The community response to the new 3D features has been one of the most excited and overwhelmingly positive responses to anything we've ever done.
Lots of users want different things from Construct, and in some cases different customers want contradictory things. We have to balance what thousands of people want. Unfortunately it's just impossible to make absolutely everyone happy, but we do our best as a small team with limited resources to aim for what will make the biggest impact for the most people.
That's not to say anyone's ideas aren't good ideas - this sounds good and it would be great to have it. But we have to balance that with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other ideas, and in particular large and complex projects like the one you suggested appears to be are particularly tough. We tend to focus on the things we see lots of customers constantly requesting.
Ashley Yes, I understand that is hard to make everyone happy. I'm not expecting that the Scirra Team can implement every feature that every user requests, good or bad.
Most excited doesn't always mean most beneficial for Construct3. Today, I can't still see how the 3d feature can be a benefit for a user who wants to publish and make money from a game. As I stated above, there is plenty of 3d software. If someone wants to build up a 3d game, they need to change the engine if they want to make something real that can be published and run smoothly. If they want to experiment and have fun, then it's another story. My goal using Construct3 is to make professional good looking 2d games that can be published and make money from them, which is still possible with a lot of hard work and a lot of limitations.
I wanted to rise a problem that Construct3 has: it is pretty limited when designing a 2d platform since we are limited on tilemaps and sprites/tiled background, which means that is frustrating as I talk as a graphic designer who wants to design level as I would paint. If you want to make a nice-looking level, you need to use hundreds or thousands of objects which is not convenient and takes up a lot of resources.
Construct3 still doesn't allow a nice workflow when it's time to design a level. This means that I am spending more time using other software to make what Construct3 could do much faster if a sprite shape was there.
So, it's hard for me to believe that right now the Scirra team is focusing on the 3d features when this tool was made exclusively for 2d games, which I choose for this reason. I'm curious to know how many devs are going to integrate the 3d feature in a 2d game. If making the sprite shape is too hard, then it's another story.
I will keep supporting Construct3 even if I won't see this feature realized. I just suggest focusing on the 2d features that would allow us to make our life easier when designing a game/level.
Just saying, sprite shape on Construct 3 would be an app killer. You will attract hundreds if not thousands of new client if show a workflow demo on how easy is to design a good looking level.