NotionGames's Forum Posts

    >

    > And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

    >

    How many games are on WiiU that use C2? Maybe 2? I actually have no idea. But I know it's very few. My point is if your goal is WiiU, why are you using C2? I say never mind what is advertised. Go with what is being practiced. If anyone is a good example it's The Next Penelope who released on Steam and wanted a WiiU release. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/0 ... uld_happen

    My goal was Wii U back in 2013. At that time, no one had a game on the Wii U because the system was new.

    The Next Penelope wanted a Wii U release right? Well we were in the same boat. We thought the engine we had would do it, found out the hard way.

    http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/super_ubie_land_set_to_emerge_this_august

    I agree with NotionGames about the fact that it was always advertised that C2 could export to consoles. Or at least, some of them.

    Now, I know making games is iterative, heck I've been working in game companies for the last 12 years so and I've worked with either in-house engines and also commercial engines. But

    all I can say by experience is in how many ways C2 was limiting me. Each time I found either bugs or missing features that blocked more than coding would do.

    You should take into account that a few big games started on C2 ended up moving for same reasons.

    Then the identity and marketing of Construct as a whole should change in my opinion. People's resources, time, energy are being wasted when buying into something that promises to suit their needs. It takes months and sometimes years to build a project. Who wants to reach a huge milestone to find out the engine they thought could export to X platform actually doesn't? OR at least doesn't without the need to use an assortment of 3rd party software.

    Construct is frankly aimed at hobbyists, artists, designers, etc. who would love to make a game but can't code. It also gives them the promise of being able to create professional projects and release them commercially.

    And yes, I am very disappointed. I put a lot into the engine and the community. I taught C2 in classes and more. I just want the software to do what it promises

    I think some people want too much from a tool.. seriously.. Construct, Unity, GM, UE4 they are all tools.. and all have pluses and minuses. Sure deployment to specific platforms is a huge deal when considering financial returns. But Construct has never been the goto engine for xbox or any other console. To simply wait for Construct to change and adopt that kind service is not a great decision.

    To be fair, the Wii U is mentioned and under the "true multiplatform support" section... Also highly on the list. The SECOND export option advertised

    And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

    I'll ask you as well... If you bought the engine with these promises and you create a project to find out what's been advertised basically doesn't work nearly as well as the wording would make you think, would you be okay with that? Teaching coding concepts and releasing a game are two different things. Not saying you haven't and not talking down on your profession in any way. Just making that clear. This tool is supposed to be a professional 2d game dev software. Every commercial C2 dev I've spoken to share my sentiments.

    I think most issues ranted here are non issues. You have a pretty basic editor, with a basic toolset, and a basic setup of behaviors and plugins. Where Construct shines is that they have the Event sheet and the capability to make and add your own plugins.

    Nothing for serious developers? Out of the box no, but if you're really that serious and in need of monetization the only thing stopping you is your own ability to create the plugin to fit your needs. Blaming the devs for not providing this and that plugin is a bit childish.

    I wouldn't call anyone "serious" who can't even invest in their own business, blaming everyone else for not providing a smörgosbord of everything that you "might need".

    I have no need for monetization plugins, I wouldn't wanna ruin my game by slapping ads on it, so for me those kind of plugins is not something I would like them to spend their time on.

    So you're going to sit here and act like the engine wasn't advertised to have all of these things included? Now where is the word "basic" used in the marketing? It's promising exporting to a plethora of devices and every one that I've tried had a lot of issues. I've always had to use 3rd party software to make things work. Now is that ultimately a big deal? Well, yes, actually. If you're going to create an engine and advertise it as basically a one-stop-shop for game dev, then I think it needs to be.

    Bringing up the cost of the engine is also pretty irrelevant because I didn't dictate the cost, Scirra did. If they charged $1000 I probably still would have paid for it given the event system alone.

    You not wanting to "ruin" your game by slapping ads on it is a personal choice. What does that have to do with projects that I build around that style of monetization?

    Have you completed and released a commercial project with Construct 2? If you have, then you'd understand what I mean. Also the engine is promoted as a "non-coding" engine which will obviously attract artists, designers, and people who don't know how to code in general. It doesn't mean you're not serious... You're using a tool that's advertised to suit your needs.

    With things like this written all over the front page..

    "No Programming Required!

    You can now make advanced games without writing a line of code. Construct 2 does the hard work so you don't have to.

    Our highly intuitive event system makes putting your games together quick and easy.

    You've finally found it. The powerful, full featured and professional game development software you've always been looking for.

    Build Once. Publish Everywhere.

    True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms."

    It goes on to list the Wii U, iOS, Android, etc.

    Maybe YOU don't need these things but if I pay for something that promises these things, then that's what I (and I'm sure the majority of customers) will expect.

    And seriously, calm down with the "childish" name calling.

    As for people saying jump to another engine. Yes, I know that's an option. But I do enjoy Construct's workflow and I have been a part of this community for years. I don't simply want to jump ship. I'd like to at least first voice my concerns and see how the community can shape the software before deciding to do that.

    Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

    Would they develop for all of them?

    If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

    Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

    Would their current income method pay for all that?

    Edit:

    Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

    Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

    You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    That's the issue that every big Construct 2 game has faced, and it will definitely continue until the web browser stops being seen as a bonus feature on consoles (let alone as a security issue eg: browser exploits, DRM / anti-piracy woes of an open interpreted format), which is unlikely to happen any time soon/in the next generation or two of consoles anyway.

    And that's a shame because it's true. EVERY SINGLE big Construct 2 game has indeed gone through this.

    For people who think that the "serious" dev don't make up much of the community... ask yourself why? How could you build up a serious dev portion of the community when they are missing key features that we are looking for? I'm sure there will always be a bigger hobbyist portion of the community but why hold back the potential? I started off as a hobbyist as I'm sure every serious dev does.

    What makes Construct appealing is the event system. Not HTML5, not having to use wrappers for virtually every platform.

    Insanity's Blade, Super Ubie Island Remix, AirScape, Last Penelope, Sombrero, etc. are great examples of the potential of the engine. We know Construct can make good games... We just need a way for people to experience them! I seriously can't figure out why this is still an issue... Heck, even Konjak (creator of Noitu Love and Iconoclasts) jumped shipped and he was the reason why I looked into Construct in the first place.

    Serious developers really help the brand and generate awareness. Take care of us too.

    It would be different if no one were complaining about this over the years... But we as a community have. And now with the subscription model, I'm going for sure expect more out of the engine to warrant constantly paying for it. Will we ever get what we've been asking for?

    Jayjay it's awesome to see what you guys have achieved!

    I'd hate for these concerns to be pushed off once again. The community has been around for years supporting Construct and I tried for the longest to have faith and listen to Ashley and Tom but at this point, it's just seeming foolish to hope that HTML5 will be adopted.

    newt I see what you mean about being proactive, but why should us developers have to worry about those things? We're paying good money to use these engines. I should be concerned with creating the games that my customers want and the engine devs should be concerned with creating game engines that suit their customers needs.

    At this point, I don't see what it is that I'd be subscribing to... We're being told to wait for new feature announcements, wait for HTML5 adoption, wait for this, wait for that. That's all we've been doing for years. And now we're expected to pay yearly to continue waiting? I don't understand. I simply want to make games that work and can generate income. I'm a professional, I'm willing to pay the costs as long as I know my needs are being met.

    Wii U exporter ended up being not worth the months i put into trying to get the game working. I'm not confident about the Xbox exporter. When I released Ubie Island on Steam, I have recieved a ton of complaints regarding issues with NwJs (or whatever it's called). And frankly, I'm tired of it. These aren't things we should be burdened with.

  • > I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

    > This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

    >

    > This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

    >

    I really like the speed and fluency of the c2 editor. Its primarily the reason it took me so long to "move on". A few others here nailed it when they said c2 is quick and agile, great for prototyping or perhaps a simple mobile or web game. But it really does start to fall when size and scalability come into play.

    My question for you is, why bother with GMS when c2 is better for what the two offer. If you make the leap to GMS, why not just use unity, or unreal? I mean, even in the GSM community there are plenty of people who only use it for prototyping and stuff before moving the project into (insert engine here). It's true that making a small game in unity takes longer, but once you get to mario3 on nes sized ambitions an environment like unity or unreal are better serving- I have moved several projects from construct to unity and while it is a risk I took in dev time, it has since paid off. I use c2 to try out quick little ideas, but do the real implementations in unity.

    On a side note, I read an article about you somewhere (bank publication, the internets, I'm not sure where), but I liked you story. I admire the risks you took and the perseverance you have had in game making.

    Thanks Ruskul

    I might check out Unity. It's been a while since I have. I was just so used to the workflow in Construct that I didn't want to bother going through another dip. I just wanted to keep creating

    Hi Tom and ASHLEY.

    I have been a supporter of Construct 2 since the early adoption phase. I love the event system and how easy it is to pick up and start creating games with this engine. Over the last 5 or so years of using C2, I've created various projects (some "big" and some small).

    Now that Construct 3 is here, I've been really starting to lose faith. I'll explain why:

    Subscription Model

    I was a supporter of the model until I realized how much we'd be spending and with the lack of ways to deploy to console, unreliable mobile exporting, the implementation (or lack of) monetization options, and more.

    As a developer who intends to create serious projects for consoles, steam, etc. I simply cannot see the point value in subscribing when after spending months and months of time on a game, I cannot deploy to where I'd like so the studio can bring in more profits.

    Super Ubie Island Remix is a good example of what I mean. The project was catching traction and was being included in Nintendo fan magazines and more. I was even asked by Nintendo to publish the game on their console. I was given a free Wii U dev kit and everything. They really worked with me and tried to see the project release on their console... Needless to say, it didn't run because of the state of HTML5 running on Wii U.

    And now that I'm working on the sequel, I don't want to put in the many many many hours just to have a product that I can't put out the way I'd like.

    Pure Nintendo magazine dedicated 4 pages EACH issue to cover the development of my next game, Team Notion. Mind you, Team Notion is being developed in C2 as well.

    This is showing that Construct CAN be used as a serious development tool. But there are things that do need to be fixed/added which brings me to my next point...

    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).

    Reliance on HTML5

    I like HTML5, I think it's pretty versatile. But it seems like it's not being supported the way Scirra thought it'd be. You can scour the forums and find many posts from years about where you guys felt HTML5 will pick up and be adopted properly. Years have passed and we STILL see that HTML5 just isn't there. We are developing games for now and the near future. We're not trying to invest and hope that our engine will be able to one day export to our desired platforms.

    I've created various games for mobile

    Up Up Ubie Remix

    Astro Vault

    Sheep Herder Nay

    Sushizoo

    I'm posting these games to show that I have used the engine a lot. I have a ton of experience with Construct 2. I put in thousands of hours and really tried to push projects as much as I can. It's really hard to when you don't have the exporting and monetization tools you need.

    It's almost as if Construct is built for what Scirra wants and not necessarily built for what the customers want/need. We are the ones who will be buying/subscribing. Why can't we get the features we need to sustain our studios?

    Construct is hands down my favorite 2d game engine. The event system is second to none. But what's the point if developers can't publish and generate income? Who would use Photoshop if it couldn't export jpgs, PNGs, etc? I know you guys have heard these issues/complaints for years now... But don't you see that as a huge concern in itself? It doesn't make sense that people are STILL complaining about the same thing(s). I've spoken to a handful of "serious" C2 devs and for the most part, they seem to all be going towards other engines and all bring up exporting as one of the main reasons.

    And with the history of not being able to deploy our projects and struggling to make money from them, why would we would be willing to pay a subscription? Why at subscription at all? There have been plenty of alternatives mentioned, so I won't dive into that. But honestly, Scirra, who is this engine for???

    I really wish Scirra the best and I am grateful for what you guys have achieved thus far.

  • I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

    This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

    This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

  • can you make tracks similar to :

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

  • I rarely comment or respond to things, but that was hilarious.

    Vlogs would help but I think theyre doing just fine with blogs atm. Like others have said, I'm just waiting for the features that'll make it really feel different than c2.

    I am def a supporter of Scirra and can't wait to dive into c3. Though I am a lone developer, because i have an LLC, i would have to pay $149 a yr and I'd love to test out the beta to see if it's worth the asking price. But only time will tell.

    >

    > >

    > >

    > > They can't do that with the current license.

    > >

    >

    > Do what?

    >

    They can't ask for more money.

    The C2 license only works if the user base is fairly successful.

    Then that hinges on that success bringing in more users that are in turn successful.

    That hasn't happened.

    The current model is not sustainable.

    It only works when you can stay ahead of saturation, and this is a niche market.

    So anyway, asking them to keep the same method is the same as asking them to go out of business and that is a moral issue with me.

    I agree with this.

    Sebastian bottom line is if $8/month is too much for you, there are many other tools for you to use. I'd like to think your time would be better used creating with one of those engines than spending it complaining about construct 3

  • Last time I checked, they said they'll be releasing more information over the coming weeks...

    What features are you missing so much right now that's keeping you from working on projects and having you so anxious?