Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:51 am

Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?
Would they develop for all of them?
If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?
Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.
Would their current income method pay for all that?

Edit:
Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?
Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?
Image ImageImage
B
171
S
50
G
179
Posts: 8,384
Reputation: 113,462

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:57 am

Personally, I use C2 for making little HTML5 games (portfolio: http://td2tl.com) for publishers. I build my business from nothing but I bought a small apartment last year and I'm still going to college ( I should be graduated like 2 years ago lol ) . Without C2 I couldn't do anything. I've tried most of the engines, there is nothing like C2's HTML5 export and Event System. I will definitely subscribe to C3.

But people are right, because of the export options, there isn't a killer game made with C2. We have good games like Airscape, The Next Penelope, There Is No Game etc. but we don't have games like http://www.yoyogames.com/showcase or https://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery. Most of the serious developers that were using C2 change their engines and C2 remains as a prototype tool. For example, Ori and the Blind Forest and Iconoclasts were Construct games once.

I don't think people's performance problems would be solved by native exporters but the real problem is the 3rd party dependency. HTML5 exporter is awesome however other exporters are complicated and I don't really trust them :D
Last edited by bilgekaan on Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image
B
71
S
34
G
39
Posts: 432
Reputation: 24,993

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:12 am

newt wrote:Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?
Would they develop for all of them?
If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?
Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.
Would their current income method pay for all that?

Edit:
Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?
Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?


You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved
Image
B
74
S
21
G
9
Posts: 571
Reputation: 14,044

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:34 am

I was always wondering why no one did create something like Cordova/XDK/Electron/NW for consoles yet.
Shoudn't this be possible? I mean you can most likely integrate webkit code and have that run html5.

Something like https://github.com/gree/unity-webview wrapping HTML5 into Unity and using the native exporters for creating binaries for each platform.

Woudn't expect it to be really performant though and maybe MS and Sony woudn't want that, but on the technical side, i believe this could be possible.

However I do not know anything at all about limitations on console APIs, so maybe thats not possible at all :D
B
22
S
7
G
4
Posts: 154
Reputation: 3,709

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:00 am

This is just my opinion as a C2 hobby user who enjoys the software and has made several small games and am currently 3 years into a major project that is only about half way finished.

Scirra is in the business of making game engine software, they are not in the business of making games. I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.
B
61
S
20
G
56
Posts: 1,077
Reputation: 35,991

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:22 am

Burvey wrote: I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.

Absolutely. I think they'd come to some big realizations if they do that. I get the impression they just don't have that kind of understanding one naturally develops when spending lengthy amounts of time making games.
That's one reason why I'll be trying Godot 3.0 when it is available- godot was developed by game developers, and it'll also have visual scripting in 3.0
Godot 3.0 stable version is estimated to be released sometime in July.
B
47
S
22
G
65
Posts: 1,127
Reputation: 38,395

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:10 am

Burvey wrote:Scirra is in the business of making game engine software, they are not in the business of making games. I truly believe that if they were to take 6 months to a year and use that time exclusively to try to make a really good game using their engines, it would completely change their minds on what is really needed in comparison to what is currently being offered.


Definitely agree with that, I've often felt this way!
"Construct 4 lets YOU make advanced games! (they wont run anywhere)" Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
125
S
42
G
17
Posts: 2,228
Reputation: 19,918

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:12 am

NotionGames wrote:
newt wrote:Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?
Would they develop for all of them?
If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?
Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.
Would their current income method pay for all that?

Edit:
Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?
Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?


You are constantly asking us questions that we as game devs don't have to need to be concerned with. They chose to make a commercial engine so as a customer I have expectations, especially when the subscriptions are involved


Sorry, but Im just being realistic.
Those questions are rhetorical. I expect most people to already know what the likely answers are.
A least Im pretty sure what they are, and that's why I look for alternatives to what the answer has been for the past 8 years.
Nothings changed, with the exception that perhaps subscriptions might allow some of the issues of funding, and manpower to be overcome.
Image ImageImage
B
171
S
50
G
179
Posts: 8,384
Reputation: 113,462

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:10 am

The solution to this problem is simple. Don't give Construct anymore of your money. That is what I am doing. If enough people turn away from this awful "Construct 3" model then maybe they will start listening to us--THE PAYING CUSTOMERS when they're aren't making any profit.

I've moved away from here to learn new engines and don't plan on coming back and wasting anymore of my time or money here since I don't feel like our needs have been taken seriously and nothing is really being done to improve upon the features we users actually want or we're looking forward to.

I used to believe strongly in Construct... but with Construct 3, I've lost all hope. It's not worth the money they are asking for (when you can't do nothing at a professional level to make a professional game.)--I'm speaking of getting your game to consoles and mobile without headaches and issues that make no one--AND I MEAN NO ONE--want to play or pay for your game. I'm speaking of trying to make a masterpiece only to find out it runs like a turd on a few devices and doesn't run at all on the rest. I agree completely with everything NotionGames has said.

Does anyone else felt like they've been bent over and @$&*$#?? I know I do.

It's up to all of us--as a community--to help Construct become what it needs to become. Don't pay anything until our needs as professional designers as well as paying customers are being met. We need to go on strike here. We as paying customers deserve better.
B
6
S
1
Posts: 13
Reputation: 376

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:24 am

newt wrote:Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?
Would they develop for all of them?
If not all, who would decide which one to develop for?
Where would the funds needed to hire someone with experience in each specific console come from? Im pretty sure they don't have someone already.
Would their current income method pay for all that?

Edit:
Also, what do they do when the next version of this or that console comes out?
Pray that the old codebase isn't abandoned?

....

Sorry, but Im just being realistic.
Those questions are rhetorical. I expect most people to already know what the likely answers are.
A least Im pretty sure what they are, and that's why I look for alternatives to what the answer has been for the past 8 years.
Nothings changed, with the exception that perhaps subscriptions might allow some of the issues of funding, and manpower to be overcome.


You're right, those questions are probably rhetorical, as the only sensible answer (aka the answer to: "With such a small team, why is Scirra bothering with any runtimes at all when they seem to only care about the editor?") is that they should really just make Construct as a plugin for another game engine. One with hundreds of team members and a very open free edition, perhaps Unity or Unreal Engine 4?

If Scirra went that route (and it might be even easier to do now that they can just make the Construct editor a browser tab within Unity) then they have a legitimate reason to off-load the complaints about runtime to the engine they used, as they only handle the editing. It'd be a win-win, and it means Scirra gets the jump on making a complete editing environment in the other engines before they eventually do it (Blueprints is probably just the first stage of visual coding in UE4, and PlayMaker is indeed very powerful but just doesn't work/feel quite the same as event sheets).

But, all of this is written with me assuming that Scirra wants to compete with GameMaker:Studio, Unity, Clickteam (exports to console via Chowdren), and more.

Because if they don't, then I and every other serious commercial game developer here (who are exporting for desktop + console + mobile) is in the wrong place, and I would be happy to accept that!

Yet, when they advertise their tool as being for a "professional game developer" (Construct 2 features page), "fast as native" (Construct 2 blog post), and "publish everywhere" (as we can see they still say on Construct3.com ) that is not the message they are sending out to the world.

It's hopeful future optimism at best and full-on misinformation at worst, and it leads to more developers like us arriving, investing our time and money (and if we run a Kickstarter, our fanbase's money) into a dead-end solution that later leads to cancelled ports and frustration all around.
Last edited by Jayjay on Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Construct 4 lets YOU make advanced games! (they wont run anywhere)" Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
125
S
42
G
17
Posts: 2,228
Reputation: 19,918

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests