Concerns from a "Serious" developer

    I don't understand why are you guys still talking about the Wii U since :

    1- It didn't sell pretty well.

    2- Everybody is talking about the Nintendo Switch.

    So It won't be any surprise if Nintendo decides to drop support of the Wii U next year.

    Scirra should be focusing on the Switch since most engines are preparing exporters for it.

    NotionGames, Jayjay, tarek2....

    Strongly agree as well.

    I fell for it to.

    "Build Once, Publish Everywhere" instead should be:

    "Build A Prototype, Port to none of the platforms we have listed unless it's just the browser." You may

    get lucky in the future with more support--but it is a gamble--and just know you will likely be wasting

    your valuable time unless all you want to do is make browser games. Also the team has shown no real interest in solving this issue so be warned."

    I don't understand why are you guys still talking about the Wii U since :

    1- It didn't sell pretty well.

    2- Everybody is talking about the Nintendo Switch.

    So It won't be any surprise if Nintendo decides to drop support of the Wii U next year.

    Scirra should be focusing on the Switch since most engines are preparing exporters for it.

    Switch has no browser yet (available to the public at least) so we don't know how well it will/wont run.

    However WiiU is still a valid audience, theres a lot of people with WiiU who won't upgrade to Switch any time soon. It's an audience starving for good games

    Microsoft Construct. There's your roadmap.

    I spent a year learning Construct a few years back because it advertised "no programming," and I didn't want to learn programming. And then I noticed most of the games I was creating looked like everyone else's, a pack of clones and mobile-looking derivatives. I learned to program. Now I don't use Construct.

    Scirra spent years taking C2 and putting it in a browser and equipping it with some features they weren't able to put into C2. I had high hopes for the engine. Maybe it would be something fresh and evolved from C2 with more power. No, it's C2, in a browser. It targets devs who make browser games and probably the education market for teachers to show kids how to make games without programming.

    Then, they'll probably sell to the highest bidder. I would. They might not, but I've used a lot of programs over the years that are now owned by a different entity.

    Even if you do a research about x game engine, there's always bumps in the road. 2 years ago for a release in the previous studio I was working for, when Unity switched version to 5, a lot of plugins specially for rendering were broken in the process. There's always issues that you can expect and there's always a way or workarounds. In the case of engines like Unity and Unreal there's a reason why you can obtain source code now.

    But to be honest, personally I don't see the issue, I mean, if Scirra can't offer export to consoles, then you change projects. In the world of indie dev you can't just stay with one product just because you are an artist and can't code. I'm an artist and yet I learned to code. Necessity pushes you to it, that's all. is not the first time a dev quits Scirra to change engine.

    Slain which saw a major release was a C2 project and yet was forced to change to Unity. Engine was simply too limiting.

    I...don't think you understand how game development works as a commercial interest. If you start working on your game in an engine that claims to have X features, and then after working on a project for a year or so it turns out that the claimed features are a total fabrication, you've just cost yourself potentially tens of thousands of dollars in lost time, not to mention sales revenue. You can't always just "change your products." Maybe if you're making games on the side or just for fun you can, sure. But not if you're developing commercial products.

    I...don't think you understand how game development works as a commercial interest. If you start working on your game in an engine that claims to have X features, and then after working on a project for a year or so it turns out that the claimed features are a total fabrication, you've just cost yourself potentially tens of thousands of dollars in lost time. You can't always just "change your products." Maybe if you're making games on the side or just for fun you can, sure. But not if you're developing commercial products.

    Exactly!

    Also how much research can one really do? You generally look for games that have been published (which there are very few because of exporting reasons, abandoned projects, and more), you look at the free version, etc. But here's the thing, you won't know the major issues with exporting by using the very limited free version. From my knowledge, you can't even export. So what's given to prove the claims on the front page? Especially before the majority of the showcase projects went up around 2013 and later.

    I feel like there's this strange divide between c2 users who have tried to create a commercial project and experienced the shortcomings, and those who have not. Stating we could simply change engines is really unfortunate and a really messed up solution after developing a project that took time and money/resources to complete.

    What this thread should show everyone is that yes you can make games with Construct! But what can you do with said games once they're complete???

    That's a MAJOR issue!

    On a more personal level, NotionGames, it's commendable that you are here voicing your concerns, especially in your position (Anyone else reading this that have been vocalising their opinions lightly or strongly, it's great! It's great to get everyone's opinion and learn what everyone is here for, even the frequent opinion of "can we have native exports".). I have mostly taken the back seat and observed, I've stopped developing in C2 due to a fear of a random unexpected direction that Scirra may/may not take, heck I've stopped developing completely and it sucks, although I'm only a hobbyist. But your thread has taken off, seeing it suddenly appear on the forum with so many pages really shows you have made an impact and created a lot of discussion, hence why I've crawled out from under the shadows once again to comment. Perhaps the sudden surge of discussion is due to your position, or it's the way you've written your posts, but either way, keep on keeping on, you speak for more people than you may realise.

    Thank you, I was the same way. I lurked the forums daily and never really said much. But I am seeing that more and more users are feeling jaded and there are a lot of us who really do care about Construct. I finally felt I had to say something about it, regardless if some people dislike me for bringing up issues. I've listed my projects to show that I have a lot of experience and that I have brought a lot of them to completion on various platforms... and every single platform besides hosting online I've had huge problems.

    I'm glad you decided to comment as well. Good to hear from more of the community

    > I don't understand why are you guys still talking about the Wii U since :

    > 1- It didn't sell pretty well.

    > 2- Everybody is talking about the Nintendo Switch.

    >

    > So It won't be any surprise if Nintendo decides to drop support of the Wii U next year.

    >

    > Scirra should be focusing on the Switch since most engines are preparing exporters for it.

    >

    Switch has no browser yet (available to the public at least) so we don't know how well it will/wont run.

    However WiiU is still a valid audience, theres a lot of people with WiiU who won't upgrade to Switch any time soon. It's an audience starving for good games

    It's not a valid audience for C2 developers, sadly. Somewhere upthread Ashley mentioned something about it "not supporting WebGL," which, like many statements Scirra makes, is only true in the vaguest sense. As Nintendo typically does, they rolled their own graphics acceleration solution that IS supported in NWF (pretty sure that's public info, so I'm comfortable saying it publicly). Scirra chose not to support it and went with their usual "this is non-standard so we won't support it" line of defense that I've never heard any other engine developer use because no product sticks 100% to the mythical idea of "standards" to succeed. I mean...C2 can't even move a single sprite across the screen smoothly on Wii U. That's not an issue with the console. That's an issue with the underlying engine technology.

    Thank you OP for creating this thread. I agree. I love, love, love the event sheet system. But I dislike being limited by the HTML5 only output.

    Also I dislike to see many good ideas, suggestions, fixes getting shut down very quickly with dismissive replies.

    In my humble opinion I want to see alternative output other than Javascript/html5. Of course many of the stuff, plugins rely on that but I know we will get new authors for plugins that will work for the new output code be it c++. c# etc.

    I have a feeling people will be screaming "TAKE MY MONEY" by then.

    Well, I can say from personal experience having had many long debates with both Ashley and Tom on these same subjects for the past few months that Ashley does not listen to other people.

    So unless we can convince Tom and the other Scirra staff of the need to make the C3 features and exporters available to the large number of C2 users that do not want a browser based subscription engine then it is all for not.

    If they are going to abandon C2 then they should release it to public domain and let those people that developed the plugins and addons work it over to include those features and exporters but I don't see that happening.

    So all we can do is just keep telling them what we want and let them see if C3 is profitable and if it isn't maybe they will come back to C2 and decide keeping their base happy is important.

    If not- there are other options out there and more every year it seems!

    digitalsoapbox

    12 years of experience as Dev working in companies in Montreal is not experience enough? I'll be damn then.

    I went through a long process of the whys I would need to change and even if it cost time = money still my best solution in the long run is to switch to another engine. Its simply a matter of risk and reward. Business are also made of that, it seems.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    digitalsoapbox

    12 years of experience as Dev working in companies in Montreal is not experience enough? I'll be damn then.

    I went through a long process of the whys I would need to change and even if it cost time = money still my best solution in the long run is to switch to another engine. Its simply a matter of risk and reward. Business are also made of that, it seems.

    Then you understand that working as a developer isn't the same as being the person selling games commercially, correct? Or that when a company such as Scirra says their tool can do something, it should be able to do them, and not do them in the most half-assed way possible, if they actually do them in any way that is commercially viable at all?

    I can't believe people are still here having this convo after all this time. You can argue and point things out all you want, but it's not going to change anything. JayJay and I have learned from our mistakes and we've moved on. This is not and can not be a serious development tool (C2), and yes it was advertized as such and those of us who are serious devs have paid for the software and may not have gotten what we wanted out of it. That's life.

    But you've blindly put your faith in something that isn't going to change, even after being told time and again that it won't. After being shown that your problems have fallen onto deaf ears. There have been enough signs to show people that if they really want to make a game and port it for that matter, this is not the tool to do it.

    I love the editor to death, but the engine can't be taken seriously. And the bottom line is, it's not your engine to change and they don't have to do it.

    If you don't like what it is, it's time to move along.

    I'm with you on what you are saying here.

    However they clearly say it's an HTML5 Gameengine for 2D games so I can't understand the discussion about 3D and Native Export. Since that was known before buying the product.

    I do not like C3 as it is right now but I wouldn't say that their marketing was misleading. You get what you saw, it's just not THAT easy to achieve and does not work for all and every case. But I get the anger and frustration that's in the air and that's totally understandable.

    Anyhow, we should be happy to habe the freedom to take such things out in the official forums. Other communities are way more restrictive in that case.

    Tom and Ashley should consider working on a second / complimentary product which brings in native exports by taking the JSON structures that contain the project logics and having it run by a native implementation of the c2/3 runtime. At least they would not need to remake the editor :S but I believe that might be really more complicated to keep features even across all export options. I'm sure people would throw their money (additional to the subscription) at them.

    NotionGames off topic: so happy to see you around. I've been stalking you every now and then, eagerly waiting for your next game.

    digitalsoapbox just trying to understand your point here?. To me its simple: Scirra did not deliver so I move on. personally I got tired of waiting for features.

    1 years current project work will take me around 4 weeks in Unity, so not that bad after all.

    I can't believe people are still here having this convo after all this time. You can argue and point things out all you want, but it's not going to change anything. JayJay and I have learned from our mistakes and we've moved on. This is not and can not be a serious development tool (C2), and yes it was advertized as such and those of us who are serious devs have paid for the software and may not have gotten what we wanted out of it. That's life.

    But you've blindly put your faith in something that isn't going to change, even after being told time and again that it won't. After being shown that your problems have fallen onto deaf ears. There have been enough signs to show people that if they really want to make a game and port it for that matter, this is not the tool to do it.

    I love the editor to death, but the engine can't be taken seriously. And the bottom line is, it's not your engine to change and they don't have to do it.

    If you don't like what it is, it's time to move along.

    I think many of us have already moved on to using other tools, though we still hold out hope that Scirra will start listening to what's being said to them at some point because we like the idea of how Construct works, and we understand what's possible with that way of working. I know my favorite part is getting to skip a lot of the setting up of functionality, and other than that it just feels like any old game development tool, with (most of) the kind of features I'd expect.

    People are stubborn, and the kind of people who gravitate towards both game development and tools for game development are, I think it's safe to say, never short in the stubbornness department. If Scirra were more straightforward and a bit more honest with both their marketing and themselves in relation to what their tools can actually do, this discussion would never have happened in the first place. But here we are, and even though some of us feel we've been sold a bill of goods that's yet to be delivered, we're still holding out hope. Which I would think is exactly the kind of passionate community any of us posting on the topic would kill to get for our games...if more people could play them.

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