Frankly your snarky attitude and manner of speaking makes it obvious that you aren't really a professional,.......

So, if you're serious about being a "real dev" yourself, the first thing I'd suggest is to stop assuming you somehow know everything despite having never done any serious work in this field. Stop assuming people who disagree with you are fools. Stop wasting your time picking fights in forums. It might make you feel good to lash out and insult people, but you're not doing yourself any favors. Spend your time mastering a tool of your choosing - pick one and stick with it even when you encounter frustrating problems (which you will, usually in no time flat). Use it every single day anyway. Ask for feedback on your work and consider it carefully, and be respectful towards the people kind enough to give it to you even when you don't like what you're hearing. Read up on your craft (Gamasutra and the GDC vault are great resources). And don't give up. This stuff is difficult, and even with some of the great engines we now have access to, it takes a long, long time to get good at it or to finish anything worth finishing.

Good luck.

You seem like a young 'un. This is a tough industry son. I'd drop the Construct and focus on true code, and don't mention Construct during an interview process. Trust me on that one.

But thank you for your insight into my lack of experience. I had no idea how inexperienced I actually was.

>

>

> See you there bud. Bring your copy of Construct with you, we will all be fascinated. You could do a demo - wear one of those headset/mic thingies.

>

I'm totally serious, actually. Shoot me which talks you're going to via PM and we can talk the realities of game development face to face. My company is having us share passes, so I won't be there every day, but I'm sure we can make it work. I'm generally interested in the design track stuff since that's my day job, but whatever, the place isn't that big.

Well, look at you. A "serious" game designer, with all the bells and whistles, and using Construct - what are the chances? As much as I'd love to chat "shop" with a total stranger, 'face to face', from a forum, I will decline your offer.

And before you suggest it, you're right - I'm declining your invite because I've never worked at any major software company and have never written a line of code. You win my friend!

[quote:1qw42ysc]

Money is worthless, just leave and never come back.

Try telling Scirra that, per annum. Keep dev'ing my friend!

>

> > If you don't want to read the documentation, I guess it doesn't matter how well it's written!

> >

>

> I have read many C2 docs over the years and they were in general at an amateur level. My suggestion is that if you are charging "big boy" per annum prices, that you hire a trained tech writer; at least one - and stop relying on user provided tutorials (unless they are getting part of that per annum charge?). At $99, C2 was "lifetime" and I could overlook the bugs, the lack of documentation, outdated documentation, and the lack of fixes. The new pricing structure demands a higher level of support.

>

> Also, let's not get too carried away with what Construct can and can't do. If you guys are creating Pong via a drag-and-drop application and thinking you're 'devs', think again. What you are doing is locking yourself into an eco-system that demands that you pay yearly or your projects are useless to you. And if monetizing, with the amount of times Construct apps generate violations on Google Play / AdMob - you will be paying for years to support those apps, else you cant update/fix the Google Play violations.

>

> I'd recommend people move over to Visual Studio, an IDE that can export to Windows/iOs/ Android. It is DEV LEVEL and its FREE. As I said earlier, Scirra is charging "big boy" prices now and with beta plugins for monetization, missing plugins for monetization, or plug-ins/bugs that sit unfixed for months, non-action isn't going to cut it.

>

> If you have no interest in monetization, and you just want to pay $99 PER YEAR to show Granny you're a 'dev' and made a game of Pong, knock yourself out.

>

Cool man, let us know how that works out for you! Good luck! I'll see you at GDC this year, I'm sure!

See you there bud. Bring your copy of Construct with you, we will all be fascinated. You could do a demo - wear one of those headset/mic thingies.

If you don't want to read the documentation, I guess it doesn't matter how well it's written!

I have read many C2 docs over the years and they were in general at an amateur level. My suggestion is that if you are charging "big boy" per annum prices, that you hire a trained tech writer; at least one - and stop relying on user provided tutorials (unless they are getting part of that per annum charge?). At $99, C2 was "lifetime" and I could overlook the bugs, the lack of documentation, outdated documentation, and the lack of fixes. The new pricing structure demands a higher level of support.

Also, let's not get too carried away with what Construct can and can't do. If you guys are creating Pong via a drag-and-drop application and thinking you're 'devs', think again. What you are doing is locking yourself into an eco-system that demands that you pay yearly or your projects are useless to you. And if monetizing, with the amount of times Construct apps generate violations on Google Play / AdMob - you will be paying for years to support those apps, else you cant update/fix the Google Play violations.

I'd recommend people move over to Visual Studio, an IDE that can export to Windows/iOs/ Android. It is DEV LEVEL and its FREE. As I said earlier, Scirra is charging "big boy" prices now and with beta plugins for monetization, missing plugins for monetization, or plug-ins/bugs that sit unfixed for months, non-action isn't going to cut it.

If you have no interest in monetization, and you just want to pay $99 PER YEAR to show Granny you're a 'dev' and made a game of Pong, knock yourself out.

>

> > Yet not clearly documented where you think it would be

> >

>

> Where should features be documented, if not in the manual? The manual should be the first port of call for anyone wanting to know how something works.

>

NM

> Yet not clearly documented where you think it would be

>

Where should features be documented, if not in the manual? The manual should be the first port of call for anyone wanting to know how something works.

May I suggest that with your new found revenue (per annum) that you hire a tech writer. For a much requested feature of exporting to an APK, WITHOUT the use of XDK etc, to be buried in a manual is problematic. That feature was one of the #1 requests in the 2 years I was involved with C2.

When I bought my truck, I didn't have to dig through the users manual to discover the MPG, it was right there on the sticker as part of a bullet list. See the difference?

If one is forced to use Xcode to publish to iOS (no matter if it is Apple who forces one), that should directly and clearly be stated on the C3 website.

Instead it says: 'You can publish to all these platforms: iOS etc. ...', not mentioning all the hurdles along the way.

That way, many people will buy C3 enthusiasticly and the moment it comes to publishing, they will get frustrated and stop using the oftware, as it is happening to a lot of C2 users right now.

Wait until you jump through all the hoops, somehow get 10 apps to Google Play, and then all your apps are flagged by GP for using an unsecure Cordova plugin. Imagine the fun of attempting to update 10 apps (or lose your GP account for the violations) but the tools you created the apps with XDK etc are no longer. I had to delete all my work from GP.

Scirra won't get another dime from me. I was led to believe C2 was a "lifetime" tool to monetize apps. It was not - whats the point of lifetime updates if the C2 monetize environment no longer works?

Ok, well good luck to you. I've tried a number of alternatives, and Scirra have cracked it!

FYI ... I'd pay triple the subscription. Anyway that topic has been discussed a lot already.

And yes, Admobs and in-app purchases are working for me.

And, the fundamentals are documented online, just a lack of video tutorials I guess.

Good luck to you too Sir. And thanks for the information on APK export.

So I am currently planning to purchase construct but I'm unsure if I should get construct 2 or 3 to develop my first game. Can someone help me decide which one I should use? I don't know what the difference between the two are other than construct one being a one time payment and construct 3 being a yearly subscription.

If using Construct for "fun" go with C2, if using Construct for "business" go with C2 - though it seems support is lacking now.

The issue with C3 is that unless you keep paying that yearly subscription, your projects will disappear.

Clearly documented in the C3 manual here: https://www.construct.net/gb/make-games/manuals/construct-3/overview/publishing-projects, with links to tutorials.

Yet not clearly documented where you think it would be, in the list of "new features". I wouldn't expect a user to dig through a manual to discover a critical feature that was constantly requested in C2.

Anyways, its a moot point for me. $150 per year for a game IDE that is bug-filled (as stated, C2 games earned me numerous Google Play warnings for the Cordova plugin) is ridiculous. App revenue from ads is almost dead - Im certainly not working on apps to hand Scirra my hard-earned money each year.

I put up with C2 because it was a one-time payment. Looks like it's time to move on.

Whoops - I got tempted after reading of export to APK. Went to purchase and the price is PER ANNUM -

hohohoho

No thanks, Scirra you are far from being stable enough to charge per year, like Adobe. My initial post was correct - a money grab.