blurymind's Forum Posts

    >

    > > godot already has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    > > Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    > >

    >

    > From the looks of it I'd rather go with scripting.

    > I would have concerns with lag in the editor with all the extra rendering involved.

    >

    I gave Godot a go because it was supposed to be like python, but it just gave me nightmares of gml. By the way, for all of you who are going to leave Construct because you don't want to pay for the sub, I highly recommend NOT going to any of the free engines. I've seen more crashes on GDevelop than when I went to a demolition derby, but do as you wish and remember you can play Battlefield 1 with 8 gigs of ram and a GTX 660.

    I dont recomend gdevelop either, just saying it's the closest to construct.

    As for Godot - it is probably the best choice atm for me. Gdscript is incredibly simple to learn and use and very powerful. Godot has too many advantages to list in one thread.

    If you want to really use python, that is being added to godot as well:

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    as demonstrated this year at godotcon

    All in all, I think that even if godot cost 200$ for a license, I would still buy it over construct2 or even fusion. It has three times more features and can build native games with no need of containers. Don't be mislead by the 'free' label - what it really is is open source - which means owned by the community and people who use it - not a developer who can change the licensing type and price on a whim every year. It means that if someone wants a feature - they can add it or hire someone to add it - that is one hell of a deal if you ask me <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

    Signed. It is a bad business decision and will simply cause devs to move to other software that is pay once or open source. Reason I'be moved to godot already, which is adding visual scripting at some point.

    http://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/201 ... -Look.aspx

    godot has visual scripting, however it is not the same as construct.

    Godot's visual scripting is similar to Unreal's blueprints

    If you want open source construct that runs on linux and mac natively - try gdevelop.

    Gdevelop is very underdeveloped though - doesnt see updates very often and has only two contributors

    > It's a question of greed really.

    > A few more "serious" developers for Scirra, versus hundreds of exploitable indie games for the consoles.

    >

    A Serious Dev is worth a thousand shovels.

    Look what FNAF did.

    FNAF was made in Clickteam fusion

    http://indiegames.clickteam.com/

    which btw has native exporters AND whose event sheet inspired construct's

    <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

    I have to join everyone here and say that unless scirra comes up with the greatest html5 wrapper in the world, its engine will never have many commercial games and people will always complain about the lack of native exporters.

    This subscription fee license is putting nails in the coffin here, rather than solving that request.

    MOST other game engines do have native exporters. Even the free open source ones!

  • a bit laggy in chromium, but still quite impressive.

    Not worth selling your soul to the renting model though. I am not convinced yet , sorry

    C2 is still > C3

    will scirra continue to sell c2 licenses?

  • crashes , fails to start.

    Reported the error and the log

  • Shouldn't you be over at Fusion keeping up with thread you made about Reasons to buy Fusion 3 instead of Construct 3 ? Or, you could help with bug testing here

    Bug testing sounds better

    That thread served it's purpose - it got people to talk about why they are on the fusion forum. You are invited to come by and comment on it of course

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • blurymind

    Apart from one-time purchases and native-exporting to mobile, what does the "competition" have that's better at game development than C2?

    I'm just curious.

    Native exporters smaller game file size (important on mobile), arguably better optimized games..

    bigger number of successful games on steam made by the competition

  • I am a linux user, and was looking forward to construct3, but when you announced that it will be subscription only I started going back to looking forward to Fusion 3 - which is also coming out on linux and mac this year

    So that advantage is really not that big at the moment, the competition also has it in the bag.

    What are the other advantages of construct3 over similar competitive products that have a better license offering?

    So far can see a few, but I wonder how scirra sees themselves. What is construct3's edge?

  • > C3 is C2 online..

    >

    Not true. But if it would...

    C2 = $98.79 one time payment

    C2+WebBased = C3 = $99 per year + your stuff stops working if you stop paying.

    ~Oh boy! What a deal! <3

    awful deal to existing users.

    And you can buy a similar game engine that is one time payment instead

    Unless they reveal that construct3 is the shit and can hatch golden eggs and make pancakes, I really think you have to be the biggest fanboy sucker to justify the price for value that we are getting here

  • Can I write in this topic one more concern I have?

    I hope you will let me ^^

    What if the price of the subscription (for hobbysts) goes up (with more than 50)?

    Scirra Blog Post december 2018:

    Happy new year everyone!

    ps: price goes up from 100 to 250.

    (I am not trying to set a negative vibe. I like C2 and Scirra^^)

    When their deal starts sucking for you - it's very simple. Just vote with your wallet by not buying.

    if the reason is the license model - not buy.

    If the reason is the increased rental fee - not buy.

    Simply doing that will cause the company to see the revenue going down, which will eventually force them to consider that it wasn't such a great idea to ask this from their loyal customers.

    Guys, in the end you have the power, the customers. If scirra broke your heart, you can break theirs too. Just spend your money and time on the competition - this will force them to compete more

    I think that while they drive away alot of people, they will still make enough to keep this rental model. Thus why I will unfortunately no longer use or buy new products from scirra, but will continue to follow the forum and use construct2 once in a while for prototyping and such

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • newt is right - you have to carefully design your reusable logic and one glove doesnt fit all. If you want more flexibility, learn programming. Construct's event sheet is awesome, but it does have limitations compared to what you can do compared to godot for example.

    The more flexibility you have - the more complexity and learning curve

    The linearity in functions is not a problem at all - once it completes execution of whats inside the function, the process should continue from after the line where the function was called. Unless inside the function you haven't rerouted the execution to some other specific part of the game loop - which would defeat the purpose of the function - to be reusable.

    My suggestion is to plan it out on paper first- say to yourself exactly how you want to structure it.

    I personally try to make things modular, but have fallen in the trap of tangling myself in a mess in the past

    tunepunk the more I think about it, the more I dont see scirra making bigger profits with the model they are going for.

    Yes, people will exploit it probably

    That is why I have been saying that a year subscription should buy you the editor, but not lifetime updates for it. Only updates for that year that you have subscribed for + access to scirra's apk/exe export service.

    At least that way scirra is not driving away a big part of the current user base to alternative methods or alternative game engines.

    Give everyone a reason to want to buy the subscription and they will. Plus if they keep using the editor after their subscription has ended - scirra still has them invested and loyal, still has their time and even ability to advertise new features they will get by buying the subscription again- directly in the editor itself. If the free editor is limited in editing capabilities- guess what - people pirate it instead or dont use it - scirra loses that window where they can keep the user hooked and motivated to pay

    we can go flexible there:

    A month subscription could give you the editor with editing capabilities only for a month - for a taste, but you dont get the editor with editing capabilities for life. So even the monthly subscription has an upgrade path to the user with a good hook/lure --> a year subscription=the editor with editing capabilities for life. Another year subscription = updates (fixes and new features) for a year + scirra's wrapper. If people skip a year = the next year subscription for their unlocked editor is at a higher price, that is equal or less than the current initial year sub price. Scirra can offer a discount to any user who has paid for the next year in the same month their subscription has ended.

    There are so many opportunities to get people invested there - and in order to succeed with this model I think they have to be aggressively rewarding loyal users to keep them on. Aggressively tempting users who have stopped paying subscription, rather than cutting them off and demotivating them

  • Cant we already include another event sheet and call functions from it?

    The event sheets are not seen as a resource type that can be easily transferred between projects unfortunately - because of their dependency on the objects in the scene. You can't refer to objects via a variable - that makes it harder to make reusable event sheets.

    That stuff is available in godot and game maker btw- it's much easier to do it there. Of course, you gotta learn other engines and some scripting then. Most game engines allow you to have classes that extend other classes and scripts that can call functions from other scripts. You can reuse functions by passing the game objects they are affecting as parameters- and even easily expose them to the editor - where the designer selects what game object is to be affected by the reusable function without typing a single line of code.