Pretty much this http://www.perfectly-nintendo.com/the-n ... e-to-wii-u

and this http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/0 ... uld_happen

But on the bright side, there are other (simpler) C2 games that made it to WiiU:

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/0 ... ii_u_eshop

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/blok-drop-u-wii-u

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/su ... ouse-wii-u

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/tw ... sion-wii-u

Havok

You don't need to worry about Android and iOS versions. Since they will use WebView, it will only add 1~5 MB to the game files, unless you target Android 4 or older (in that case the build will include Crosswalk and will take + 50 MB)

Ethan

If it's like Kyatric said, it took you 3 minutes because C3 also downloaded NW.js first time. Try a few builds to see if the other ones are faster.

Looks like you can export NW.js during the game jam. Is like I've guessed above: "Just a wild guess, but I think the exporters will run on the Construct servers and you get do "download" the exported build (like Cocoon or Intel XDK)."

146 MB for KiwiStory win64

But yes, you now have more modular options and you can select what builds you want (mac, linux, win32, win64 ... etc) which is nice.

blurymind I've posted these price models on Fusion forums. I was planning to post them here, but you did it instead of me. Thanks

Who in the world would go through all that effort simply to run it for another 10 minutes

but yeah you are right, the clock thing is easy to cheat, unless you have a user login system - which you do.

Exactly what I was thinking. Also, notice that the number of events an user can have can be modified server-side (like now the unregistered users have 25 while registered ones have 40)

But overall that idea is stupid. It kills the creativity forcing you to move fast, and I don't even want to think what will you do if you encounter a bug.

SnipG Yes, GameMaker is a lot more expensive, but it actually delivers. Just look at the showcase (there are some popular titles). Also, don't forget, you will pay 100$/year, if you use C3 for 4-5 years, you will get close to the price of Game Maker (with mobile exporters). After that time you will notice that you only rented C3 instead of owning Game Maker.

In my opinion you get less with C3 in the long run.

michael Good advice, I'm already doing that. Clickteam just made it clear that F3 will not have subscriptions. It's obvious that C3 is "take-or-leave" offer.

From what I see, even at this stage, C3 has monopoly over Chromebooks and Android tablets. So there is a market for it, but not for me and probably more than half of this community.

Just a wild guess, but I think the exporters will run on the Construct servers and you get do "download" the exported build (like Cocoon or Intel XDK).

That, or at least the NW.js will be usable offline (like is now with C2).

Is this still this going ? Haven't you realized already that if Ashley/Scirra wanted, they could offer C3 + exporters offline, like they are already doing with C2 + NW.js, and keep the subscription only for the online browser (for Chromebook, Android, iPad ... etc) ? It is all about money

It is a middle finger to older users that hoped to get a more professional tool, but actually a great business decision: Why compete on desktop where are lots of other better engines when you can have a niche market like Chromebooks, iPads with zero competition.

Also, from all the markets, the iPhone/iPad users will probably spend 100$ without second thoughts.

So yeah, Fusion 3 is looking batter and better, or if you are more serious and can code, Unity/Unreal are also a good (free) alternative

I'm curious how stuff like Selective Collision for Solids will be fixed in C3 since it was not possible in C2 runtime.

And I've got my answer: https://www.scirra.com/blog/204/the-fut ... -3-runtime

[quote:1q5ancv1]

Please tell us how you will be using C3 if you will be subscribing and if you are a serious game designer, small time game designer, hobbyist, educator or using the engine for some other purpose?

Also please tell us if you are a long time C2 user or new to game design or switching from some other engine to a Sciirra engine?

I still have C2 for prototyping, but as a hobbyist, I will not use C3 because of subscription model. This doesn't mean that is bad. Is definitely cheaper then Cocoon.io's 500$ to remove splashscreen.

Not sure how C3 will handle bigger games, but for web or smaller games, it is still a very good engine.

I did not depend on C2 so is easy for me to switch to another engine. Also, it didn't take too much time for other users to port their progress to Unity. (it is unpleasant, but doable)

lamar You are wasting your breath, online services and subscriptions go hand-in-hand. This is the model Ashley chose for C3 and is impossible to change it without trowing years of work to trash.

While I don't have any particular problem with the fact that is browser-based (i'm not delighted either), I simply don't like subscriptions, so i moved away.

The good part is that there are a lot of other game engines

As for C3, is literally C2 in a browser IDE Seriously, it even has the C2 Splashscreen.

I'm curious how stuff like Selective Collision for Solids will be fixed in C3 since it was not possible in C2 runtime.

From here on C3 can only improve, and we didn't even get to see the first official release, so there is some hope left.

Elliott

Somehow I get what you say. I also use Google Docs and is very useful, but I also can open my documents with MS Office, Open Office, LibreOffice ... etc in case I need to.

Yes, there are a lot of advantages like the ones you mentioned, but with Construct games, you are tied/dependent to Construct/Scirra.

Actually, tunepunk has a point: Business 101 is to make money so ... yeah subscriptions

But also I feel the same as you, lamar: NW.js exporter in Construct 2 works offline. The same could be done with C3. And to support the developers, you bought the wrapper for the platform you wanted.

I already jumped the ship to Fusion and already gained more then I payed for Construct 2, so I'm ok, just curious how this will turn out.

If the browser IDE will prove itself, the other engines will do the same when the support will be better, so no loss for them, they will have native IDE + browser IDE, like things are now with Construct having only-HTML5 and the other engines have native and HTML5.

Anyway, I give my regards to Ashley , Tom (and Scirra team) for Construct 3. It really is an accomplishment, but in process you've lost a great part of the community (if not for the browser IDE, then for the subscription model).

On-topic: I do agree with NotionGames

Yup, C2 in a browser and 99$/year

It is indeed impressive to create a fully functional advanced game creation tool that is browser based. This has some advantages, as multiple platforms support and since Construct only exports html/js it will have a better integration of the IDE.

The good:

• Works better then expected even on mobiles
• Some useful new features, that can't be tested/previewed in beta ...
• All the good parts that C2 had

The bad:

• Browser based
• Dependence on other services/servers
• Pretty much anything else

My advice for Ashley and Tom: If this is really the direction you are going, then focus on web platforms/portals (and maybe mobiles). The Newgrounds (and AirConsole) announcement shows the potential of Construct for html5 games.

I don't think any developer would want to start a big game (spend a few years) in a browser based not-yet-finished-html5.

Also, I like the new website, nice and clean

No issues so far ... Probably Scirra should put an pop-up info/warning to disable adblocks or other plugins that can interfere with Construct 3.