lamar's Forum Posts

    To the few people above that said they will get C3 for a year just long enough to export their C2 projects I suggest you look at the bug reports.

    I tried loading some of my small C2 games that have no addons or plugins and couldn't even get them to load. If you are using any plugins I will bet you won't be able to use them on C3. At least not any time soon.

    The point I have been making all along is if Scirra now has those wrappers and exporters that we have been asking for for years then they can include those in a C2 update or make a package of exporters we can buy as an addon separately without a subscription.

    If C3 is just going to end up being an expensive way for people to export our C2 projects that is not something I think many people are interested in and those exporters were advertised to be included with C2 when we purchased our license.

    > I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon C2

    >

    You could've said just this.

    Which of course while they have answered individual posts about it, its sunsetting plan could be in a well placed FAQ somewhere as the communication problem isn't them not listening, more of the information about the concerns are not apparent/easily accessible enough.

    You are welcome to your opinion. I have had many long discussions with Tom and Ashley here in the forum on these issues and I have my opinion.

    >

    > I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

    >

    > You did not answer the question?

    >

    > There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

    >

    > Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    >

    > There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

    >

    Rephrasing questions:

    Are you not worried about bugs that pop up with Chrome and Chrome Updates?

    I am not worried about Chrome issues as they are the same issues you would get with Construct 2 for your exported games. If you're worried you can get the Desktop wrapped version when it's out, or in the meantime download Chrome Portable and use that as an instance. I actually recommend it for testing exports too.

    You could disable auto-updates on Chrome too.

    With Construct 2, Scirra notified us and fixed many issues that did pop up so there is confidence in that happening. Plus if you look at Chrome versioning you will see that the canary and beta builds are far enough ahead of stable that any issues will be known well before they affect the general populous.

    Why do you want an app that is a cloud based program with subscription for it's monetization?

    I can't really say much about the monetization method but I do prefer my own fully featured offline client. But while I do prefer it, other methods may be more feasible for them as a company and it's their job to make sure it inconveniences me as little as possible like any other distribution method/DRM. Chromes Persistent App feature makes the cloud based nature less of an issue on both desktop and android in terms of offline access.

    What if Scirra suddenly just disappears?

    For the Scirra disappearing thing there's 2 scenarios:

    1) Website offline due to outage // User takes computer offline

    How long can they use all features? Is it 30 days like Steam Offline mode?

    2) Scirra stops existing

    In the end if Scirra has to disappear, what is their sunsetting plan? Do they even have one?

    This is something that we should have Ashley answer and have them put into a FAQ since there is much uncertainty over it.

    For the scenario if Scirra exists and your sub ends it's less complicated as you own the code, but due to the model you don't own the right to access the full features of the engine. I have no opinion on that myself as of yet.

    >

    > No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

    >

    > So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

    >

    The problem is in any discussion like this both sides say they're the majority or the target for the software. You're turning it into an Us vs Them discussion and that's not productive at all. What I'm trying to do is to get the points articulated without that sort of divisiveness.

    You have valid complaints and concerns, but your assumed solution to those complaints and concerns are not the cause itself.

    The cause itself is Ashley not listening to the majority of C2 users that have said repeatedly they do not want a browser based subscription engine.

    If you can show me any majority of people that want that then they sure are not posting in the forum and maybe you should start a thread and ask people in the forum if that is what they want and see the response and maybe I am wrong?

    My suggestion has been a compromise all along:

    Scirra can go ahead and finish C3 and see if it is profitable and enough people want it to focus on that in the future.

    They can also use that new team of designers they hired to fix the bugs in C2 and create a C2 update version with the exporters and features we have been asking for for years or make a package of features and exporters as an addon that I believe many C2 users would be happy to pay a reasonable price for without a subscription.

    It is not a one or the other decision and from your own post you have said you would prefer a standalone engine and so would most C2 users so if Ashley and Tom are listening to us that is what they should be doing.

    You might want to look through my C3 thread and this thread and read the many responses of C2 users that are disappointed with the direction Scirra is taking with C3 but as I said I only speak for myself and I am just hoping Scirra does not abandon the C2 users that got them to this point as that will bite them in the end and is what causes businesses to fail.

    Have a good night!

    >

    > Where did I say anything about HTML5?

    >

    What else do browser based programs run on?

    >

    > We all know C2 and C3 are HTML5 based and if someone does not want that format why would they get an HTML5 based engine?

    >

    > You are trying to put your words in my mouth and we are NOT asking for special features. We are asking for exporters that were advertised when we bought our licenses and the bugs to be fixed and the features Scirra has been promoting that now are only included in a C3 Browser subscription engine that very few C2 users seem to want.

    >

    > Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    >

    > Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    >

    > I have been following these thread for months now and I have heard from less than a handful of people that want a browser based subscription engine and many many C2 users that do not want that so I would like to know specifically why you want that format and how you think that is a solution for your game design?

    >

    It sounds more like that you have 2 issues

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

    2) You do not like the monetization model (subscription) Construct 3 is going towards.

    I already addressed my opinion on #1 in my prior post.

    For #2 because you're getting the cloud based automated wrapping as part of the sub is still cheaper for many people than the other engines, and it addresses you concerns with Construct 2's process due to the issue with #1 (at least for mobile exports, which is a large demographic)

    Is this correct? You keep repeating Browser Based Sub Model when the browser based part seems like a non-issue from you very own statements, so I hope you can forgive me for trying to clarify the issues rather than relying on the monolith of "HTML5 isn't good enough yet" as the reason to not even use HTML5. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth as I do understand the pains, but wish the core issues can be better communicated.

    I think pretty much everyone knows C2 and C3 are HTML5 based engines so I am not sure even what you are saying?

    You did not answer the question?

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    There are many reasons people have said they do not want a browser based engine and #1 is it is browser based and relies on Chrome and Chrome has many issues.

    There are many reasons people do not want a subscription including you do not own the engine and if Scrra goes out of business or stops renewing subscriptions for any reason you will not be able to edit your games.

    How do you plan on offsetting the cost for that subscription?

    Do you make enough from your games for that because I will bet over 90% of the C2 users are hobby and small time game designers that will not make enough to cover the cost of a subscription.

    No one is saying Scirra shouldn't produce C3 for people like you but that is a small minority of people and they appear to be moving to a browser subscription format the majority of people that have supported Scirra with our money, making plugins and promoting them in our games do not seem to want.

    So how is it a good business decision for Scirra to ignore what the majority of their base wants to focus on a small group of people like you?

    > Engines come and go and never a good idea to put all your eggs or games in one basket.

    >

    > To put this in perspective, I am old and started writing commercial games in BASIC for the Commodore 64.

    >

    >

    agreed.

    and C64 was my first love! That's where I learned to love games and coding in BASIC.

    I actually started on the Vic20 when I was about 15 and I was so excited to get a Commodore 32 and then when the C64 came out I was like wow now I can really write some great programs lol!

    I wrote one of the first typing tutors for the C64 and it was just getting some commercial attention when Commodore folded. Sold it on floppy disk.

    So I have seen lots of changes in game languages and engines over the years. Today I program games for fun and to fill a unique niche and C2 is fast and easy to edit so I hope Scirra will continue to support it but if not I also have experience with Fusion and 001 so I will just switch to using those and I prefer standalone exe games anyway.

    >

    > 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.

    > ome of us like that the direction they chose is HTML5.

    "Some don't like a browser based engine" is not a problem on the developer listening, but more of what you the consumer wants and is demanding they go towards. Scirra has made it clear for many many years that HTML5 is the direction they're going.

    From your further complaints you even admit that you don't care what kind of engine it uses, only that you want specific features:

    > We paid for a C2 license based on the expectation those exporters worked and they don't and you have been making promises to fix bugs and exporters for how many years now?

    >

    > Instead you spend lots of time and get a new team to develop features and fix the bugs and make exporters for a subscription engine that very few C2 users even seem to want.

    >

    Your complaint is really that the options provided did not meet a standard you wish that they would have. This is independent of the engine itself and more about the ecosystem.

    Yes, there is an ecosystem problem with HTML5 games in regards of compatibility/accessibility as it's a new ecosystem compared to Windows/Mac/Linux native libraries that link to already existing solutions/dependencies. Back when Construct 2 was first started it was seen as a fools errand, just like before Valve put into the effort to support Vulkan and Linux making a cross platform game for linux was also a fool's errand.

    (and Linux is a native platform)

    If you look at the state of HTML5 technology now as well as their offer of cloud-packaging C3 apps for mobile export what can be done now it has vastly improved. Games run faster on the same PC using more recent versions of Chrome. I'm on a Phenom II X4 925 which isn't the greatest CPU but I've had little issue outside of browser/driver support, which thanks to Vulkan we have better Open/WebGL support now than ever.

    (kinda like linux!)

    I do agree that with the confusion surrounding the best way to export for a platform and the issues that the Construct 2 side of things should've been a simple process, but I don't agree that Scirra should be ultimately responsible for optimizing every platform wrapper. They should provide a flow that allows a simple export process, even if it involves just shoving an exported zip file into a third party compiler/wrapper program. They seem to have an automated flow setup on their end for C3 projects, so documentation on that could be adequate.

    Where did I say anything about HTML5?

    We all know C2 and C3 are HTML5 based and if someone does not want that format why would they get an HTML5 based engine?

    You are trying to put your words in my mouth and we are NOT asking for special features. We are asking for exporters that were advertised when we bought our licenses and the bugs to be fixed and the features Scirra has been promoting that now are only included in a C3 Browser subscription engine that very few C2 users seem to want.

    Why do you want a Browser based subscription engine?

    Are you a Mac or Unix user?

    I have been following these thread for months now and I have heard from less than a handful of people that want a browser based subscription engine and many many C2 users that do not want that so I would like to know specifically why you want that format and how you think that is a solution for your game design?

  • 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.

    >

    >

    >

    > > Not listening to customers: this is pretty hard to take, as the original company founder with over 23,000 posts on this forum, as high as a constant 10 posts a day on average in some cases. How many companies can you go on the forum and talk about something directly with the original founder of the company? We try to make ourselves available to customers, and I do my best to read all the posts and feedback on the forum, but it's pretty tough to respond to everything with hundreds of posts a day. I do in fact hear everyone's concerns loud and clear. There's a lot of reasons why we can't always immediately do something, ranging from the technology to overall direction of the company, but I am here, and I do listen, even when that involves quite a lot of criticism. Sometimes even when I explain the case, it doesn't stop the criticism. For example some users hit graphics driver related issues and then say they wished we had native engines; these people would be in for a very nasty surprise if we actually did that! But it's never stopped the criticism, so I think to some extent I've just come to accept that some users are going to be unhappy and won't understand some things we do or the reasons behind it, and that's part of the nature of running a company.

    > >

    >

    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.

    We paid for a C2 license based on the expectation those exporters worked and they don't and you have been making promises to fix bugs and exporters for how many years now?

    Instead you spend lots of time and get a new team to develop features and fix the bugs and make exporters for a subscription engine that very few C2 users even seem to want.

    That is why I say you are not listening Ashley

    We are asking for you to honor our license agreements based on the expectations you promoted for C2 and either create a C2 standalone with the features and exporters working or an addon package with those features and exporters and I believe most C2 users would be willing to pay for a package of working features and exporters as long as it is reasonable and not a subscription.

    So can you put that team of yours to work on that and keep your C2 users happy?

    I only speak for myself but reading through the many comments on this thread and my thread it looks like most people feel the same way!

    Engines come and go and never a good idea to put all your eggs or games in one basket.

    To put this in perspective, I am old and started writing commercial games in BASIC for the Commodore 64.

    So watching Scirra go through growing pains is nothing new and if they want to survive they will listen to their base or we will move on.

    Well, I can say from personal experience having had many long debates with both Ashley and Tom on these same subjects for the past few months that Ashley does not listen to other people.

    So unless we can convince Tom and the other Scirra staff of the need to make the C3 features and exporters available to the large number of C2 users that do not want a browser based subscription engine then it is all for not.

    If they are going to abandon C2 then they should release it to public domain and let those people that developed the plugins and addons work it over to include those features and exporters but I don't see that happening.

    So all we can do is just keep telling them what we want and let them see if C3 is profitable and if it isn't maybe they will come back to C2 and decide keeping their base happy is important.

    If not- there are other options out there and more every year it seems!

    Construct is indeed misleading. It's a lovely engine with a brilliant workflow. The exports have been an issue since the beginning. This will constantly be a topic of discussion if it remains to be a tool best used for prototyping yet promoted as a full featured dev software. I really hope Scirra listens to us regarding this issue. If not, that's their choice and more power to them. But at least I gave it a shot and voiced my concerns.

    Agreed, whether you are a serious developer or just a small time game designer, hobby designer or educator using C2 I think we all need to be respected and this C3 subscription browser direction that is putting in the exporters and features we have been asking for for years in C2 feels like a big slap in the face to me and I think a lot of users.

    If they can put those in C3 they can put them in C2 as a complete engine or as an addon that we can purchase.

    I think C3 will turn out to be only useful to the Mac and Linux users that couldn't use C2 and will become a small segment of users but if Scirra focuses all their attention on C3 and abandons the many C2 users that has supported them all these years they are making a big mistake that will come back to bite them.

    I think more game designers regardless of how you use C2 need to speak up and make it clear to Scirra and Tom & Ashley that we want those features and exporters for our standalone C2 but that has to be up to each person.

    As a game developer I can agree 100% with the Wii being a bad choice for putting on the first page.

    As a businessman I can agree with what they did a 110%.

    Only if as a businessman you think false advertising is good business practice.

    People that bought a C2 license have been willing to overlook it because Scirra keeps promising to fix it and instead they create a new subscription engine with the features and exporters we asked for and were promised in C2 and expects we will just go along.

    Reading the many comments- I think many C2 users have had enough.

    NotionGames said "Not Listening to Customers

    "I usually keep quiet for the most part on the forums and just read through other's posts. But what I have noticed over the years is that whenever your customers are requesting particular features and overall explaining what they'd like to see happen with Construct, they're a lot of times being told they're wrong in some form. Exporting and monetization are HUGE factors for developers and for some reason, it's never being addressed (at least for the entirety of Construct 2's life cycle)."

    I think that applies whether you are a serious game designer or not and if you pay for a license you still have a right to be respected and I will bet 90% of C2 users are hobby or small time game developers that has supported Scirra all these years.

    I have repeatedly asked Tom & Ashley to respond to these concerns:

    After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

    I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

    Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

    I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

    As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

    I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

    I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • The early versions of C2 were far, far more primitive than what we are launching now with C3. r45 came out in June 2011. We didn't add core features like audio support, animations, collision polygons, WebGL support, and more until later down the line.

    After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

    I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

    Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

    I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

    As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

    I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

    I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.

  • After reading through the impressions of many C2 game developers I know and trust it looks like most of us have the same complaints and concerns about C3.

    I would like to suggest Scirra reads through this feedback and consider doing something that will help those of us that do not have a desire to move to a browser based subscription engine and may now be considering leaving Scirra altogether.

    Put the new features and exporters you are including in C3 (many that we have asked for for years) into C2 or create a package of those features and exporters as an addon for C2.

    I would happily pay another $99 (no subscription) for a package of working features and exporters for the existing C2 engine and I think most C2 game designers would be willing to support Scirra in that way.

    As it looks, Scirra is going a direction with C3 that most of your C2 users are not thrilled with to say the least and this package idea would be a way to keep the people that has supported Scirra with our money and through designing plugins and promoting you in our games happy and shows you have a long term interest in supporting C2 and we will not be abandoned.

    I know Scirra has invested a lot of time into C3 and you are hoping it will be popular and be the next big thing and that is an admirable project but if you lose your C2 users in the process was it worth it?

    I would appreciate Tom & Ashley to read and consider what the users have said on this thread.