Business-wise it is not feasible to drop all support, especially for a relatively new software release. Customers hate having support for their product dropped. For exactly this reason, we are continuing to maintain Construct 2 for the foreseeable future. We could never say we'd dropped support for it - there would be a huge backlash.

I am sure the same thing would happen if we dropped support for the product every year and asked people to pay again. It would be a regular, annual backlash. I dread to think of that. I am certain we would be forced to maintain old versions at least a couple of years. Maintaining multiple versions would cause a significant engineering overhead and considerably slow down our ability to progress with new features.

You could use something akin to Unity's pay-to-own:

http://www.cgchannel.com/2016/06/unity- ... ing-model/

[quote:fd0h7nlb]Exisiting owners of perpetual licences will get the option to buy either a 24-month or 36-month Pro subscription that “allows them to keep the software as a perpetual version at the end of their commitment period”.

Pricing for this pay-to-own model hasn’t been announced yet, but Unity has said that you’ll pre-pay the full cost of the subscription, so it’s effectively still a perpetual licence plus maintenance by another name.

New customers will also have access to the 36-month pay-to-own scheme.

Pay up-front for a two or three year subscription and two/three years of updates. If you communicate this clearly there shouldn't be any user backlash.

I'm actually starting to come around to the idea of subscriptions. Well, obviously I don't like it! Who does? But consider this: C3 and it's editor is designed to run on tablets and smartphones. Tablets and smartphones can't replace traditional dev platforms like PC's and Macs of course, but they can be a very nice supplement to them. Test out ideas, fix bugs etc in spare moments on the sub, plane, whatever. And being able to access projects easily between your smartphone/tablet and your main workstation pretty much necessitates some kind of cloud service. Which costs money.

So after thinking it through I get the vision, and I sorta agree with it even if I could do with just a regular C2 upgrade myself.

Are you using a lot of separate solids for platforms? If a lot of them are overlapping they'll be checking for collisions against each other as well as the player and enemies. Maybe try using a few large objects instead and set them up with polygon shapes that match your platform layout.

Things you can try:

Disable effects on static objects - if you use effects on individual objects instead of layers it can quickly add up.

Minimize use of loops

Don't update non-essential stuff every tick

Use low quality fullscreen scaling - doesn't make a difference for pixel platformers but can give a huge performance boost.

—

Sure <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile"> Try this one:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2p1htw0togv97 ... h.rar?dl=0

Blender is a 3D modelling program. What kind of graphics do you want to go for? Pre-rendered 3D? Hand-drawn 2D? Vector graphics? Pixel art?

Don't worry about roguelikes too much. It's true they're popular, but there's plenty of market left for other types of games. I agree with tunepunk. Got a game you really like? Make something like that, only better

By the way if you want to examine a game that does roguelike and speedrun/score-based competition really well you might want to check out Crypt of the Necrodancer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I got the impression Havok is asking if there's a performance overhead to events themselves, regardless of conditions. Like, will a thousand empty events running every tick bog things down for instance?

Thanks guys Good to know it's doable.

I may be wrong but doesn't removing reference to them delete them from the CAPX? You might have to delete the saved CAPX with C2 running the project and resave as a fresh file.

Do you mean in-editor? I never saw a way to get at certain plugins from within there.

The new runtime announcement has got me somewhat hopeful. If I knew it would make console deployment actually viable outside of Xbox One, and not just on paper like what seemed to be the case with WiiU, then I'd sign up on release. Right now though, C3 seems nice but I'm not chaining my projects to a subscription deal unless I get a really good reason to.

Windows version is only relevant for the nwjs export since they're dropping support for xp and vista as I recall. Also I'm fairly certain only one core is utilized by Construct's runtime, with maybe the exception of webworkers used for pathfinding and perhaps some other things.

Yeah, nwjs 15 was the last I got to run on xp if I remember right.

Also, I do remember bug reports being a major hassle. Spend hours trying to isolate an issue from a larger project and risk getting met with a dismissive response. That's disheartening so I rarely bother with them.

(Again, I do think it's a pretty unique thing that you actually can talk directly to the founder, but I'm starting to see the appeal in disappearing behind a corporate team page...)

LOL. I have my concerns about C2 and C3 but this is definitely one of the things I've always appreciated personally so I hope you don't, tho I see why you might want to.