Why dream of C3? Let's stay focused on C2 for now.

nimos100

Of course regular bugfixes are important, I never said something different. Every company should do it and most do it already of course. Scirra as well....for about 4 years now, since C2 was first released in 2011... half a decade ago. There is just a time, where you have to throw out something new and fresh, even your old system works.

4 years might seem like a long time, but if you think about that C2 have been developed over this time period, meaning that a lot of features weren't there when it was original released, but have been added over time. And is usual done by entering a test phase, and then added to the stable version, and that's really cool I think, as C2 continues to evolve, and most of these things are very useful, like the "auto fill" for function calls etc. And bug fixing these is required and are done.

But some things in C2 is broken and is not in the category of being bug fixing. Such as it using a single collision mesh, which you can't work around. And will make a huge range of games impossible to make.

For instant making a RTS game with different types of units that uses path finding, and that should collide against different things, will not be possible. To me this is a core element of game creation as a huge amount of games requires reliable path finding, so it will limit the things you can make. And reporting this, I know its not easy to fix due to it being designed that way in C2. But to me fixing something like that, is a whole lot more important than making sure you can export to yet another OS, or that you can hook up C2 to an external image editor, which is nice. But doesn't solve any major problems.

New users of C2 will most likely have no clue what im talking about, which is understandable, but at some point they will run into problems like this, because stuff like this is what is causing the real problems, when you get experience with C2. Where as having to use an external image editor might just be a bit annoying for some.

And that is what I mean with it not being encouraging to buy C3, if such important parts of making games is just left broken, with an impression "that it doesn't really matter, we just make a new version". But I might just vent, as C3 is not here yet, and really think in general that Scirra does a very good job at improving C2. but on the other side, I just can't ignore that it have been broken for as long as I can remember since I noticed it, and I got C2 in 2012.

I dream of C3, because I dont use windows.

Construct3 will become available natively on my platform. That is huge news to me.

But to me Scirra would be better of, if they plan to release a new version, to stop adding new features and instead fix those that have already been added and is not working correctly. That way the current users wont feel like they are left with a broken C2, and are aware that Scirra is not going to add new features to it, but instead want to focus on a new version. That way they are a lot more secure that they maintain the loyalty of there current user base. And its a lot cheaper to maintain that, than having to get new customers to replace them.

But then new users won't buy C2 because they'll be waiting for C3 to come out. I think it's important to include new features (even if not so regularly as before). Personally I'm satisfied with C2 being what it is. I'm looking forward to C3, but I'm still using C2 and encourage others to do so.

I think C2 is a very good tool for game creation as it currently is. Of course there are still bugs to correct and some funcionalities it could have, but at the end of the day it's a game development tool and gets the job done.

To be honest C3 development idea at this point scares me a bit !

I dunno the business strategy Scirra has and if C3 development is "the way" to reach other markets and platforms -therefore audiences - but if that is the case, there are plenty of options out there to maintain C2 and generate revenue out of it.

I've worked with other engines and I've seen this path already. For instance:

1-GARAGE GAMES: They made TORQUE GAME ENGINE then they made TORQUE 3D. TORQUE GAME ENGINE felt incomplete as new features were added to TORQUE 3D. I think TORQUE 3D was a full rewrite (not sure).

2- THEGAMECREATORS: They made AGK 1 then they enhanced to AGK2 with crowdfunding a approache. The outcome...AGK 1 got updated to AGK 2 , AGK1 is still with issues and a new AGK2 is for sale with issues of its own as well...

What I'm trying to say here is that an engine development cycle is a very complex process not to say maintaining 2 engines! Even if Scirra gets more work power to the team I don't see C3 any time soon and I'm seeing it all over again...new bugs, new updates, etc.. and C2 being left behind with some things to address and left to oblivion.

If Scirra really thinks that is not possible to provide new features (regarding game making) into C2 then I think at least they should clean this product and define a point were they close it's development cycle. In my point of view (note that I don't know anything about C2 inner works) it seems that C2 hasn't reached its full potencial regarding game creation and funcionalities.

If Scirra just wants a new facelift and a new editor rewrite, well I think they could crowdfund it like THEGAMECREATORS did for their own editor. This is very different of rewriting an entire engine from scratch...

Just my two cents.

Regards !

No software is free of bugs and there are always things that annoy users or drive them crazy, there is no work around. Even a gazillion bugfixes can´t satisfy the whole human beings.

Have a look at really big companies like Microsoft. They have an exact time schedule how long they will support their OSs. There is even an exact date when Windows8 won´t be supported anymore even there is no new system out yet.

It´s exactly like you say, there are things that can´t be done easily or at all with the current version of Construct, so why should I invest 100 hours to make my 50PS car a 60PS car instead of taking 200 and build a 150PS one? I can definitely understand your point, but to me it´s more than time, to get away from this "workaround-needing-prototype" (sry Ashley ) and develop something really serious, that can at least try to compete with some major players on the market.

People are damned prejudiced when thinking about software. In C2s case it´s perhaps something like "HTML5+Javascript is slow/not as good as native code" or something like this. Even if you do everything to improve things like this, there will always be the same rumors on general gamedesign/programing boards.

I of course don´t know, how far C3 came already or how much of the source code of c2 can be used ( I guess some cause of the import-functionality of c2 projects in R3) but marketing wise it´s not a bad decision to announce the new software. It´s also best practise in the marketing industry. Apple for example announces their product month before there is a even a picture of the product, just to keep rumors and disscussion alive and ongoing. Just have a look here for example. People seem to really freak out!

Well, just my two cents

PS: I´m absolutely with alvarop regarding the ability of making games with C2. People with skill can actually make the games they desire with C2, without lowering their sights. Even if it´s a visual thing game programing and design needs a lot of knowledge. No engine can do that job for you.

[quote:gdnop19o]I dunno the business strategy Scirra has and if C3 development is "the way" to reach other markets and platforms -therefore audiences - but if that is the case, there are plenty of options out there to maintain C2 and generate revenue out of it.

I would be really surprised if they were aiming for the 3D market, C2 is really strong on the 2D and the ease of use. Going for 3D is a lot more complicated, and there are some huge players on that market, such as Unity. Also that would require another group of customers I think, as most people can use an image editor, but not that many I think is capable of making 3d graphics for games. But one reason to make a new one could be because Unity have not long ago added 2d to there's as well. But going for the 3d part, I think would end in a suicide to be honest, and think they would have announce that as well, if that was the case anyway.

[quote:gdnop19o]No software is free of bugs and there are always things that annoy users or drive them crazy, there is no work around. Even a gazillion bugfixes can´t satisfy the whole human beings.

But there is a difference I think, because its more than a bug. It would be like you not being able to type the letter "E" when using word. And Microsoft not fixing it, but instead suggested that you could buy the new version that might be able to do it. if I should compare it to something.

[quote:gdnop19o]It´s exactly like you say, there are things that can´t be done easily or at all with the current version of Construct, so why should I invest 100 hours to make my 50PS car a 60PS car instead of taking 200 and build a 150PS one? I can definitely understand your point, but to me it´s more than time, to get away from this "workaround-needing-prototype" (sry Ashley ) and develop something really serious, that can at least try to compete with some major players on the market.

I don't see C2 as a workaround kind of prototype, that needs to be replaced. Just pointing out that it have some serious issues, that I think should be fixed, and therefore I suggested the way I would do it, in a former post. Because if they want to compete on the market, the first thing they shouldn't do, is to "screw" there customers, not saying they are, just as a general thing. And even when they release C3, you have no guarantee that it wont suffer similar problems, and then you would have to wait for C4. I mean most people probably thought the same when they moved from C1 to C2. So just don't think they should leave broken things behind, they should fix it, announce that they will start working on C3 and get people to buy that, due to even better features than in the former versions. Otherwise its just "Well we kind of screwed up, but the next version is going to be fantastic just you wait and see." That is not really a good way to maintain customers in the long run if you ask me.

[quote:gdnop19o]Well, just my two cents

I don't take it personally, just sharing my thoughts

[quote:gdnop19o]People with skill can actually make the games they desire with C2, without lowering their sights.

Well if its broken or designed that way in C2 then its not possible, and if you want to make things that at least have a chance to compete. Such thing is definitely not going to help you.

I have to agree with the originator of this post. C3 is HTML5, 2D, basically the same as C2 with possible newer features. If it's money they're after (and they should be, because they deserve it), I'd much rather them release "Construct 2.5" expansion that you have to pay for. It seems silly to try and build a whole new editor from the ground up that functions the same as the current editor they already have. Don't mess with perfection!

ome6a1717

"It seems silly to try and build a whole new editor from the ground up that functions the same as the current editor they already have. Don't mess with perfection!"

it is not the case actually, for the most user, the difference may be not that huge (apart from working in more OSes, which I can understand perfectly as windows only is still a pretty weird decision for an engine that exports everywhere basically), but basically they will be able to correct most UI bugs they have, to implement the basic features they cannot currently (zooming in and out inside the tilemap window for exemple is the most basic thing I can think of), and plugin developpers would be abme to make their plugin works correctly and do much more than what they are currently doing, and perhaps be more emphasise with a "in program store" plugin, as currently 3rd party plugins are kind of a "use them but if they do not work, or if you need help, good luck with that as the author of it may be the only one to assist you".

they are tied up with the limitation of how they did C2 as far as we saw on the forums

I think ultimately Ashley and Tom had to draw a line somewhere so that some of the bigger under the hood issues could be solved. In my opinion C2 is great and they should just hire someone to polish and bug fix rather than add any new features, while they continue with C3. Which is what I assume they are doing.

I'm happy with C2 and if they are just going to fix bugs i.e. make it more stable, then that's great.

I'll still look forward to C3 but know it wont come until the distant future.

P.S I also want the new Scirra Arcade!

A new C2 release today - keep 'em coming!