>

> 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.

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. What it comes down to - are they making it for us or them? They seem to be making it for them - and that's fine at the start, but this is the third iteration of their software, people have expectations based on their previous versions and to mix it up and announce 2 bombshells like that a mere 2 months before the beta no wonder people are putrid about it. 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.

signaljacker

So actually, Scirra would probably do way better by doing an event sheet plugin for other editors, since they can't cater for the other needs by many of the developers here?

The event sheet is the only reason I chose C2 and still sticking with it. I don't have time, energy, and willpower to learn any coding language. So I kind of have to live with the limited export options in favor doing any game at all... lol.

They would probably do very well I'm sure, but they've built up a nice empire here and are obviously very ambitious and talented. I would like for them to succeed with their own product, but I also think that to do so listening to the community is very valuable. I'm in the same boat as you, without the time or inclination to properly learn to code. I'm comfortable with the event sheet and would love to continue to use it. I can forgive Construct a lot, even having to jump through the many hoops because of its quirks. But to see the dev team so out of touch with its core community really worries me.

When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.

So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.

It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.

It's a fair point, but I think it comes back to Construct having a bit of an identity crisis - perhaps partly because of its legacy with Construct Classic. I'm developing purely for Windows desktop, and you'd think it would be simple right? Nope. What is C2 actually good for exporting to? Not desktop, not mobile. Browser games, but who plays those? It's like having a Rolls Royce but only being able to drive it up the drive way. I think what the devs are failing to realize is that people are here because of the workflow, not the tech. People aren't attracted to Construct because it's html 5 based - it's the great workflow.

I think technical issues aside, there has been a huge ideological shift from Construct Classic to Construct 3. I understand exactly why, but it's ultimately the end user who suffers.

I'll preface that the below is a purely subjective opinion, but here's how I see it:

Construct Classic - it was free, so probably not motivated by money - they borrowed an events based paradigm and and improved upon it. However maybe due to inexperience the foundations it was based on was too unstable to continue, so it was abandoned. I can only assume due to not being motivated by money at the time the guys were trying to build the best game making software and community that they possibly could and that was priority number 1.

Construct 2 - learning from some of their mistakes on CC C2 arrives, touted as innovative because of HTML 5 technology, but really I don't think anyone was too bothered about the tech behind it so much, it was a great way to work and in the end that's what mattered. I actually always considered the html 5 aspect a drawback rather than a positive thing, but different strokes for different folks... C2 kept them afloat for 5+ years and allowed the team to expand as well. But again it seems that due to its foundations many features that people were screaming for were too difficult to be implemented... so C3 is announced.... is there a pattern emerging here?

Construct 3 - due to the stresses of expansion, it's understandable that Scirra are no longer motivated to make the best game making software but instead top priority is to keep the team growing. There has been a shift from providing the best possible software, to providing the best way for their team to stay afloat and expand. And perhaps it could be argued that this is necessary to eventually provide the best possible software - but judging from the things that are neglected and also what their competitors are doing this doesn't seem to be the case.

Now, I understand WHY, of course. But as a customer, instead of having a rich and refined piece of software to use, we have a rehash in a browser and a subscription system. It feels like it's all starting again and it leaves a sour taste. I hate to sound so entitled, but at the end of the day the end user only really cares about the end product. Strip away all the history, the forum interactions, the pleasantries if your product isn't servicing its customers properly there's a big problem and you should re-evaluate your priorities.

NotionGames you're absolutely spot on. If Scirra addressed all of your concerns we'd all be in a better place, them included. It is very obvious that C3 is a passion project for the devs, it does not resemble what the community wants or needs. Their stubbornness is about to cost them a lot of customers as I think in this case they've really backed the wrong horse. I've lost a lot of faith in them as a company as they are either too stubborn or are actually out of touch with what we need. We get things like changes to the image editor, which is a total waste of time really when other very important things are neglected. C3 now has an identity crisis, is it for professionals or is it for amateurs? It is currently alienating both. Ash and Tom, you are great guys and I love your product and community - these aren't personal attacks, it's tough love. Please start listening to us. Since you've built up a big community if you want to keep it you should be listening rather than dictating. Conduct polls, ask us questions etc. Don't just rely on feedback from those who complain the loudest on the forums, actually ask the wider community.

Hopefully this is a good foundation for better things, but at the moment to be honest it feels (from a user perspective) that all this development time could have been spent building on what you already have and really making something refined and special rather than reinventing it so that it works in a browser. It all feels a bit one step forward, two steps backwards - but I guess it's still early days.

Looks pretty good, feels pretty good. But with such limitations what's the incentive to actually make anything to test out? I pretty much opened it up and said yep, this is C2 with a couple of nice useabilty tweaks that should have been in C2 from the start and a whole bunch of limitations. I'll give it another look later on. Expectations were already drastically lowered for this.

I'm glad the devs have noted that their marketing image might have missed the mark a bit in the past and are rectifying. I think Construct is a great tool and very powerful, but I kind of cringe when I visit the website a because it looks like it's marketed as a toy (although has improved somewhat - at one point it said something like "Make games effortlessly" which we all know can't really be done well and I think someone called them out on this). Early on many other devs using unity kind of scoffed or talked down to me a bit because of the image - that's fine if you're hoping to attract amateurs and hobbyists but you're obviously hoping to expand out from that. Someone on another thread suggested also changing the name from Construct 3 to something more descriptive eg Construct Cloud (I think was the example someone used). That seemed like a very good suggestion as it keeps your branding, but if you're hoping to attract a new crowd there isn't that psychological barrier of them having not used previous versions of the software and for current users it also clearly marks it as a very different product from Construct 2.

Subscriptions to get updates, new plugins and features on a regular basis is worth paying for BUT holding your projects hostage so they can not be edited if you don't pay a subscription ransom is unethical in my opinion.

Agree 100%, it is most certainly an ethical issue.

I think innovative is subjective. For the devs, it's a technical achievement to have built all this for the web. It is innovative in that sense, but for the end user whether or not it's built for the web is probably of little consequence. I actually think the fact that I can edit stuff on my mobile or tablet is very very cool - but most people won't care about that at all - and if I'm honest with myself, it's pretty impractical to do and probably almost useless for getting any real work done. Maybe in 5 years we'll see a lot of this stuff, but at the moment any advantages it may have don't seem to be obvious. One of the main things I see people saying is 'yeah that's cool, but we didn't actually ask for that feature' so it could just be a case of 'we don't want this because we're not ready for it'. I think perhaps it turned into too much of a passion project for the devs and they neglected to notice it wasn't actually what people wanted. That said though, I think if people are paying a subscription fee - they expect more than just access to a service, they expect the software to be dynamic and cutting edge - and really there's only so far you can go with 2d game dev.

It's only inevitable if people let it happen. There is certainly a worrying trend with larger corporations trying to push this as they can milk customers far more than with one off payments. Companies like Adobe and Autodesk were in a strong position to strongarm this as they are the industry leaders in their respective software fields with huge established customer bases that are completely reliant on their services. I was surprised when Scirra pulled this idea out as they are in no way the same position as those two business giants. If you look at other software industries - eg the pro audio scene, hardly anyone is using subscription services (and those that have tried - such as Roland with their cloud service have been heavily ridiculed and criticised) as they simply cannot justify the ongoing prices with their updates. I sincerely doubt that a 2d engine would be able to innovate fast enough to justify this either and everyone knows it. There's only so far you can go and it won't take long to hit the ceiling because we're almost there. In short though, people who are against systems like this should vote with their wallets. If we end up in a world full of subscriptions for everything it's because we've let it happen. There are good alternatives out there for Adobe and Autodesk products, and the same goes for game making software. Subs work fine for companies, but for individuals they are terrible. We're looking at a future of every service being a subscription, slowly draining our bank accounts from every direction, once it happens we'll be trapped. Don't let it happen.

signaljacker I think you misunderstood me.

I'm using Photoshop instead of Gimp because that's what I'm comfortable with, and it has all the features I need to work efficiently.

I'm using Maya instead of Blender because I know all the ins and outs of that software, and been using it for 15+ years.

I'm using afterEffects for Motion Graphics etc, because I'm comfortable with the software.

I'm using C2 for my hobby game making mostly because of the Event Sheet on my free time, because I can't stand to learning coding.

For me payment model is secondary, as long as I'm comfortable with the software. Apart from my employment, Graphic design is also my hobby on my spare time, but I still put up with a personal CC subscription, because I just can't force myself to use gimp at home, when I use photoshop at work.

Fair enough, I can relate to all of that. But it's not the payment model that bothers me, it's the artificial limitation of locking us out of our projects. The $99 a year is cheap enough, I don't have a problem paying it. But I think it's unnecessary to lock us out of our own work, it's a depressing trend and its absolutely awful for the preservation of digital media and it has really disappointed me that a company I thought was forward thinking is actually incredibly myopic to the needs/wants of its core audience. It may not bother you that your subscription model won't allow you to open your files after it ends and that's fair enough, but I think that in general people are really put off by it and I certainly am. If they'd fix that, then sign me up.