I...don't think you understand how game development works as a commercial interest. If you start working on your game in an engine that claims to have X features, and then after working on a project for a year or so it turns out that the claimed features are a total fabrication, you've just cost yourself potentially tens of thousands of dollars in lost time. You can't always just "change your products." Maybe if you're making games on the side or just for fun you can, sure. But not if you're developing commercial products.

Exactly!

Also how much research can one really do? You generally look for games that have been published (which there are very few because of exporting reasons, abandoned projects, and more), you look at the free version, etc. But here's the thing, you won't know the major issues with exporting by using the very limited free version. From my knowledge, you can't even export. So what's given to prove the claims on the front page? Especially before the majority of the showcase projects went up around 2013 and later.

I feel like there's this strange divide between c2 users who have tried to create a commercial project and experienced the shortcomings, and those who have not. Stating we could simply change engines is really unfortunate and a really messed up solution after developing a project that took time and money/resources to complete.

What this thread should show everyone is that yes you can make games with Construct! But what can you do with said games once they're complete???

That's a MAJOR issue!

On a more personal level, NotionGames, it's commendable that you are here voicing your concerns, especially in your position (Anyone else reading this that have been vocalising their opinions lightly or strongly, it's great! It's great to get everyone's opinion and learn what everyone is here for, even the frequent opinion of "can we have native exports".). I have mostly taken the back seat and observed, I've stopped developing in C2 due to a fear of a random unexpected direction that Scirra may/may not take, heck I've stopped developing completely and it sucks, although I'm only a hobbyist. But your thread has taken off, seeing it suddenly appear on the forum with so many pages really shows you have made an impact and created a lot of discussion, hence why I've crawled out from under the shadows once again to comment. Perhaps the sudden surge of discussion is due to your position, or it's the way you've written your posts, but either way, keep on keeping on, you speak for more people than you may realise.

Thank you, I was the same way. I lurked the forums daily and never really said much. But I am seeing that more and more users are feeling jaded and there are a lot of us who really do care about Construct. I finally felt I had to say something about it, regardless if some people dislike me for bringing up issues. I've listed my projects to show that I have a lot of experience and that I have brought a lot of them to completion on various platforms... and every single platform besides hosting online I've had huge problems.

I'm glad you decided to comment as well. Good to hear from more of the community

In my opinion, to see that Construct 3 was quite literally an editor change is a shame, although it was told to us for a long time, but this thread shows why remaking the editor may have not been the best thing to spend years on. (tho it is impressive technologically!) It's not a terrible thing to have done, it's great for Mac and Linux users, and heck I'd love to be able to switch to Linux before Windows 7 is no longer supported and I bet a fair amount of people share that thought, but this is what we were waiting all this time for? Other things could have been focused on that seem to be highlighted frequently on the forums... Iuno...

You see how it was reworked to run on multiple devices, computers, etc? Well, that's exactly what we want as well in regards to our games. We just want the games to work as intended on various platforms as advertised.

I would love to see a roadmap as well because I'm not sure what subscribing to Construct 3 even means at this point. What are we getting? What will come in the future? Why should we subscribe? Why not continue using c2 or any other engine? These are legitimate questions

I want 3D viewport support, but I know that's not the direction they are going, so I'm doing what I can with Q3D trying to learning that instead of Unity. I can try to build a case on why the should focus on it, but I'm not posting rants badmouthing the devs because they don't provide what I need, saying it's backwards to focus on 2D games..... that's so 80's, 3D and especially VR is the new big thing... if scirra don't provide that they are not listening to customers..... see how you sound now?

"See how you sound now" insinuates that I did that (including bad mouthing the devs). But regardless, the thread is going off topic with this particular concern.

Construct is indeed misleading. It's a lovely engine with a brilliant workflow. The exports have been an issue since the beginning. This will constantly be a topic of discussion if it remains to be a tool best used for prototyping yet promoted as a full featured dev software. I really hope Scirra listens to us regarding this issue. If not, that's their choice and more power to them. But at least I gave it a shot and voiced my concerns.

I want 3D viewport support, but I know that's not the direction they are going, so I'm doing what I can with Q3D trying to learning that instead of Unity. I can try to build a case on why the should focus on it, but I'm not posting rants badmouthing the devs because they don't provide what I need, saying it's backwards to focus on 2D games..... that's so 80's, 3D and especially VR is the new big thing... if scirra don't provide that they are not listening to customers..... see how you sound now?

If Construct advertised that 3d is an option, then you'd have every right to be upset when you find out that it doesn't. No where does it say that 3d is a thing, it's promoted as a 2d engine. And you said it yourself, the wording is deceptive. So why can't I voice my concerns on that? How is my bringing up what's been promised a childish thing? I promised to pay for the engine, which I did. So why can't I get what has been advertised to me? I don't understand how you can't see that as an issue.

And no where did I bad mouth the devs.

NotionGames your response baffles me. Because I give my opinion doesn't mean I continue with the engine.

I apologize for that response

But to be honest, personally I don't see the issue, I mean, if Scirra can't offer export to consoles, then you change projects. In the world of indie dev you can't just stay with one product just because you are an artist and can't code. I'm an artist and yet I learned to code. Necessity pushes you to it, that's all. is not the first time a dev quits Scirra to change engine.

You're missing my point entirely

And have you really moved on? Because you're in the forums more than the average user.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.. but honestly if you are about to set out 2 or 3 years to make something you better do your research and know if that engine has success deploying to your target platform. You shouldn't take Scirra's marketing materials as a sole factor in choosing an engine.

I'm not bashing anyone that this has happened to.. I'm just saying.. live and learn, it makes sense.

Understandable. But someone has to do it first, right? We happened to be the first who have. If it weren't for us who have put a lot into the engine, there wouldn't be any example games to promote with... Now I've reached a point where I have to call them out on it.

>

> And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

>

How many games are on WiiU that use C2? Maybe 2? I actually have no idea. But I know it's very few. My point is if your goal is WiiU, why are you using C2? I say never mind what is advertised. Go with what is being practiced. If anyone is a good example it's The Next Penelope who released on Steam and wanted a WiiU release. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/0 ... uld_happen

My goal was Wii U back in 2013. At that time, no one had a game on the Wii U because the system was new.

The Next Penelope wanted a Wii U release right? Well we were in the same boat. We thought the engine we had would do it, found out the hard way.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/super_ubie_land_set_to_emerge_this_august

I agree with NotionGames about the fact that it was always advertised that C2 could export to consoles. Or at least, some of them.

Now, I know making games is iterative, heck I've been working in game companies for the last 12 years so and I've worked with either in-house engines and also commercial engines. But

all I can say by experience is in how many ways C2 was limiting me. Each time I found either bugs or missing features that blocked more than coding would do.

You should take into account that a few big games started on C2 ended up moving for same reasons.

Then the identity and marketing of Construct as a whole should change in my opinion. People's resources, time, energy are being wasted when buying into something that promises to suit their needs. It takes months and sometimes years to build a project. Who wants to reach a huge milestone to find out the engine they thought could export to X platform actually doesn't? OR at least doesn't without the need to use an assortment of 3rd party software.

Construct is frankly aimed at hobbyists, artists, designers, etc. who would love to make a game but can't code. It also gives them the promise of being able to create professional projects and release them commercially.

And yes, I am very disappointed. I put a lot into the engine and the community. I taught C2 in classes and more. I just want the software to do what it promises

I think some people want too much from a tool.. seriously.. Construct, Unity, GM, UE4 they are all tools.. and all have pluses and minuses. Sure deployment to specific platforms is a huge deal when considering financial returns. But Construct has never been the goto engine for xbox or any other console. To simply wait for Construct to change and adopt that kind service is not a great decision.

To be fair, the Wii U is mentioned and under the "true multiplatform support" section... Also highly on the list. The SECOND export option advertised

And you stated people want too much? I'm arguing literally what's been advertised. I specifically mentioned the exporting (Wii U, mobile, etc) and monetization. Nothing else.

I'll ask you as well... If you bought the engine with these promises and you create a project to find out what's been advertised basically doesn't work nearly as well as the wording would make you think, would you be okay with that? Teaching coding concepts and releasing a game are two different things. Not saying you haven't and not talking down on your profession in any way. Just making that clear. This tool is supposed to be a professional 2d game dev software. Every commercial C2 dev I've spoken to share my sentiments.

I think most issues ranted here are non issues. You have a pretty basic editor, with a basic toolset, and a basic setup of behaviors and plugins. Where Construct shines is that they have the Event sheet and the capability to make and add your own plugins.

Nothing for serious developers? Out of the box no, but if you're really that serious and in need of monetization the only thing stopping you is your own ability to create the plugin to fit your needs. Blaming the devs for not providing this and that plugin is a bit childish.

I wouldn't call anyone "serious" who can't even invest in their own business, blaming everyone else for not providing a smörgosbord of everything that you "might need".

I have no need for monetization plugins, I wouldn't wanna ruin my game by slapping ads on it, so for me those kind of plugins is not something I would like them to spend their time on.

So you're going to sit here and act like the engine wasn't advertised to have all of these things included? Now where is the word "basic" used in the marketing? It's promising exporting to a plethora of devices and every one that I've tried had a lot of issues. I've always had to use 3rd party software to make things work. Now is that ultimately a big deal? Well, yes, actually. If you're going to create an engine and advertise it as basically a one-stop-shop for game dev, then I think it needs to be.

Bringing up the cost of the engine is also pretty irrelevant because I didn't dictate the cost, Scirra did. If they charged $1000 I probably still would have paid for it given the event system alone.

You not wanting to "ruin" your game by slapping ads on it is a personal choice. What does that have to do with projects that I build around that style of monetization?

Have you completed and released a commercial project with Construct 2? If you have, then you'd understand what I mean. Also the engine is promoted as a "non-coding" engine which will obviously attract artists, designers, and people who don't know how to code in general. It doesn't mean you're not serious... You're using a tool that's advertised to suit your needs.

With things like this written all over the front page..

"No Programming Required!

You can now make advanced games without writing a line of code. Construct 2 does the hard work so you don't have to.

Our highly intuitive event system makes putting your games together quick and easy.

You've finally found it. The powerful, full featured and professional game development software you've always been looking for.

Build Once. Publish Everywhere.

True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms."

It goes on to list the Wii U, iOS, Android, etc.

Maybe YOU don't need these things but if I pay for something that promises these things, then that's what I (and I'm sure the majority of customers) will expect.

And seriously, calm down with the "childish" name calling.

As for people saying jump to another engine. Yes, I know that's an option. But I do enjoy Construct's workflow and I have been a part of this community for years. I don't simply want to jump ship. I'd like to at least first voice my concerns and see how the community can shape the software before deciding to do that.

Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

Would they develop for all of them?

If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?

Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.

Would their current income method pay for all that?

Edit:

Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?

Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved

That's the issue that every big Construct 2 game has faced, and it will definitely continue until the web browser stops being seen as a bonus feature on consoles (let alone as a security issue eg: browser exploits, DRM / anti-piracy woes of an open interpreted format), which is unlikely to happen any time soon/in the next generation or two of consoles anyway.

And that's a shame because it's true. EVERY SINGLE big Construct 2 game has indeed gone through this.

For people who think that the "serious" dev don't make up much of the community... ask yourself why? How could you build up a serious dev portion of the community when they are missing key features that we are looking for? I'm sure there will always be a bigger hobbyist portion of the community but why hold back the potential? I started off as a hobbyist as I'm sure every serious dev does.

What makes Construct appealing is the event system. Not HTML5, not having to use wrappers for virtually every platform.

Insanity's Blade, Super Ubie Island Remix, AirScape, Last Penelope, Sombrero, etc. are great examples of the potential of the engine. We know Construct can make good games... We just need a way for people to experience them! I seriously can't figure out why this is still an issue... Heck, even Konjak (creator of Noitu Love and Iconoclasts) jumped shipped and he was the reason why I looked into Construct in the first place.

Serious developers really help the brand and generate awareness. Take care of us too.

It would be different if no one were complaining about this over the years... But we as a community have. And now with the subscription model, I'm going for sure expect more out of the engine to warrant constantly paying for it. Will we ever get what we've been asking for?