Many publishers do not accept construct2 html5 games

It's the same as the Scirra Arcade. No one goes there for cool/new games because it's full of garbage.

Seriously Scirra Arcade should be revamped into a one-stop site to showcase best quality C2 games. Instead of the arcade being general publishing, it should have beta section and released section. Publisher might come and what kind of game did C2 produced, one way for them to do it is just visit the arcade, but if all they see is shovelware, that gives a bad impression for us, which might be a relevant case to this thread title.

I'm gonna throw some idea for scirra arcade here, probably just thrash talking and rubbish idea, but what the hell:

[quote:llqe5thc]Released Section:

This arcade is viewable by public, for a game to be in this section, it has to be reviewed by the community using a vote system of "this game is ready" and "this game is not ready yet" within 3-7 days. Upon the review by the community, if the game was voted enough then an option for the developer will be available, whether he wants to publicize it or not.

[quote:llqe5thc]Beta section:

This section is hidden by default, this serve as a testing ground for which people who want the community to test their game out, or probably things as simple as learning how to upload their game into the arcade. User are given the ability to delete their own game in this section, so that would cut the moderators joblist.

[quote:llqe5thc]Let free C2 users to monetize in scirra arcade ONLY.

This will encourage creativity among free users to come up with a game bounded by the free version limitation, and possibly give them the confidence to purchase the license. This is of course a shared monetization between scirra and gamedev, maybe 50-50 in ad revenue? Maybe create a "fund yourself" scheme which scirra get 100% of ad revenue, but the revenue will be cumulative until a point (probably revenue=license price) that will allow the gamedev to earn a personal license (only).

> It's the same as the Scirra Arcade. No one goes there for cool/new games because it's full of garbage.

>

Seriously Scirra Arcade should be revamped into a one-stop site to showcase best quality C2 games. Instead of the arcade being general publishing, it should have beta section and released section. Publisher might come and what kind of game did C2 produced, one way for them to do it is just visit the arcade, but if all they see is shovelware, that gives a bad impression for us, which might be a relevant case to this thread title.

I'm gonna throw some idea for scirra arcade here, probably just thrash talking and rubbish idea, but what the hell:

[quote:201jltki]Released Section:

This arcade is viewable by public, for a game to be in this section, it has to be reviewed by the community using a vote system of "this game is ready" and "this game is not ready yet" within 3-7 days. Upon the review by the community, if the game was voted enough then an option for the developer will be available, whether he wants to publicize it or not.

[quote:201jltki]Beta section:

This section is hidden by default, this serve as a testing ground for which people who want the community to test their game out, or probably things as simple as learning how to upload their game into the arcade. User are given the ability to delete their own game in this section, so that would cut the moderators joblist.

[quote:201jltki]Let free C2 users to monetize in scirra arcade ONLY.

This will encourage creativity among free users to come up with a game bounded by the free version limitation, and possibly give them the confidence to purchase the license. This is of course a shared monetization between scirra and gamedev, maybe 50-50 in ad revenue? Maybe create a "fund yourself" scheme which scirra get 100% of ad revenue, but the revenue will be cumulative until a point (probably revenue=license price) that will allow the gamedev to earn a personal license (only).

I like these ideas.

1) Add a greenlight feature.

2) Members only can access beta content.

3) Scirra monetizes our apps until a personal/business license is acquired.

Hmm, I've not heard of this and am curious why publishers wouldn't accept C2 games. I have several C2 games on my website and don't have any problem with them. I know there was initially some hesitation with HTML5 games in general due to copy protection issues.

How would they even know you used construct 2? Does construct 2 brand there name inside files?

I'm also sure that some websites can handle C2 games, I think...

DuckfaceNinja - I can't wait for the new arcade. In the other words, nice idea for the separate beta and released sections.

Tekniko - Greenlight? Nice idea!

Softgames is not accepting Construct 2 games, this is part of a reply I've got from then:

"...unfortunately due to technical problem we cannot accept any construct2 games."

*some* sponsors wont allow C2, but still - majority of publishers will accept it as long as you can implement their api/branding.

I am saying this out of my dozen+ C2 games sold experience.

damn Softgames where interested in one of my game then after a month when i send them new version they said .....unfortunately due to technical problem we cannot accept any construct2 games..

i tried getting help from FGL and C2 seems ok but the problem is they want us to disable ads

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.

Yes, thats one think, everyone of us thinks to create magnificent game, but reality shows opposite result.

Another think... I spend lot of time on google play to find a good addictive game for free with no results, paid

games on googlePlay also are poorly made (check youtube). Industry of mobile games, and HTML5 is still considered as a baby, so don't expect you write game with ~20 levels and some big publishers will distribute them. It's a double risk for them:

• Waste of money to publish and if game is crap what happens next? They loosing customers.

Let me ask that way, Would you buy grocieries in the same shop, when you last time found rotten ham? (example)

My advice is simple:

If you want to make games, do it right, or don't make them at all

Everytime people wants to have easy money, problems arises in mid term:

html5 Publishers wanted it, so they asked for quick games that would run on the older phones, with weird requirement, for a good price, people did them.

and it was kind of easy (workarounds needed, but still easier when you found them), with C2, it was even more easy, and performances were great, so they did thé cheap games.

but then it was too late, publishers were already seen as "easy money", so they had to face the flooding of cheap that, be honest, is the easiest to make run on their low end device requirements.

another exemple:

at a time, some people, called web designer I think, did everything to make their websites work, mostly ignoring specifications and using browser sniffing, as "people want it to work! wé need money!", guess what, that does not forgive that you did your job badly. browser makers have sabotage their user agent and other things to support your crap, web tutorials are full of "tricks and workarounds for older versions of IE", and some recognized as good web developers don't give à penny for spécification respect, and one codebase for everyone, "open web" lol.

same goes for full of ads websites, and ultra mail spam

conclusion: easy money is either not reliable, or will hurt your profession later on, most html5 publishers are really not worth it, as they feel like thé webdesigner case I talked about, they are spammed by crap from everyfront, but most desirves it.

of course thos post reflects my opinion.

Hi, now that we are well into 2016, what's the status on this topic? Are some publishers still not interested in C2 games?

Would like to know as well.

DuckfaceNinja, that might be true to be honest.