blurymind's Forum Posts

  • If construct3 has one big advantage, that would be backward compatibility. Being able to use construct2 plugins and effects in construct3 is a big selling point to me

    [quote:19rrtkp4]Because the project filetype is binary

    That's terrible for team work and subversioning....................

    So Construct 3 saves binary blobs that can not be edited externally and are difficult for tracking changes.

    Fusion 3 will save project files as simple editable json text files that can be edited externally and that makes it better suited for team projects and github version control.

    http://www.clickteam.com/fusion-3-devel ... ?f3id=8769

    Will Scirra consider moving to that approach when they release desktop versions of construct3 ?

    That would be a feature request that would be beneficial to the users more than the developers of the game engine. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz">

  • > Most other game engines support spitting out a native APK that is not bundled with a web browser

    >

    Construct 2 already supports this as well. Just target Android 5.0+, and it won't bundle Crosswalk, which is what increases the file size. It's only there for Android 4.x support, which is steadily shrinking.

    That is worth adding to the FAQ, as some users on this forum see it as a disadvantage of the current exporter

  • So you have your exporter then.

    Yes, the exporter is on their server. This requires a number of things from you and them to work:

    • To have paid your yearly subscription
    • An internet connection to upload the project to scirra's server and download the resulting apk file (looks like xdk doesn't it) - depending on the size of your project this may have impact on compilation time
    • To be on a network that has not blocked access to their domain or appropriate ports
    • For their server to be online and not be overloaded by users or brought down by malicious parties such as the ones who have been attacking this forum with spambots

    With these new factors, it could be less reliable, but in return you could get a single click export to apk

    The problem is that the apk packaged game has a different performance from the game when you playtest it on localhost through the editor.

    Tom will construct3 also be able to use construct2's current offline exporters for construct3 projects? All of them?

    Construct 3 is backwards compatible and can open Construct 2 projects, Construct 2 will not be able to open Construct 3 projects.

    [quote:11zq1mom]Because the project filetype is binary, users will not be able to comment out lines of code that prevent the project of being loaded either.

    Construct 3 projects are a mix of binary files and JSON.

    Thank you for clarifying this point. I think that it is important to make that clear to construct3 users who think they can just buy construct2 and use that on a project they spent a year on developing in construct3 - only to realize that they are in fact locked to construct3 for that and must instead buy another year of subscription.

    That should be made clear prior to them investing in creating their project in construct3. Right now many users are misled to believe they can easily go back to construct2 if they don't like the subscription - without any consequence to their work.

    Please add it to the FAQ

    This is wrong, the free edition will have limits. You can work and edit games in the free edition up to those limits. If you open a project that exceeds those limits, it will be in read only mode.

    You cant do much with 100 events, so it is really not viable as an editor for old projects. The scenario of losing access to working on your own projects in construct3 after the yearly sub period has ended still stands.

    As a backup people would be able to open their projects in construct2, if they have it. That way scirra has two competing products on offer.

    I am assuming that construct3 made projects will not be compatible with construct2, only the other way around?

    Tom does scirra plan to keep compatibility of projects between the two editors?

    Will construct2 editor be able to open construct3 made projects and will that compatibility be kept for long?

    Because the project filetype is binary, users will not be able to comment out lines of code that prevent the project of being loaded either.

    That is one of the advantages of Fusion 3, which will allow users to also track github changes and collaborate on a project. The files that their editor uses is storing information in simple json text files - easy to edit outside of the engine editor.

    Meanwhile construct's are binary blobs- not accessible for any changes or tracking outside of the editor. Your editor is probably storing information of the version that saved that file and when opening it is checking if the file is from a newer version of construct. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

    Free!

    Tom / Ashley . Can you just give us what is covered in the free version? Most people yapping might not even need the subscription features, and can be fully contented with the free version. Unity free is decent, would C3 be the same? We all love to see the Free vs Paid feature list. I don't want to poke you against unity https://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/06/05/subscription-why/, on why they went through a subscription model, then went through a pay to own.

    I think Tom mentioned that the free version will let you open projects, but not edit them or export the game... which imo makes it pretty much worthless

  • I am not surprised at all.

    let's see if they reveal in more detail

  • This is not a unique feature in any way and the games are still bundled with a web browser - thus bigger apk files.

    Most other game engines support spitting out a native APK that is not bundled with a web browser like construct's html5 games - thus smaller file size.

    Fusion, game maker, unity, unreal - they all compile to android's native apk.

    Even free and open source game engines such as Godot export to native apk - without having to do much setup.

    None of those engines requires internet connection to export an apk either.

    I really don't understand why this is a killer feature

    It's still has a number of big disadvantages:

    • Your apk is about 80+ mb bigger than a native apk. If your game is 2 mb, when you export it - its 82 mb This is a big deal when you develop for an app store, because there are limitations of file size there

    -The games use more memory, because they are played through a web browser

    • You require internet connection to export and even have to pay sub fee (the main point - it being BUILT IN is NOT met)

    Scirra does not want to make native exporters to save money and you are just thanking them for still having the same problems as before, but instead now you will be using their web server to compile the packages. They are likely using the same technology xdk has and node.js on their server side- so the same apk comes out. Only scirra will be fixing the exporters now.

    In the grand scheme of things I would argue that this move makes scirra less competitive, but only time will show. It might work out better for them.

    Those of us that are not happy will obviously move on to other engines or stick with construct2.

    I don't think that people will stay with c2, even if scirra continues to push out fixes. The moment c3 comes out, it is obvious that all new features will go in it and not in c2

    We understand your idea on houses and all, but software is different. I would give you more credit if you compared it to a rent able Car or Power tools. First I think they are determined on their pricing model and will stick to it, irregardless of our voice. Usually small companies need a predictable / forecast-able annual revenue. Scirra will take this risk, from there they would assess whether to change from one-time payment or subscription model.

    Look I totally get that and Scirra is in their right to put whatever licensing model or price they want on their product. I am just trying to explain why subscriptions don't feel nice spending money on.. especially now with all the competing products on the market.

    Be it a house or a car - renting it out makes it unreliable and changes how and when you use it.

    There are a lot of very good game engines that are completely free and make money from the services they offer to professionals. They charge you only when you turn out a huge profit. Those are the engines that real professionals actually use - Unreal and Unity3d!

    You know what, that makes them accessible to people to learn - as there are no limitations imposed on the user to create a full game. No limitations on the development period, no limits on the size of the game

    That is partly the reason for their success

    The more you impose limitations- even to your loyal paying customer, the more you will see them leave for the other engines. This is a domino effect - the number of content created is less, fewer games to advertise the engine, fewer tutorials, less assets on the market. Believe it or not - the quality of a game engine hugely depends on it's community. It is not just the developer. Game engine devs such as Defold understand that very well and even invest huge amounts of money in advertising their free engine

    Look guys,

    Its like buying a house vs renting a house.

    If many houses are on the market and suddenly the one you looked forward to buying is revealed as rent only, you start to look at what else is available.

    That reveals a number of houses that have roughly the same price to buy and a bigger set of features. They might need some maintenance in a few years - so you will still pay upgrade fees to be up to date with the latest features. But because you bought them, you feel more secure living in them.

    Yes, you have to get used to them, but at least the keys are your keys, not some landlord's. That way you don't feel rushed to constantly look for a proper job in order to not become homeless. You can chill and continue to see the whole thing as a fun hobby

    Renting puts huge pressure on the user to spend more time using the service before time runs out. It makes it feel like another job, not a fun hobby. That is essentially what drastically changes scirra's target demographic. It will phase out a lot of the hobbyist users. That is why some people will feel left out

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    Sebastian going with fusion, basically you get:

    • Native exporters
    • No subscription fees, fusion 3 license will be one time payment, with a discount for fusion users. What you buy is not a trial, you own it
    • Native editor for windows, linux and mac
    • No need to rely on third party technology to run the editor or the games, thus the games are not bundled with a glorified web browser that uses more hd space than the actual game's content
    • Fusion 3's editor addresses the problems that made c2 the better editor. It seems even better than what construct2 has - from the previews

    The only advantage that I can currently see with construct3 is that you can run it on your phone, through a web browser.

    That and no need to install anything to get to your development environment.

    The other one is scirra's cloud service - that might be a valuable way to backup your project - but we can already do that for free with dropbox.

    It is possible that clickteam offers an optional cloud service to do that - key word here being optional

    X3M I am pretty sure that Tom made it clear that if you miss paying the rent, you no longer can edit your projects until you do so. You will be running the free demo version instead. And if your project exceeds the limitations (which it most certainly will), the editor will lock you out of it - putting your whole enterprise on hiatus until further payment.

    I asked Clickteam to confirm if Fusion 3 will be subscription based as well.

    One of the main developers (Marv) has confirmed that it will not be subscription based like construct3

    https://community.clickteam.com/threads ... post714137

    They are already talking about what's going on here and bracing their server for the flood of construct2 users <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing">

    So far the only hope for scirra is that construct 3 will come out a month or two before fusion 3, in that period of time if by some miracle they manage to change people's views on the whole license thing (which seems to be the main issue for most users here) - it might not be as bad

    It will be interesting to see how things develop. I see that this community has a number of very loyal users and that the company has experience with going against the tide . hats off for that. I will be very impressed if this turns out to be a success! The technology itself is exciting- the editor being pure html5 makes a lot of sense and imo is a brilliant step towards making it run everywhere. I got excited about it running on mobile. But the price and the type of license still does not justify what we get from it, when you pit it against the competition - both game maker and clickteam fusion have a better deal. What else is in that editor that makes scirra so confident? It makes me want to wait and see what will be revealed.

    I think that this voting thread would be more fair if you still had to pay for major version upgrades. Paying once for a lifetime does not make sense , but paying rent makes even less sense. I would rather vote for something in the middle - pay for major version upgrades that bring new features that are worth it. So pay once for 3, then pay upgrade fee to bump up to 3.5 and so on