Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Continuing a little on what Jayjay said I purchased C2 before the "big devs" were showcasing.

I believed the marketing speil on the front page and thought it should delivered (hint hint, it hasn't)

The recent push of showcase games in the last 3 years, didn't therefore intice me to buy, just motivated me to continue and defend C2, if these guys could do it, I can. (Super Ubie Land was a big one with the Wii-u promises)

Only in the end, they couldn't, no fault of their own. Hindsight I wish it became more apparent that C2 was at fault largely and not outside reasons. It's have saved me the last few years of time on 2 mobile games that failed to export with well enough performance and 2 "PC" games that barely run on mid-range PCs. (Yes optimized to the hilt, lowered the scope to bare minimum)

Every attempt to jump to a different engine has bounced me back to C2 because of "ease of use", but its a ridiculous situation because my time is ultimately wasted in C2.

Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently and jump ship to Fusion 3. Following the devblog, looking real promising.

Can I see those PC games in a video or can they be downloaded ?. I'm making a PC game and I'd like to see if NWjs will work fine. I have investigated some games like pinkman and according to the critics of steam it seems that NWjs works well. There are no problems or criticisms about that.

I wouldn't go that for as to say C2 is purely hobbyist platform. Although It is an ideal tool for non-coders designer type devs without a small team or coder to help them take their idea from paper to reality.

This is the main reason I chose C2. I've always wanted to make my own game, but doing it in my spare time, it's hard to get a team together. C2 allowed me from having a few game ideas in my head and on paper to actually start building them. Yes... C2 might not offer, native, export to consoles, 3D and a couple of other things bigger engines has to offer but one thing it has given me is the ability to make any games at all... pretty easily, without having to struggle with learning how to code.

Yes exporting to mobile has been kind of a headache with 3rd party tools, but what game development comes without headaches?

OP is requesting console export, and official ad-network plugins that would benefit his business. I get where he's going with it. He wants to continue using C2, but If he already is at this point in his game developing where he is already making enough money to make a living on his productions, it's not hard to invest in a little bit of dev time, and pay someone to make a plugin for the ad network he is aiming at. The console export is probably the tricky part... I would say XBox One is his first bet to aim at, with Universal windows apps, and it's in the pipeline. Wii U, Switch, Playstation, etc yeah it would be cool if C2 could export to those platforms also, but I don't know how much work it is to get something like that going, given that C2 is a HTML5 engine.

In my point of view, you either chose an engine that you're comfortable with and has the features that you require, or you chose another engine. I think it's a bit unfair to push all your needs on the small but capable scirra team. If you're targeting consoles... why would you chose C2 in the first place? It's not really made for console productions, although some consoles are starting to accept HTML5 games.

Yes, Html5 PC, and Mobile wrappers can have their caveats, but it's pretty much something you have to live with if you're using a HTML5 engine. Some can probably be fixed by Scirra, but some issues are probably out of their limits to fix. All the scirra team can do is try to focus on making those exports as painless as possible.

If you've come to that point where your needs has outgrown the capabilities of the editor you're using, as a serious developer you would naturally start to look at what engines provide the features you need for your business and your ideas. Construct is pretty flexible, in terms of plugins etc. But there's only so much you can do with that...The devs DO listen, and they are active on the forums for direct interaction, and are trying to explain what they can and can not do.

[quote:2crogtjy]

Can I see those PC games in a video or can they be downloaded ?. I'm making a PC game and I'd like to see if NWjs will work fine. I have investigated some games like pink man and according to the critics of steam it seems that NWjs works well. There are no problems or criticisms about that.

Not sure I can I'm afraid, ones an "adult" game, interactive platformer kind of thing, waiting for a Patreon push if we can get it exported smoothly enough, second I'd need to get permission from the other 2 teammembers, likely a no.

They have more going on in them than pinkman, (not trying to downplay pinkman) and they aren't using many effects, everything is low-medium res for artwork.

Not going to tout that Kyle (main programmer dev on the latter game) is a genius and some stuff couldn't have been done differently, but we have buffed this game down to bare essentials and little improvement.

I wouldn't go that for as to say C2 is purely hobbyist platform. Although It is an ideal tool for non-coders designer type devs without a small team or coder to help them take their idea from paper to reality.

This is the main reason I chose C2. I've always wanted to make my own game, but doing it in my spare time, it's hard to get a team together. C2 allowed me from having a few game ideas in my head and on paper to actually start building them. Yes... C2 might not offer, native, export to consoles, 3D and a couple of other things bigger engines has to offer but one thing it has given me is the ability to make any games at all... pretty easily, without having to struggle with learning how to code.

Yes exporting to mobile has been kind of a headache with 3rd party tools, but what game development comes without headaches?

OP is requesting console export, and official ad-network plugins that would benefit his business. I get where he's going with it. He wants to continue using C2, but If he already is at this point in his game developing where he is already making enough money to make a living on his productions, it's not hard to invest in a little bit of dev time, and pay someone to make a plugin for the ad network he is aiming at. The console export is probably the tricky part... I would say XBox One is his first bet to aim at, with Universal windows apps, and it's in the pipeline. Wii U, Switch, Playstation, etc yeah it would be cool if C2 could export to those platforms also, but I don't know how much work it is to get something like that going, given that C2 is a HTML5 engine.

In my point of view, you either chose an engine that you're comfortable with and has the features that you require, or you chose another engine. I think it's a bit unfair to push all your needs on the small but capable scirra team. If you're targeting consoles... why would you chose C2 in the first place? It's not really made for console productions, although some consoles are starting to accept HTML5 games.

Yes, Html5 PC, and Mobile wrappers can have their caveats, but it's pretty much something you have to live with if you're using a HTML5 engine. Some can probably be fixed by Scirra, but some issues are probably out of their limits to fix. All the scirra team can do is try to focus on making those exports as painless as possible.

If you've come to that point where your needs has outgrown the capabilities of the editor you're using, as a serious developer you would naturally start to look at what engines provide the features you need for your business and your ideas. Construct is pretty flexible, in terms of plugins etc. But there's only so much you can do with that...The devs DO listen, and they are active on the forums for direct interaction, and are trying to explain what they can and can not do.

That!

......

Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently ......

Assuming they get the exporter up and running decently .....

Intelxdk, cocoon, and what not others have been sole focusing on the same export method scirra is now looking to include.... scirras skills are relatively new on that field ...

For the exporter not to be in the beta yet could be a good indication that it may take some time before that actually decently works across ios, windows and android.

I will definitely take a year subscription to try it out ... But only after having read lots of positive user feedback that it actually works across the popular mobile platforms.

Something tells me it will be another year or so of scirra needing user feedback regarding this to get their material working decently .....

>

> Pretty much misses the point completely!

>

> If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

>

>

So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?

Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.

I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it. What it comes down to - are they making it for us or them? They seem to be making it for them - and that's fine at the start, but this is the third iteration of their software, people have expectations based on their previous versions and to mix it up and announce 2 bombshells like that a mere 2 months before the beta no wonder people are putrid about it. They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.

To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.

On-topic: I do agree with NotionGames

>

> Pretty much misses the point completely!

>

> If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

>

>

So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?

Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.

Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.

So I suggest you go back and read what I said because whether you understand it or not I am trying to save Scirra from losing a whole lot of C2 users that brought them this far.

I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it.

There are obviously some users who don't like our direction, but to call our user-base alienated is hyperbole. Secondly, we haven't wasted all our time investing in this. We're receiving a lot of positive feedback as well.

[quote:rmtbfn9i]They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.

It's not falling on deaf ears. We're going to execute what we've planned, and what our data shows us is this a rational path. To change direction before we've even tried the model would be irrational. We were obviously expecting some users to not like the model.

To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

It's first week of the public beta, this is all expected. Re-judge the state of it when we launch.

> I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it.

>

There are obviously some users who don't like our direction, but to call our user-base alienated is hyperbole. Secondly, we haven't wasted all our time investing in this. We're receiving a lot of positive feedback as well.

[quote:108a52pn]They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.

It's not falling on deaf ears. We're going to execute what we've planned, and what our data shows us is this a rational path. To change direction before we've even tried the model would be irrational. We were obviously expecting some users to not like the model.

What data is that Tom?

Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

This is why I say I think you and Ashley are not listening because for months now I have seen so many C2 users saying that is not what they want and if there is a large group of C2 users that have said they want a browser based subscription engine I would sure like to see their comments and reasons for that decision.

I could be wrong and maybe there is thousands of people requesting that but I have been watching and reading the forums for C3 opinions and I sure have not seen the data you are describing?

What data is that Tom?

In our database and analytics

Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?

> What data is that Tom?

>

In our database and analytics

> Where is the thread with glowing reports and requests for a browser based subscription engine?

>

Are you suggesting that because you think people don't want a browser based engine, we should just bin it and start again? Or is your complaint only about the fact it's subscription based?

I guess I just have to keep repeating what I have said because you are not listening:

Now where did I say for Scirra to throw away their work?

In fact I made it clear they should go forward with C3 and see if it is profitable and to help people that can't use C2 like people using Mac and Unix but that is a small group of people not the majority of people that have supported Scirra all these years.

In fact we appreciate that Scirra has been updating C2 and we have stayed with C2 and supported Scirra with our games and with the expectation they would eventually get the exporters working and features we asked for and bugs fixed for over 5 years.

Now it appears Scirra has decided to go with a browser based subscription model that I have not seen anyone pleased with that includes the exporters and lots of features we have been asking for in C2 for years.

No one has asked Scirrra to give away their work for free and I made it very clear they could make an addon package of those features and exporters for the existing C2 engine to keep their base happy that do not want a browser based subscription engine. As long as it is reasonably priced and not a subscription I believe many C2 users would be happy to purchase a package of exporters and features as an addon.

That is a reasonable request and may just keep a lot of C2 users from jumping ship.

To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.

On general principle I agree wholeheartedly, if these exporters work they should be put into an update for C2 to give us what was advertised. Sign of good faith an all.

I am getting C3 for its exporters out of desperation, which sucks but after putting many months into those games, I can't just abandon all the effort.

And following on what lennaert said, yeah *fingers crossed* on it working. I'm certainly not desperate enough to pay for exporters that don't work let alone "bug testing" them during the first year of C3's release. I need to see them working day1.