Many publishers do not accept construct2 html5 games

What do you think about this?

I think the statement is a bit vague.

It is hard to think about something if we don't know the reason behind this, why are they refusing them? Pretty sure that "Construct 2" is not a synonym of "Refuse me pliz thx gdbye", so they must have a reason for that

Hi,

thanks for the new game.

Unfortunately we dont accept C2 games at the moment.

And another publisher same, but he does not accept game maker html5 games too

You should ask them why, this is just plain boycotting if there is no reason

Can confirm - currently working through a headache with a publisher, trying to talk about source code is a nightmare.

My experience is with publishers using my HTML5 work as a kind of white-label service though; I can't see any issues with a simple publisher who posts games to portal.

Hum... that kind of sucks, it also sucks for people doing hand-writing complex code I would guess

If its something technical like say not being able to use an iframe, thats one thing(albeit idiotic), but if they just flat out refuse to use a game because its made with C2 we need to know why, and who.

Also anybody not purchasing the game outright, and saying they must have the source sounds a bit fishy.

Maybe a lot of C2 user (hobbyist or quickmoney people) submitted LQ games to them and gives them an impression of C2 games are worthless? That's dangerous, given that C2 is the easiest tool to make games, it's logical to think that a lot of LQ games are shoved into the publishers face.

To clarify in my case, the need for source files were for adjustment to fit a "wrapper" (not a wrapper in the sense most of us are used to) app - the licence was a custom exclusive.

Maybe a lot of C2 user (hobbyist or quickmoney people) submitted LQ games to them and gives them an impression of C2 games are worthless? That's dangerous, given that C2 is the easiest tool to make games, it's logical to think that a lot of LQ games are shoved into the publishers face.

The publishers I work with never have a problem with quality (which isn't really engine dependent as the HTML5 market is overwhelmingly cosmetics driven) but rather dev usability; they want a source file that they can open in something like Notepad++.

I'm literally conversing with a dev at the moment about this issue, and as I'm code-ignorant, I'm clinging to the hope that an unminified c2.js is something that can be worked with, or I'm going to have to suggest they get busy with the C2 SDK and make a plug-in that can do what they want in-engine.

Finger crossed...

Can confirm - currently working through a headache with a publisher, trying to talk about source code is a nightmare.

My experience is with publishers using my HTML5 work as a kind of white-label service though; I can't see any issues with a simple publisher who posts games to portal.

It can be this, because theese 2 publishers do not want only exclusive licence... they 100% want to modify game, i think

— E Bear yeah that would be a bit annoying. There is no front end to a southbound C2 game, and you definitely don't want to mess with the backend.

Thats where the sdk comes into play I guess.

Edit:

#ilikebigbutts

The publishers I work with never have a problem with quality

I think I should change my wording from "quality" to "no effort" then, because I'm referring to gameplay/playability. Cosmetic wise is also a factor, but gameplay gives bigger impact imo.

I'm sure I read somewhere in FGL forum ... or probably TIG? cant remember, but oh well, I mean games like "click button to change avatar" with no purpose what so ever, the publisher were so fed up to be flooded with "no effort" kind of game. He told that the numbers of game like that are in hundreds (probably exaggerating to vent out his frustration)

DuckfaceNinja I think publishers try out the games before looking into how they are made.