idea for construct3 that is in line with it's goals

It's an html5 engine, right? Make the editor in html5. Then take advantage of web tehcnologies that work well with it!

A nice case example is Superpowers:

https://sparklinlabs.com/

https://sparklinlabs.com/releases/0.14.0

It allows for a very nice collaborative online development, where one person runs the actual editor in localhost and others can join it and not only chat within the engine window, but also write code together and work on literally all aspects of the game in real time! All they need is a web browser.

This is incredibly advantageous in game jams, it also lines up with construct3's goal to have the engine work on everybody's computer and in different languages and platforms. In theory you can even run the actual editor on a tablet!

So yeah, localhost the editor. It's the next step I think <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz">

And how do they sell it?

they could sell the number of participants a c3 server could host.

And what's to keep someone from duplicating it, and sticking that up on a torrent?

duplicating what?.. c2 is already on torrents.I bought my license to support the devs.

If it's the project of a game on localhost- have you heard about passwods?

I'm very wary of online apps, and the oncoming horde of hybrids. Somewhat ironic considering that's what C2 excels in...

I like to own my software, online or cloud apps are almost always subscription based, which is terrible for hobbyists - the target audience of C2/3.

yeah absolutely. I agree with you! I dont like "renting" the software and I dont want to have it be forced on me to be connected to some server. For that reason i dont like or use Stencyl.

But the case with superpowers is quite different. You own the software, it is on your computer- not somebody's server.

But since it is html5, you can also share your project on a localhost with others. It is in no way tied to some subscription model that some company is monetizing.

As far as I am aware the only way they are interested in monetizing it is the asset store, where developers get a cut from all sales they make.

But the files are on your hard drive, the software is on your hard drive, you dont need to be connected or signed in anything in order to use it. You just have the option to be the server. Your home computer can be the server for the developer team you have and its easy to get them to join you- they dont have to install anything.. Just open their web browser, connect to your localhost and type a password if need be. Presto, they are in the editor, its running in their web browser.

There are currently plenty of html5 editors coming out that try to keep hold on the server side and make the user pay for subscription. I think they will all fail because they are greedy and stupid. Their biggest selling point being flushed down the toilet. Developers dont like keeping their stuff on somebody's server they are forced to pay rent for.

I agree with Blurrymind. I did a tech request list a while ago. Having C3 operating from a V8/HTML powered engine such as NW.js was one of the big suggestions.

The reasons were for this

1. NW.js or whatever runs on all major development OS

2. Reyling on a DOM HTML front end means that the HTML/JS/DOM layer is exposed to the community to make custom IDE plugins of any kind

3. C3.x or C4 could be potentially hosted by a server and accessible by tablets for simpler design elements

I like to own my software, online or cloud apps are almost always subscription based, which is terrible for hobbyists - the target audience of C2/3.

Call me old fashioned but I feel the same way. I don't have a problem if a software I pay for has an online version as long as it has an offline too and it doesn't suffer maintenance because of the online edition.

Also I don't think this will happen, because only the engine is in HTML5 and the editor isn't.

> I like to own my software, online or cloud apps are almost always subscription based, which is terrible for hobbyists - the target audience of C2/3.

>

Call me old fashioned but I feel the same way. I don't have a problem if a software I pay for has an online version as long as it has an offline too and it doesn't suffer maintenance because of the online edition.

Also I don't think this will happen, because only the engine is in HTML5 and the editor isn't.

I agree with this one. I like something offline, plus there are alot of challenges for a web based tool.

This is all speculation, but from what Ashley has said in the past, I'm pretty confident that construct 3 will be an HTML5 editor, won't be browser based, won't be "in the cloud", won't be subscription based, and will remain a desktop app, with technology behind the editor probably being HTML5.

This has several advantages:

• Linux/Mac/Windows support out of the box
• Fewer discrepancies between editor and runtime (such as shader bugs)
• Code reuse (since everything will be javascript)
• Better and more extensive API for plugin developers
• More editor features (since we won't be limited by a third party GUI API like the one in construct 2)

What will likely happen, and what makes the most sense, is that c3 will be a javascript app compiled in NWK (or similar) to turn it into an executable, with a decoupled "compiler" that spits out your games.

Only Ashley knows

If the editor itself can run in localhost and allow for collaborative workflow (similar to superpowers game engine), that would make construct3 a great choice for game jam events!

That is another advantage of html5.

The trouble with that is that people would often mistake the proposal of such feature with locked monthly payment browser based game engine services. The proposal is for you to own the engine and to run it entirely from your hard drive, however be also able to locally host the editor itself (the way you can host a html5 game on localhost) and have other people contribute code and graphics to your game without the need of using dropbox,github and other third party services.

This sort of thing could be made without them needing to install anything, or it could be made in a way where they indeed need to have construct3 editor installed and licensed as well. In any case- it would elevate the editor to a new level that promotes collaboration on a project and makes it easy to set it up for team work. I see that as a huge advantage over many other game engines

If you put it that way, I agree. This is indeed a good idea. But will the editor be in HTML5? I guess we'll see.

If the editor is html5, we can potentially use it on a tablet even. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

Apparently somebody already thought about that:

https://gdevapp.com/

I am old fashioned but I prefer the software to be proper Windows software. It should also conform to the actual theme/ui setting in Windows and not have its own (of course best is to choose, that's what I like with C2, so many to choose between.).

Ok, I despise software that go its own way and put a super dark UI for me, nooo I do not want it, I want it to look like the rest of Windows just like I have set it up! Worst are the ones with custom "cool" ui with everything picture based+ custom buttons where you have to re-learn how to cycle. But it seems to be a thing of the past - mostly. THANK GOODNESS. But some are stubborn about it, this is a software I hate to use but have to use as it is the only interface to the cutter:

http://cdn.vanillaforums.com/makethecut ... 2e4825.png

Ok now that was cosmetic part.

Reason of why I do not like web software: It won't conform to standards. I feel also uneasy about working in a browser with its overhead but also for my own ADHD-ness and inability to multitask (= I can't have anything distracting for me... then concentration go its way)

I want to have a software I know how to do straight away with my super short attention span.

I guess if the "software" was without the browser visible parts it would be slightly better, but still have that "its own ui" thing which is a minus for me. Plus how would short keys work? Ctrl+S will it save the project or bring up browser's save html thing? Apparently I am not too deep into this thing, of course of course.

long loading time = nope, downloding crap every time I use = NOPE.

My humble opinion. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">