> Obviously there will be bugs on the first days of release. The whole point of a beta is for bugs like this to surface and be dealt with.

>

Oh really?

Well if that is the case C2 should be bug free after 5 years right?

Visited the C2 bug section lately?

Didn't you finally want to leave the good people here alone?

Tom we really need a Block function in the new forums.

I don't think the browser APIs allow for that.

However scirra could Tunnel that through their servers I guess.

The construct community has grown to the place where not everyone wants or needs the same things, which makes it hard for everyone. A good start would be releasing features. One of the frustrations that I've seen is that everything is always coming soon, just around the corner, in the pipeline etc.

But that's exactly what they are providing with the C3 platform.

A way to build more features faster.

The only downside I could think of is that right now it's just the basic platform. Given the amount and pace of updates to C2 I'm not worried that C3 will be way ahead in a couple of months.

> The quote oft attributed to Ford applies here:

>

> [quote:3izhhbzz]If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

>

People don't know they want cutting edge until they have it.

I didn't realise how helpful a browser based editor would be until I realised when I was at work that I could just login to C3 and work on my files; what's more, the editor actually updated automatically, and told me so with a pop-up. I'll confess I was impressed.

C3 is the evolution of a product, Scirra aren't going to compromise their vision of progress to cater to the vocal minority. Ultimately the effectiveness of their decisions will be determined in sales figures, of which a subscription model is infinitely better suited to their constant maintenance and upgrades business plan.

If Scirra are able to provide the same level of improvement and growth that C2 experienced before the work on C3 cut into the dev time, I'll be a customer for life. C3 isn't a product, it's a service.

OK so that makes you and Tunepunk that want a chrome browser based subscription engine.

If there are more than two of you get them to post here or start a thread and when you get a thousand people that agree with you or even a hundred then you have a case to support your opinion.

There are that many that disagree with you though and they have made that clear!

There are way more people that like the basic idea of browser based subscription engine.

However not everyone participates in the forums or wants to add to the discussion. People with hate will always be more visible than people who love something.

I guess the discussion is over.

I wouldn't go that for as to say C2 is purely hobbyist platform. Although It is an ideal tool for non-coders designer type devs without a small team or coder to help them take their idea from paper to reality.

This is the main reason I chose C2. I've always wanted to make my own game, but doing it in my spare time, it's hard to get a team together. C2 allowed me from having a few game ideas in my head and on paper to actually start building them. Yes... C2 might not offer, native, export to consoles, 3D and a couple of other things bigger engines has to offer but one thing it has given me is the ability to make any games at all... pretty easily, without having to struggle with learning how to code.

Yes exporting to mobile has been kind of a headache with 3rd party tools, but what game development comes without headaches?

OP is requesting console export, and official ad-network plugins that would benefit his business. I get where he's going with it. He wants to continue using C2, but If he already is at this point in his game developing where he is already making enough money to make a living on his productions, it's not hard to invest in a little bit of dev time, and pay someone to make a plugin for the ad network he is aiming at. The console export is probably the tricky part... I would say XBox One is his first bet to aim at, with Universal windows apps, and it's in the pipeline. Wii U, Switch, Playstation, etc yeah it would be cool if C2 could export to those platforms also, but I don't know how much work it is to get something like that going, given that C2 is a HTML5 engine.

In my point of view, you either chose an engine that you're comfortable with and has the features that you require, or you chose another engine. I think it's a bit unfair to push all your needs on the small but capable scirra team. If you're targeting consoles... why would you chose C2 in the first place? It's not really made for console productions, although some consoles are starting to accept HTML5 games.

Yes, Html5 PC, and Mobile wrappers can have their caveats, but it's pretty much something you have to live with if you're using a HTML5 engine. Some can probably be fixed by Scirra, but some issues are probably out of their limits to fix. All the scirra team can do is try to focus on making those exports as painless as possible.

If you've come to that point where your needs has outgrown the capabilities of the editor you're using, as a serious developer you would naturally start to look at what engines provide the features you need for your business and your ideas. Construct is pretty flexible, in terms of plugins etc. But there's only so much you can do with that...The devs DO listen, and they are active on the forums for direct interaction, and are trying to explain what they can and can not do.

That!

That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.

Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore

as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it

could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

*Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.

Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?

Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.

C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.

I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.

In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.

P.S.

We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.

Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.

Pretty much misses the point completely!

If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.

So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?

Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.

I'm with you on what you are saying here.

However they clearly say it's an HTML5 Gameengine for 2D games so I can't understand the discussion about 3D and Native Export. Since that was known before buying the product.

I do not like C3 as it is right now but I wouldn't say that their marketing was misleading. You get what you saw, it's just not THAT easy to achieve and does not work for all and every case. But I get the anger and frustration that's in the air and that's totally understandable.

Anyhow, we should be happy to habe the freedom to take such things out in the official forums. Other communities are way more restrictive in that case.

Tom and Ashley should consider working on a second / complimentary product which brings in native exports by taking the JSON structures that contain the project logics and having it run by a native implementation of the c2/3 runtime. At least they would not need to remake the editor :S but I believe that might be really more complicated to keep features even across all export options. I'm sure people would throw their money (additional to the subscription) at them.

NotionGames off topic: so happy to see you around. I've been stalking you every now and then, eagerly waiting for your next game.

I was always wondering why no one did create something like Cordova/XDK/Electron/NW for consoles yet.

Shoudn't this be possible? I mean you can most likely integrate webkit code and have that run html5.

Something like https://github.com/gree/unity-webview wrapping HTML5 into Unity and using the native exporters for creating binaries for each platform.

Woudn't expect it to be really performant though and maybe MS and Sony woudn't want that, but on the technical side, i believe this could be possible.

However I do not know anything at all about limitations on console APIs, so maybe thats not possible at all <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">

It's from the Unity 5.6 Update.

However like newt said, we already have that in C2.

I believe the C2 manual to be complete.

The manual provides information on the API and the tools C2 gives you.

How you combine these tools and apply them is up to you and requires prototyping and research, however such things should not be in a manual. There are examples, tutorials, the forums, reddit and YouTube for that.

What you ask for depends a lot on individual preference and style and there is a thousand ways to achieve the same result with the given tools. A best practice thread in the community might be what you are after.

Well like i said before the beta, giving the free version for testing makes only so much sense... - nobody said anything

I was really excited for C3, because taking Construct to the web is pretty much a great step and it for sure is an amazing achievement for Scirra.

However...

The blog posts did not offer a lot of really new features, which is okay, since they are building the foundation first, but limiting the testing to even less than the announced features and a stripped down free version takes the whole fun out of the beta testing period.

Basically I opened C3 and thought "yup it works and looks good" which i expected anyway, but then thought "mhm... i can do pretty much nothing with this, there is no point in testing things in here". The limitations are just really really tight. I honestly can't tell now if i want to subscribe anymore, because nothing new is available for me to try out.

For a product that you want to sell after the beta, there is a lot of work left on the product.

I read somewhere that your UX guy hasn't had the chance to go over it - so why even release it to the public for testing already? I believe you should have just polished it a little more, let me wait some time and make it so that i want it.

Even with my deepest respect for what you achieved technologywise - it's just so disappointing.

It does not feel like it is "worth" the price upgrade yet. Will take a look in the last week when you opened up the "full" version for sure, so maybe you can still suprise me.

I liked the Construct workflow a lot and am more than willing to support great software, so probably i have to checkback in a year and see if the improvements can make me wanna subscribe.