NotionGames's Forum Posts

    I think the post did what it needed to do and now it's pretty much overkill.

    They have heard the woes coming from commercial devs and they have responded.

    Thanks Tom and Ashley

    We all appreciate your efforts and I look forward to testing out Construct 3

    Ashley Tom

    Reading through the blog posts provided and just going through the most recent ones as a whole actually gave me more faith. I do see that a lot of concerns are being worked on and mostly at this point it's just seeing how things work in c3.

    And if I'm not mistaken, being able to export in c2 and upload using the service should alleviate issues that I have. Especially the ad services

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    1) What exporters are missing from C2? They all work. Some work better than others; none of them are broken.

    would it be a stretch to say that you haven't published or tried to publish a commercial game using c2? Because seriously, if you did, you'd know exactly what we're talking about.

    We've spoken up about what the issues are plenty of times. Yes, the exporters "work." But that's it. That's like saying Photoshop does export PNGs, yet the image quality is low and the image is blurry... It DID produce a PNG though...

    When we are here trying to get better exporters done, it's not going against anyone else's wants or needs so I'm not sure why there's so much backlash for asking for the exporters to work properly. We want our 2d games to work. They're 2d! I don't think it's too much to ask them to run as intended.

    Is there c2 plugin support for in c3? i mainly ask because if there isn't then yes, a export package of some kind or even access to the cloud exporters (or whatever is going on with c3) could be extended to c2 devs who have projects that rely on plugins. I know all of my c2 games do.

    Ashley about the voting system. I do remember that people voted for multiplayer support. So I do understand the hesitation to implement something like that again. But honestly, once the exporters are solid then the rest is just bonus features. Regardless of whether or not people are using the features, if they're paying a subscription and getting what they asked for, then that's fine, right?

    >

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

    >

    Ahhh .......I get where you're going with that...... I wouldn't mind that either, as I will be stuck in a bit of a limbo for a while...

    I'm in this situation now:

    In order to move my project to completely to C3 I'm relying on several plugins, that needs to be ported to C3, before I can do that. I don't know when or if those plugins will ever become available for C3, so I'm pretty much counting on that I have to stick with C2, for a while longer, (at least for some of my c2 projects). Although... We still have the 3rd party wrappers, but it would be good if C2 had access to a better build service as well, at least until (those who wish) can completely move their projects to C3. I don't mind if that would be subscription based, or pay for a pack of X Number of build outputs (in case you can't provide a downloadable build pack for a one time pay)

    +1

    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.

    I'd like to mention that in less than 48 hours, this post generated 17 pages. Let's you see that you indeed have a passionate community (with various reasons for using construct). I would say that getting this community more involved would be a great start. Conducting direct polls and really having a way for supporters to give feedback. The forums are a good starting point but so many people don't use the forums so it's not always the best thing to use. I know I've lurked the forums for years and haven't really posted much outside of sharing my projects.

    Giving roadmaps that are clear and also make sure the wording in your advertisement doesn't cause confusion or give people false hopes. Construct does indeed publish to the platforms that are named but it really isn't clear about the extent of each platform's capabilities. So build once, publish everywhere can seem very misleading to the consumer Scirra seems to market to (hobbyists, artists, designers, and overall non-coders who have no true knowledge of what's capable).

    The browser IDE seems to be an issue for a lot. There are many posts regarding why. I personally don't see it as an issue as long as I can still make my games without compromise.

    But the biggest thing is exporters and getting the projects out to the masses. Construct is used for a ton of reasons. Some people want to simply learn about game dev and make games to share with their friends. Some just want to fiddle around every now and then. And some want to create commercial games. Each group want and need particular things. For the most part, Construct has the game making portion of it nailed.

    I have been waiting for Construct 3 and have been really putting in faith in what you and Tom says about the future of this technology. I'm not a programmer and I see this company as an entity that cares about creators such as myself who want to make games but don't necessarily care to learn coding.

    I WANT to use construct 3. But I also want to be sure that what I create will be able to be published properly. The entirety of Construct 2 had me frustrated yet still around because of the ease of development. Maybe focus more on the post development stuff. I see that there are support options mentioned for Construct 3 but you have to understand that subscribing would be putting faith into what Scirra says again. It's a hard pill to swallow when a lot of the community has put faith for the past 5+ years.

    Really show us what we're getting into with C3. Be more transparent with the future and upcoming features.

    Thanks for taking the time to hear us out

    All I'm going to say is yes construct has a workflow that I and many others love. I posted this thread to show that you can make great content. But the biggest concern for those of us who do complete a project is "what now?"

    Can you put it on Android? iOS? Steam? Consoles? The short answer is yes. But we now know it's way too reliant on other services and support. So regardless of how great it is to work in Construct, you have to wonder if it's worth it in the end when there are now various documented cases where a project is completed and the devs are left frustrated to the point of porting through other engines.

    We all want to see Construct succeed but we'd like to be able to succeed as well.

    Each person has their reasons for being here. I'm simply sharing my story.

    And if i didn't care, i wouldn't have said anything and just moved on

    Well, I have said all that I have to say.

    I really enjoyed learning about game development with Construct 2 but as a developer wanting to make commercial games, I guess it's time to move on.

    I had a good time being apart of the community and made good friends with various devs. I wish the best for Scirra and hopefully there's something that makes me come back to subscribe to Construct 3.

    Only time will tell.

    NotionGames off topic: so happy to see you around. I've been stalking you every now and then, eagerly waiting for your next game.

    Thanks a ton. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this.

    damainman The more I talk to you and see your progress, the more I see that you're right.

    I...don't think you understand how game development works as a commercial interest. If you start working on your game in an engine that claims to have X features, and then after working on a project for a year or so it turns out that the claimed features are a total fabrication, you've just cost yourself potentially tens of thousands of dollars in lost time. You can't always just "change your products." Maybe if you're making games on the side or just for fun you can, sure. But not if you're developing commercial products.

    Exactly!

    Also how much research can one really do? You generally look for games that have been published (which there are very few because of exporting reasons, abandoned projects, and more), you look at the free version, etc. But here's the thing, you won't know the major issues with exporting by using the very limited free version. From my knowledge, you can't even export. So what's given to prove the claims on the front page? Especially before the majority of the showcase projects went up around 2013 and later.

    I feel like there's this strange divide between c2 users who have tried to create a commercial project and experienced the shortcomings, and those who have not. Stating we could simply change engines is really unfortunate and a really messed up solution after developing a project that took time and money/resources to complete.

    What this thread should show everyone is that yes you can make games with Construct! But what can you do with said games once they're complete???

    That's a MAJOR issue!

    On a more personal level, NotionGames, it's commendable that you are here voicing your concerns, especially in your position (Anyone else reading this that have been vocalising their opinions lightly or strongly, it's great! It's great to get everyone's opinion and learn what everyone is here for, even the frequent opinion of "can we have native exports".). I have mostly taken the back seat and observed, I've stopped developing in C2 due to a fear of a random unexpected direction that Scirra may/may not take, heck I've stopped developing completely and it sucks, although I'm only a hobbyist. But your thread has taken off, seeing it suddenly appear on the forum with so many pages really shows you have made an impact and created a lot of discussion, hence why I've crawled out from under the shadows once again to comment. Perhaps the sudden surge of discussion is due to your position, or it's the way you've written your posts, but either way, keep on keeping on, you speak for more people than you may realise.

    Thank you, I was the same way. I lurked the forums daily and never really said much. But I am seeing that more and more users are feeling jaded and there are a lot of us who really do care about Construct. I finally felt I had to say something about it, regardless if some people dislike me for bringing up issues. I've listed my projects to show that I have a lot of experience and that I have brought a lot of them to completion on various platforms... and every single platform besides hosting online I've had huge problems.

    I'm glad you decided to comment as well. Good to hear from more of the community

    In my opinion, to see that Construct 3 was quite literally an editor change is a shame, although it was told to us for a long time, but this thread shows why remaking the editor may have not been the best thing to spend years on. (tho it is impressive technologically!) It's not a terrible thing to have done, it's great for Mac and Linux users, and heck I'd love to be able to switch to Linux before Windows 7 is no longer supported and I bet a fair amount of people share that thought, but this is what we were waiting all this time for? Other things could have been focused on that seem to be highlighted frequently on the forums... Iuno...

    You see how it was reworked to run on multiple devices, computers, etc? Well, that's exactly what we want as well in regards to our games. We just want the games to work as intended on various platforms as advertised.

    I would love to see a roadmap as well because I'm not sure what subscribing to Construct 3 even means at this point. What are we getting? What will come in the future? Why should we subscribe? Why not continue using c2 or any other engine? These are legitimate questions

    I want 3D viewport support, but I know that's not the direction they are going, so I'm doing what I can with Q3D trying to learning that instead of Unity. I can try to build a case on why the should focus on it, but I'm not posting rants badmouthing the devs because they don't provide what I need, saying it's backwards to focus on 2D games..... that's so 80's, 3D and especially VR is the new big thing... if scirra don't provide that they are not listening to customers..... see how you sound now?

    "See how you sound now" insinuates that I did that (including bad mouthing the devs). But regardless, the thread is going off topic with this particular concern.

    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.

    I want 3D viewport support, but I know that's not the direction they are going, so I'm doing what I can with Q3D trying to learning that instead of Unity. I can try to build a case on why the should focus on it, but I'm not posting rants badmouthing the devs because they don't provide what I need, saying it's backwards to focus on 2D games..... that's so 80's, 3D and especially VR is the new big thing... if scirra don't provide that they are not listening to customers..... see how you sound now?

    If Construct advertised that 3d is an option, then you'd have every right to be upset when you find out that it doesn't. No where does it say that 3d is a thing, it's promoted as a 2d engine. And you said it yourself, the wording is deceptive. So why can't I voice my concerns on that? How is my bringing up what's been promised a childish thing? I promised to pay for the engine, which I did. So why can't I get what has been advertised to me? I don't understand how you can't see that as an issue.

    And no where did I bad mouth the devs.

    NotionGames your response baffles me. Because I give my opinion doesn't mean I continue with the engine.

    I apologize for that response

    But to be honest, personally I don't see the issue, I mean, if Scirra can't offer export to consoles, then you change projects. In the world of indie dev you can't just stay with one product just because you are an artist and can't code. I'm an artist and yet I learned to code. Necessity pushes you to it, that's all. is not the first time a dev quits Scirra to change engine.

    You're missing my point entirely

    And have you really moved on? Because you're in the forums more than the average user.

    Obviously hindsight is 20/20.. but honestly if you are about to set out 2 or 3 years to make something you better do your research and know if that engine has success deploying to your target platform. You shouldn't take Scirra's marketing materials as a sole factor in choosing an engine.

    I'm not bashing anyone that this has happened to.. I'm just saying.. live and learn, it makes sense.

    Understandable. But someone has to do it first, right? We happened to be the first who have. If it weren't for us who have put a lot into the engine, there wouldn't be any example games to promote with... Now I've reached a point where I have to call them out on it.