So What Is Your Second Impression of C3 And Will You Buy?

    > Was about to suggest that the game jam be related to benchmarking somehow, but it feels like I've said that before.

    >

    I have a feeling the gamejam will be a disaster- using a buggy/untested product isn't going to go over well with people who want to make their games work in a short period of time.

    Well it's always been about what you can do with what you have. The problem starts when people equate what you shouldn't do, as something you can't do with the product.

    What they have is viable, it's just going to be very niche, at least till some really big advances come around, cli exporter, new runtime, etc.

    It pains me to say, but I just can't see the worth as is, not when I'm struggling with a saturated market, that this will only add to.

    Not to mention that the C2 store seems to have stagnated in response.

    I don't believe c3 will be usable by serious devs for at least another 2 years - runtime re-write anyone?

    I have a similar feeling, but for different reasons- They are using the latest browser tech which isn't supported across all devices/computers. So it might take a couple years for everything to balance out. It's a good strategy for Scirra if they want to get a headstart, but I think it just means that for a while it's going to be messy.. Not everyone is going to have the right setup to use C3.

    Agreed, though the issue extends past people being able to use C3 to make games - it extends, to I think a greater degree, to people's ability to run games made in C3.

    C2 wasn't capable of anything past a simple, low-end, highly buggy games for the first few years of its existence, but that was a LONG time ago in game dev tool years, and I have strong doubts any users will be willing to put up with those kind of issues these days in any substantial numbers. Certainly not enough to encourage buying into a subscription service.

    So it's C2, if you're willing to deal with potential consumers not being able to run games on hardware that runs output from other engines just fine, with serious limitations on what platforms Construct-created games can run on, or switching engines. It's not realistic to expect users to wait years for a product they're paying for/subscribing for to hit a point where it's usable in commercial products. Even then, there's a strong chance it won't perform as well as other engines that are much farther ahead in terms of features and performance. Repeated, easily disproven claims that Construct can run as well as native apps doesn't help engender any real trust on the part of users towards Scirra, either. Misleading claims of what "benchmarks" show just makes it worse.

    I can't really imagine how anyone thinks C3 is ready for prime time at this point. It needs months or potentially years more work before I'd consider it worth paying for. Even compared to C2, it's just so far behind where it needs to be. Maybe after the engine rewrite, which is really what should have been launched to begin with, and definitely after plugin support is full-featured and we see the more useful stuff come over from C2 that allows the kind of features a game engine should be expected to have.

    I've only tried out C3 for a short period, but I found it slick and smart. Also, seeing it in my browser was great!

    I am working on a game that may be able to utilise some C3 features, so will make the jump at the end of this month!

    I wonder what the specs are for the Macs Scirra is using to test C3? A lot of us Mac users are having issues.

    I'm also concerned about C3 being Chrome exclusive. Where's the logic in that? The whole point of making games for the web is that your content is accessible by anyone with an internet connection. As of right now, it's only reasonable to test your games in Chrome. And who knows, maybe our games only work well for those Chrome users have the latest build of Chrome installed. This frustrates me.

    I wonder what the specs are for the Macs Scirra is using to test C3? A lot of us Mac users are having issues.

    I'm also concerned about C3 being Chrome exclusive. Where's the logic in that? The whole point of making games for the web is that your content is accessible by anyone with an internet connection. As of right now, it's only reasonable to test your games in Chrome. And who knows, maybe our games only work well for those Chrome users have the latest build of Chrome installed. This frustrates me.

    Eventuality C3 will be able to run on Firefox or even able to cross browser previews. Currently, all games if ran on chrome fine would be able to run on all the latest browsers just fine. The exports should have same results.

    The only irreversible damage around here is from what ever that guy is smoking.

    WebGL is only an experimental feature on Chrome

    webgl is not an experimental feature.

    The new runtime announcement has got me somewhat hopeful. If I knew it would make console deployment actually viable outside of Xbox One, and not just on paper like what seemed to be the case with WiiU, then I'd sign up on release. Right now though, C3 seems nice but I'm not chaining my projects to a subscription deal unless I get a really good reason to.

    As an end user, I fail to understand the logic behind the subscription (rental) model right now. The product (C3), is clearly unfinished and at the time of the sales it will be more or less the same as C2 (C2.3 as it has been stated).

    After that, at some point vaguely in the future, a new runtime rewrite will bring all that C3 is meant to be. Meanwhile, the customers will rent a product that will undoubtedly have many shortcomings (as all new software have), and will be like beta-testing a full product while waiting for the rewrite to complete.

    The product as it is in the browser doesn't feel quite right yet, and in its current beta state is crashing a lot into my machine. I remember after buying C2 back at 2013, there was a bug that when pressing alt and/or ctrl in the layout (to zoom with the mouse wheel) the program crashed without a reason. And at that time, autosave wasn't implemented yet. It looks like a new cycle of similar problems is to be expected, this time at the price of an annual rental fee.

    Also, the promise for a desktop version or support for browsers other than Chrome, is yet to receive a clear date. This is again something that doesn't appeal to me as a consumer and I fail to grasp its marketing value.

    All those things said, I'm not the best example of a developer, I'm just a hobbyist that used C2 to make a graduate project for my university degree. But as a hobbyist, I can't justify renting C3 yet, nor for the undetermined future that it will take to be something more that C2, not before adding features and workflows that are clearly missing and after it has proved that is a reliable tool to rent.

    I wonder though, is this vague development road-map attractive for the professionals here? How can you plan your next project not knowing when and if the tool will carry its weight and what the technology will bring in the future? I've always felt like Construct was the tool for the days to come, not for the present, and this feeling is more evident nowadays, with the introduction of C2.3 (not C3 yet...)

    Sorry if I sound pessimistic, C3 clearly wasn't what I was expecting or hopping for, however, I am impressed with what Ashley and the team have managed to make so far, and I am just looking for an excuse (it will have to be a damn good one) to motivate me again and jump on-board, even for fooling around, making silly stuff with style!

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    One day I'll get a grip.

    Yeah, new name, same terrible aftertaste. No, I'm not talking about C3.

    As an end user, I fail to understand the logic behind the subscription (rental) model right now. The product (C3), is clearly unfinished and at the time of the sales it will be more or less the same as C2 (C2.3 as it has been stated).

    After that, at some point vaguely in the future, a new runtime rewrite will bring all that C3 is meant to be. Meanwhile, the customers will rent a product that will undoubtedly have many shortcomings (as all new software have), and will be like beta-testing a full product while waiting for the rewrite to complete.

    The product as it is in the browser doesn't feel quite right yet, and in its current beta state is crashing a lot into my machine. I remember after buying C2 back at 2013, there was a bug that when pressing alt and/or ctrl in the layout (to zoom with the mouse wheel) the program crashed without a reason. And at that time, autosave wasn't implemented yet. It looks like a new cycle of similar problems is to be expected, this time at the price of an annual rental fee.

    Also, the promise for a desktop version or support for browsers other than Chrome, is yet to receive a clear date. This is again something that doesn't appeal to me as a consumer and I fail to grasp its marketing value.

    All those things said, I'm not the best example of a developer, I'm just a hobbyist that used C2 to make a graduate project for my university degree. But as a hobbyist, I can't justify renting C3 yet, nor for the undetermined future that it will take to be something more that C2, not before adding features and workflows that are clearly missing and after it has proved that is a reliable tool to rent.

    I wonder though, is this vague development road-map attractive for the professionals here? How can you plan your next project not knowing when and if the tool will carry its weight and what the technology will bring in the future? I've always felt like Construct was the tool for the days to come, not for the present, and this feeling is more evident nowadays, with the introduction of C2.3 (not C3 yet...)

    Sorry if I sound pessimistic, C3 clearly wasn't what I was expecting or hopping for, however, I am impressed with what Ashley and the team have managed to make so far, and I am just looking for an excuse (it will have to be a damn good one) to motivate me again and jump on-board, even for fooling around, making silly stuff with style!

    C3 isn't what anyone was hoping for. But it is what it is. Embrace it, or leave it. It's pretty much that simple. If you're not a pro who makes a living off this thing, why bother? Serious question. For all those who keep regurgitating the same points over and over: learn how to program, use a serious development tool, and make games. Or move to an engine that supports your workflow and ethics. There are plenty to choose from. I've made the move from Unity to Godot now. C3 is good for what it is.. a web engine for browser games.

    C3 isn't what anyone was hoping for. But it is what it is. Embrace it, or leave it. It's pretty much that simple. If you're not a pro who makes a living off this thing, why bother? Serious question. For all those who keep regurgitating the same points over and over: learn how to program, use a serious development tool, and make games. Or move to an engine that supports your workflow and ethics. There are plenty to choose from. I've made the move from Unity to Godot now. C3 is good for what it is.. a web engine for browser games.

    Nothing in life can be deduced into a black or white choice in practice. However, since this isn't a rhetorical debate and the title of this topic is quite straight forward, I just expressed my thoughts around a specific subject.

    I can't grasp the benefit from a user's stand point when renting a not yet released product (aka C2.3) and how someone can schedule his or hers projects based on a vague development road-map (C3.0)...

    For all I know, Construct isn't being marketed as a "serious development tool" like you say, so even me (with my small experience and what little time and hopes I have invested in it) have to argue about the direction Scirra is taking as all, be it hobbyists like me, or professionals like you. I agree that there are many hats to choose from nowadays and nobody is holding anyone from picking an other software, my regret is that I like Construct, I've learned to use it for small demos and silly stuff that I make for my self, and now I feel like I'm somewhat evicted for no real reason...

    Also, we don't really know yet what C3 will be, it's too early to tell if it will be only good for web games, I think that in the long run it wont, it will be quite capable, but how long that will be...? Unknown.

    You, having made the move to other software, are lucky my friend. Me, not having the time or the mental capacity to do so, well... I nag and argue a bit...

    C3 isn't what anyone was hoping for. But it is what it is. Embrace it, or leave it. It's pretty much that simple. If you're not a pro who makes a living off this thing, why bother? Serious question. For all those who keep regurgitating the same points over and over: learn how to program, use a serious development tool, and make games. Or move to an engine that supports your workflow and ethics. There are plenty to choose from. I've made the move from Unity to Godot now. C3 is good for what it is.. a web engine for browser games.

    No one is really asking you to read and participate in this thread. If you tire of reading about the same issues people are having with C3, maybe its best to avoid threads like this. There's a feel good thread somewhere on this board. I think it's called, "Positive Vibes."

    And if you already moved on to Godot, why are you still here trying to order people around? It makes no sense.

    I don't mean to be a negative Nancy all the time, but "wait for c3 runtime" on all the most voted features on the new requests platform doesn't make me feel great.

    You, having made the move to other software, are lucky my friend. Me, not having the time or the mental capacity to do so, well... I nag and argue a bit...

    I probably should have mentioned I was talking about an overall "you", not you personally. The "learn to program" part, however, still applies. There's always Fusion3 if you don't want to learn though.

    >

    > C3 isn't what anyone was hoping for. But it is what it is. Embrace it, or leave it. It's pretty much that simple. If you're not a pro who makes a living off this thing, why bother? Serious question. For all those who keep regurgitating the same points over and over: learn how to program, use a serious development tool, and make games. Or move to an engine that supports your workflow and ethics. There are plenty to choose from. I've made the move from Unity to Godot now. C3 is good for what it is.. a web engine for browser games.

    >

    No one is really asking you to read and participate in this thread. If you tire of reading about the same issues people are having with C3, maybe its best to avoid threads like this. There's a feel good thread somewhere on this board. I think it's called, "Positive Vibes."

    And if you already moved on to Godot, why are you still here trying to order people around? It makes no sense.

    Eat my shorts, Moot. I can post in any thread that you can. And if you wonder why I'm still "here," it's because I paid for the program I still use as a prototype tool, that's why. I have the freedom to say what I please and to reiterate the fact that people should learn to program and stop griping about the direction C3 is going as much as you have the right to repeat yourself verbatim.

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