0 Favourites

Concerns from a "Serious" developer

  • I think most issues ranted here are non issues. You have a pretty basic editor, with a basic toolset, and a basic setup of behaviors and plugins. Where Construct shines is that they have the Event sheet and the capability to make and add your own plugins.

    Nothing for serious developers? Out of the box no, but if you're really that serious and in need of monetization the only thing stopping you is your own ability to create the plugin to fit your needs. Blaming the devs for not providing this and that plugin is a bit childish.

    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".

    I have no need for monetization plugins, I wouldn't wanna ruin my game by slapping ads on it, so for me those kind of plugins is not something I would like them to spend their time on.

    So you're going to sit here and act like the engine wasn't advertised to have all of these things included? Now where is the word "basic" used in the marketing? It's promising exporting to a plethora of devices and every one that I've tried had a lot of issues. I've always had to use 3rd party software to make things work. Now is that ultimately a big deal? Well, yes, actually. If you're going to create an engine and advertise it as basically a one-stop-shop for game dev, then I think it needs to be.

    Bringing up the cost of the engine is also pretty irrelevant because I didn't dictate the cost, Scirra did. If they charged $1000 I probably still would have paid for it given the event system alone.

    You not wanting to "ruin" your game by slapping ads on it is a personal choice. What does that have to do with projects that I build around that style of monetization?

    Have you completed and released a commercial project with Construct 2? If you have, then you'd understand what I mean. Also the engine is promoted as a "non-coding" engine which will obviously attract artists, designers, and people who don't know how to code in general. It doesn't mean you're not serious... You're using a tool that's advertised to suit your needs.

    With things like this written all over the front page..

    "No Programming Required!

    You can now make advanced games without writing a line of code. Construct 2 does the hard work so you don't have to.

    Our highly intuitive event system makes putting your games together quick and easy.

    You've finally found it. The powerful, full featured and professional game development software you've always been looking for.

    Build Once. Publish Everywhere.

    True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms."

    It goes on to list the Wii U, iOS, Android, etc.

    Maybe YOU don't need these things but if I pay for something that promises these things, then that's what I (and I'm sure the majority of customers) will expect.

    And seriously, calm down with the "childish" name calling.

    As for people saying jump to another engine. Yes, I know that's an option. But I do enjoy Construct's workflow and I have been a part of this community for years. I don't simply want to jump ship. I'd like to at least first voice my concerns and see how the community can shape the software before deciding to do that.

  • At the end of the day, working with an easier game engine made me waste more time. I came to realize that having a better notion of coding and also using better tools was the solution.

    this is a terrible outlook. it's never a waste! it's all iterative! the more games you make no matter what your engine or platform the better you get and the more you develop as a maker of games. C2 teaches good game development techniques because of it's limitations. You find that with any engine. I teach C2 and Unreal 4 at a college and all the concepts are the same.

    I think some people want too much from a tool.. seriously.. Construct, Unity, GM, UE4 they are all tools.. and all have pluses and minuses. Sure deployment to specific platforms is a huge deal when considering financial returns. But Construct has never been the goto engine for xbox or any other console. To simply wait for Construct to change and adopt that kind service is not a great decision.

  • I think some people want too much from a tool.. seriously.. Construct, Unity, GM, UE4 they are all tools.. and all have pluses and minuses. Sure deployment to specific platforms is a huge deal when considering financial returns. But Construct has never been the goto engine for xbox or any other console. To simply wait for Construct to change and adopt that kind service is not a great decision.

    To be fair, the Wii U is mentioned and under the "true multiplatform support" section... Also highly on the list. The SECOND export option advertised

    And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

    I'll ask you as well... If you bought the engine with these promises and you create a project to find out what's been advertised basically doesn't work nearly as well as the wording would make you think, would you be okay with that? Teaching coding concepts and releasing a game are two different things. Not saying you haven't and not talking down on your profession in any way. Just making that clear. This tool is supposed to be a professional 2d game dev software. Every commercial C2 dev I've spoken to share my sentiments.

  • I agree with NotionGames about the fact that it was always advertised that C2 could export to consoles. Or at least, some of them.

    Now, I know making games is iterative, heck I've been working in game companies for the last 12 years so and I've worked with either in-house engines and also commercial engines. But

    all I can say by experience is in how many ways C2 was limiting me. Each time I found either bugs or missing features that blocked more than coding would do.

    You should take into account that a few big games started on C2 ended up moving for same reasons.

  • I agree with NotionGames about the fact that it was always advertised that C2 could export to consoles. Or at least, some of them.

    Now, I know making games is iterative, heck I've been working in game companies for the last 12 years so and I've worked with either in-house engines and also commercial engines. But

    all I can say by experience is in how many ways C2 was limiting me. Each time I found either bugs or missing features that blocked more than coding would do.

    You should take into account that a few big games started on C2 ended up moving for same reasons.

    Then the identity and marketing of Construct as a whole should change in my opinion. People's resources, time, energy are being wasted when buying into something that promises to suit their needs. It takes months and sometimes years to build a project. Who wants to reach a huge milestone to find out the engine they thought could export to X platform actually doesn't? OR at least doesn't without the need to use an assortment of 3rd party software.

    Construct is frankly aimed at hobbyists, artists, designers, etc. who would love to make a game but can't code. It also gives them the promise of being able to create professional projects and release them commercially.

    And yes, I am very disappointed. I put a lot into the engine and the community. I taught C2 in classes and more. I just want the software to do what it promises

  • And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

    How many games are on WiiU that use C2? Maybe 2? I actually have no idea. But I know it's very few. My point is if your goal is WiiU, why are you using C2? I say never mind what is advertised. Go with what is being practiced. If anyone is a good example it's The Next Penelope who released on Steam and wanted a WiiU release. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/0 ... uld_happen

  • >

    > And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

    >

    How many games are on WiiU that use C2? Maybe 2? I actually have no idea. But I know it's very few. My point is if your goal is WiiU, why are you using C2? I say never mind what is advertised. Go with what is being practiced. If anyone is a good example it's The Next Penelope who released on Steam and wanted a WiiU release. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/0 ... uld_happen

    My goal was Wii U back in 2013. At that time, no one had a game on the Wii U because the system was new.

    The Next Penelope wanted a Wii U release right? Well we were in the same boat. We thought the engine we had would do it, found out the hard way.

    http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/super_ubie_land_set_to_emerge_this_august

  • People's resources, time, energy are being wasted when buying into something that promises to suit their needs. It takes months and sometimes years to build a project. Who wants to reach a huge milestone to find out the engine they thought could export to X platform actually doesn't? OR at least doesn't without the need to an assortment of 3rd party software.

    Obviously hindsight is 20/20.. but honestly if you are about to set out 2 or 3 years to make something you better do your research and know if that engine has success deploying to your target platform. You shouldn't take Scirra's marketing materials as a sole factor in choosing an engine.

    I'm not bashing anyone that this has happened to.. I'm just saying.. live and learn, it makes sense. But to do so is a HUGE risk.

  • Obviously hindsight is 20/20.. but honestly if you are about to set out 2 or 3 years to make something you better do your research and know if that engine has success deploying to your target platform. You shouldn't take Scirra's marketing materials as a sole factor in choosing an engine.

    I'm not bashing anyone that this has happened to.. I'm just saying.. live and learn, it makes sense.

    Understandable. But someone has to do it first, right? We happened to be the first who have. If it weren't for us who have put a lot into the engine, there wouldn't be any example games to promote with... Now I've reached a point where I have to call them out on it.

  • NotionGames said "Not Listening to Customers

    "I usually keep quiet for the most part on the forums and just read through other's posts. But what I have noticed over the years is that whenever your customers are requesting particular features and overall explaining what they'd like to see happen with Construct, they're a lot of times being told they're wrong in some form. Exporting and monetization are HUGE factors for developers and for some reason, it's never being addressed (at least for the entirety of Construct 2's life cycle)."

    I think that applies whether you are a serious game designer or not and if you pay for a license you still have a right to be respected and I will bet 90% of C2 users are hobby or small time game developers that has supported Scirra all these years.

    I have repeatedly asked Tom & Ashley to respond to these concerns:

    After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

    I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

    Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

    I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

    As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

    I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

    I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.

  • Even if you do a research about x game engine, there's always bumps in the road. 2 years ago for a release in the previous studio I was working for, when Unity switched version to 5, a lot of plugins specially for rendering were broken in the process. There's always issues that you can expect and there's always a way or workarounds. In the case of engines like Unity and Unreal there's a reason why you can obtain source code now.

    But to be honest, personally I don't see the issue, I mean, if Scirra can't offer export to consoles, then you change projects. In the world of indie dev you can't just stay with one product just because you are an artist and can't code. I'm an artist and yet I learned to code. Necessity pushes you to it, that's all. is not the first time a dev quits Scirra to change engine.

    Slain which saw a major release was a C2 project and yet was forced to change to Unity. Engine was simply too limiting.

  • But to be honest, personally I don't see the issue, I mean, if Scirra can't offer export to consoles, then you change projects. In the world of indie dev you can't just stay with one product just because you are an artist and can't code. I'm an artist and yet I learned to code. Necessity pushes you to it, that's all. is not the first time a dev quits Scirra to change engine.

    You're missing my point entirely

    And have you really moved on? Because you're in the forums more than the average user.

  • As a game developer I can agree 100% with the Wii being a bad choice for putting on the first page.

    As a businessman I can agree with what they did a 110%.

  • Yes, some of the wording on their site maybe over selling some of the features and functionality, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out. I've figured that out even before I decided to buy the product. Technically their wording is a bit deceptive, but I take it you've published enough games by now to have figured it out as well. But yes, you can pretty much output a html5 export that you can use for multiple platforms. It doesn't mention it can be pretty hard to get it working though.

    I didn't call anyone names personally, it's just as statement that applies almost anything in life. Anyone ranting and blaming someone else for not not providing a few features THEY need in your development is in fact a bit childish. They can't cater for everyone's wishes. They also have their own idea of what construct is and what it's not, and where thier priorities are.

    I want 3D viewport support, but I know that's not the direction they are going, so I'm doing what I can with Q3D trying to learning that instead of Unity. I can try to build a case on why the should focus on it, but I'm not posting rants badmouthing the devs because they don't provide what I need, saying it's backwards to focus on 2D games..... that's so 80's, 3D and especially VR is the new big thing... if scirra don't provide that they are not listening to customers..... see how you sound now?

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • NotionGames your response baffles me. Because I give my opinion doesn't mean I continue with the engine.

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