These are just the bugs in C3 the first week with no features and only 40 events to work with and not counting the 127 bugs Ashley closed.

So good luck with that!

> I feel very disrespected by Ashley and Tom and that is not something I am willing to tolerate from people I have supported with my money and promoted with my games and helped the beginners in their forum.

>

Respect goes both ways.

Do you honestly think your incessant badgering and demands for immediate answers was respectful?

Auf wiedersehen!

I expected as much from you!

A little advice- don't be a suck up your whole life.

Well guys, I tried and the fact that Ashley and Tom won't answer a straightforward question about a way to keep C2 users happy by actually providing an engine we want with the exporters and features we need and just keeps giving us the old song and dance of how it will be better some time in the future tells me it is time to move on to another engine.

I wish you all the best and for those of you that like C3 I hope it is everything you think it will be.

I feel very disrespected by Ashley and Tom and that is not something I am willing to tolerate from people I have supported with my money and promoted with my games and helped the beginners in their forum.

Such is life and there are more engines in the sea as they say!

I have Fusion and I will be looking at Unity again if it has a decent visual editor.

lamar - you have previously ignored my replies and repeated the same question, and you're doing it again, so I don't feel like it would be constructive to reply.

Ashley, you and I and everyone that has been following this thread knows you did not respond to my question and you asked what we wanted and claimed you were listening. You brushed it off and went on to tell us all the wonderful things you plan for C3.

So I even started a new thread with that question and instead of answering you had Tom lock it.

Here is the question again Ashley and I think we all deserve the respect of a direct answer:

Ashley can I get a direct response from you please?

> Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

>

> I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

>

> Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

>

> So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

>

Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

So what do you say?

Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

If I get banned for asking you a straight forward question then so be it and I will let the forum decide what to think about that!

>

> Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

>

> 1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

>

> 2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

>

> We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

>

> So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

>

> It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

>

> It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

>

> So what do you say?

>

> Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

>

I asked for a direct response from Ashley thanks!

Ashley and Tom have said they are listening to the long time C2 users and Ashley asked us what we wanted in the post shown below and I responded- three times asking for a direct response.

I know Ashley read it and he was online and responded to other posts just ignoring the question. I have been respectful and Ashley asked what we wanted and instead Ashley brushed aside the questions and just went on to tell us all the wonderful things he had planned for C3.

I feel very disrespected and I think many people following that discussion are probably feeling the same way.

So here is the question again Ashley and I would like a direct response please:

Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

So what do you say?

Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

If I get banned for asking a straight forward question then so be it and I will let the forum decide what to think about that!

Ashley can I get a direct response from you please?

Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

So what do you say?

Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

> 1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

>

It's not just Chrome based, as Firefox will be compatible in the near future.

This issue of yours is two different issues

1) browser based

2) subscription

What's wrong with it being Browser Based? What technical issues are there that you are concerned about? You haven't answered that other than "But chrome updates" which is has an easy solution.

I have asked Ashley to respond directly to my post.

I would ask that you not respond to me until I have heard a response directly from Ashley to my question.

Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

So what do you say?

Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

— can we get response please because it looks to me like you asked what we wanted and then brushed it aside not listening and instead you want to tell us all the wonderful things you have planned for C3.

Okay, wow, now a 17 page thread.

I'm not sure what anyone here thinks we should actually do. We've already announced things like our own mobile app build service and new IAP/ad plugins for C3, so that is on the way. We've got Xbox One support just around the corner. Mobile support from what I've seen is pretty solid with WKWebView and Android 5.0+, all supporting JIT-compiled JS and hardware-accelerated WebGL. Maybe we could tweak the way we advertise certain things. Maybe some people have bugs, or unoptimised cases, in which case please file reports, or send me .capxs to profile for performance improvements (as ever, I always ask, and either get sent nothing, or just projects with silly performance-destroying mistakes, hence my skepticism).

Do you want us to rebuild the C3 editor? I would go so far as to say that would probably ruin us, and waste a brilliant opportunity. Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

So what have I missed? What do you think we should actually do differently that isn't something we've already covered? If I can't make sense of any specific complaints or clear suggestions on what to do, then I don't see why we shouldn't just carry on as we are - I think we already have a strong plan for the future.

Ashley after reading the many many comments on this and my thread I believe what people are asking for is this:

1- Go ahead with C3 as it may at least be useful to people using Mac and Unix even though most C2 users have said they do not want a Chrome browser based subscription engine.

2- Make an update or addon package of exporters and features for C2 that users have been asking for and fix the bugs you have been promising to fix for years. Put that new team of programmers to work on that along with C3.

We all understand Scirra has to make money and I believe you understand that if you lose your long time C2 users by not listening to us your chances of staying in business are pretty damn small.

So this is a reasonable request and you can charge your $99 for a great package of features and exporters for C2 and I will bet you will sell many more of those packages than you will C3 browser versions.

It also would prove you actually intend to honor your license and advertising that said those exporters would be included in C2 and would probably keep your base happy and maybe they would be interested in C3 later after you get all the bugs worked out.

It seems to me you would want those long time C2 users to hang around and support Scirra but reading through the comments on many threads they are dropping out and pretty disappointed in Scirra right now.

So what do you say?

Can we get a package of features and working exporters for the existing C2 engine at a reasonable price with no subscription Ashley?

lamar

> 1) You feel you were advertised the exporters instead of support of being able to publish to the platforms for Construct 2.

>

Just because it was advertised that it would work with the platform

*(with third party exporters)

doesn't mean they have to fully 100% support and make sure each platform's exporter works flawlessly with all features provided by Construct.

In fact Scirra has worked together with many of the wrapper projects to improve the project so Construct games can work even better in the environment but for each console the wrapper devs have to recreate the wheel and that needs a lot of time/skill/money. (Which is why it's good MS is doing their Xbox browser support stuff)

People didn't dev for Linux and Mac due to lack of support and we'd have a more stagnant dev environment if not for Valve and other companies throwing their weight into OpenGL/Vulkan to destroy the reliance on DirectX, but with consoles instead of just 1 environment (Linux/Unix-likes) you get multiple proprietary environments with not as wide of range of operating system/coding environment support.

I bet Scirra probably has some interesting stories trying to work with Nintendo if they were not under a NDA.

---

Now I do agree that there was a lack of support in regards to the exporters in terms of documentation that lead to additional confusions, as well as hopes that the parties making the wrappers would improve them more than they were.

As we see with Construct 3's cloud based service they're obviously getting an automated flow working to compile them for mobile, but I doubt the majority of the technology involved is Scirra proprietary. This means that it's possible for them to document majority of the process and then share with everyone so people can follow the steps and go through the process with their exported project.

You quote yourself and then point me at your quote lol!

Come on man and let's cut through the bullshit. Scirra could make those exporters and features available as a C2 update or addon and you guys know that.

They are doing it for one reason only because they don't want to give up exporters for a single payment if they can force us or tie us into a long term subscription.

Tom admitted that right here:

Addon package is an interesting idea but it's not on the road-map for now. The export to mobile options we're building for C3 rely on external servers which have cost to keep running so any addon would have to be subscription based.

So please stop claiming you can't do it for blah and blah reason or that they did not lead us all on with advertising that included those exporters would be in C2 because that makes me think you think I and everyone else is stupid.

lamar

I didn't ask for that specifically, because I didn't even know it was possible, or that they even had that plan in mind. But since I've tried the beta, i'm quite optimistic.... It looks great, feels great, and I can even make games on my phone while having a dump.

I can just speak for myself. The only thing i can remember I requested was 3D support, and not having to rely on 3rd party build options for mobile. Apparently they provided 50% of my needs so far, and they have no interest whatsoever adding 3D support.... but I'm not complaining. That it's browser based is just a bonus for me. I find it pretty cool.... Unusual, but I kind of like it.... so far.... I will still be using C2 for my main project, but will be playing with C3 as I go.

Subscription model or not... I could care less. Game development is still pretty cheap hobby of mine. I have several subscriptions running just to make my project a reality. Photoshop, Autodesk Sketchbook, Maya... hell ... even my gym card costs 250Euro for 6 month membership, and I don't even like going there, but I still pay for it, because it's good for me. >_< ... LOL

I'm not speaking for everyone, ONLY myself. As everyone has their own needs and request, but I put my trust in that they know what they are doing, and so far I'm still optimistic, especially if I will see my favorite plugins ported to C3.

I just feel there's way too much negativity before we even got our hands on the complete product.... even when first stable is released, it's still gonna have some problems, or lacking some features until the product matures. I think we would have to deal with that even if they went for a pure desktop version.

OK, but nowhere have I (or anyone I have read) suggested Scirra not go ahead with their C3 project.

I have suggested a compromise so C2 users that do not have your kind of money to waste on a subscription will stay with C2 and that would help you and all of us and Scirra still makes money to support their projects.