lamar's Forum Posts

    Ashley can I get a direct response from you please?

    Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

    I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

    Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

    So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

    Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

    1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

    2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

    We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

    So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

    It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

    It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

    So what do you say?

    Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

    > 1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

    >

    It's not just Chrome based, as Firefox will be compatible in the near future.

    This issue of yours is two different issues

    1) browser based

    2) subscription

    What's wrong with it being Browser Based? What technical issues are there that you are concerned about? You haven't answered that other than "But chrome updates" which is has an easy solution.

    I have asked Ashley to respond directly to my post.

    I would ask that you not respond to me until I have heard a response directly from Ashley to my question.

    Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

    I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

    Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

    So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

    Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

    1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

    2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

    We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

    So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

    It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

    It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

    So what do you say?

    Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

    — can we get response please because it looks to me like you asked what we wanted and then brushed it aside not listening and instead you want to tell us all the wonderful things you have planned for C3.

    Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

    I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

    Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

    So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

    Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

    1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

    2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

    We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

    So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

    It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

    It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

    So what do you say?

    Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

    lamar

    > 1) You feel you were advertised the exporters instead of support of being able to publish to the platforms for Construct 2.

    >

    Just because it was advertised that it would work with the platform

    *(with third party exporters)

    doesn't mean they have to fully 100% support and make sure each platform's exporter works flawlessly with all features provided by Construct.

    In fact Scirra has worked together with many of the wrapper projects to improve the project so Construct games can work even better in the environment but for each console the wrapper devs have to recreate the wheel and that needs a lot of time/skill/money. (Which is why it's good MS is doing their Xbox browser support stuff)

    People didn't dev for Linux and Mac due to lack of support and we'd have a more stagnant dev environment if not for Valve and other companies throwing their weight into OpenGL/Vulkan to destroy the reliance on DirectX, but with consoles instead of just 1 environment (Linux/Unix-likes) you get multiple proprietary environments with not as wide of range of operating system/coding environment support.

    I bet Scirra probably has some interesting stories trying to work with Nintendo if they were not under a NDA.

    ---

    Now I do agree that there was a lack of support in regards to the exporters in terms of documentation that lead to additional confusions, as well as hopes that the parties making the wrappers would improve them more than they were.

    As we see with Construct 3's cloud based service they're obviously getting an automated flow working to compile them for mobile, but I doubt the majority of the technology involved is Scirra proprietary. This means that it's possible for them to document majority of the process and then share with everyone so people can follow the steps and go through the process with their exported project.

    You quote yourself and then point me at your quote lol!

    Come on man and let's cut through the bullshit. Scirra could make those exporters and features available as a C2 update or addon and you guys know that.

    They are doing it for one reason only because they don't want to give up exporters for a single payment if they can force us or tie us into a long term subscription.

    Tom admitted that right here:

    Addon package is an interesting idea but it's not on the road-map for now. The export to mobile options we're building for C3 rely on external servers which have cost to keep running so any addon would have to be subscription based.

    So please stop claiming you can't do it for blah and blah reason or that they did not lead us all on with advertising that included those exporters would be in C2 because that makes me think you think I and everyone else is stupid.

    lamar

    I didn't ask for that specifically, because I didn't even know it was possible, or that they even had that plan in mind. But since I've tried the beta, i'm quite optimistic.... It looks great, feels great, and I can even make games on my phone while having a dump.

    I can just speak for myself. The only thing i can remember I requested was 3D support, and not having to rely on 3rd party build options for mobile. Apparently they provided 50% of my needs so far, and they have no interest whatsoever adding 3D support.... but I'm not complaining. That it's browser based is just a bonus for me. I find it pretty cool.... Unusual, but I kind of like it.... so far.... I will still be using C2 for my main project, but will be playing with C3 as I go.

    Subscription model or not... I could care less. Game development is still pretty cheap hobby of mine. I have several subscriptions running just to make my project a reality. Photoshop, Autodesk Sketchbook, Maya... hell ... even my gym card costs 250Euro for 6 month membership, and I don't even like going there, but I still pay for it, because it's good for me. >_< ... LOL

    I'm not speaking for everyone, ONLY myself. As everyone has their own needs and request, but I put my trust in that they know what they are doing, and so far I'm still optimistic, especially if I will see my favorite plugins ported to C3.

    I just feel there's way too much negativity before we even got our hands on the complete product.... even when first stable is released, it's still gonna have some problems, or lacking some features until the product matures. I think we would have to deal with that even if they went for a pure desktop version.

    OK, but nowhere have I (or anyone I have read) suggested Scirra not go ahead with their C3 project.

    I have suggested a compromise so C2 users that do not have your kind of money to waste on a subscription will stay with C2 and that would help you and all of us and Scirra still makes money to support their projects.

    >

    > >

    > > There are way more people that like the basic idea of browser based subscription engine.

    > > However not everyone participates in the forums or wants to add to the discussion. People with hate will always be more visible than people who love something.

    > >

    > > I guess the discussion is over.

    > >

    >

    Well that makes Three of you?

    The same three on all these discussions unless you count your comments multiple times.

    Still waiting for the thousand or even hundreds that support your position and want a chrome based subscription browser?

    Here are 11 pages of real long time C2 users that disagree with you three:

    The quote oft attributed to Ford applies here:

    [quote:1biju84q]If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

    People don't know they want cutting edge until they have it.

    I didn't realise how helpful a browser based editor would be until I realised when I was at work that I could just login to C3 and work on my files; what's more, the editor actually updated automatically, and told me so with a pop-up. I'll confess I was impressed.

    C3 is the evolution of a product, Scirra aren't going to compromise their vision of progress to cater to the vocal minority. Ultimately the effectiveness of their decisions will be determined in sales figures, of which a subscription model is infinitely better suited to their constant maintenance and upgrades business plan.

    If Scirra are able to provide the same level of improvement and growth that C2 experienced before the work on C3 cut into the dev time, I'll be a customer for life. C3 isn't a product, it's a service.

    OK so that makes you and Tunepunk that want a chrome browser based subscription engine.

    If there are more than two of you get them to post here or start a thread and when you get a thousand people that agree with you or even a hundred then you have a case to support your opinion.

    There are that many that disagree with you though and they have made that clear!

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    lamar LOL, it's not a big conspiracy theory you just uncovered. It's basic business 101 ...

    They chose to make an online dev tool, with running costs, and subscription makes sense. To me at least... Even if I skipped Business Economics class in school.

    Basic business 101 is to give your customers what they want and to honor your license and advertising.

    Scirra advertised those exporters in C2 and we paid for our licenses based on that advertising.

    I have suggested a reasonable compromise that would still make Scirra money and would keep their base happy but a few people like you still seem to want to follow a Scirra road map that has very few people supporting it and that makes no sense to me and is probably cutting your own throat (figure of speech).

    If you or Tom or Ashley can show me the thread with thousands of people like you asking for a Chrome browser based subscription engine then I will consider your reasons?

    Addon package is an interesting idea but it's not on the road-map for now. The export to mobile options we're building for C3 rely on external servers which have cost to keep running so any addon would have to be subscription based.

    AND there in lays the REAL answer and it is because Scirra wants to tie people to a subscription instead of a one time payment for exporters that were advertised to already be in C2.

    > 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?

    This is also data Tom and is 11 pages of long time C2 users most of whom are disappointed in C3 and now looking for another engine:

    If you have data in the form of thousands of people requesting a browser based subscription engine then I would like to see that because maybe they have some reason we have not considered but just saying you have data in your database and analytics without actual people supporting that data looks to be flawed.

    > 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.

    > 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?

  • > Use a global variable trigger.

    >

    > When you are not attacking set it to a number and when you are attacking set it to a different number.

    >

    > On Key Press Left: Set animation player to "walk"

    > Movement=1

    >

    > On Key Press Attack: Set Movement=0

    >

    > On Movement=0: Set animation "Attack

    > ............................. Wait X seconds

    > ............................. Set Movement=1

    >

    > That way your player will not move when attacking.

    >

    Yeah the animation stops but when I press the right arrow while attacking the player still slides left and right just no walking animation.

    What movement control are you using?

    You can set controls to disabled for platformer and 8 direction movement control.

    >

    > 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.