Petition to include built-in exporter/compiler in Construct3

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 level of coding you need to know to reach those results on GameMaker is HUGE! Most of them are probably made by expert coders who know how to make external dll files and so on.

Gm originated in about y2k

Construct about 2008.

if they add a built in wrapper, oh boy i will pay how much they want!!

i HATE having to going to third parties to wrap, i HATE having to pay a service when i already pay for an engine.

Newt makes a good point. Pretty much every other tool has been around for years longer than Construct 2. There's no reason Construct made games can't be as popular as the big hits from other engines, we think it's only a matter of time.

We see developers using Construct all the time who obviously have the talent and creativity, just a bit more luck is needed!

>

> 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 level of coding you need to know to reach those results on GameMaker is HUGE! Most of them are probably made by expert coders who know how to make external dll files and so on.

I haven't seen much from GM that couldn't be achieved in C2. There just haven't been as many games of that quality that have actually been finished with C2 because the user base is much smaller and more focused on mobile. (And yeah, export problems. C2 is worthless if you want to release on consoles, which is a big target for that kind of project) But it can still easily produce games of that quality.

I would adore a built in export function with C3 - Mac support should make this process one step closer for iOS; as previously you had to develop on PC, compile to Mac, sign the export... now it's all on Mac!

But a word to the HTML5 bashing; I know we all get frustrated with browser support and Chrome issues, but I cannot stress how mammoth the growth of HTML5 has been since C2s inception; the difference in quality and scope of support is staggering.

And it's picked up critical mass, everything is shifting towards web, cloud and cross platform; before the decade is out the Internet of Things will be well in effect, and web technologies like AJAX, JSON, HTML5, CSS3 and Node.js are leading the way.

>

> >

> > 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 level of coding you need to know to reach those results on GameMaker is HUGE! Most of them are probably made by expert coders who know how to make external dll files and so on.

>

I haven't seen much from GM that couldn't be achieved in C2. There just haven't been as many games of that quality that have actually been finished with C2 because the user base is much smaller and more focused on mobile. (And yeah, export problems. C2 is worthless if you want to release on consoles, which is a big target for that kind of project) But it can still easily produce games of that quality.

To clarify: the coding you have to know when using GameMaker, Construct does for you with all the excellent built in behaviours. There's nothing that says that a game made with Construct couldn't enjoy the same success. An inspired developer and some luck will do the trick <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

The problem with native exporters is that it puts you at the mercy of soulless corporations like Apple. There is a reason Safari support for HTML5 is trash: because it forces people to use the Apple store and buy the Apple iOS developer license.

Apple will die in the flood of open source. Scirra's choice to go HTML-only is a good one imo. Technology is going to the world of open source and open standards, and corporations are relegated to developers of new technology.

People begging for native exporters is like begging to back to ritual stake burnings for witches.

Oh, sorry — , I was mostly responding to irbis and building on what you said.

Apple will hardly die. Too many use idevices. I have iphone and ipad. My guy have iphones and imacs. We have imac to tv too.

Many normal people like iphone because of its "idiot easy" to use. So to say.

Plus you can't deny the pull of branded image. (it is simply so....)

So Apple will definitely be there for a while more.

They do need to get their butts off to make better browser, that one I agree.

The problem with native exporters is that it puts you at the mercy of soulless corporations like Apple. There is a reason Safari support for HTML5 is trash: because it forces people to use the Apple store and buy the Apple iOS developer license.

Apple will die in the flood of open source. Scirra's choice to go HTML-only is a good one imo. Technology is going to the world of open source and open standards, and corporations are relegated to developers of new technology.

People begging for native exporters is like begging to back to ritual stake burnings for witches.

Apple is not going anywhere. Most open source is crap and there's no way it's going to kill an entire platform. I think you say this because you don't really understand why people like Apple products. And if you understood that, you would understand why Safari doesn't get updated as much.

> The problem with native exporters is that it puts you at the mercy of soulless corporations like Apple. There is a reason Safari support for HTML5 is trash: because it forces people to use the Apple store and buy the Apple iOS developer license.

>

> Apple will die in the flood of open source. Scirra's choice to go HTML-only is a good one imo. Technology is going to the world of open source and open standards, and corporations are relegated to developers of new technology.

>

> People begging for native exporters is like begging to back to ritual stake burnings for witches.

>

Apple is not going anywhere. Most open source is crap and there's no way it's going to kill an entire platform. I think you say this because you don't really understand why people like Apple products. And if you understood that, you would understand why Safari doesn't get updated as much.

Speaking of updates, my Ipad3 the won't get any.

Yeah, Apples great.

Speaking of updates, my Ipad3 the won't get any.

Yeah, Apples great.

There's that. I have an old iPad 3 too. Still works great, but it's not supported anymore and newer apps won't work on it. Not that new apps would work on it anyway. It came out in 2012. Mobile technology has came a long way since then.

There's no reason Construct made games can't be as popular as the big hits from other engines, we think it's only a matter of time.

We see developers using Construct all the time who obviously have the talent and creativity, just a bit more luck is needed!

True, there's already a few great games made in Construct 2, and people really start to recognize them once the developers switch engines/the games have been ported to consoles using other engines

> 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.

Couldn't have put it better!

I think what the majority of sensible users are asking for is a built in exporter and wrapper all in one, that then spits out an apk/ipa.

This will definitely cushion the blow of subscription fee disappointment and convince users that the fee is worth it.

If they can do this then I'm definitely sold!