Aaaand there we have it - another classic dodge of the console exporting issue. "It's not important, and did you know you can export to phones and PCs." Yes, of course I know that. But acting evasive about the fact that people would naturally like to export their games to popular dedicated games systems is just plain weird.

And all I asked you to do was acknowledge that this is a (perfectly obvious) downside of HTML5/JS games. But you know perfectly well that back in the day, you put all your eggs in the basket of guessing that consoles were trending towards acceptance of HTML5 games and that simply didn't happen. You backed the wrong horse, and you won't admit it, but here you are throwing shade at the supposed drawbacks of someone else's game creation tool.

This is why I don't use Construct for anything other than hobby games now, and have sadly had to switch to a different platform. I wish I could use C3 to make real games and I can't be the only one.

I'm not particularly trying to advocate for Game Maker or anything (I've never used it and don't care if it's better or worse than C3). I'm just saying that this sort of borderline trash-talk post ("Here's Why We're Awesome, And The Competition Sucks") seems a little tacky and shortsighted. Pointing out the flaws in somebody else's game making software while conveniently overlooking the shortcomings of your own... is that really a good look for you?

For two, to give GML a fair shake somebody really ought to point out that HTML5/JS games have a MAJOR disadvantage in that you can't export to consoles, and every time anybody points this out to you they just get a shrug and a "sorry, it's up to the console manufacturers to sort it out" or "there are third party porting services" (and naturally it's not your problem that they all charge a bazillion dollars to do anything, or otherwise simply won't reply to emails).

Of course, Game Maker does allow you to build games suitable for use on the XBox, Playstation, and Switch (admittedly only from the most expensive subscription tier, but still, the option is there for a serious developer). I don't know how this can still be up for discussion whether or not it's a downside for a game creation system to be incompatible with almost all of the most popular game playing outlets.

This is a long message so, (thread)

I love Construct and have used it since like 2014, never used Game Maker. But still, uh... surely there's a couple of things wrong with this picture?

For one, I believe that few people who actually use C3 to develop games really write anything in JS. What we should actually be comparing is GM's subscription YYC performance to the event blocks everybody uses in C3 (which is also a paid subscription service, so it seems fair to compare the two). Your own graph clearly shows that GML outperforms C3 blocks (not by a lot, but it does).

Now, I don't really care about that per se - C3 performs well enough for my purposes. But it does make me wonder why I'm supposed to care that JS is supposedly faster than GameMaker when that really has nothing to do with what I and most other C3 users are actually getting. What is the point of my knowing that pure JS, which I'm not using, is better than Game Maker? Who is this post for?