So What Is Your Second Impression of C3 And Will You Buy?

I probably should have mentioned I was talking about an overall "you", not you personally. The "learn to program" part, however, still applies. There's always Fusion3 if you don't want to learn though.

I have my eyes on Fusion's 3 development blog and I am anxious too see if it will fill the gap between C2 and C3... However, F3 doesn't have an ETA yet and F2.5 doesn't hold a candle to C2's ease of use. I hope that F3 will be a good program!

I don't mean to be a negative Nancy all the time, but "wait for c3 runtime" on all the most voted features on the new requests platform doesn't make me feel great.

I didn't knew about this request platform, this is what I am talking about, waiting for run-time update (while renting the current 2.3 run-time) isn't a good marketing policy in my poor mind... This and the aforementioned desktop version feel like afterthoughts, just to please potentially unhappy C2 users. I am sure they had in mind to make C3 feature rich eventually, but the secession of events leading to C3's new run-time plans reveal were somewhat problematic.

And my God! Am I the only one that thinks that a TIMELINE should be on the top of the to-do list!!!???

Bleenx , I don't think everyone can learn to program (hardcore syntax heavy with advance math, etc). Some people are more suited for specific thought processes and hampered by their preconditioned mental capacities. It takes a lot of time to reshape a brain that has been exercised all their life for other tasks outside of programming. So to suggest someone should just learn something is kind of inconsiderate. There's a reason why there are many specialization of work in the world and why people spend their whole life doing a specific thing. It's not easy to change.

Also, there are a lot of things a person learns simply through the process of making/developing games that aren't related at all to programming. I feel like construct is a great tool to use if you don't want to be burdened with heavy doses of syntax and abstractions that are difficult to visualize. Construct provides a more visual way to create a games, with color and texture- stuff that stimulates the mind differently than just a bunch of text.

So, Construct has a great thing going for itself, and I don't see why it cannot become a "serious" tool for game developers.

Post away! Tell us more how we shouldn't discuss our concerns with C3.

Discuss your concerns all you want. After awhile, you'll realize you're talking to a brick wall and may start to wonder "haven't I read these concerns a hundred times already?" No amount of concern-having is going to change anything is all I'm saying. If that were the case, C3 would have come out with all the features that were asked for. It wasn't, and it might later. Maybe.

I have my eyes on Fusion's 3 development blog and I am anxious too see if it will fill the gap between C2 and C3... However, F3 doesn't have an ETA yet and F2.5 doesn't hold a candle to C2's ease of use. I hope that F3 will be a good program!

I've watched F3 for a while myself. It looks like a nice platform, and I agree. Even though I own F2.5, I rarely used it because C2 was much more user-friendly. It's not like I don't understand the draw to Construct. I bought it myself. I just invite you to look outside even more when you have concerns that may not be addressed and to not lock yourself in to a program just because it may have X, Y but you really really want Z.

And yes, Construct should definitely have a timeline.

Bleenx , I don't think everyone can learn to program (hardcore syntax heavy with advance math, etc). Some people are more suited for specific thought processes and hampered by their preconditioned mental capacities. It takes a lot of time to reshape a brain that has been exercised all their life for other tasks outside of programming. So to suggest someone should just learn something is kind of inconsiderate. There's a reason why there are many specialization of work in the world and why people spend their whole life doing a specific thing. It's not easy to change.

Also, there are a lot of things a person learns simply through the process of making/developing games that aren't related at all to programming. I feel like construct is a great tool to use if you don't want to be burdened with heavy doses of syntax and abstractions that are difficult to visualize. Construct provides a more visual way to create a games, with color and texture- stuff that stimulates the mind differently than just a bunch of text.

So, Construct has a great thing going for itself, and I don't see why it cannot become a "serious" tool for game developers.

I get it. I'm not oblivious to that or anything. You're talking to a guy who took Math 2 as a freshman in high school, algebra 1-a my sophomore year, algebra 1-b my junior year, and I failed geometry my senior year because I hate math and didn't need the credit to graduate. I'm an artist. I've worked in 3D modeling and animation for 12 years. Game development was always my inner want. I got Construct 2 because I was scared to program and didn't think I could learn.

After awhile of watching hundreds of programming tutorials, you kind of just start remembering and applying what you learn. And if you don't know how to do something, there's someone on the internet that already figured it out and can help with the code. I just think learning to program helps no matter if you stick with Construct or not. It's definitely not a bad thing, and it'll only help you to develop as a game creator.

Discuss your concerns all you want. After awhile, you'll realize you're talking to a brick wall and may start to wonder "haven't I read these concerns a hundred times already?" No amount of concern-having is going to change anything is all I'm saying. If that were the case, C3 would have come out with all the features that were asked for. It wasn't, and it might later. Maybe.

You might be right, but I'm an artist too, and brick walls are my canvas. I'm going to continue to paint.

(btw, I also use to work in greeting cards)

> Discuss your concerns all you want. After awhile, you'll realize you're talking to a brick wall and may start to wonder "haven't I read these concerns a hundred times already?" No amount of concern-having is going to change anything is all I'm saying. If that were the case, C3 would have come out with all the features that were asked for. It wasn't, and it might later. Maybe.

>

You might be right, but I'm an artist too, and brick walls are my canvas. I'm going to continue to paint.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

For a licence holder of C2, the first year is half price. I think it is a very good deal knowing that the first year will be a kind of extended test phase.

Like me, just give it a try. I believe C3 will be a great game development tool.

For a licence holder of C2, the first year is half price. I think it is a very good deal knowing that the first year will be a kind of extended test phase.

Like me, just give it a try. I believe C3 will be a great game development tool.

Yes, I understand that, but why? Why tell your user base that had all those expectations about a new program "here is C2.3, rent it for an undetermined amount of time (the first year is only 50$), and eventually a desktop version (that will be able to save your files to disk) will come up, along with a brand new run-time, which in turn will probably bring new, exiting things to C3 (yet sometime later)!".

Why not announce C3 and start sales when the new run-time is ready, and spare the users the wait and see (while renting), I just can't understand this approach...

I wonder though, is this vague development road-map attractive for the professionals here? How can you plan your next project not knowing when and if the tool will carry its weight and what the technology will bring in the future? I've always felt like Construct was the tool for the days to come, not for the present, and this feeling is more evident nowadays, with the introduction of C2.3 (not C3 yet...)

No, it's not attractive even in the slightest at this point. It's 2 steps forward, a few hundred or so back. We'll see what the future holds, I'll be keeping my eye on C3, but as of now I wouldn't even consider a purchase/subscription, half price or not. It's nowhere near ready for prime time.

Yes, I understand that, but why? Why tell your user base that had all those expectations about a new program "here is C2.3, rent it for an undetermined amount of time (the first year is only 50$), and eventually a desktop version (that will be able to save your files to disk) will come up, along with a brand new run-time, which in turn will probably bring new, exiting things to C3 (yet sometime later)!".

Why not announce C3 and start sales when the new run-time is ready, and spare the users the wait and see (while renting), I just can't understand this approach...

I've wondered about all of this too. It seems pretty backwards. Subscriptions kind of kill off most hobbyists. In the end I just decided they've shifted markets and are going for the educational dollar, not the developer dollar. Unless the new runtime is a lot farther along than they've announced. In which case waiting to release anything may have been better instead of a half-measure that breaks everything, and then will break everything again when it's updated at some unknown future date, so that's probably not it. It certainly makes any kind of long-term development plans by users unrealistic.

¯\_(?)_/¯

I don't mean to be a negative Nancy all the time, but "wait for c3 runtime" on all the most voted features on the new requests platform doesn't make me feel great.

Yup - it's quite depressing. Either 'wait until c3 runtime', or 'future consideration' (ie wait until after c3 runtime....) for things like scene graph and advanced particles. Approx 90% of suggestions have not been reviewed, which gives the impression that the suggestions platform has already been abandoned.

I've wondered about all of this too. It seems pretty backwards. Subscriptions kind of kill off most hobbyists. In the end I just decided they've shifted markets and are going for the educational dollar, not the developer dollar. Unless the new runtime is a lot farther along than they've announced. In which case waiting to release anything may have been better instead of a half-measure that breaks everything, and then will break everything again when it's updated at some unknown future date, so that's probably not it. It certainly makes any kind of long-term development plans by users unrealistic.

¯\_(?)_/¯

You are putting it in words very clearly. The multiple platforms and devices goal does look like it's being targeted towards an audience with tablets and chromebooks, not beefy machines or a workflow that will utilize a more production ready environment. Since special deals could be made with educational institutions, the subscription might even be a plus under these circumstances.

To me, it looks like the announcement and early release of C2.3 in it's current, transitional phase, might have been due to pressure from competitor software (Fusion 3 perhaps). Perhaps Scirra wanted to have the heads up in sales and deals, before other products hit the market. This makes me think that by the end of the year, around the time Fusion 3 will be available, C2.3 will be as stable as C2, with some more features. Perhaps the new run-time will follow soon after, or there will be a solid ETA by then... Perhaps.

However, as you already said, this is bad for hobbyist, and for the pros, this technology shift is unstable ground to invest time and money. Let's wait and see, only time will tell I guess...

"I can't believe Scirra chose a HTML5 runtime instead of Flash. It just doesn't make any sense. Everyone is doing everything in Flash so obviously that was what they should have done. Also they have started charging money when Construct Classic was free, especially when C2 is so early on at this stage of development compared to CC. Obviously this will drive away users. I think I'll choose another tool. HTML5 also only runs in Chrome and Firefox right now so it seems needlessly limited, and we don't know if other browsers will ever support it. It seems like it was a desparate afterthought. It's sad to see Scirra making such crazy choices. It seems like they'll just fade in to obscurity to be overtaken by other tools. Too bad they're doomed."

• Everyone in 2011

"I can't believe Scirra chose a HTML5 runtime instead of Flash. It just doesn't make any sense. Everyone is doing everything in Flash so obviously that was what they should have done. Also they have started charging money when Construct Classic was free, especially when C2 is so early on at this stage of development compared to CC. Obviously this will drive away users. I think I'll choose another tool. HTML5 also only runs in Chrome and Firefox right now so it seems needlessly limited, and we don't know if other browsers will ever support it. It seems like it was a desparate afterthought. It's sad to see Scirra making such crazy choices. It seems like they'll just fade in to obscurity to be overtaken by other tools. Too bad they're doomed."

- Everyone in 2011

I think that was a good decision to switch to HTML5, but I don't know why you take so much credit for predicting that? I think a lot of us made that prediction about HTML5 being easier to use than Flash and it would eventually replace Flash. Maybe not on these forums. I wasn't around here then, but this was a popular opinion among us working in the web.

It was really Apple that gave a huge blow to Flash. I don't think too many people predicted that. (Thinking back, it makes sense. Apple does this often.) I think a lot of us thought that eventually people would switch to HMTL5, but it would be a long, and slow process. When people become comfortable with a product, it's harder for them to switch.

Flash isn't entirely dead yet either, btw. ActionScript is still being used, there's still games sites dedicated to Flash games, CNN and other major news sites still use Flash to show videos, there are still Flash ads around (IMDB), etc. Flash is now called Animate CC, but you can still use ActionScript in it. The only thing is really dead is Flash websites. I haven't seen any of those for a while. But it was always bad practice to build a website entirely in Flash.

All those people who tried to convince you to use Flash, they probably haven't gone very far. Obviously, they aren't here, but I wouldn't be surprised they are still using Flash somewhere, if they haven't switched to HTML5 by now.

As a quick aside, by far the most prevalent commercial use of Animate is in the creation of banner ads and rich web media content, of which HTML5 and canvas are the dominant background tech thanks in no small part to the fact that Animate is the amalgamation of several Adobe programs, namely Flash, Edge and Edge Animate.

With this in mind, it relies on the much more modern holy trinity of HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript.

I think it would be a misrepresentation of Animate to lean too heavily on it's ActionScript and Flash aspects; whilst these do exit, in my opinion they're grandfathered in to capture the userbase left behind when Adobe discontinued Flash - and even these features are heavily dependent on AIR to survive in today's world.

God I miss Fireworks. I miss Fireworks so much.

As a quick aside, by far the most prevalent commercial use of Animate is in the creation of banner ads and rich web media content, of which HTML5 and canvas are the dominant background tech thanks in no small part to the fact that Animate is the amalgamation of several Adobe programs, namely Flash, Edge and Edge Animate.

With this in mind, it relies on the much more modern holy trinity of HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript.

I think it would be a misrepresentation of Animate to lean too heavily on it's ActionScript and Flash aspects; whilst these do exit, in my opinion they're grandfathered in to capture the userbase left behind when Adobe discontinued Flash - and even these features are heavily dependent on AIR to survive in today's world.

God I miss Fireworks. I miss Fireworks so much.

I agree with you. Animate CC is not Flash anymore. My point is that Flash is not completely dead yet. Although, I think it's near there now. My other point was that without Apple, Flash would still be pretty strong. I remember numerous companies coming out against Apple's decision to drop Flash and it was even a selling point for many competitors, that their devices can still view Flash. Eventually though, Apple users didn't miss Flash and other companies finally came a round.

I think I'm really just trying to put all this in perspective. When everyone disagrees with Ashley, he brings up the point that he predicted HTML5 would replace Flash, so we should just blindly trust his decisions because we just don't see it yet. I think that is a weak argument.