startech, that's interesting. when did they begin on it?

it's also not guaranteed to be $100, it could be a lot more.

If you can afford the risk, I would just finish it with the tools you are currently using and gain the experience with finishing a project of that size. That way you at least have done something whereas restarting over just prevents you from creating the game. I don't think your concern (if this is your first big project) should be about how it will be received, etc, since there are many other factors and lessons you'll experience by finishing it. Hope that makes sense.

Also, another thing that strikes me is that greenlight was useful to determine whether your game garners a level of interest from gamers. Even if that feedback might be biased, it is still feedback. This new method they have sounds like they get rid of that feedback loop. They remove the ability for failure, so a developer can't learn from their mistakes in order to make their game better before they put the game on steam. It's either you pay and get your game on, or you don't. You essentially have to pay in order for failure, or to succeed, and you're left with a product that either fails or not, you can't change it because you need a completely finished game first.

So knowing this, I'm thinking I will definitely look into using crowdfunding as a way to at least understand if people are truly interested in my games. I need to know whether I am going the right direction with my games while I develop them- crowdfund while I develop so that when it does get crowdfunded, etc, I know it has a higher chance of success on steam. I'm not going to just shell out potentially thousands of dollars without knowing beforehand if my game will succeed or not- I have to know beforehand that it has to succeed.

The problem is, that it is difficult to know absolutely, especially when you have a passion for what you're working on- you sometimes overlook things, others might not feel the same sentiment towards the game, etc. So I'm concerned they are removing the feedback loop.

So sad.

One of the negative things I see is that it's really just going to move the discussion away from the steam site and to kickstarter or some other fund raising platform. The process for devs will be basically the same, except instead of getting votes from people on steam who say they would buy the game, they will be getting 'votes' from people funding their kickstarter campaign to pay to be on steam. Another downside for that for devs is that steam recently updated their rating system so that games purchased through kickstarter and the like don't count in the product rating system anymore, making even the most popular games purchased through kickstarter and not directly through steam get much less exposure on the actual steam site.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. Small developers will need to raise the money somehow. I instantly was trying to figure out how I will get my game on steam and realizing that I might have to raise funds, and that kickstarter might be what I resort to using to do that.

[quote:27wvifyg]The firm says it wants to find a balance between allowing struggling but talented creators to launch great new games, while discouraging multiple launches of questionable quality and seriousness.

The issue I have with this comment, is that in a lot of cases talented creators get unfairly judged in the eyes of others that don't know how to recognize such talent or don't understand where their talent comes from, thus can't identify it. I've seen many cases where a game is under-appreciated just because of how it looks or what it entails, etc. A lot of times, if not all the time, the creators behind the products are not considered at all! If they really want to do what they are saying, then they need to be looking at the creators themselves and not the games they are making.

I'm extremely tired of having to fight my way to try and succeed my entire life- putting in all the endless hours advancing my talent, while constantly being overlooked, etc. At the end of it all, do they really care about me personally, or are they just caring about what I'm capable of? Can't they be more concerned about my potential and help me grow instead?

I would like these things too. +1

The truth is many of us here come from Fusion and have been using construct2 for the similarities of the event sheet

Yes, I'm an oldie, and have used klick and play way back in the 90s, also tgf, mmf, etc. What attracted me to Construct2 was the similarity regarding the event sheets, and I find C2's eventsheets superior to work with.

There still are various issues I have with it, and am hoping they become addressed in the future.

I sometimes have to add comments at the end to make it easier to see.

Yeah, I do that too. I add a few empty spaces in the comment as well as some text like End Groupname, just so there is some visible padded space to help me feel out where I am in the sheet and so everything doesn't just blend together.

what I'd like is a way to tag blocks of events with a color to help organize events visually, and for groups to have a footer to denote where a group ends.

People don't buy my games because I'm a poor alone developer, they buy them if they are fun.

I don't buy software because is done by a small team, I buy software that I like or need.

While I agree- I think the issue I am constantly reminded of as an independent developer, is that most players have their expectations defined by games created by larger companies. Those are the games people are force fed and taught to accept, generally speaking. So it's not necessarily about what is "fun", because very simple things can be fun. The issue I see is a type of expectation a person has and whether what they see lives up to it or not, and this expectation they have can be completely biased and unfair.

Unfortunately for the small developers, they can't do much about that- they have to learn to accept the reality of the consumer base, and make an extra effort to show why they should be supported or considered. This is what I find myself facing currently, and learning to overcome.

I'm sure this applies similarly to tool makers, like scirra, or any small team.

If you're doing something that might not fit the steam system, you could try https://itch.io

Can we get the option to use integer scaling with the Scale Inner and Outer modes Ashley ? At the moment, the scale inner/outer modes will warp the pixels (some will be squished or stretched).

What I'm interested in is the letterbox integer scale mode, but with the black borders removed. So it would resize as much as possible keeping the pixels uniform, and then either revealing what is outside the screen, or cropping inside it. So it would either resize without exceeding the screenspace (And then revealing outside of it), or resizing until it resizes one level outside the screenspace (thus cropping it, revealing whatever is inside the screenspace).