Petition to include built-in exporter/compiler in Construct3

>

> > Actually, it was THE reason I've spent them last time. Well, shame on me. Got lured/fooled by those:

> >

> >

>

> It didn't lie. You can publish everywhere. To be fair, the image didn't say it'd be EASY.

>

I know right? Guess I should have read the fine print in that size=1 font

JEJEJEJE Nice one bro

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.

I understand well why people like the products, but Apple is getting greedy. Safari is not updated because Apple wants to sell more developer licenses. If the Safari supported up-to-date HTML5, people wouldn't by their developer licenses.

It's a business decision for Apple.

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

Yeah, Apples great.

Unless you pay them $1000 more?

I know right? Guess I should have read the fine print in that size=1 font

Lol.

>

> > 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!

Tom , Ashley , ludei , xmnboy .. Couldn't have wrote it better! This is the killing feature! This would define Construct 3. This will kick the ass of all the other competition if there is any. If Construct 3 can directly spit out APK / IPA file and handles all the signing keys both for googleplay/appstore. I don't care if it has a 2-3 days processing (reasonable fee for every export) if they do it manually by outsourcing to a cheaper center or creating ties / interface with Intel or Adobe or Ludei. The $99 price is a steal comparing it to https://cocoon.io/pricing and https://build.phonegap.com/plans, of course doing it by yourself via IntelXDK is always free.

Couldn't have wrote it better! This is the killing feature! This would define Construct 3. This will kick the ass of all the other competition if there is any. If Construct 3 can directly spit out APK / IPA file and handles all the signing keys both for googleplay/appstore. I don't care if it has a 2-3 days processing (reasonable fee for every export) if they do it manually by outsourcing to a cheaper center or creating ties / interface with Intel or Adobe or Ludei. The $99 price is a steal comparing it to https://cocoon.io/pricing and https://build.phonegap.com/plans, of course doing it by yourself via IntelXDK is always free.

I wouldn't say this "kicks the ass" of the competition, but would be needed to put Construct 3 back into the runnings as a serious game development tool (I can export a signed APK straight from Unity, not just as a debug version).

It might not be native, eg: can still use a wrapper, but one-click export would be a very important step like you say

> Couldn't have wrote it better! This is the killing feature! This would define Construct 3. This will kick the ass of all the other competition if there is any. If Construct 3 can directly spit out APK / IPA file and handles all the signing keys both for googleplay/appstore. I don't care if it has a 2-3 days processing (reasonable fee for every export) if they do it manually by outsourcing to a cheaper center or creating ties / interface with Intel or Adobe or Ludei. The $99 price is a steal comparing it to https://cocoon.io/pricing and https://build.phonegap.com/plans, of course doing it by yourself via IntelXDK is always free.

>

I wouldn't say this "kicks the ass" of the competition, but would be needed to put Construct 3 back into the runnings as a serious game development tool (I can export a signed APK straight from Unity, not just as a debug version).

It might not be native, eg: can still use a wrapper, but one-click export would be a very important step like you say

To be fair, all I (we), ever want(ed) was a

One button click to produce APK / IPA wizard.

We acknowledge that the construct editor is the best innovative editor out there, that's why we are here.

If this happened, then you could be sunning it up on a tropical island, with all them subscriptions.!

> Couldn't have wrote it better! This is the killing feature! This would define Construct 3. This will kick the ass of all the other competition if there is any. If Construct 3 can directly spit out APK / IPA file and handles all the signing keys both for googleplay/appstore. I don't care if it has a 2-3 days processing (reasonable fee for every export) if they do it manually by outsourcing to a cheaper center or creating ties / interface with Intel or Adobe or Ludei. The $99 price is a steal comparing it to https://cocoon.io/pricing and https://build.phonegap.com/plans, of course doing it by yourself via IntelXDK is always free.

>

I wouldn't say this "kicks the ass" of the competition, but would be needed to put Construct 3 back into the runnings as a serious game development tool (I can export a signed APK straight from Unity, not just as a debug version).

It might not be native, eg: can still use a wrapper, but one-click export would be a very important step like you say

Being a unity dev myself, I don't think Construct 2 can be in par with Unity (I assume there is no competition LoL). I also don't expect them go toe in toe with Unity. I think focusing on 2D game platform, low learning curve development cycle and less-technical casual game developers community is where Scirra's strength is. Putting a direct export will allow Scirra to see more made in Construct projects out in the market, giving Scirra more visibility.

Guys! we got it! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy"> <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

https://www.scirra.com/blog

This is not a unique feature in any way and the games are still bundled with a web browser - thus bigger apk files.

Most other game engines support spitting out a native APK that is not bundled with a web browser like construct's html5 games - thus smaller file size.

Fusion, game maker, unity, unreal - they all compile to android's native apk.

Even free and open source game engines such as Godot export to native apk - without having to do much setup.

None of those engines requires internet connection to export an apk either.

I really don't understand why this is a killer feature

It's still has a number of big disadvantages:

• Your apk is about 80+ mb bigger than a native apk. If your game is 2 mb, when you export it - its 82 mb This is a big deal when you develop for an app store, because there are limitations of file size there

-The games use more memory, because they are played through a web browser

• You require internet connection to export and even have to pay sub fee (the main point - it being BUILT IN is NOT met)

Scirra does not want to make native exporters to save money and you are just thanking them for still having the same problems as before, but instead now you will be using their web server to compile the packages. They are likely using the same technology xdk has and node.js on their server side- so the same apk comes out. Only scirra will be fixing the exporters now.

blurymind Why do you need 80mb? I guess you could just use the device built in browser and use webview to load the game?

https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/gettingstarted

I doubt software like Android Studio adds a copy of chrome for each project, but I could be wrong. I havn't tried it, but it wouldn't make any sense to package a full browser version with every app you make. Just the regular built in browser with hidden address bar and other functionality for example.

Maybe Ashley could clarify a bit further how the build result would look like in terms of filesize?

I think for Android WebView would be the way to go. The only drawback is that you can't access some hardware sensors. If your game runs well in the regular phone browser, it would probably run just as well using WebView..

I'm sure iOS would have a similar technology to WebView so, and hopefully Windows 10 universal apps as well. For me bundling a copy of browser for every webapp just seems ridiculous.

tunepunk / Tom most probably they are using crosswalk to generate thier android builds. Should be less than 20mb or 50mb depending on the native feature used. Haha i dont want to compare unity or unreal to Construct in terms of full features and competiveness, i would be bias to unity. Scirra is playing a different ball game in my perspective targeting 2d casual game devs or to semi matured one or hobbiest. My 11 year old kid couldnt pickup unity decently but can easily understand C2 and get a satisfied product.

Scirra does not want to make native exporters

True, and they stated that about a thousand times. I don't get why are you surprised about this.

I think having control over the full export process is a huge step forward. I personally like this feature very much. Android 5+ market share is growing and soon you won't have to worry about the packaged Chromium browser since you can just release your project to use WebView. I made a build like this with XDK for one of my projects using C2. I got a package with 5MB size. And the project weighted around 4MB.

> Scirra does not want to make native exporters

>

True, and they stated that about a thousand times. I don't get why are you surprised about this.

I think having control over the full export process is a huge step forward. I personally like this feature very much. Android 5+ market share is growing and soon you won't have to worry about the packaged Chromium browser since you can just release your project to use WebView. I made a build like this with XDK for one of my projects using C2. I got a package with 5MB size. And the project weighted around 4MB.

Completely agree. I do most of the testing for my projects on the built in browser. If my game doesn't run well there, It's not gonna run well bundled either. I'm pretty sure the C3 mobile exports are using WebView. Hopefully we can get some more details on this later on. That's a HUGE step in the right direction. People getting firmware and OS updates will always have the latest WebView functionality as well I suppose. You don't need to rebuild your game with new chromium version..

I am not surprised at all.

let's see if they reveal in more detail

>

> > Scirra does not want to make native exporters

> >

> True, and they stated that about a thousand times. I don't get why are you surprised about this.

>

> I think having control over the full export process is a huge step forward. I personally like this feature very much. Android 5+ market share is growing and soon you won't have to worry about the packaged Chromium browser since you can just release your project to use WebView. I made a build like this with XDK for one of my projects using C2. I got a package with 5MB size. And the project weighted around 4MB.

>

Completely agree. I do most of the testing for my projects on the built in browser. If my game doesn't run well there, It's not gonna run well bundled either. I'm pretty sure the C3 mobile exports are using WebView. Hopefully we can get some more details on this later on. That's a HUGE step in the right direction. People getting firmware and OS updates will always have the latest WebView functionality as well I suppose. You don't need to rebuild your game with new chromium version..

Tom Given their resources, they will totally screw up building their own native export / hybrid framework (unless they really built one but haven't announced yet) it is better for them to leverage to stable existing ones.

So you have your exporter then.