Great news about the iAP plugin. All these new features for Construct 3 are great, but Ads and iAPs are on top of the the priority list for us mobile game developers. Get the monetization side covered and I'm all in.

Well, C3 beta has only been out for a week so nothing has changed from my first impression really. I'm still very excited about the product and it runs really good for a just released beta version. I really like the whole direction Scirra is going with Construct 3 and it really feels just right for me.

To actually have a better second impression I want to test the full version at the end of the beta. I need to know how well the new features like the Scirra hosted app building service work etc. before I can say for 100% I'm subscribing. I'm also really excited about the possibility of the editor plugins.

I can see from the Bug fixing forum that Scirra team is working really hard to fix everything and I respect that! Fingers crossed that the bug fixing process goes well and we'll see a lot of progression in upcoming weeks.

> People aren't attracted to Construct because it's html 5 based - it's the great workflow.

>

I might be in the minority, but I was (and still am) attracted to Construct 2/3 because it is HTML5-based.

My target audience prefers browser-based interactives (education). I do see the point for those who are trying to make money strictly off of games, however. It is hard enough to make a living off of games, and to choose a tool that restricts you to only a small fraction of your potential market is financial suicide.

That being said, I would love to see a great 3D game built in Construct 3 that showcases HTML5's capabilities. The key is that enough people would need to play it and become inspired by it to encourage more developers to shift over to the platform so that more great games would be built using the tool. A lot of stars would need to align for this to happen.

In the end, I love HTML5 because pretty much every kid in school is carrying around a device with a browser, which makes the web such an awesome way to democratize the art form of games. I think Construct 3 has the potential to get there, but am worried about the financial risk to developers.

HTML5 is the reason why I'm interested in Construct as well. Especially now when new platforms like Facebook Messenger are starting to embrace HTML5 games. I think this could possible be a new opportunity for smaller casual games almost like app store was a decade ago.

I have to wonder why would Scirra tease us for months with so many new features and then release a beta where almost all of these new features are locked. I understand that Scirra wants to test and fix all the basic features first, but why even start teasing with the new features so early when in reality they are months away?

I tested out everything I could think of with the available features. I made a few test games and tested out cloud saving support. Everything worked well for me and I didn't encounter any problems. The editor itself looks and feels almost identical to C2 editor and I really like it.

Personally I like the double click, that's how i always add a new objects to the project (double clicking the layout) and new events to event sheets. Feels more natural for me than the + icon in Construct 2.

Or double click.

Top left menu > view > bars. All windows should be there.

> blurymind

>

> btw today clickteam announced that Fusion 3 will not only export to native platforms, but it will also be able to export to html5

> clickteam.com/fusion-3-devel ... ?f3id=8904

>

> They are taking the approach that godot is using for exporting native code games to html5- using emscripten

> [quote:2t7l8x3q]Emscripten is a source-to-source compiler that takes something called LLVM bitcode and spits out javascript. Basically it allows us to compile Fusion 3 made games into javascript based games/apps with relatively little effort and with very high performance.

> Won’t C++ compiled to Javascript be slow?

> Not really. Emscripten compiles to a subset of Javascript called “asm.js”. It is basically fully valid javascript but since only a specific subset of it is ever used it allows the browser to do some very aggressive optimizations on the code and even on-the-fly compile the code to native code for the platform you are running it on. This means that even though your game/app will go through a Javascript step it will “just be a phase” so to speak.

>

Pleople will still have the option to export to native android,win,linux,mac,ios - so no need for wrappers. If you however just want a web app/game - html5 is available. A lot of the other big game engines seem to be using emscripten for html5 export - Unreal and Unity included!

To put some light on the name of this thread - you should not be worried about the future. We have never before had it so good in terms of choice and quality of game engines. There is something for everyone <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" />

The future is incredibly bright!

I believe it when I see it! If it's anything like Unitys HTML5 export, you will not be playing those games on mobile devices that's for sure. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" />

We all know of the incredible community made plugins here- a lot of which free.

rexrainbow has created and supported many very useful addons. He had to write his own plugin manager and repository - because scirra does not have one.

We also have the scirra store, but that is in no way integrated with the actual editor.

-Will Construct 3 have an official built in plugin manager, one that gets plugins from a repository and imports them to the game project in one click?

+1! These would be really really useful features.

>

> I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

>

>

Because you failed to. For one reason or another (like how not everyone who starts on a diet succeeds).

Or it didn't work out/turned out to be a bad idea/harder than you thought.

Which is why it's important research the subject and have a clear understanding of your goal and how to reach it. This is coming from somebody that's lost almost 70 lbs in the last two years.

As I say, I doubt most people who start (even wanting to release) succeed. I don't have stats on that but I think this is a known stat. for other success rates of creative endeavors (actors, singers, etc.).

Not sure what the marketing thing has to do with what I said, but in any case, I doubt most people (indie/one-man-army developers) would start marketing their games before they feel they're close to/sure of succeeding. Even if they do, plenty of people spend years on a game and come out of nowhere and release it (or almost nowhere), so I certainly wouldn't assume that.

Anyone can fail, but there are many things you can do to give yourself a better chance to succeed. I recommend you to research how many of these great indie games succeeded. Marketing and having a connection with your customers/fans from the day one had a lot to do with it. In order to sustain them, you will have commit to certain yearly/montly budget even without Construct subscription. That's what I meant when I talked about marketing expenses when aiming for monetary success.

As I said before, I can understand your points regarding the subscription if I'm looking at this from a hobbyist perspective. From my understanding the free basic version is there for this reason. But it's all speculation at this point. We still don't know all of the Construct 3 features or the free version features. Time will tell.

>

> It tended to be complaints from the countries where $99 is a huge amount...

>

Not my issue with it.

> ...if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap!

>

But you only make money if you actually end up fully following through with it.. and how many times does that happen with even people trying to release something? Probably less often than not.

For a lot of people with plans but not necessarily time/life stuff comes up (intermittent users), it's not a great value if you're not using it a lot of the year. (To say nothing of the ownership issue.)

Even for a subscription scheme, the annual buy-in still seems to me a crazy/terrible choice. It's a bad fit for intermittent users. (This is not like Spotify or something where you can find time to use the service pretty much anytime). If not month to month, at least a 6 month option should be available.

I'm not really clear on what you mean. If your aim is to make money, then how can you not fully follow through?

If making money is my aim, then I'm not making games for myself. I'm essentially making products for my potential customers. To find these potential customers I would need to do some market researching. Then I would have to start marketing right away to keep these people interested. All this would bring me monthly expenses without even opening Construct! If I would not follow through at this point, I would lose money AND damage my credibility.

Now as a hobbyist, I would essentially be creating the games for my own enjoyment. This is a completely different approach to game making than the example before, because the end goal is different. In this case, I can understand not wanting to pay 99/year for the reasons you've mentioned. But isn't the free version there for this? As far as I know there hasn't been any details released regarding the limitations of the free version. It would be interesting to know what the limitations are in that one.

So Scirra has said that there will be a free Construct 3 version. If I'm making games for a hobby or I'm just starting out, I will use the free version. And it's not like 99/year is an expensive hobby. Christ, I pay 50/month for my gym membership!

And if my aim is to make money with games, then 99/year is downright laughably cheap! I feel like some people don't understand the value of these game creation tools like Construct. Hiring even a beginner level programmer will cost you over 2000/month easy. It really is amazing how far all of these game creation tools have come.

That's my two cents.