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

I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system. A lot of posts have been made vindicating the choice to use html5, but i feel regardless Scirra is still a bit blind to its down sides and the on going issues it presents. Just my opinion.

"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

And obviously, mocking your user base isn't going to drive them away either.

Nobody wanted flash. We talked about opengl, or directx, or maybe even a mobile native.

Talked/ fought.

Of course we then fought over html5, and were promised an exporter sdk.

Probably shouldn't start in on that one though.

I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system. A lot of posts have been made vindicating the choice to use html5, but i feel regardless Scirra is still a bit blind to its down sides and the on going issues it presents. Just my opinion.

Good point.

Nobody wanted flash. We talked about opengl, or directx, or maybe even a mobile native.

Talked/ fought.

Of course we then fought over html5, and were promised an exporter sdk.

Probably shouldn't start in on that one though.

I probably would've argued against Flash too, but I wasn't here then. I hated the idea that people had to download a plugin to view content and be bothered with constant updates. Flash was a mess littered with security issues. The opposing argument was that Flash, much like C2, allows people to create content easily.

...

- Everyone in 2011

This is looking back with rose tinted glasses. Flash absolutely blew away HTML5 then. So at the time, we couldn't export to the best web format or PC. Other engines could export to Flash and PC and then they added HTML5 later when it became viable. Isn't that a better solution than risking everything on HTML5? So sure you made a good prediction on HTML5 becoming a good web format but it took a few years. And still we've only recently gotten a PC export that works properly with Steam, an export to XBox that doesn't work, no PS4 and no Switch. So we are still dealing with the repercussions of having an HTML5 export.

I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system. A lot of posts have been made vindicating the choice to use html5, but i feel regardless Scirra is still a bit blind to its down sides and the on going issues it presents. Just my opinion.

Exactly this.

Wow people are really going at ashley ... He's a fucking expert or even an amazing mathmatician as far as I'm concerned

and the products he and his fellows are making arn't extremely bad obviously

I think everyone would do their product differently and I see many many flaws being a designer even

in a piano but regardless I think moving to web browser did put a performance hit on the engine in comparison to the c2 c++ version but the engine

is not exactly terrible at all their are a few things that bother me like enabling a effect whilst in the event sheet with that rather strange text input

based selection but I think that gives us more control so I wouldn't consider that a problem more of strange but useful oddity and I hope

it gets updated to be more simpler or in the manual it explains how to use it properly also I noticed a bug in the sprite editor

If you draw a shape then fill it in that shape will not be completely filled their will be one or two pixel gap also I don't think the way

options are layed out in the object actions window or even the event window is exactly the most simplest it could be stuff that is most important

does not seem to be clearly viewable you have to scroll around or ask someone on the forum to find out where certain actions are

but other then those few things the editor is solid as fuck soo I don't know ,

personally I would favour both the web browser application one and a software application

if I had a gun to my head Id pick the fastest and more efficient option and I think well honestly javascript is not as super fast as c++ or assembly

or even binary and possibly machine hardware it self but making a web browser version means cross platform issues are basically

alot more mute , you can still do everything you wanna do the speed decrease is rather negligible possibly I havn't tested it properly

and c++ is a lot more trouble sooo maybe it's for the best that it's web browser now...?

I have aspergers , ADHD ,etc so it's harder for me to be a programmer then your usual.

Either way I need construct 3 to be finished otherwise I'm never going to be able to be a game developer unless

I can find graphics programmer who is passionate about mathmatics in game development which is alittle bit of an strange world to be in

and I could go that route but preferences will no doubt clash and I'll end on my ass soo...

I want what's best for everyone and the most efficient option so maybe their should have been a intelligently described voting system

where before the options are defined and shown their is a disclaimer that gives you a decent background on the actual evolution

of ease of accessibility and so on also the vote options should be described in simplified detail and their results in simplified detail .

Obviously that vote has long gone now but maybe in the future that should happen.

I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system.

It must be easy as a customer to ignore the practical realities of software development. Honestly, the whole reason the event system is so good, is because we've never been bogged down by multiple codebases. Think about this: we're doing better than most other non-programming tools, some of which even have native codebases and make a point of it. Some have had up to 10 times as many employees, even. Why don't they "just" make the rest of the tool better? Because their technology choices cause massive development slowdowns.

So I think this is actually completely wrong: we're all here *because* Construct is HTML5. Everyone can gripe about various aspects of HTML5 - no technology or set of technologies are perfect - but until you actually work on such a big software project, you'll probably never understand just how unreasonable it is to imagine that we could "just" have the same product with alternative technologies, or anyone else with multiple codebases could "just" make their product as good as Construct.

"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 wasn't here in 2011, and I'd have disagreed with that statement then, as someone who was already transitioning away from Flash in my professional career-related work.

It's also entirely unrelated and dismissive of my statements above, and ignores relevant concerns. Yes, believe it or not, some Construct users aren't just ignorant hobbyists expecting the world for cheap, or asking for features they'll never use. So maybe don't do that.

It's a fair point you make. As a customer i guess i have that luxury, but i suppose i also evaluate the software with a different set of criteria then you the developer. Please remember though you market your software at non programers like me then say i "ignore practical realities of software development".

> I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system.

>

It must be easy as a customer to ignore the practical realities of software development. Honestly, the whole reason the event system is so good, is because we've never been bogged down by multiple codebases. Think about this: we're doing better than most other non-programming tools, some of which even have native codebases and make a point of it. Some have had up to 10 times as many employees, even. Why don't they "just" make the rest of the tool better? Because their technology choices cause massive development slowdowns.

So I think this is actually completely wrong: we're all here *because* Construct is HTML5. Everyone can gripe about various aspects of HTML5 - no technology or set of technologies are perfect - but until you actually work on such a big software project, you'll probably never understand just how unreasonable it is to imagine that we could "just" have the same product with alternative technologies, or anyone else with multiple codebases could "just" make their product as good as Construct.

I'd say the event system is the main reason. Not having to worry about integration or initialization of various components, HTML5 or not, is the main selling point to me, and I know how to do those things in HTML5/JS, Flash, etc. You're overselling your decision to use HTML5 as a basis for C2. HTML5 was a nice bonus, because I know what's possible with it, and C2 has some shortcomings compared to what the technology is capable of. Until the rewrite, those shortcomings will also effect C3.

It is what it is. You're being snippy with your customers right now, but criticism is not necessarily a personal attack or inherently negative. We're not all Lamar, looking to get banned, and I never would have okayed use of Sombrero as a showcase for Construct if I didn't believe the product has the potential, as yet only partially realized, for a long and bright future.

As for solid products with multiple codebases, built by small teams: I started using Unity when it went cross platform with v3. At that point, it supported Windows, OSX, Linux, Android, and iOS. So it is possible - they were not a large team at that point at all. To run in a browser, they have to write their own plugin - a problem you don't have to deal with, which is good for both you and users of your products. But these days they're doing some pretty interesting things with WebGL/HTML5, and have 3rd-party plugins that allow event-like and node-based development. Just something to keep in mind while you're commenting on Construct's abilities and the benefits of basing it on HTML5. To be clear I'm also not using Unity as an example to suggest that you should work on adding 3D support.

I'd say the event system is the main reason. Not having to worry about integration or initialization of various components, HTML5 or not, is the main selling point to me, and I know how to do those things in HTML5/JS, Flash, etc. You're overselling your decision to use HTML5 as a basis for C2. HTML5 was a nice bonus, because I know what's possible with it, and C2 has some shortcomings compared to what the technology is capable of. Until the rewrite, those shortcomings will also effect C3.

Yeah, I never wanted to make games that you'd run in a browser. My decision to use C2 was due to the eventsheeting system. I didn't care whether it was html5 or not. All my projects are wrapped with NW.js because I just want to make a game you run and play like usual. I'd prefer if I didn't have to use NW.js

And yeah, I have become disappointed with certain shortcomings due to the html5 tech. So the html5 is definitely not the reason I'm using Construct.

I guess it is the reason Scirra is developing Construct, and that is fine.

I'd be willing to bet most people here use Construct in spite of it being html5 than because it is html5. I'm here for the event system.

+1

I'm here only for the event system Swell, I don't mind what technology it is been used on the engine as long it's working well and stable exporters, saying this looks like Html5 didn't work that well for construct 2, perhaps maybe will be about the time for Scirra to start considering different options, like a lot of loyal construct 2 users have been suggesting for long.

My personal opinion if I upgrade to c3 it is only for the mobile exporters.

I would bet an awful lot of money that if Construct was native yet platform focused, the forum would be flooded with "Can you support iOS" and "Please make Construct exports for Mac" every other week.

The fact about HTML5 that is so exciting is that is always getting better. Software is making strides towards becoming both cloud-based and hybrid - native is falling away.

You won't have to worry about whether your app or game will run on a new device, because the underlying technology is the closest thing every modern device, every phone, laptop, computer and tablet has to a shared language this side of binary.

I won't deny that that's frustrating if you're wanting a solution for today, but I take a degree of comfort in knowing that the software is being built with tomorrow in mind as well.

Just a heads up have cleaned up a few posts in this thread (and posts quoting/referring to those posts).