3D Scirra! Who would pay for that!

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:41 pm

Hi all!

In this Post the question is raised if there will ever be a 3D alternative to scirra Construct2.
I have chosen for a simple solution for this mather, because the conversation in that post evolves in "will never work/will work" and so on.

It really comes down to the simple question.
Who of us would buy a simplified 3d game building environment if it "where possible" & made by scirra.
The least we can do is inform scirra with the numbers.
Numbers that say "yes" i would invest money into that!
So please understand that explaining why it "is not possible" in a ever growing software evolution is rather unnecessary to reply.

If your answer is "yes".
Then reply saying.

(I Do) & (I would pay "x amount" for it)


If your answer is "no"
Then be so kind and dont reply .


So i say.
(I Do) & (I would pay at least 200 euro's)

Thats 200 euro's in the pocket for shure!
So who's next.   Savvy0012013-01-17 21:44:40
B
56
S
20
G
13
Posts: 778
Reputation: 13,204

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:01 pm

I do and would pay the same amount they have going for the 2D one....

But yeah, if they do, they need to change the name from C2 to Construct 2D and Construct 3D respectively.
B
50
S
11
G
7
Posts: 274
Reputation: 8,146

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:37 pm

I would pay for it, but having 2 separate products would be a mistake IMO. 3d could be incorpated into c2, or into the 'next version' of c2 - instead of calling it c3 it could be called c3D or something, but there would still only be one product like photoshop going from cs2 to cs3.

With 3d incorporated into it rather than two separate products, that way you get the best of both, can blend 2d and 3d together in the games made with it, and it would likely be much easier for Ashley to develop. It could possibly be integrated using one of the open source 3d js libraries like box2d was.

It's all speculative though, since 3d hasn't been confirmed anyway.Arima2013-01-17 22:57:01
Moderator
B
87
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,397

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:53 pm

As for the rest of us, this post is not meant for opinion.
Please stick to
(I Do) & (I would pay "x amount" for it)

So scirra can get an easy headcount
B
56
S
20
G
13
Posts: 778
Reputation: 13,204

Post » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:02 am

While the results of this post might be interesting, it probably won't change what we do, because we won't have time to implement any 3D features until the long term future.
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,946
Reputation: 178,478

Post » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:20 am

@Ashley
That i understand.
Therefore, it is not meant to change minds, or the way u work.
Just a honest perspective without all the technobabble.Savvy0012013-01-18 00:21:37
B
56
S
20
G
13
Posts: 778
Reputation: 13,204

Post » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:51 am

Definitely willing to pay for it, but I cannot discuss price.
Would I be willing to pay more than, say, UDK? Yes, if the quality is there.
If it's able to produce something like this (that is, a little bit more basic than unity):

then I'd definitely consider paying over $200 for an indie version, and over $2K for a commercial version.

If we're talking about this

or this

then I wouldn't be willing to pay anything for it, and I would think less of construct.


I'm not expecting the same level of detail as cryengine or UDK, of course.Fimbul2013-01-18 00:51:34
B
35
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,868

Post » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:34 am

Ya, any amount.
B
134
S
65
G
16
Posts: 1,765
Reputation: 19,188

Post » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:25 am

Yes, I would be interested in even basic 3d features being added.
B
31
S
6
G
7
Posts: 140
Reputation: 5,983


Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests