Concerns from a "Serious" developer

I wouldn't call anyone "serious" who can't even invest in their own business, blaming everyone else for not providing a smörgosbord of everything that you "might need".

A functioning export is a pretty fair request of a game engine you're paying for. I bought my C2 business license for the same price as Visual Studio 2010 Professional which came with a whole lot more content than Construct 2, but it's not designed specifically for making 2D games so of course I didn't expect it to do the things I expect C2 to do out of the box (and similarly I don't expect C2 to do programming specific things VS 2010 does).

As for in-app advertising, if that's *the* way that devs are making money on mobile, then not supporting it means you can't really make a viable commercial game for mobile no?

There's people trying to make games full-time with tools like Construct 2, they're "serious" and they are investing in their own business.

It's not about "Well C2 works for my one specific game", or arguing about "how serious" someone is. They purchased a tool that suggested it was ready for real commercial development in its marketing, and it falls short of the mark. They're paying customers, we're all paying customers, and if the advertising is wrong it should be changed.

Time is valuable, even "spare time", it has a monetary value, part of why we pay for Construct 2 is because it was supposed to save us time on the basic parts of an engine and let us focus on the core elements of games: Art, SFX, and logic

It's a question of greed really.

A few more "serious" developers for Scirra, versus hundreds of exploitable indie games for the consoles.

A Serious Dev is worth a thousand shovels.

Look what FNAF did.

> I wouldn't call anyone "serious" who can't even invest in their own business, blaming everyone else for not providing a smörgosbord of everything that you "might need".

>

A functioning export is a pretty fair request of a game engine you're paying for. I bought my C2 business license for the same price as Visual Studio 2010 Professional which came with a whole lot more content than Construct 2, but it's not designed for making 2D games so of course I didn't expect it to do the things I expect C2 to do (and similarly I don't expect C2 to do programming specific things VS 2010 does)

Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

I have to disagree, WiiU, iOS and Android are three of the top four platforms they are advertising as "Build Once. Publish Everywhere." on the Scirra homepage ( https://www.scirra.com/ )

Looking at Construct 3, it's the same, they list "HTML5, Steam, iOS, Android" and thankfully took off the WiiU export ( https://www.construct.net/ ).

Also, desktop export has been a nightmare, our game still doesn't work on Linux and Mac OSX because it's larger than 500MB. The "GPU drivers are bad so native is bad" argument also falls apart when the same hardware that gave CC issues is giving C2 issues anyway (net difference is zero) and the slew of other JavaScript/NW.js specific issues that our customers have on Steam has been awful (and our only defense after we have done every work-around and optimization we can is "Sorry, it's the engine!").

Once again "Serious" developers are getting surprise gotcha's that you may not have encountered personally/yet, but they basically are show-stoppers. We spent the past year porting our prototype to C# in Unity and have made immense gains that would be seen as "impossible" to people who haven't yet encountered the dark side of C2 and started looking around at what other engines have been up to since CC died.

I also feel like the Construct developers have become married to their baby, and because of this

they are reluctant to make the huge changes we all want. HTML5 hasn't progressed like was thought, so there

is a bit of denial here.

If money/captilisism is an issue why not put together a kickstarter page to gain the funding needed to help

hire a team needed to bring us the features we want and ask for? I'm sure Construct would

get the support it needs. I'm sure current users will kick out money when they see

the features are going to be added that they've been dying for over the years. I know I would. This isn't impossible thinking. Even if it means they have to wipe the slate clean, and start building backwards from the foundation. We would all wait if we knew we were getting what we want. Construct could be the ultimate developer tool and rise to #1 used game development tool... it could be a billion times more than what it is. It could be what we all hoped for.

Way too idealistic, I love it of course, but you'll need developers who are a hell of a lot less stubborn for this to happen.

Davioware summed up my own feelings.

Also can't help but think their ultimate goal of having a complete package in a browser is to make themselves look attractive to a big company like Google or Microsoft to buy them out.

> Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.

>

I have to disagree, WiiU, iOS and Android are three of the top four platforms they are advertising as "Build Once. Publish Everywhere." on the Scirra homepage ( https://www.scirra.com/ )

Looking at Construct 3, it's the same, they list "HTML5, Steam, iOS, Android" and thankfully took off the WiiU export ( https://www.construct.net/ ).

Also, desktop export has been a nightmare, our game still doesn't work on Linux and Mac OSX because it's larger than 500MB.

Once again "Serious" developers are getting surprise gotcha's that you may not have encountered personally/yet, but they basically are show-stoppers. We spent the past year porting our prototype to C# in Unity and have made immense gains that would be seen as "impossible" to people who haven't yet encountered the dark side of C2 and started looking around at what other engines have been up to since CC died.

I don't even know why android, iOS, windows phone etc, is on the list for C2, since it pretty much required 3rd party build service. I'm not arguing with that, exports to advertised platforms should work... period... without hassle. You need to be able to run your games....But providing a plethora of plugins for every ad network, monetization model, game type and platform. I would not say that's scirra's job, especially not for the price we're currently paying, which is dirt cheap.

tunepunk Agreed, but Scirra does get to decide their final price and I think commercial developers would be fine if in-app ad plugins were a business license-only feature or an otherwise optional, paid asset on the asset store.

Although I think yet another way to solve that whole issue regarding IAP though is premium/paid support, which would be one of the few things to actually make sense as a yearly subscription.

That way Scirra's customers can directly have some influence over the direction of the software so it meets their needs, and Scirra can be have a recurring revenue stream to stay in full time operation while still allowing a one-time purchase available to hobbyist developers (with cloud build also being a feature worth keeping behind the subscription pay-wall).

Jayjay

The problem is the pricing. there's pretty much nothing in Business vs Personal that differs (except how much you can earn?). I wouldn't mind paying even more than that if I got access to some of the pro stuff, more export platforms, more ad-networks, pretty much stuff that are targeted at studios rather than hobbyists.

Either that or Scirra should be utilizing their own shop to monetize. They could sell more of their own products. They could make and sell their own plugins, instead of bundling it all for free. I never expect anything to be included, and I'm more than happy to pay for services/tools that makes my life as a dev easier.

If a user base in a certain group get big enough we would naturally see more of those type of plugins/behaviors in store.

Currently, I'm making my game in C2, in 3D using Q3D, Multiplayer for mobile.... talk about shooting my self in the foot??? The worst combination ever.... I would be more than happy to just toss 500EUR on the table, please give me that god damn 3D viewport in the editor, and official 3D support. If it was possible I would pay a developer to make a viewport just for me.... but I've already expored that option it's not possible. I even tried other editors, but I'm not comfortable with anything else than the event sheet..... soooo

I wouldn't mind paying 500EUR also for an Event sheet plugin made by Scirra, for other engines.... that's how much I like the event sheet.

It's clear from majority of posts that people see the potential of construct, but the lack of export is why people are losing faith.

— While I appreciate the C3 engine wasn't built around the idea of console export, my question is shouldn't it have been? When you're building and marketing a product shouldn't you request from your user base a list of requirements or requests? A simple focus group of the top end developers games , who's games they use to advertise the product - this forum in itself has shown with comments from such developers, what they wanted to see in the new software and not only didn't get but were never asked!

It's also a bit ironic that it's not the webgames (with the exception of There is No Game) or mobile games that they're using to advertise Construct but larger "made for desktop" games whos developers have all left because the product didnt support what they needed for those games to be a bigger success. Yet it's the mobile/web games that they seem to be making Construct for and focusing all their efforts?

Agree with —

But the main thing is...If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2?

I think Construct is it's own nemesis sometimes. It's so easy to do a basic game that pretty much anyone can do it with a little bit of learning how the event sheet works. The problem with this is, do the games run well? I can only speak from my own experience trying to develop for mobile. At first I thought, bleehhhh performance sucks, but it turned out it's my own code/events that sucked. It was easy to make the game do what I wanted, but it's so hard to make the game do things efficiently.

I'm sure there is a lot of talent on this forum, and a lot of people have great ideas, but just because you can do things, doesn't mean it will perform great on your desired platform. I've been struggling on and off with my first game for about 2 years. Often I put my main project to the side, and just mess around with C2 and it's capabilities, doing small test projects, just to try out some features/plugins whatever, and learning.

But one thing I noticed, is that it's much harder than you think, very similar to my previous job developing for consoles. When I worked at DICE, we had a very very limited memory budget for UI, for Battlefield: Bad Company. You have grand ideas of what you wanna do but is set back by technology and what you actually can do....

Developing for Consoles is more to it than just pushing out a game. Every console has their own QA department making sure things are up to par, and performing well. It's not like Google Play store where any "developer" can upload their clones and shovelware. You have to make sure on screen elements for buttons follow UI guidelines, and is clearly visible for a variety on TV screens and resolutions. Your game is not going to pass, if it's not up to par, at least that's what it's what like working on AAA title a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's a bit different if the console has an indie dev section.... but anywho

So even if Scirra provided console export, you have a lot more working against you that just creating a game. Even if html5 games were supported better on consoles. It's gonna be pretty hard I guess.

TLDR:

When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.

So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.

It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.

When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.

So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.

It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.

It's a fair point, but I think it comes back to Construct having a bit of an identity crisis - perhaps partly because of its legacy with Construct Classic. I'm developing purely for Windows desktop, and you'd think it would be simple right? Nope. What is C2 actually good for exporting to? Not desktop, not mobile. Browser games, but who plays those? It's like having a Rolls Royce but only being able to drive it up the drive way. I think what the devs are failing to realize is that people are here because of the workflow, not the tech. People aren't attracted to Construct because it's html 5 based - it's the great workflow.

People aren't attracted to Construct because it's html 5 based - it's the great workflow.

I might be in the minority, but I was (and still am) attracted to Construct 2/3 because it is HTML5-based.

My target audience prefers browser-based interactives (education). I do see the point for those who are trying to make money strictly off of games, however. It is hard enough to make a living off of games, and to choose a tool that restricts you to only a small fraction of your potential market is financial suicide.

That being said, I would love to see a great 3D game built in Construct 3 that showcases HTML5's capabilities. The key is that enough people would need to play it and become inspired by it to encourage more developers to shift over to the platform so that more great games would be built using the tool. A lot of stars would need to align for this to happen.

In the end, I love HTML5 because pretty much every kid in school is carrying around a device with a browser, which makes the web such an awesome way to democratize the art form of games. I think Construct 3 has the potential to get there, but am worried about the financial risk to developers.

signaljacker

So actually, Scirra would probably do way better by doing an event sheet plugin for other editors, since they can't cater for the other needs by many of the developers here?

The event sheet is the only reason I chose C2 and still sticking with it. I don't have time, energy, and willpower to learn any coding language. So I kind of have to live with the limited export options in favor doing any game at all... lol.