Frankly, Whats the point of c3?

I am a linux user, and was looking forward to construct3, but when you announced that it will be subscription only I started going back to looking forward to Fusion 3 - which is also coming out on linux and mac this year

So that advantage is really not that big at the moment, the competition also has it in the bag.

What are the other advantages of construct3 over similar competitive products that have a better license offering?

So far can see a few, but I wonder how scirra sees themselves. What is construct3's edge?

blurymind

Apart from one-time purchases and native-exporting to mobile, what does the "competition" have that's better at game development than C2?

I'm just curious.

Lancifer

Well, a lot of the competition also has real console export alongside native export to desktop, a few of them also have much larger and older communities meaning more resources / purchasable assets and skilled talent if you need to hire team members.

It's also helpful to see past examples of commercial success in the genre(s) your game will be, with each tool too, as it builds confidence in any crowdfunding or other investors in your project.

For serious commercial game dev, it's probably easier and faster to list reasons why Construct 2 and 3's editors are currently the best for 2D, than to list all the other reasons that justify using the other tools available.

For the average freeware hobbiest though, or someone looking to learn the basics of game dev? C2 and C3 are just fine.

Jayjay

Thanks for your input, but I'm already aware of these. Maybe I should have been more specific when I said "competition". Blurymind has consistently pointed out CTF and GM as being C2's competition. I'm just curious to know what he thinks those specific engines have, from a technical standpoint (ie., usability, features, etc.), that's better than C2.

But again, thanks for pointing those out.

Two of our competitors have been around since the 1990's, in comparison Construct Classic was released in 2007. They've had an 8 to 16 year head start. It's only a matter of time for us to get more commercial success made in Construct, and don't see any technical reason there can't be more.

[quote:356wfmjo]Well, a lot of the competition also has real console export alongside native export to desktop, a few of them also have much larger and older communities meaning more resources / purchasable assets and skilled talent if you need to hire team members.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only GM has a larger and more active community than us as far as I can tell. (FWIW, be wary of "Users online" counters. Some forums will count users active in the last 15 minutes, others for much longer periods. Post count is probably one of the better measurements).

Should also count, the Steam community ...

Game maker been around, it seems like, forever. I remember using it before YoYo Games bought it. It use to have an ugly logo of a hammer in front of a red sphere. I remember thinking for the longest time that the developer was Russian. And if I remember correctly, it use to be completely free too before Mark sold it. No surprise they have one of the largest communities.

Edit: Wow, I just checked out the new Game Maker Studio 2 website. It looks amazing! It's come a looooong way.

blurymind

Apart from one-time purchases and native-exporting to mobile, what does the "competition" have that's better at game development than C2?

I'm just curious.

I've mentioned, at length, the up-coming competition's features that will rival C3, but it grated on some members, so I won't repeat. Needless to say, there's many features in C2/C3's dad that will be of great interest to those looking to build more "proper" applications.

Tom just out of pure interest, do you think the new payment model will be the solution to improving C3's competitive edge?

Game maker been around, it seems like, forever. I remember using it before YoYo Games bought it. It use to have an ugly logo of a hammer in front of a red sphere.

Me too. If I'm right it was first released in 1999.

I've mentioned, at length, the up-coming competition's features that will rival C3, but it grated on some members, so I won't repeat.

I think it was just the repetitiveness of it that wore thin Seriously though, the competition does deserve checking out. You should always look at the competition. You should never box yourself in. You as in everyone, not you personally Zebbi

A developer friend and I looked at GM2 for a while before deciding against it. It came down to GML. Why learn a new language for GM2 when I already know C# for Unity? The drag and drop feature is nice, but it's not that great. The extra cost for exporting was also a kill shot as I can export for free to any platform in Unity.

I checked out Fusion3 also since I own Fusion 2.4. Again, same problem as before. So basically, it came down to Unity for major production at little to no cost and Construct for rapid prototyping and quick results when wanting to knock out a smaller 2D game with ease. It's important to check out and to try everything that you can before making a decision. C3 is an evolution of C2. That's the point of it. It's growing, it'll change over time and everyone has the option to evolve with it for what it's worth and for what it brings to them and their development needs.

Jayjay

Thanks for your input, but I'm already aware of these. Maybe I should have been more specific when I said "competition". Blurymind has consistently pointed out CTF and GM as being C2's competition. I'm just curious to know what he thinks those specific engines have, from a technical standpoint (ie., usability, features, etc.), that's better than C2.

But again, thanks for pointing those out.

From a technical standpoint, C2 is not the best choice if you want larger games that perform reliably well on mobile or console, because of the technology it's based on and mobile/console support of that technology. If your target is desktop only, C2 is fine. Not being able to export natively, and use native libraries directly (OGL, DX, etc.) is a huge issue, and makes it near impossible to predict performance across a wide range of devices, which is especially relevant on mobile. If you're doing puzzle games or runners, on mobile or web, C2 is fine. Bigger stuff? Sure, it can do it, but as soon as anything hits the rendering pipeline, even without layering on lots of shaders, effects, or particles, performance of C2 is god-awful. This may not even be a limitation of C2 itself (some definitely is, but not all), but since it's depending on 3rd-party wrappers to do, well, basically anything other than a game on a website - and even then, it has to depend on the browser's rendering tech and javascript execution speed - it quickly shows itself to not be the best choice. For example: it's exciting that (at some point) C2/C3 may support XB1 export, but Edge currently sucks at any kind of even basic shader/effect support; throwing a handful of tinted objects or, say, objects with a Multiply or Screen blending mode, and it dies a horrible, stuttering death. Which, since I use these in Sombrero, means Sombrero probably won't run very well on XB1, even though it's not REALLY doing anything that's complicated at all on the shader/effects front.

Is C2 the easiest and most flexible to use for 2D games, if you're looking for an engine that is specifically 2D? Yeah, probably. If you want to create something of high quality that can run on multiple platforms, across a range of consumer devices, and doing so with the performance expected by consumers? Not so much. Using Unity's 2D features would be the way to go, even if some of it feels super kludgey and somewhat tacked on top of Unity's 3D engine.

GM:S has console export by default

CT:F has console export through Chowdren

Unity and Unreal Engine 4 are the next level up from an entry-level user admittedly, but they are the alternatives I am more talking about than the other two above (which also do have more commercial titles coming out with them every year than C2 does).

My main argument here however is that Construct 2 and Construct 3 users looking to make serious, commercial, action games, are (probably) in the wrong place, and that's okay because Scirra still has its awesome way of making games for fun / web browsers

My main argument here however is that Construct 2 and Construct 3 users looking to make serious, commercial, action games, are (probably) in the wrong place, and that's okay because Scirra still has its awesome way of making games for fun / web browsers

I think we are in the right place is we want to make serious, commercial HTML5 games.

I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

This thread has really got me thinking about the strength of Construct 2/3. Most of my work is expressly for the web -- I mostly do interactive simulations for my students, and have no need to port to any other platforms. I might well be in the minority here, but Construct 2/3 is the perfect tool for me: I can build quickly, deploy instantly, directly to my target platform.