Main benefits of converting games from C2 to C3 ?

Hello, I am thinking about switching to C3 from C2. Do you recommend it?

What are the core benefits, and what are the possible risks?

Is it likely that old game script requires a lot of fixing?

Is the C3 online editor as handy to use as C2 installable one?

Currently all C2 games seem to have a nasty bug, always when upgrading games a little, most players receive a black screen issue, does this same problem occur in C3? (c2runtime.js:19994 Uncaught TypeError: ret.set_string is not a function)

There are absolutely loads of new features in C3 compared to C2 - see What's new in C3 for an overview - not least of which includes a completely rewritten runtime with far faster performance.

I wish it were so easy to convert from C2 to c3. my initial game is in construct 2 I switched to construct 3 but I can't use C3 runtime. the functions are different. My project after years of work is in limbo .. I can't use c2 or c3 correctly. example: "mobile Advert" doesn't work with my C2 heritage. in c3 runtime the time scale objects work badly. my internet connection is not very good, that caused me many problems to build.

I still develop in Construct 2 and use Construct 3 to import and then export the final version, although for most games I could just export from Construct 2.

I am not seeing any performance improvement. If a game stutters in Construct 2 it will stutter or slow down in Construct 3 as well. But some minor issues on some phones with physics are not present in Construct 3

Many additional features in Construct 3 which may make your development easier. I'd already had most or all of those figured out in Construct 2 with events so I stick with version 2 for now.

There is also the APK build service in Construct 3

I do not use any 3rd party plugins, so I can usually import Construct 2 files without problems. I did have some issues a while back, but found workarounds.

Personally I'd suggest subscribing for 1 month and trying all you can to see what Construct 3's experience is like - try and port a project or two over and see how complex it is for you, and then you can decide whether to continue subscribing beyond this. You may be pleasantly suprised, but you may encounter things that ruin the experience. Porting your C2 game will be hopefully easy as long as you don't use most of the hundreds of amazing 3rd party plugins in C2.

I'd also say, if your financial situation is great, then Construct 3 could be worth subscribing to, but if you have limited time to develop your games (e.g. you work your day job and only have few hours each evening to develop games) and/or your finances are a bit limited but affordable, then no I could not recommend Construct 3.

I still use Construct 2 too, I subscribed to Construct 3 around April 2020 for a month or two but I cancelled and returned to Construct 2, as it wasn't a smooth experience compared to Construct 2.

One example: on a fresh install of Windows on a fresh Google Chrome install, no addons or anything, I subscribed to Construct 3, tried the "Dark" theme which I really want to use, and it was just laggy as heck for some reason, and I was thinking "I had to pay money to find this out?" since themes are not available in the free version. It was laggy in Firefox too, and then I tried Chrome Canary and it worked correctly... It's just not something I expected after Construct 3 has been out for a few years.

Perhaps the above issue was a Google Chrome issue, but then that's even worse since Google Chrome updates all the time and unexpected things will happen every now and then beyond Scirra's control. There were some bug reports about the "dark theme lag" issue but I never saw the outcome, but in my experience, Construct 2 never had this sort of long-winded issue (other than that "jitter" issue over the years).

Another example is that the "Save to folder" option disappeared one day randomly, and there was 1 mention of this on a random page on a stickied post on the forum, that threw my workflow off since I had to start saving in a different method, not a critical issue but cmon you're paying a subscription, you expect better than this, at least clear communication.

Recently I was trying to get back into Construct 3 by using the free version to test some things, I found a bug when using the drawing canvas - The bug was reproducable but I was not given a workaround or a sign that this bug would be fixed as it was "too complicated to fix" (until I posted about it on the forum and another user was kind enough to advise me with a workaround!). This bug does not happen in Construct 2 when using the 3rd party Paster plugin, so yet again Construct 2 comes off as superior.

These things may never occur to you or others, but it tainted my experience as Construct 2 simply just works imo, even after many windows updates and such (whilst Google Chrome updates and might suddenly randomly break something.)

Another observation I've seen from other users: Even though you're paying a subscription, you will find you will be asked to "report your bug to X company" and such, so you may need to spend time signing up to here there, emailing random companies, etc., which personally I just don't want to spend my time doing considering I'm paying a subscription (I would be more open to learning weird quirks and workarounds within Construct 3 if I was NOT paying a subscription).

It's not like Construct 3 is broken, it's extremely capable as much as Construct 2 is, it all comes down to the cost and what you get out of the money you pay, including support from Scirra. I recently saw one person leave due to Scirra's lack of empathy and overall poor handling dealing with a bug ( construct.net/en/forum/construct-3/general-discussion-7/rare-editor-bug-155235/page-2 ). I also had a negative experience when asking about having a guaranteed method to open and play old C3 files in the future, as much as noone on the thread shared the same sentiment with historic preservation as me (and perhaps using the word "legal" got peoples backs up against the wall), it was handled very unprofessionally imo. ( construct.net/en/forum/construct-3/general-discussion-7/terms-c3-reaches-end-life-152595 )

Thanks, it was a good point of view;

I am bit worried to keep using Construct2 for our new projects as Scirra seems so willing to get rid of that... now newest c2 version had one fix, it started displaying this annoying banner on top that c2 product soon dies.. And there seems to be no real bug fixes coming in any more, for example the issue that players cannot reload the updated game due error "c2runtime.js:19994 Uncaught TypeError: ret.set_string is not a function"

Its totally understandable that Scirra wants customers to move to SaaS payment cycle, but I think their idea to discontinue a good working C2 product may not be a good decision... For example Microsoft still has desktop app Office in addition to their Office365 :)

For many corporate customers its would be preferred to start paying monthly/yearly fee for using C2 instead of migrating all existing games to C3, I am afraid its a quite big task to migrate the code to C3 from C2 due the plugins and 3rd party integrations etc.

Here is an idea for Scirra: Please allow C3 subscribers to use both C2 or C3 and keep updating C2 with the most important bug fixes.

Another example is that the "Save to folder" option disappeared one day randomly

FYI, that's an opt-in experimental feature, and experimental features are subject to change at any time (as indeed it did). It should be shipping as stable and enabled by default soon.

Another observation I've seen from other users: Even though you're paying a subscription, you will find you will be asked to "report your bug to X company" and such

We always had a similar policy with Construct 2 as well. If the problem is with another company's software, you need to report it to them - we can't fix other people's software for them. It's usually quicker to cut out the middle-man and report issues directly. And if we can't reproduce the issue ourselves, we can't file the issue on your behalf anyway, so reporting it yourself is the only option.

Bugs and other quirks and issues always come up with software - we work really hard to make a reliable and robust product, but nothing will ever be perfect. Like most software, Construct 2 always had its own quirks and issues, and people often made similar remarks about Construct 2 as well based on that.

typingmaster

Hmm... It is a worry, but I'd like to think Scirra would resolve a bug like this - There must be C2 apps on the appstores that have been left on there for a few years, but then randomly in the future they might need a mandatory update (e.g. many years ago all Audio broke on HTML5 projects and all HTML5 projects needed updating, or there might be another law about GDPR or cookies that must be added to all appstore apps or something).

It raises the question - if someone needed to update their app after C2 is gone completely, and they were unable to port it to C3 due to 3rd party plugins and such, could they still use C2 to do this, or must they recreate their project in C3 just to add a small mandatory update. The former could be done as long as the bug you are mentioning is fixed, but if the latter is expected, then... well that's going to be bad for people in that situation...

Ashley

That is fair that the "Save to folder" is an experimental feature - I came to C3 hoping to recreate a similar environment to C2, so saving locally is far preferred, but I shouldn't be ticking the box if I didn't want to have unexpected results. I do wish I was informed though, like maybe utilising the C3 "Start Page" to list upcoming changes/warnings, rather than users stopping in their tracks and having to search the forums to see if it's being talked about, even if it is for an experimental feature.

Reporting bugs to companies - Personally I have not had to do this with C2 as you guys were always able to resolve whatever issues I had, but this was an observation of other people on the forum over the years.

My take is: It was understandable to spend time dealing with a bug in C2, but with C3 and paying money over and over for a subscription, time has way more value as we want to be making games and not dealing with reporting bugs to multiple places.

In my opinion, if there was an option to pay a bit extra per month/year for support where Scirra can investigate and contact who they feel is appropriate, I'd be happy to pay that knowing I have a direct path to solving a bug. Then I could focus on making games, rather than learning the intricacies of a bug that will be forgotten about once it is fixed, whilst money comes out of my bank paying for the subscription.

You guys do output an amazing amount of work and effort on C3, there is legitimate and clear talent and knowledge from yourself and your staff. Personally I REALLY want to return to C3 even after feeling a burnt out from previous experiences and even though peers around me think it's a bad choice to go with, but going by personal experience from jumping from C2 to C3, it's been very unpredictable. Hopefully if I try jumping over again, it will be a smooth experience.

If you use third-party addons, you frequently end up relying on them for long-term support. I don't think many people fully recognise this. That's why it's really important to make sure any third-party addons you use for any important projects have reliable developers who are willing to provide long-term support for them. Otherwise you end up in the situation where you really have to update something, but you're stuck because of a third-party addon. And I'm afraid that's not our responsibility - it's not us who caused the problem, it's up to the developer. And long-term support can be difficult, so probably involves paying somebody.

It's kind of a similar point with bugs in browsers, OSs, drivers, etc. From time to time, people insist - sometimes forcefully - that we fix problems in other people's software. It's literally impossible though. Giving us extra money won't make it possible. Choosing other technologies and rewriting our entire engine in them won't make other people's software suddenly start working perfectly again. Insisting harder and more forcefully won't make it possible. This has always been the case, and is true for all software. Some people end up calling me stubborn or irresponsible for insisting we can't fixing these problems, but it is neither possible, nor our responsibility, to fix other people's software. We can sometimes add workarounds, but sometimes we're just stuck. It's just an immovable fact of software development and there's nothing to be done - except get the people who make the other software to fix it - if you can get them to care!