0 Favourites

My C3 rant - no exporters no buy

  • Hi everyone,

    I've been a C2 user since 2011 with the first alpha. I started with Construct Classic in 2009 and I was in love with the tool. So much promise and to make PC games so easily was my dream, and it came through when I finished my first big game and released it on Steam.

    C3 was just announced and I was baffled by the path Scirra chose to take.

    While I don't think paying $99 annually for web-based software is that bad (I'll explain why later), I do think it's a bad deal when you still rely on 3rd party tools to get most of your job done and being an in-browser engine this basically confirms it..

    It would be like Adobe asking users to pay to use Photoshop online, but if you want to save your project as a JPEG file "OOPS you need to go to a random website that does it for free".

    What baffles me the most is that C2/C3 are GAME ENGINES. And in my opinion the next big step for any game engine is being able to deliver a game to multiple platforms. You decide to instead focus on usability. What good is it if the editor is great if I still can't have my game working on a Windows desktop without needing 3rd party tools?

    I clearly remember someone saying on the forums that "C3 would just be an editor overhaul" and Scirra coming over and saying "We never said that. C3 WON'T be just an editor overhaul".

    What is it then? Because nothing you've said differ C3 from C2 so far. No matter how good or what stunts the C3 editor could pull off, or how easy it is to make a game on it, it doesn't matter, at the end of the day you'll still have to depend on so much to get your game on mobile/PCs/consoles it would never be worth it (especially not paying $99 for it).

    Now, if I could pay $99 a year and get my game on consoles, or mobile, or desktop without any trouble, I would gladly do so. I don't even think it's a very bad price, and I don't think subscription based payments are completely bad, but I need to know that I'm not going to make my game and have to wait 6 months because something broke on NW.js or IntelXDK.

    I've seen people on the forums saying it's also not worth it for hobbists, too. This made me think a little as to who is C3 for anyway. Console devs won't be able to get their games on consoles, mobile devs will still rely on either IntelXDK or CocoonJs (and break their game every now and then), desktop devs rely on NW.js (and Scirra's broken Steam plugin) and HTML5 devs will get their game running great until they have to add plugins for an specific site (like Newgrounds or Gamejolt). Hobbists would have to pay $99 for it, and if they made a good game and tried to release it, would still have the problems mentioned above.

    Anyway, this is my rant. I'll probably be changing to another engine focused on getting games across all platforms (probably GMS2 or Unreal) since both allow for console development.

  • I'm going to have to agree with this. Construct 2 is great but exporting to mobile can be a huge pain.

    Speaking of which, I am planning on making a small Android game again... is the Intel XDK broken at the moment or will it interact fine with C2 to make Android games?

  • I'm going to have to agree with this. Construct 2 is great but exporting to mobile can be a huge pain.

    Speaking of which, I am planning on making a small Android game again... is the Intel XDK broken at the moment or will it interact fine with C2 to make Android games?

    I don't export to mobile, but I've heard that the cranberry plugins are broken on IntelXDK and some of the official plugins (like iAP and such) only work on some platforms, so yeah, it's a huge mess..

  • > I'm going to have to agree with this. Construct 2 is great but exporting to mobile can be a huge pain.

    >

    > Speaking of which, I am planning on making a small Android game again... is the Intel XDK broken at the moment or will it interact fine with C2 to make Android games?

    >

    I don't export to mobile, but I've heard that the cranberry plugins are broken on IntelXDK and some of the official plugins (like iAP and such) only work on some platforms, so yeah, it's a huge mess..

    It's really sad that C3's focus doesn't seem to be about making exporting simple and reliable. I recently got Gamemaker Studio for really cheap and everyone seems to have no problems with exporting to mobile. Guess I'll have to move to that!

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • What is it then? Because nothing you've said differ C3 from C2 so far. No matter how good or what stunts the C3 editor could pull off, or how easy it is to make a game on it, it doesn't matter, at the end of the day you'll still have to depend on so much to get your game on mobile/PCs/consoles it would never be worth it (especially not paying $99 for it).

    This made me think a little as to who is C3 for anyway.

    Same thoughts ^

    I really hope scirra has an ace up their sleeve

  • Beautiful post!

    This is exactly what i have been thinking.

    I have no idea what they were thinking. This is without any doubt the way they should have done it.

    Native compiler/exporter is a MUST!

    I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

    As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

    • but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

    We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

    Does that make sense?

  • Beautiful post!

    This is exactly what i have been thinking.

    I have no idea what they were thinking. This is without any doubt the way they should have done it.

    Native compiler/exporter is a MUST!

    I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

    As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

    - but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

    We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

    Does that make sense?

    Your last words are perfect for this situation...

  • I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

    As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

    - but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

    We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

    Does that make sense?

    Viking visions heh. You saying Scirra should start hitting them magic mushrooms?

  • > I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

    >

    > As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

    > - but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

    > We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

    >

    > Does that make sense?

    >

    Viking visions heh. You saying Scirra should start doing magic mushrooms?

    My sword is ready for invasion...

  • Beautiful post!

    This is exactly what i have been thinking.

    I have no idea what they were thinking. This is without any doubt the way they should have done it.

    Native compiler/exporter is a MUST!

    I feel bad for Ashley and Tom though. I know they have great visions and drive. I just think they lost their focus and began to ignore our cries for important features like native export/compiling.

    As most of us know, Scirra is based in England.

    - but way back in time we Scandinavians invaded England in the Viking Age.

    We did that because of a vision (and revenge) but it would have been impossible without the support, belief and ideas of the people

    Does that make sense?

    Uh... the normans?

  • IMHO the base software should be one-off payment and then the exporters could be subscription. It would be win-win. But then they have to change their mind about native exporters and/or hire people to write working solid HTML exporters to various devices.

  • Without reliable and SUPPORTED exporters I too dont believe I will make a purchase.

    Gamemaker 2 mobile just came out of hiding, unfortunately, I really love how easy exporting is and how reliable it is and how FAST it is on GM. I do hate their room editor, their code editor is lacking although much improved this time around, and development is slower. But the exporters very well might make it worth it.

    Advertisments, in app purchase, android, ios...all of it just works and i dont need to rely on third party.

    Unity 2d has also come a decent ways. I still dont like the workflow compared to how easy C2 is though.

    and there are other 2d engines out there...all with native exporters. C2 and C3 being the only ones I know of that cant...

    I LOVE how fast I can develop with construct 2. But the huge flaw is the questionable exporters and extra hassle it brings to convert my code over.

    The other huge issue I have with construct 3 is I still have no idea what is actually new and improved compared to C2. I havnt heard of anything that screams I HAVE BEEN WANTING AND NEEDING THIS!!! It seems like very subtle improvements that mostly...unfortunately...rely on the community and third party integration to take place and create our own improvements.

  • I agree with all the complaints here and on Ashley's twitter page.

    One of the many reasons I came to Construct 2 was because of its affordability and the "buy once" option.

    Charging a annual subscription is not worth it to me, as it's not to many others. Yes, I want to be able to easily port to mobile, but I'm not willing to pay that much for it when there are other tools out there that can get the job done better have way more options (such as Xbox One and PS4 Porting as well as mobile)

    I'm willing to pay a one time fee for exporting to mobile (I'm willing to pay the $300 for Gamemakers export to android option)

    I'm willing to remove myself now completely from this company I once loved and move over to Unity. ( 'cuz it's free and as a personal user you don't have to pay anything unless you basically win the lotto with your game. )

    I'd rather spend another six months to a year learning other software then being forced to pay annually for a tool that isn't native and relies on hacked scripts that are often too broken to run on mobile devices (and not to mention HTML5's speed issues) None of this would be relevant though if it was a one time fee for life pay-for model like Construct 2... especially for us smaller "one man team" guys and hobbyist who can't afford a annual fee when they are starting out or have mouths to feed.

    With the announce of Construct 3 I became excited.... but that vanished when I seen how they set up their annual payment model. I will be forced to move GameMaker and/or Unity only -- as I feel I will get a lot more value for my money, since Construct 3 feels like it is focusing more on capitalizing their pockets now...

    I will miss Construct, don't get me wrong. But this new payment model is just not worth it.

  • Wall text - First Post.

    That's the feeling of everyone.

    Well, as a game engine C2/C3 is a great editor... and that's it.

  • Guys , they said

    [quote:9bdx6b90]Monthly Subscription

    There will be a monthly subscription option at $12.99* per seat per month for short term use.

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