Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

I don't understand people who say "Construct 2 is only HTML5 tool".

The main page on http://www.scirra.com contains this phrase "True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms."...

...Sorry, but the only way to have "True multiplatform support" is to create native exporters.

Multi platform means that you can run html5 on different devices. windows, android, ios etc.

So if you make a html5 game and post it on some web page you are able to run it from desktop browser, mobile browser... everything that is compatible with html5 technology - and this is not even close to what you think "native exporters" are.

Multi platform means that you can run html5 on different devices. windows, android, ios etc.

So if you make a html5 game and post it on some web page you are able to run it from desktop browser, mobile browser... everything that is compatible with html5 technology - and this is not even close to what you think "native exporters" are.

No, you are not right - you are wrong.

The phrase is "...to all these platforms" and then there are icons of platforms. Among them there is HTML5 icon. That proves that the phrase is not about devices that support HTML5, but it is about different types of export.

Visit the main page and find this phrase and read it again.

davarrcal: I don't mean to bash anyone's suggestions and I'm aware this is a topic for the next version. I just find it silly to ask for C3 to have the exact same features as the competition. Native exporters are definitely a good idea though. But if that makes the software much more expensive or with subscription fees I'd rather for it to be just an improved version of C2. I'll use Unreal Engine (which is free) if I want to make the next Mass Effect type game. Sorry if my comments sounded a little too harsh.

I know unreal engine... and for me is not the solution (to me) to mobile games design. Like very much the "node-type-programing" of blueprints because remember my a "composition programs" like nuke or blender but try to compile a empty proyect to android and see the results: a "huge empty proyect",i don´t have the skills in c++ to "delete" the unnecesary things... if you open aleatory apk of google-play games to android with 7zip and see the content, the posibilities that the game was made with unity is the 50%....I don´t think that unity is the "best optimiced" platform. No. Is the "most" complet and portable platform. Games compiled in unity are "reasonable" huge, and important thing: they works well in most platforms. But still have 2 problems for me: C# and price. I can learn C# (I don´t want,i like design, no write code) but the price is too big, 300, 400, 500 will be ok, 1500+1500 is to much... I´m hobbist, probably like most Construct users. (edit: I have instaled free unity3d, i´m try learn, still difficult to me the "script" part, the editor is ok for me, the future talks )

People in this forum don´t want make a Mass Effect,people want do 2d games (I think), and obviusly our "programing" skills are poor, we are in the scirra forums, no in the cocos2d forums...

Construct 2 for me is important, because the editor of GM is terrible. I see the things runing in construct, and later i "punch" my brain to the GML (literaly punch). But I would like do all in construct, and export all platforms. That´s all. My only feature "need" to construct 3 is "native export" (yes yes, huge feature, but the only I need).

And if i can "script" in imperative-basic like in amstrad cpc (the only languaje that i study to much ago)..... would be great

I know native export is not something Ashley wants to do and I respect that, but I have to say, personally I would be happy to pay a *much* higher price for a C3 with native exporters. GMS goes for $799.99 for the full package, and I'd happily pay that (or more) for a stable C3 with native exporters.

One of the reason I like Construct 2 is that I can reach tons of platforms with a 100 euro price tag (even if it's not native). The only software I would buy at that 800$ price is one that I will be able to use forever for my life, without any other cost. I'm not a company, not a business, just one developer. And I don't think I'm the only one here <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile"> I don't mean any offense, but raising the price that high won't help even with native export.

Also, people are asking for native exporters again. I completely understand their feelings and need for that, but it has been discussed several times on this forum that Construct 3 will not have native export.

I think, In a few years there will appear game engine with perfect event-action system like C2 has and one-click native export like Unity has at the same time.

This might be the upcoming Spark Engine (currently in pre-alpha development): http://www.spark.tools/

Not to confuse with Project Spark from Microsoft.

One of the reason I like Construct 2 is that I can reach tons of platforms with a 100 euro price tag (even if it's not native). The only software I would buy at that 800$ price is one that I will be able to use forever for my life, without any other cost. I'm not a company, not a business, just one developer. And I don't think I'm the only one here I don't mean any offense, but raising the price that high won't help even with native export.

Sure, I know it's a big chunk of money, and I'm not suggesting $800 should be the base price, there should obviously be cheaper packages similar to the price structure GMS offers, but I think it depends if you're a hobbyist or if you're seriously trying to sell commercially, if you're making commercial games (making money) I believe it's a fair price to pay for "pro" software. I still make that much per month just on the Xbox indie games I've released, and that market is pretty much dead these days. Pro software is always expensive, I paid close to $800 just for the music package I use, the prices on art and 3D modeling software is also massively expensive, but I'm willing to pay for it as long as it fits my needs and I can use it to make that money back. (and more on top obviously )

Will construct 3 be coming soon?

I'm using the free version atm but seriously thinking of buying it but if a new version is coming out within the next few months, I'll hold off and wait.

C3 is more than likely a very long way off.

The following site - Construct 3 - was setup to keep us updated, although updates have not as yet been forthcoming. Hopefully Ashley will update the site sooner rather than later.

#gentlenudge

I am a broken record on this subject, but it keeps coming up, so I'll keep asking the same questions back at those asking for native exporters: what is it you really want? Rather than focus on the technology choices, what is the end result you are after?

If it's better performance: maybe WebAssembly can do that, while keeping the broad cross-platform compatibility of HTML5. And as ever, I struggle to find examples where our JS engine is not fast enough - almost everything anyone provides as examples are either GPU hardware limits (so a native engine would not be faster!) or just insanely inefficient game design (such as using 1000 sprites instead of a single tiled background).

If it's more access to native features: I don't know what you're after precisely, but it can most likely be plugged in with Cordova or NW.js.

Some people seem to think native exporters are a magic bullet that will solve all problems and make us incredibly rich. Here are some counter-points to consider:

• it would make the product a lot more expensive. As others have mentioned, many appreciate the fact C2 is one of the cheapest product on the market for publishing to every platform.
• it would make the product a lot slower to develop. If we support 10 platforms with 10 different codebases, every change must be written and tested 10 times, making development 10 times slower. We could use frameworks or libraries to help mitigate this, but some people seem to think it's a really bad thing to rely on third parties too much, so it seems like an odd direction to take, especially given browser developers have far more development resources than most cross-platform frameworks out there.
• if you use any third party plugins at all, you can probably guarantee they are not going to be supported on more than one or two platforms. Even official features may not be supported on all platforms as porting issues crop up. This makes feature support a really complicated checkerboard across platforms, making porting a huge headache. Other products on the market suffer this exact problem.
• there actually exist other products on the market that take the approach of writing native exporters, and they are struggling with all the above issues and appear to be behind us, which to me disproves the idea that "native exporters = commercial success".

There are no magic perfect solutions in technology - don't think that native exporters would be flawless, or guarantee commercial success. In particular, I think the success of Construct 2 so far is significantly due to the portability and ease of development of HTML5, to the extent that I do not think we would have gotten anywhere near where we are today if we had gone with any other technology.

such as using 1000 sprites instead of a single tiled background

There are scenarios where "1000" sprites is needed, like in rts games, and probably many more, so I don't think it is good example against exporters. But personally, thought I wish performance would be better, having native exporters is not my own priority.

by the time of c3

most people have android 5 devices

ios and windows dont have problem with html5 now

and with android 5 : problem solved

but i wish we hade at least a direct and offline export to each platform (mostly android)

> such as using 1000 sprites instead of a single tiled background

>

There are scenarios where "1000" sprites is needed, like in rts games

Of course, but I meant this in the sense that the user could have trivially replaced all 1000 sprites with a single tiled background, their game would look and work identically, and the performance would be radically improved - but before they figure that out, they complain about poor performance and ask for native exporters.

Ashley but when someone use isometric block to create level, imagine how many sprites will be needed

same amount? you just have to render them in 30° manner <.< and set your collision blocks differently a bit.

Ashley

I guess, you don't understand one very-very important thing.

If not-native exporter will be even perfect they could only give us just HTML5 performance...

But desktop games should have much better performance than HTML5 tecknology.

And, I guess, non-native exporters will not ever be perfect that's why the only thing we will have is 20%-80% of HTML5 performance.

You say that 1000 2D-images is too much. But how about games with 5000 3D-objects? How do they work if it is impossible?

I have already posted native and not-native "game" in this topic. It proves that difference in performance is great.

May be you can create voting on the main page of Scirra.com like

"Will you pay for native exporters in C3?

1. I don't need native exporters

2. I want native exporters but would not pay any cent for them

3. I would pay 50-100 $ for each exporter

4. I would pay 50-100 $ for all the exporters

5. Native exporters? Just take my money!"

yep, make a 3D game with 2D game makin' software. GL with that one bro. (without q3d)