Petition to include built-in exporter/compiler in Construct3

  • I don't think they need to include it in the core features. I would happily pay more for additional packages later on... like.... Native Exporters, 3D support, Project Planning, Team features, Monetization, etc etc... Maybe then they could lower the prices for the core product for hobbyists, and have a Tiered subscription, or additional packages for people who want more advanced features and support.

  • We've been clear on this for a long time - we're not doing native exporters. I wrote about this in detail here: https://www.scirra.com/blog/ashley/28/the-case-against-native-engines

    In many cases, doing a native engine won't actually get people what they're asking for - e.g. it won't improve GPU-bottlenecked games. We've also been clear that 3D amounts to a different product so we're sticking to 2D. There's nothing new about any of this.

  • We've been clear on this for a long time - we're not doing native exporters. I wrote about this in detail here: https://www.scirra.com/blog/ashley/28/the-case-against-native-engines

    In many cases, doing a native engine won't actually get people what they're asking for - e.g. it won't improve GPU-bottlenecked games. We've also been clear that 3D amounts to a different product so we're sticking to 2D. There's nothing new about any of this.

    I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Is it possible to have C3 any time in the future do the actual HTML5 wrapping and skip the middle man? Intel XDK, Visual Studio, CocoonJS etc etc.

    When you export a HTML5 project you get a ready to go application you can upload directly to app stores? I don't get why this is such a big issue. Could anyone care to explain why it's difficult. It's basically a browser window without the address bar loading the HTML5 game from a local source?

    When you export your HTML5 game, you can play it in practically any mobile browser. When you hit export... include the browser? This is a mystery to me... What makes CocconJS, Intel XDK, etc a necessary step, when developing for mobile?

  • > We've been clear on this for a long time - we're not doing native exporters. I wrote about this in detail here: https://www.scirra.com/blog/ashley/28/the-case-against-native-engines

    > In many cases, doing a native engine won't actually get people what they're asking for - e.g. it won't improve GPU-bottlenecked games. We've also been clear that 3D amounts to a different product so we're sticking to 2D. There's nothing new about any of this.

    >

    I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Is it possible to have C3 any time in the future do the actual HTML5 wrapping and skip the middle man? Intel XDK, Visual Studio, CocoonJS etc etc.

    When you export a HTML5 project you get a ready to go application you can upload directly to app stores? I don't get why this is such a big issue. Could anyone care to explain why it's difficult. It's basically a browser window without the address bar loading the HTML5 game from a local source?

    When you export your HTML5 game, you can play it in practically any mobile browser. When you hit export... include the browser? This is a mystery to me... What makes CocconJS, Intel XDK, etc a necessary step, when developing for mobile?

    Don't look at me. I am Scirra's products user for past 6-7 years and even I have no idea why they refuse to follow the route that practically EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET are following and what is the most request feature on this forums.

  • I'm not going to keep making the same points about native engines, I wrote a whole blog about it already.

    You should probably come up with a different name to talk about exporters - I equate "native exporters" with "native engines". I think you mean built-in exporters or something like that?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I'm not going to keep making the same points about native engines, I wrote a whole blog about it already.

    You should probably come up with a different name to talk about exporters - I equate "native exporters" with "native engines". I think you mean built-in exporters or something like that?

    Ashley

    I have changed the title with built-in compiler/wrapper. I'm sure that's what everyone means.

    We just don't want to go through Cocoon, Intel XDK or Phonegap. It's a huge pain in the *ss when something is changed in C2/C3 everytime. Or the 3rd party messes up somewhere / don't fix old issues and so on.

    I can only keep begging about this, and hope that you guys will make it happen.

    We are not angry and ranting because we like to, we do it because we love Scirra and are scared about what will happen next time we are exporting a project and are going to encounter issues on free 3rd party compilers/wrappers.

    PLEASE listen and consider just this feature. It's absolutely vital when you look at all the issues on the C2 forums!

  • I'm not going to keep making the same points about native engines, I wrote a whole blog about it already.

    You should probably come up with a different name to talk about exporters - I equate "native exporters" with "native engines". I think you mean built-in exporters or something like that?

    Yes, sorry for the terminology. As a Designer I speak a different language Built in exporter Is probably more in line what people mean when they talk about native export here.... Completely agree with the case against native, as I've read the blog post several time trying to wrap my hand around it. I could care less what codebase is used if performance is similar.

    So let me rephrase that.... How big of an hassle is it to have a "built in exporter" for mobile development? As a designer I'm jost looking for workflow improvements, less hiccups, and hassle.

    Optimal workflow... Create game. Hit export, upload to Store...

    Current workflow... Create game, hit export, import to 3rd party wrapper, build, get plugins working, .... it's not working... try again.... contact support... if you're lucky. Upload to store.

    I'm only looking for workflow improvements. How you guys solves it it's up to you. I trust you completely... native or non native, i could care less, as long as my game is downloadable from app store without having to use XDK and such.

  • We know it's a pain point. We've got a lot to announce and show off over the coming weeks so just bear with us.

  • > I'm not going to keep making the same points about native engines, I wrote a whole blog about it already.

    >

    > You should probably come up with a different name to talk about exporters - I equate "native exporters" with "native engines". I think you mean built-in exporters or something like that?

    >

    Yes, sorry for the terminology. As a Designer I speak a different language Built in exporter Is probably more in line what people mean when they talk about native export here.... Completely agree with the case against native, as I've read the blog post several time trying to wrap my hand around it. I could care less what codebase is used if performance is similar.

    So let me rephrase that.... How big of an hassle is it to have a "built in exporter" for mobile development? As a designer I'm jost looking for workflow improvements, less hiccups, and hassle.

    Optimal workflow... Create game. Hit export, upload to Store...

    Current workflow... Create game, hit export, import to 3rd party wrapper, build, get plugins working, .... it's not working... try again.... contact support... if you're lucky. Upload to store.

    I'm only looking for workflow improvements. How you guys solves it it's up to you. I trust you completely... native or non native, i could care less, as long as my game is downloadable from app store without having to use XDK and such.

    well said ^

  • tunepunk

    Well said!!

    Tom

    If a built-in compiler/wrapper happens, then I'm all aboard!

    $99 or $299 a year, i don't care. I just don't wanna deal with 3rd party compilers anymore.

  • tunepunk

    Well said!!

    Tom

    If a built-in compiler/wrapper happens, then I'm all aboard!

    $99 or $299 a year, i don't care. I just don't wanna deal with 3rd party compilers anymore.

    ^THIS

    Get those 3rd party garbage off my face and I'm paying.

    I am sick and tired of Node WebKit, IntelXDK and alikes...

  • That would be a dream come true!

  • The license change to a subscription model (Raaaa SERIOUSLY !!!!) + the lack of real think news about C3 (yes ok the editor is new and portable but engine is the same) and the most important part for me the lack of NATIVE EXPORT WITHOUT THIRD PARTY PROGRAM is my main frustation.

    I keep on your position since many years Ashley and yes since the years and years past HTML5 wrapper and mobile support is really better and better.

    But i don't want to wait 5 years to build a simple game with 40 mo of packing garbage cause of export.

    The only think i agree 400% with you is for 3D, Construct 2 is a 2D product and is doing those thinks very very well and very very simply.

    You could make very nice and great game with some knowless about GPU and Shader (the best thing you've added in).

    I prefer paid a price for something i've better than a subscription.

    For me, for now (maybe this could change) i'm sad to say but i won't be a Construct3 User. :'(

    i've buy GameMaker Studio 2 and it's really perfect, fun and easy : https://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio2

    and have all the point i need.

    I've never go with the first version because of the editor and the workflow.

    The new version is really good.

  • The license change to a subscription model (Raaaa SERIOUSLY !!!!) + the lack of real think news about C3 (yes ok the editor is new and portable but engine is the same) and the most important part for me the lack of NATIVE EXPORT WITHOUT THIRD PARTY PROGRAM is my main frustation.

    I keep on your position since many years Ashley and yes since the years and years past HTML5 wrapper and mobile support is really better and better.

    But i don't want to wait 5 years to build a simple game with 40 mo of packing garbage cause of export.

    The only think i agree 400% with you is for 3D, Construct 2 is a 2D product and is doing those thinks very very well and very very simply.

    You could make very nice and great game with some knowless about GPU and Shader (the best thing you've added in).

    I prefer paid a price for something i've better than a subscription.

    For me, for now (maybe this could change) i'm sad to say but i won't be a Construct3 User. :'(

    i've buy GameMaker Studio 2 and it's really perfect, fun and easy : https://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio2

    and have all the point i need.

    I've never go with the first version because of the editor and the workflow.

    The new version is really good.

    Holy cow, look at those game's numbers and quality! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_surprised.gif" alt=":o" title="Surprised">

    https://www.yoyogames.com/showcase

    And then you go back to Construct2's games showcase, 4 years in making...

    https://www.scirra.com/

    Makes you think eh?

  • > The license change to a subscription model (Raaaa SERIOUSLY !!!!) + the lack of real think news about C3 (yes ok the editor is new and portable but engine is the same) and the most important part for me the lack of NATIVE EXPORT WITHOUT THIRD PARTY PROGRAM is my main frustation.

    >

    > I keep on your position since many years Ashley and yes since the years and years past HTML5 wrapper and mobile support is really better and better.

    > But i don't want to wait 5 years to build a simple game with 40 mo of packing garbage cause of export.

    >

    > The only think i agree 400% with you is for 3D, Construct 2 is a 2D product and is doing those thinks very very well and very very simply.

    > You could make very nice and great game with some knowless about GPU and Shader (the best thing you've added in).

    >

    > I prefer paid a price for something i've better than a subscription.

    >

    > For me, for now (maybe this could change) i'm sad to say but i won't be a Construct3 User. :'(

    > i've buy GameMaker Studio 2 and it's really perfect, fun and easy : https://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio2

    > and have all the point i need.

    > I've never go with the first version because of the editor and the workflow.

    > The new version is really good.

    >

    Holy cow, look at those game's numbers and quality! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_surprised.gif" alt=":o" title="Surprised">

    https://www.yoyogames.com/showcase

    And then you go back to Construct2's games showcase, 4 years in making...

    https://www.scirra.com/

    Makes you think eh?

    I know right.

    I was looking to see earlier how the clickteam community is doing for a potential alternative to C2/3, browse youtube, typed "clickteam fusion showcase"

    Many many videos and well made looking projects.

    Did the same with "construct 2 showcase"

    Essentially bugger all.

    Pretty eye opening.

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