C3 Love

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:25 pm

good post, I also love construct2 but I can say sometime is very hard to get work with the events or other stuff...

for example, when I was using flash, I was surprised that in construct2 it was not possible to put a simple mask inside a sprite, also put a sprite inside a sprite... that is powerfull that I miss very much...(or a code, inside the sprite)...

flash is very powerfull, just people who never use it could not understand... if most people was using flash for making games etc there is a reason... the only problem with flash is heavy, security, and other stuff like that... but you can find amazing stuff that you can't make with html5, and if you can make, you have just to make more and more step to achive the same things in flash...

in Construct2, if you start to make big game event's you will have problem organize your code, ant that's true... I made some project with more than 1000 events, and the events could be organizze better, like with color, tag or some stuff like that... expecally if you don't work all day and sometime you have to open your project after 1 week or more...(and you are alone) if your goal is to make game like tetris or some 2d game with simple gameplay it's everything perfect...

another problem is the issue with the exporter and others stuff like that and I hope the scirra team will fix soon...

anyway, if scirra will make a software for make websites that works with the metatag, etc...(so, no issue for the search engine... or other stuff like that) with the same way how you use construct2 you will see how many people will buy it :D
B
21
S
9
Posts: 298
Reputation: 2,967

Post » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:43 pm

I think the website limitations (meta tags, spidering, etc...) is due to everything being within the html5 canvas, so I'm not sure C3 would be able to deal with that issue. It would be amazing if it could though!
B
61
S
20
G
56
Posts: 1,077
Reputation: 35,986

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:01 am

@drzanuff
That was an amazing, well written defense of C3. And although it was inspiring, I really wish it had come from maybe Tom or Ashley. It seems the most positive views are presented by people far removed from the inner workings of Scirra. Although well meaning, these posts are always very careful not to criticize anything.

Want I want to know is why won't @Tom or @Ashley explain the sudden shift in business ethics. Why won't they explain why it's necessary for users not to own what they pay for? Why are they threatening users who down vote blog posts, and locking threads because they are tired to reading opposing view points?

drzanuff wrote:For example Multiplayer, Scirra made a great job with it, people asked a lot and nobody use it. It’s cool to have, but the time spent on it could’ve be spent in a more important feature. If i’m not mistaken, they decided to go with it because a forum pool. We voted for it and we don’t use it.


It's often thrown back in our face that we voted for multiplayer, but no one really uses it. Was it wrong for use to expect Ashley to make multiplayer easy for us, when he was so successful in making programming games easy for non-programmers? I don't think so. Did we throw that back in his face when he couldn't make multiplayer easy for us? No. I don't remember seeing any post criticizing him for it. Yet that blame is shifted to us. I don't think that is fair. I had confidence in him, and he failed, but I don't blame him for trying. I really appreciate the effort. I wish Ashley appreciated the confidence we had in him. I simply don't see it though. I see that he's been regretting it. I can't help but think, if Ashley had made the multiplayer feature successful, would things be different now?
B
14
S
7
G
3
Posts: 145
Reputation: 3,035

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:36 am

@drzanuff long but worth reading. <3 Great post! :)
Image
B
67
S
31
G
39
Posts: 430
Reputation: 24,587

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:03 am

Sebastian wrote:Want I want to know is why won't @Tom or @Ashley explain the sudden shift in business ethics. Why won't they explain why it's necessary for users not to own what they pay for?

There's several reasons:
- we're hosting the software in the browser, with a cloud service behind it. I'm not aware of any software or service that runs in a browser and is a one-time payment - it's just not economical given the running costs.
- we also provide other on-going hosted services like the new app building service. I'd also point out you get this service *and* the entire Construct 3 editor for less than the cost of PhoneGap Build alone, so I think this is actually a pretty good deal. We actually already run some on-going services for free with C2, such as the Scirra Arcade (which is chewing up tons of bandwidth these days!) and the multiplayer signalling server.
- the one-time payment model is risky in the long-term, especially since we don't regularly do the whole "new major version everyone has to pay for again" process. Scirra is currently sustained almost exclusively by new users buying C2 for the first time. If the flow of new users dried up, we risk going out of business - even if we have tens of thousands of active users. There's also the aspect that we're still supporting people who bought C2 five years ago at no extra cost, and this existing audience is getting larger.
- this is the way the industry is generally going, and some competitors are already doing it. It's harder to compete with tools that have on-going income when you only have one-off income with on-going maintenance costs, especially when there are various on-going services we're running.

I guess at the end of the day, if you absolutely cannot stand subscriptions, you can either stick with C2 or look for a different tool.

It's often thrown back in our face that we voted for multiplayer, but no one really uses it.

I don't think I've ever "thrown it back in your face" - I don't regret doing multiplayer, and it was actually a super interesting project to work on technology-wise. My main takeaway from that is that voting isn't always a good way of deciding what to do. I think people tend to imagine proposed features or ideas as magic silver bullets that work perfectly and have no downsides. The real-world is actually always a series of trade-offs and nothing is perfect. I even repeatedly emphasised that multiplayer would be difficult to use, and only to vote for it if you are willing to put up with that complexity, because there are difficult aspects of networking that can't reasonably be covered up automatically. Still, everyone voted for it. Then it seems not many people use it, and my best theory is... because it's quite difficult to use, since there are difficult aspects of networking that can't reasonably be covered up. So I haven't run any polls since then. That's pretty much the only fallout from my point of view. I don't blame anyone! I just think it's a curious aspect of asking people to vote for features.
Scirra Founder
B
397
S
236
G
88
Posts: 24,423
Reputation: 194,560

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:19 am

C3 goes out as a abo (permanent pay?) Uhhh - definitly a reason for me to change to an other studio!
Image Image Image
B
43
S
22
G
15
Posts: 378
Reputation: 12,252

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:35 pm

Great post and I read if from the start to the ending.

I completely agree with your opinion, could not have said it better.

Believe me, the way we create games with Construct is unique. This is the future of game development and Scirra is way ahead the competition.

With the new subscription model, we all can participate in our favourite game development tool Construct. HTML5 was indeed a very good choice.
B
22
S
6
Posts: 126
Reputation: 1,796

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:06 pm

Ashley wrote:
Sebastian wrote:Want I want to know is why won't @Tom or @Ashley explain the sudden shift in business ethics. Why won't they explain why it's necessary for users not to own what they pay for?

There's several reasons:
- we're hosting the software in the browser, with a cloud service behind it. I'm not aware of any software or service that runs in a browser and is a one-time payment - it's just not economical given the running costs.
- we also provide other on-going hosted services like the new app building service. I'd also point out you get this service *and* the entire Construct 3 editor for less than the cost of PhoneGap Build alone, so I think this is actually a pretty good deal. We actually already run some on-going services for free with C2, such as the Scirra Arcade (which is chewing up tons of bandwidth these days!) and the multiplayer signalling server.
- the one-time payment model is risky in the long-term, especially since we don't regularly do the whole "new major version everyone has to pay for again" process. Scirra is currently sustained almost exclusively by new users buying C2 for the first time. If the flow of new users dried up, we risk going out of business - even if we have tens of thousands of active users. There's also the aspect that we're still supporting people who bought C2 five years ago at no extra cost, and this existing audience is getting larger.
- this is the way the industry is generally going, and some competitors are already doing it. It's harder to compete with tools that have on-going income when you only have one-off income with on-going maintenance costs, especially when there are various on-going services we're running.

I guess at the end of the day, if you absolutely cannot stand subscriptions, you can either stick with C2 or look for a different tool.



Thanks Ashley, these points all make sense and I'm glad you're discussing them. I think that most of us, even those who are unhappy about the subscription model do understand why it's happening and realise that it's probably a necessary evil. The particular model you've chosen however does seem a bit draconian with users being locked out permanently when not subscribed. I would have thought that support until the version you've subscribed to would be far friendlier. If C3 is updated as frequently as it should be on a subscription model then that should be incentive enough for users to continue to subscribe, but there is also a safety net there for the users as well. That is my biggest beef with the proposed system, but also the one that I think will drive the most customers away from you. Is there a technical reason why this can't happen or is it purely for business reasons?
B
66
S
25
G
4
Posts: 211
Reputation: 7,057

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:16 pm

I didn't know it was going to be browser based and with a monthly subscription :shock: . Then it's not for me. I'm moving on to other tools. I have previously tried few browser based tools and they are all slow, buggy and forgotten.
I only got C2 because I thought there would be multiple exporters to various platforms that I could buy. I'm most likely still going to prototype with C2.
Good luck with C3.
B
44
S
5
G
5
Posts: 412
Reputation: 5,771

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:14 am

nemo wrote:I didn't know it was going to be browser based and with a monthly subscription :shock: . Then it's not for me. I'm moving on to other tools. I have previously tried few browser based tools and they are all slow, buggy and forgotten.
I only got C2 because I thought there would be multiple exporters to various platforms that I could buy. I'm most likely still going to prototype with C2.
Good luck with C3.


Did you see in the announcements that you can use it offline and that they are going for quick one-click export for mobile (better than C2)?
B
46
S
16
G
78
Posts: 2,166
Reputation: 46,349

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests