Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:44 am

That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.
Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore
as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it
could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

*Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.
B
6
S
1
Posts: 13
Reputation: 376

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:00 am

jayrp1 wrote:That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.
Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore
as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it
could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

*Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.


Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?

Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.

C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.

I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.
In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.

P.S.
We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.
Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.
B
22
S
7
G
4
Posts: 154
Reputation: 3,709

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:28 am

5Type wrote:Well where do you spend money? For the one time you purchased C2?

Well I guess I'm another type of user anyway. Since I'm only doing this as a hobby and do not need income from this. I can relate to all of the problems people have, but it doesn't affect me as much so I can be a little more calm.

C3 is like the No Mans Sky of game engines. Technologicaly a huge step, but the end result is disappointing as of now. No question.

I used C2 for mobile games and that worked quite well, but for anything other it's Construct for prototyping since forever because it's the fastest tool to try ideas and then taking these to others, but I never had the dream of one tool being the almighty.
In a few months C3 will be better than it is now and maybe they will even get me to subscribe then for the very reason of prototyping so quickly. And it will be worth that small sub. fee.

P.S.
We need to keep in mind that these 10-15 users that are complaining at every thread are not the majority.
Like you said yourself there will always be people defending the product, and that is because it does not affect them in the same way it does to you.


Scirra chose the price and how to market their tool / what features to advertise it was capable of. And when discussing the potential for commercial success it should be safe to assume these are users who purchased Construct 2 for the maximum (business) priced license.

Construct 3 isn't really like No Man's Sky, because GDevelop and many other tools have allowed people to make "hobby games" and given access to "educational coding / learning to program" in the browser before C3. If anything, it's like C3 is the clone of No Man's Sky that does a better job of it (Astroneer? :P)


However, you do raise a good point. The few people complaining on the Scirra forums are just some of the biggest games made in C2 / the games Scirra uses in their Showcase.

They might not represent a majority of the Construct 2 userbase, but they are being used to try and sell Construct 2 as a professional tool / to act as bait for other unsuspecting developers looking to bring their 2D games to desktop + mobile + console "faster" than coding-based engines like UE4 and Unity.

If Scirra came out and said "Construct is intended for hobbyists, students, web games, and educators" then these kinds of big commercial games would still be made from time to time (as there are some people who are happy with desktop/Windows only), but there would be less upset developers as they know in advance that serious WiiU / Xbox One / Mobile development is not going to happen here.

The problem is that means the amount of people looking to make commercial products in Construct also decreases, so there's less customers buying the more expensive business license. It also means that Construct then becomes more directly competing with "Scratch" and "Kodu" than the other game making software that is commercially available. Very different marketing tactics would be needed too.

So with the current marketing, it's almost like Scirra is thinking "Who cares if customers of our users eat them up alive on Steam reviews and forums?" (eg: when we can't make the game work on average-level Steam PC hardware or bring our game to Wii U), and that's what makes the developers here / in past threads upset.

An idea that came around earlier was for Scirra to try making their own commercial large game (I'd even suggest specifically make it a platformer, to experience the joys of jank, which still occurs even in C3), and I'd rather put money towards that than a C3 license right now, just so that they understand these frustrations.

Anyway, it's been said a lot and @jayrp1 is right, I'll save my breath on this now because, as I had mentioned earlier, we've had to move on at our small studio and C# isn't so bad after all.
"Construct 4 lets YOU make advanced games! (but not play them)" Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
120
S
41
G
17
Posts: 2,215
Reputation: 19,667

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:59 am

Continuing a little on what @jayjay said I purchased C2 before the "big devs" were showcasing.
I believed the marketing speil on the front page and thought it should delivered (hint hint, it hasn't)

The recent push of showcase games in the last 3 years, didn't therefore intice me to buy, just motivated me to continue and defend C2, if these guys could do it, I can. (Super Ubie Land was a big one with the Wii-u promises)
Only in the end, they couldn't, no fault of their own. Hindsight I wish it became more apparent that C2 was at fault largely and not outside reasons. It's have saved me the last few years of time on 2 mobile games that failed to export with well enough performance and 2 "PC" games that barely run on mid-range PCs. (Yes optimized to the hilt, lowered the scope to bare minimum)
Every attempt to jump to a different engine has bounced me back to C2 because of "ease of use", but its a ridiculous situation because my time is ultimately wasted in C2.

Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently and jump ship to Fusion 3. Following the devblog, looking real promising.
B
22
S
7
G
2
Posts: 188
Reputation: 3,575

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:23 am

Discmach wrote:Continuing a little on what @jayjay said I purchased C2 before the "big devs" were showcasing.
I believed the marketing speil on the front page and thought it should delivered (hint hint, it hasn't)

The recent push of showcase games in the last 3 years, didn't therefore intice me to buy, just motivated me to continue and defend C2, if these guys could do it, I can. (Super Ubie Land was a big one with the Wii-u promises)
Only in the end, they couldn't, no fault of their own. Hindsight I wish it became more apparent that C2 was at fault largely and not outside reasons. It's have saved me the last few years of time on 2 mobile games that failed to export with well enough performance and 2 "PC" games that barely run on mid-range PCs. (Yes optimized to the hilt, lowered the scope to bare minimum)
Every attempt to jump to a different engine has bounced me back to C2 because of "ease of use", but its a ridiculous situation because my time is ultimately wasted in C2.

Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently and jump ship to Fusion 3. Following the devblog, looking real promising.



Can I see those PC games in a video or can they be downloaded ?. I'm making a PC game and I'd like to see if NWjs will work fine. I have investigated some games like pinkman and according to the critics of steam it seems that NWjs works well. There are no problems or criticisms about that.
B
29
S
12
G
21
Posts: 801
Reputation: 14,453

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:32 am

I wouldn't go that for as to say C2 is purely hobbyist platform. Although It is an ideal tool for non-coders designer type devs without a small team or coder to help them take their idea from paper to reality.

This is the main reason I chose C2. I've always wanted to make my own game, but doing it in my spare time, it's hard to get a team together. C2 allowed me from having a few game ideas in my head and on paper to actually start building them. Yes... C2 might not offer, native, export to consoles, 3D and a couple of other things bigger engines has to offer but one thing it has given me is the ability to make any games at all... pretty easily, without having to struggle with learning how to code.

Yes exporting to mobile has been kind of a headache with 3rd party tools, but what game development comes without headaches?

OP is requesting console export, and official ad-network plugins that would benefit his business. I get where he's going with it. He wants to continue using C2, but If he already is at this point in his game developing where he is already making enough money to make a living on his productions, it's not hard to invest in a little bit of dev time, and pay someone to make a plugin for the ad network he is aiming at. The console export is probably the tricky part... I would say XBox One is his first bet to aim at, with Universal windows apps, and it's in the pipeline. Wii U, Switch, Playstation, etc yeah it would be cool if C2 could export to those platforms also, but I don't know how much work it is to get something like that going, given that C2 is a HTML5 engine.

In my point of view, you either chose an engine that you're comfortable with and has the features that you require, or you chose another engine. I think it's a bit unfair to push all your needs on the small but capable scirra team. If you're targeting consoles... why would you chose C2 in the first place? It's not really made for console productions, although some consoles are starting to accept HTML5 games.

Yes, Html5 PC, and Mobile wrappers can have their caveats, but it's pretty much something you have to live with if you're using a HTML5 engine. Some can probably be fixed by Scirra, but some issues are probably out of their limits to fix. All the scirra team can do is try to focus on making those exports as painless as possible.

If you've come to that point where your needs has outgrown the capabilities of the editor you're using, as a serious developer you would naturally start to look at what engines provide the features you need for your business and your ideas. Construct is pretty flexible, in terms of plugins etc. But there's only so much you can do with that...The devs DO listen, and they are active on the forums for direct interaction, and are trying to explain what they can and can not do.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
40
S
17
G
17
Posts: 991
Reputation: 12,654

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:37 am

Can I see those PC games in a video or can they be downloaded ?. I'm making a PC game and I'd like to see if NWjs will work fine. I have investigated some games like pink man and according to the critics of steam it seems that NWjs works well. There are no problems or criticisms about that.


Not sure I can I'm afraid, ones an "adult" game, interactive platformer kind of thing, waiting for a Patreon push if we can get it exported smoothly enough, second I'd need to get permission from the other 2 teammembers, likely a no.
They have more going on in them than pinkman, (not trying to downplay pinkman) and they aren't using many effects, everything is low-medium res for artwork.
Not going to tout that Kyle (main programmer dev on the latter game) is a genius and some stuff couldn't have been done differently, but we have buffed this game down to bare essentials and little improvement.
B
22
S
7
G
2
Posts: 188
Reputation: 3,575

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:38 am

tunepunk wrote:I wouldn't go that for as to say C2 is purely hobbyist platform. Although It is an ideal tool for non-coders designer type devs without a small team or coder to help them take their idea from paper to reality.

This is the main reason I chose C2. I've always wanted to make my own game, but doing it in my spare time, it's hard to get a team together. C2 allowed me from having a few game ideas in my head and on paper to actually start building them. Yes... C2 might not offer, native, export to consoles, 3D and a couple of other things bigger engines has to offer but one thing it has given me is the ability to make any games at all... pretty easily, without having to struggle with learning how to code.

Yes exporting to mobile has been kind of a headache with 3rd party tools, but what game development comes without headaches?

OP is requesting console export, and official ad-network plugins that would benefit his business. I get where he's going with it. He wants to continue using C2, but If he already is at this point in his game developing where he is already making enough money to make a living on his productions, it's not hard to invest in a little bit of dev time, and pay someone to make a plugin for the ad network he is aiming at. The console export is probably the tricky part... I would say XBox One is his first bet to aim at, with Universal windows apps, and it's in the pipeline. Wii U, Switch, Playstation, etc yeah it would be cool if C2 could export to those platforms also, but I don't know how much work it is to get something like that going, given that C2 is a HTML5 engine.

In my point of view, you either chose an engine that you're comfortable with and has the features that you require, or you chose another engine. I think it's a bit unfair to push all your needs on the small but capable scirra team. If you're targeting consoles... why would you chose C2 in the first place? It's not really made for console productions, although some consoles are starting to accept HTML5 games.

Yes, Html5 PC, and Mobile wrappers can have their caveats, but it's pretty much something you have to live with if you're using a HTML5 engine. Some can probably be fixed by Scirra, but some issues are probably out of their limits to fix. All the scirra team can do is try to focus on making those exports as painless as possible.

If you've come to that point where your needs has outgrown the capabilities of the editor you're using, as a serious developer you would naturally start to look at what engines provide the features you need for your business and your ideas. Construct is pretty flexible, in terms of plugins etc. But there's only so much you can do with that...The devs DO listen, and they are active on the forums for direct interaction, and are trying to explain what they can and can not do.


That!
B
22
S
7
G
4
Posts: 154
Reputation: 3,709

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:58 am

Discmach wrote:......
Think I'll end up using the first year of C3 just to be able to export my 2 mobile games efficiently ......


Assuming they get the exporter up and running decently .....

Intelxdk, cocoon, and what not others have been sole focusing on the same export method scirra is now looking to include.... scirras skills are relatively new on that field ...

For the exporter not to be in the beta yet could be a good indication that it may take some time before that actually decently works across ios, windows and android.

I will definitely take a year subscription to try it out ... But only after having read lots of positive user feedback that it actually works across the popular mobile platforms.

Something tells me it will be another year or so of scirra needing user feedback regarding this to get their material working decently .....
Who dares wins
B
57
S
17
G
21
Posts: 1,878
Reputation: 19,572

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:59 am

5Type wrote:
lamar wrote:Pretty much misses the point completely!

If Scirra is listening you would have heard most of the C2 users do not want a browser based subscription engine.


So you expect them to throw away their work of the past few years, because suddenly people decide they do not want the editor to work on multiple systems?
Or when exactly do you the no people started to complain about the browser based thing?

Sorry, but even when not wanting to subscribe for C3 right now myself, some of your statements are outright harsh and unfair regarding the team at Scirra.

Nobody takes away what you paid for with C2, where you got updates for free for more than 5 years.

I'm pretty sure they read and know all of the complaints, but whatever they would do there will be people that are frustrated with the decision. We all need to calm down and just see where things are going.


I think if they had been a bit more strategic and less secretive about the whole thing they wouldn't now be stuck with a huge alienated userbase and a product that doesn't fit. Had they openly asked the community what they thought of a browser based subscription system, they would probably get much of the same answers they're getting now and they wouldn't have wasted all that time investing in it. What it comes down to - are they making it for us or them? They seem to be making it for them - and that's fine at the start, but this is the third iteration of their software, people have expectations based on their previous versions and to mix it up and announce 2 bombshells like that a mere 2 months before the beta no wonder people are putrid about it. They have also been offered many well thought out suggestions for tailoring their subscription system so that it is win win for both their customers and themselves and these seem to fall on completely deaf ears. It's one thing to have a vision and stick to it, but there is also stubbornness and pride and if they could drop some of that we'd probably all end up with a better product.
B
66
S
25
G
4
Posts: 211
Reputation: 7,057

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hassimmuhamad39 and 1 guest