Short Answer : No.

So, benefits? Besides less effort?

Im confused.

Are you expecting that they wrote a new wrapper?

Not a difficult question. Yes, the question is: did they write a new wrapper that has improved performance?

The paid subscription model guarantees longevity.

Singular, one-off payments are ultimately damaging for long term businesses that do not release cyclical paid versions or cut their main product up into modules.

Scirra's current business model has users paying a one-off cost for an ongoing, evolving product and services - this is not sustainable, and would, without failure, end up bankrupting Scirra if continued ad infinitum.

This concern is entirely mitigated by subscription fees.

Yes, but elliot has a point, what if the company does run into some unforeseen troubles, what legal ramifications might protect those subscribers who need to be able to legally continue working on their games?

Ashley Tom preferably the reliability of XDK/PhoneGap with the performance of Canvas+ by Cocoon.io. Can you tell us if it will be as good if not better than this, or will it be the same as XDK, just more convenient?

I'll be absolutely honest, I took an old game with a lot of badly optimized code, HD screen resolution intended for desktop-only, loads of layers and extensions (even some 3rd-party that weren't comparable with the exporter and wouldn't build) in Fusion 2.5, and slapped on a thumbstick and compiled my very first ever android apk in F2.5. And it worked. Flawlessly. Perfect performance. Smooth fps and gameplay. First. Apk. Ever.

I've build hundreds of apks in Cocoon, Phonegap and XDK. And none of them have come out well. So far, my only "succesful" compile with cocoon on GooglePlay doesn't even work with some phones (thanks to cocoon, XDK was painful slow).

That's just my experience though.

Not expecting a response

Interesting point...

99Instances2Go this'll prolly go down like a sack of hammers, but how do I reduce the tile size without the character running off to the corner of the screen when you click on an unwalkable tile?

Lol

?

Okay, it's dawning on me that maybe by designing my games with pixel art, then scaling the layout to 3x zoom and using a resolution of 1920x1080 might NOT be the best idea for performance. Or maybe there's no other way of getting crisp, non-antialiases pixels without using the native resolution of the device (usually 1920x1080 these days) and scaling the layout. I've only used this technique as a way to keep the pixel art scaled properly, but should I be using 320x180 window size, and just letting the tablet/phone GPU upscale, and hope it doesn't anti-alias the pixels?

> Worth is an entirely subjective value; discussing it does little to change what is a fundamentally personal perception.

>

> One off payments vs subscription is ultimately an ideological debate; and one that I find people shift from left to right on as they get older. Much like taxes, the older you get the more you realise they're not only necessary but vital for society.

>

> Anyway...

>

> One off payments effectively floor the amount of money Scirra can earn each software cycle, sure they might make more initially, but once they've made a single sale, they've removed that consumer from the market. This is completely fine if you're selling a static product, but Scirra are selling software, software that they continuously update and improve, that dramatically changes throughout it's lifespan (Compare C2 of 4 years ago to C2 today!), and services like multiplayer servers and mobile builders.

>

> Subscription is the only logical commerce for a product like this - to say otherwise is damaging and needlessly consumerist. To sell it at a fixed one-off price and make sound business sense Scirra would have to hack the product into modules and sell it ala carte; which is terrible.

>

That's the strongest argument I've heard so far for a subscription model. It's understandable that the company wants to make lots of money from their product, but it's also understandable that the consumer wants to get value out of what they pay for. It's important to find a middle ground or someone loses. I really feel that the consumer loses when they are renting software tools.

The value doesn't come from the experience in using the tool. The value comes from the hard work the consumer puts into the game and creating something fun for other's to play. The recoup value is if you make money from those games. How many of the 120K registered users make more than $120 off their games? How many success stories does C2 have? How many people are getting their value out of paying once for C2? And now Scirra wants us to pay forever to use C3? Where can we meet in the middle to make it fair for the most people?

I never expected to make a penny with C2, which is why I paid one-off. Someone just told me they couldn't even play my excuse for a game cos it gives them a black screen because I had to compile it with Cocoon, because XDK/PhoneGap was too slow. I have no reason to believe C2 will come up with a cloud compiler any better than XDK, and I certainly don't expect it to reach speeds of Cocoon, even if it is more stable for the tradeoff.

> This is my crap game: https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... bbi.srduke

> That was built 8 months ago or so with canvas+ and was/would be very slow with xdk.

>

I only get a black screen with your game, I have a galaxy 6s with android 6.

Doesn't surprise me, canvas+ does one job and only one job well. Starting up reliably was never one of it's strong points, so I gather.