Yup, subscription model is a huge turn off.

Is not really about the price (around 8$ / month), is about the fact that if you stop paying or something happens with Construct 3, you can simply trow away your project to the garbage.

This forced away a lot of users and great developers.

But at the moment, C2 still rocks for my needs.

I know of Chowdren from Fusion 2.5 . I've tested it when it was open source and the performance was better then default exporters and it had plugin support for more platforms.

While more performance is always better, the most important feature is the support for ALL major consoles.

Is not just a wrapper, it basically translates your game into native (C++)

And the fact that it even get better performance in HTML5 then the default C2 is something

I'm curious how it will compare with the new C3 runtime.

Keep up the good work.

To be "that" guy:

If C2 had "near native" speeds, does this mean C3 is 2~3 faster then native ?

Jokes aside, is really nice to see how much Construct and HTML5 have grown in the past few years. Good luck and keep growing

In my humble opinion: No or not soon

Why ? Switch already has a lot of developers (big companies and indies). Nintendo released the Web Framework in order to draw more developers to the failing WiiU that lacked 3rd party games.

Also, even if Nintendo brings the Web Framework to Switch, chances are that C3 will not be supported unless the Web Framework is updated to support WebGL (from what I know, C3 dropped the support for DirectCanvas)

This depends:

Free alternative: If Cocoon Free is good enough for you, then you can stay with C2 + Cocoon . Or you can make your own wrapper service (there are several tutorials on the internet, but it is medium to hard)

Paid alternative: Instead of any other of the Cocoon subscription plans, I would go with C3. Just comparing the prices, C3 is the clear winner (you also should get better integration for C3 since is the same team and the actual game engine)

Console: If you plan to release games to other consoles except XBox One ... then you should think about another game engine

One of the problems is that the people that were making plugs weren't interested in making a profit, and therefore couldn't justify a subscription.

From what I can see, the addons can be converted quite easily to C3 . The real issue is that they are not longer supported by the author (no new features, no fixes ... etc)

Its arguable that the free version still allows that, but its much more limited. Its pretty much useless as anything other than a proof of concept.

I can totally agree with that. With these limits you can't even edit the 3 default games.

Ashley I know that It had been said a lot of times before, but remove the event limit or put something more acceptable as 200~300 events and block the export at up to 50 events or something.

When we first released C2, we had people telling us for months we'd obviously failed or had made ourselves irrelevant and were certainly selling less because we chose HTML5 over Flash. Despite a steady stream of such complaints, we stuck to our guns, because we were absolutely sure HTML5 would take over. We act on where we see technology is going, to future-proof the company. I guess not everyone appreciates that.

Yes, you were right, but now when html5 has become widely spread, a lot of competitors added it, so they have native + html5. Being first on new lands is not always the best , is similar to "early adopters"

I really liked the post about C3 new engine with the performance and all, but remember that people are paying subscriptions so they expect to make money in return.

In my opinion, while C3 development is a priority, Scirra Team should also focus on different ads plugins (and IAP) and also support for the big web portals (Nowgrounds, Kongregade, Facebook etc).

Better use Scale Outer mode.

There is no easy answer for that ... At the moment C3 is C2 in a browser with some improvements.

C3 should offer a little better performance and better output, and it would be even better optimized when it will be updated with C3 runtime (at the moment is using the same runtime as C2).

There is also the problem of plugins, a lot of C2 plugins are not ported to C3.

Best is to try it for yourself and see how is working.

My opinion trough (seeing you have a pretty complex game and are getting ready to launch) is to stick at the moment with C2 and make the jump to C3 when it will be out of beta. Or finish this one in C2 and start the next one in C3.

Jayjay

Like me, you are for a long time here. You should know by now that Ashley is dead set on HTML5. It doesn't matter how many facts you present, or if the whole community begs for it.

Why build and focus on an "events plugin" for an industry standard game engine that exports natively on almost anything and let thousands of developers maintain and upgrade the engine, when you can reinvent the wheel and do all by yourself

Yes, C3 is a marvelous piece of software, don't get me wrong, but there is a reason why all the bigger games developers moved to other software.

glerikud

Look at Playmaker and think again (there is also a "little" game named Hearthstone that uses it)

And how you spend more resources focusing only on the event system instead of the whole software (let's not even talk about browsers compatibility now that even the IDE is browser-based).

4 solutions;

• live with it
• upgrade to C3 (currently in beta)
• move to another game engine
• build your own custom platform engine in C2 using events

Short answer: no.

Even if you would port NW.js or Electron to Dreamcast, the processing power is too low for HTML5 games.

—

More or less

Using a 3D plugin:

Or better, using Mode7: