific things VS 2010 does).

    As for in-app advertising, if that's *the* way that devs are making money on mobile, then not supporting it means you can't really make a viable commercial game for mobile no?

    There's people trying to make games full-time with tools like Construct 2, they're "serious" and they are investing in their own business.

    It's not about "Well C2 works for my one specific game", or arguing about "how serious" someone is. They purchased a tool that suggested it was ready for real commercial development in its marketing, and it falls short of the mark. They're paying customers, we're all paying customers, and if the advertising is wrong it should be changed.

    Time is valuable, even "spare time", it has a monetary value, part of why we pay for Construct 2 is because it was supposed to save us time on the basic parts of an engine and let us focus on the core elements of games: Art, SFX, and logic

    It's a question of greed really.

    A few more "serious" developers for Scirra, versus hundreds of exploitable indie games for the consoles.

    A Serious Dev is worth a thousand shovels.

    Look what FNAF did.

    > 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".

    >

    A functioning export is a pretty fair request of a game engine you're paying for. I bought my C2 business license for the same price as Visual Studio 2010 Professional which came with a whole lot more content than Construct 2, but it's not designed for making 2D games so of course I didn't expect it to do the things I expect C2 to do (and similarly I don't expect C2 to do programming specific things VS 2010 does)

    Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

    Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

    I have to disagree, WiiU, iOS and Android are three of the top four platforms they are advertising as "Build Once. Publish Everywhere." on the Scirra homepage ( https://www.scirra.com/ )

    Looking at Construct 3, it's the same, they list "HTML5, Steam, iOS, Android" and thankfully took off the WiiU export ( https://www.construct.net/ ).

    Also, desktop export has been a nightmare, our game still doesn't work on Linux and Mac OSX because it's larger than 500MB. The "GPU drivers are bad so native is bad" argument also falls apart when the same hardware that gave CC issues is giving C2 issues anyway (net difference is zero) and the slew of other JavaScript/NW.js specific issues that our customers have on Steam has been awful (and our only defense after we have done every work-around and optimization we can is "Sorry, it's the engine!").

    Once again "Serious" developers are getting surprise gotcha's that you may not have encountered personally/yet, but they basically are show-stoppers. We spent the past year porting our prototype to C# in Unity and have made immense gains that would be seen as "impossible" to people who haven't yet encountered the dark side of C2 and started looking around at what other engines have been up to since CC died.

    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.

    Way too idealistic, I love it of course, but you'll need developers who are a hell of a lot less stubborn for this to happen.

    Davioware summed up my own feelings.

    Also can't help but think their ultimate goal of having a complete package in a browser is to make themselves look attractive to a big company like Google or Microsoft to buy them out.

    > Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

    >

    I have to disagree, WiiU, iOS and Android are three of the top four platforms they are advertising as "Build Once. Publish Everywhere." on the Scirra homepage ( https://www.scirra.com/ )

    Looking at Construct 3, it's the same, they list "HTML5, Steam, iOS, Android" and thankfully took off the WiiU export ( https://www.construct.net/ ).

    Also, desktop export has been a nightmare, our game still doesn't work on Linux and Mac OSX because it's larger than 500MB.

    Once again "Serious" developers are getting surprise gotcha's that you may not have encountered personally/yet, but they basically are show-stoppers. We spent the past year porting our prototype to C# in Unity and have made immense gains that would be seen as "impossible" to people who haven't yet encountered the dark side of C2 and started looking around at what other engines have been up to since CC died.

    I don't even know why android, iOS, windows phone etc, is on the list for C2, since it pretty much required 3rd party build service. I'm not arguing with that, exports to advertised platforms should work... period... without hassle. You need to be able to run your games....But providing a plethora of plugins for every ad network, monetization model, game type and platform. I would not say that's scirra's job, especially not for the price we're currently paying, which is dirt cheap.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    tunepunk Agreed, but Scirra does get to decide their final price and I think commercial developers would be fine if in-app ad plugins were a business license-only feature or an otherwise optional, paid asset on the asset store.

    Although I think yet another way to solve that whole issue regarding IAP though is premium/paid support, which would be one of the few things to actually make sense as a yearly subscription.

    That way Scirra's customers can directly have some influence over the direction of the software so it meets their needs, and Scirra can be have a recurring revenue stream to stay in full time operation while still allowing a one-time purchase available to hobbyist developers (with cloud build also being a feature worth keeping behind the subscription pay-wall).

    Jayjay

    The problem is the pricing. there's pretty much nothing in Business vs Personal that differs (except how much you can earn?). I wouldn't mind paying even more than that if I got access to some of the pro stuff, more export platforms, more ad-networks, pretty much stuff that are targeted at studios rather than hobbyists.

    Either that or Scirra should be utilizing their own shop to monetize. They could sell more of their own products. They could make and sell their own plugins, instead of bundling it all for free. I never expect anything to be included, and I'm more than happy to pay for services/tools that makes my life as a dev easier.

    If a user base in a certain group get big enough we would naturally see more of those type of plugins/behaviors in store.

    Currently, I'm making my game in C2, in 3D using Q3D, Multiplayer for mobile.... talk about shooting my self in the foot??? The worst combination ever.... I would be more than happy to just toss 500EUR on the table, please give me that god damn 3D viewport in the editor, and official 3D support. If it was possible I would pay a developer to make a viewport just for me.... but I've already expored that option it's not possible. I even tried other editors, but I'm not comfortable with anything else than the event sheet..... soooo

    I wouldn't mind paying 500EUR also for an Event sheet plugin made by Scirra, for other engines.... that's how much I like the event sheet.

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

    >

    > 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

    >

    Well, technically as a Game Dev you need to understand technology and what's possible or not. If you ask Scirra for console development but dont know what's the extent of what you are asking and you expect a positive answer then you might be deceived later.

    I would love for C3 to export to consoles, but since the engine wasn't build around that idea, it might be quite difficult in the future unless consoles embrace HTML5 which its almost impossible. Also, developing for consoles is not just plug and play.

    Only venture would be for them to extent with Unity. But then again might still produce weird results for consoles.

    It's clear from majority of posts that people see the potential of construct, but the lack of export is why people are losing faith.

    FraktalZero While I appreciate the C3 engine wasn't built around the idea of console export, my question is shouldn't it have been? When you're building and marketing a product shouldn't you request from your user base a list of requirements or requests? A simple focus group of the top end developers games , who's games they use to advertise the product - this forum in itself has shown with comments from such developers, what they wanted to see in the new software and not only didn't get but were never asked!

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