Jayjay it's awesome to see what you guys have achieved!

I'd hate for these concerns to be pushed off once again. The community has been around for years supporting Construct and I tried for the longest to have faith and listen to Ashley and Tom but at this point, it's just seeming foolish to hope that HTML5 will be adopted.

newt I see what you mean about being proactive, but why should us developers have to worry about those things? We're paying good money to use these engines. I should be concerned with creating the games that my customers want and the engine devs should be concerned with creating game engines that suit their customers needs.

At this point, I don't see what it is that I'd be subscribing to... We're being told to wait for new feature announcements, wait for HTML5 adoption, wait for this, wait for that. That's all we've been doing for years. And now we're expected to pay yearly to continue waiting? I don't understand. I simply want to make games that work and can generate income. I'm a professional, I'm willing to pay the costs as long as I know my needs are being met.

Wii U exporter ended up being not worth the months i put into trying to get the game working. I'm not confident about the Xbox exporter. When I released Ubie Island on Steam, I have recieved a ton of complaints regarding issues with NwJs (or whatever it's called). And frankly, I'm tired of it. These aren't things we should be burdened with.

> I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

> This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

>

> This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

>

I really like the speed and fluency of the c2 editor. Its primarily the reason it took me so long to "move on". A few others here nailed it when they said c2 is quick and agile, great for prototyping or perhaps a simple mobile or web game. But it really does start to fall when size and scalability come into play.

My question for you is, why bother with GMS when c2 is better for what the two offer. If you make the leap to GMS, why not just use unity, or unreal? I mean, even in the GSM community there are plenty of people who only use it for prototyping and stuff before moving the project into (insert engine here). It's true that making a small game in unity takes longer, but once you get to mario3 on nes sized ambitions an environment like unity or unreal are better serving- I have moved several projects from construct to unity and while it is a risk I took in dev time, it has since paid off. I use c2 to try out quick little ideas, but do the real implementations in unity.

On a side note, I read an article about you somewhere (bank publication, the internets, I'm not sure where), but I liked you story. I admire the risks you took and the perseverance you have had in game making.

Thanks Ruskul

I might check out Unity. It's been a while since I have. I was just so used to the workflow in Construct that I didn't want to bother going through another dip. I just wanted to keep creating

Hi Tom and ASHLEY.

I have been a supporter of Construct 2 since the early adoption phase. I love the event system and how easy it is to pick up and start creating games with this engine. Over the last 5 or so years of using C2, I've created various projects (some "big" and some small).

Now that Construct 3 is here, I've been really starting to lose faith. I'll explain why:

Subscription Model

I was a supporter of the model until I realized how much we'd be spending and with the lack of ways to deploy to console, unreliable mobile exporting, the implementation (or lack of) monetization options, and more.

As a developer who intends to create serious projects for consoles, steam, etc. I simply cannot see the point value in subscribing when after spending months and months of time on a game, I cannot deploy to where I'd like so the studio can bring in more profits.

Super Ubie Island Remix is a good example of what I mean. The project was catching traction and was being included in Nintendo fan magazines and more. I was even asked by Nintendo to publish the game on their console. I was given a free Wii U dev kit and everything. They really worked with me and tried to see the project release on their console... Needless to say, it didn't run because of the state of HTML5 running on Wii U.

And now that I'm working on the sequel, I don't want to put in the many many many hours just to have a product that I can't put out the way I'd like.

Pure Nintendo magazine dedicated 4 pages EACH issue to cover the development of my next game, Team Notion. Mind you, Team Notion is being developed in C2 as well.

This is showing that Construct CAN be used as a serious development tool. But there are things that do need to be fixed/added which brings me to my next point...

Not Listening to Customers

I usually keep quiet for the most part on the forums and just read through other's posts. But what I have noticed over the years is that whenever your customers are requesting particular features and overall explaining what they'd like to see happen with Construct, they're a lot of times being told they're wrong in some form. Exporting and monetization are HUGE factors for developers and for some reason, it's never being addressed (at least for the entirety of Construct 2's life cycle).

Reliance on HTML5

I like HTML5, I think it's pretty versatile. But it seems like it's not being supported the way Scirra thought it'd be. You can scour the forums and find many posts from years about where you guys felt HTML5 will pick up and be adopted properly. Years have passed and we STILL see that HTML5 just isn't there. We are developing games for now and the near future. We're not trying to invest and hope that our engine will be able to one day export to our desired platforms.

I've created various games for mobile

Up Up Ubie Remix

Astro Vault

Sheep Herder Nay

Sushizoo

I'm posting these games to show that I have used the engine a lot. I have a ton of experience with Construct 2. I put in thousands of hours and really tried to push projects as much as I can. It's really hard to when you don't have the exporting and monetization tools you need.

It's almost as if Construct is built for what Scirra wants and not necessarily built for what the customers want/need. We are the ones who will be buying/subscribing. Why can't we get the features we need to sustain our studios?

Construct is hands down my favorite 2d game engine. The event system is second to none. But what's the point if developers can't publish and generate income? Who would use Photoshop if it couldn't export jpgs, PNGs, etc? I know you guys have heard these issues/complaints for years now... But don't you see that as a huge concern in itself? It doesn't make sense that people are STILL complaining about the same thing(s). I've spoken to a handful of "serious" C2 devs and for the most part, they seem to all be going towards other engines and all bring up exporting as one of the main reasons.

And with the history of not being able to deploy our projects and struggling to make money from them, why would we would be willing to pay a subscription? Why at subscription at all? There have been plenty of alternatives mentioned, so I won't dive into that. But honestly, Scirra, who is this engine for???

I really wish Scirra the best and I am grateful for what you guys have achieved thus far.

I can't get Super Ubie Island on consoles and i really wish i could.

This is a major issue when trying to develop bigger games.

This issues has me seriously looking into Game Maker Studio 2. But I really do enjoy the event system in Construct. Big reason why I am so on the fence. But I can't keep developing projects without a way to deploy to consoles

can you make tracks similar to :

I rarely comment or respond to things, but that was hilarious.

Vlogs would help but I think theyre doing just fine with blogs atm. Like others have said, I'm just waiting for the features that'll make it really feel different than c2.

I am def a supporter of Scirra and can't wait to dive into c3. Though I am a lone developer, because i have an LLC, i would have to pay $149 a yr and I'd love to test out the beta to see if it's worth the asking price. But only time will tell.

>

> >

> >

> > They can't do that with the current license.

> >

>

> Do what?

>

They can't ask for more money.

The C2 license only works if the user base is fairly successful.

Then that hinges on that success bringing in more users that are in turn successful.

That hasn't happened.

The current model is not sustainable.

It only works when you can stay ahead of saturation, and this is a niche market.

So anyway, asking them to keep the same method is the same as asking them to go out of business and that is a moral issue with me.

I agree with this.

Sebastian bottom line is if $8/month is too much for you, there are many other tools for you to use. I'd like to think your time would be better used creating with one of those engines than spending it complaining about construct 3

Last time I checked, they said they'll be releasing more information over the coming weeks...

What features are you missing so much right now that's keeping you from working on projects and having you so anxious?

No, the free version of Construct 3 won't do, since we cannot earn money with it.

... So the FREE version won't do since you cannot earn MONEY with it?

The irony of your post baffles me...

> What we know so far:

> - Construct 3 Personal subscription will be $99/year. (cheaper than Spotify)

>

>

Spotify provides unlimited music at an affordable price, whereas C3 just provides you with the tools to create games. Consuming entertainment vs. producing entertainment. It's not a fair comparison and it's not helping anyone.

A better comparison would be to say C3 the same price as Stencyl and Buildbox, or cheaper than GameSalad subscription.

I'd much rather pay for tools that can help me create content that I could sell and possibly make a living from vs something i simply consume. Musicians pay thousands of dollars in software and equipment to create music and I'm sure they'd easily trade places with indie game developers. We have it easy. Buy a computer, cheap software and start creating.

I think if you choose Canvas+ its only like 6mb compared to the bigger webview+ which is around 20mb or so