>
> Kongregate didn't sell us Construct 2 , Ashley and Tom did. So its not Kongregates responsibility to fix problem with C2.
> That's like asking McDonalds what happen to your Burger King order, it doesn't make sense. I know you want to protect C2 but telling them it's ok to come with excuses not to solve problems is ridiculous.
>
No I think you're missing the point. I think Ashley's idea is these other platforms can benefit from allowing C2 games easy access to their platform or service. The idea is to convince these other platforms that there is a large C2 user base making great games, which are a perfect fit for their platforms / service, and that they can benefit / profit / generate income etc on the back of the games made in C2.
An example is Appodeal. Go to this link: http://appodeal.com/sdk and look under 'Frameworks'.
They have plugins that are platform specific for Unity, Unreal 4, GameMaker and C2. They have developed those plugins themselves to allow people using those Frameworks to get easy access to their ad service. The benefit to them is the more games using their ad service, the more income they generate. So its worth their while to invest time making plugins for us.
The same argument is valid for Kongregate. By making a plugin specifically for Construct 2 users that allowed C2 games to utilise all the features of the latest Kong API, they increase their revenue... Every C2 game on Kongregate, generating ad revenue is putting money into their own coffers.
This line of thinking doesnt really work when applied to the C2 official IAP tho...
Ok you and Newts point is that Construct 2 right to wait for others to make plugins ok I got it.
My point and everyone else is that we brought Construct 2 because they said they will continue to support and update plugins. So our morals are different thats the issue. See we believe if you pay for something, you get what you paid for. So we agree to disagree.