Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:18 pm

R0J0hound wrote:To be fair, since my post that jayjay quoted me with I have since got a replacement for my 10 year old computer so the graphics are no longer a bottleneck on my system. Also the few times I tried mobile export the performance was much better than my old system.


Great point R0J0, although the Steam hardware survey says that's not the norm with only half the systems running Win 10+ (almost 30% still running Win7 systems) and only half are quad-cores on all of Steam.

From a commercial perspective, a 2D game that requires a quad-core CPU and latest line of NVIDIA or AMD or *maybe* Intel isn't very acceptable to the developers or their customers, and it reflects in Steam reviews and comments across other forums.
"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
116
S
41
G
17
Posts: 2,204
Reputation: 19,545

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:21 pm

Jayjay wrote:
However, I propose a radical opposition to this: The games should work.

Customers can't tell when an exporter has worked properly or not, they can tell when a game is unplayable.

Producing unplayable games is not the interest of commercial developers.

Scirra needs to come out and say "This isn't meant for you" to commercial developers if they aren't going to be expected to have 100% export and functionality to the platforms they list on their advertising.

Or, they need to at least list the side-effects of export to each platform like a medical commercial.


Working exports? Clear communication and honest advertising?

Inconceivable!
B
77
S
43
G
24
Posts: 525
Reputation: 20,580

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:24 pm

R0J0hound wrote:To be fair, since my post that jayjay quoted me with I have since got a replacement for my 10 year old computer so the graphics are no longer a bottleneck on my system. Also the few times I tried mobile export the performance was much better than my old system.

What sort of performance/fps increase are you getting in compared to your old system?
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,117
Reputation: 11,253

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:32 pm

@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.

NotionGames wrote:Is there c2 plugin support for in c3?

We covered this.

some kind or even access to the cloud exporters (or whatever is going on with c3) could be extended to c2 devs

We also covered this.

I have to agree that Scirra is all about the waiting, wait for this feature, wait for this announcment

We just released the public beta of a major new product. This is not vaporware.

Davioware wrote:Was implementing multiplayer really a waste of time though?

From a business point of view, I think so, yes. We could have spent that time working on something else which people want more (and as always there's a lot to choose from). It took several months to implement, and back then it was just me, so it was more or less "stop everything and do this". Several months of development holding back everything else is a very costly thing to do for a small startup, and overall I don't think it was worth it. Like I say I don't personally regret it since it was super interesting, and I think to some extent it's good for marketing since people like to see the option is there, even if they don't really properly use it. But maybe we could have averted some of today's concerns if we'd put that much effort in to something else. And in that sense, the fact a ton of people voted for multiplayer and then we went and did it, caused damage to the business. So I do have some concerns about bringing this whole voting idea back, but hopefully we can manage that.

Jayjay wrote:Now, in regards to "HTML5 faster than Native?"

I'm not going to defend a 4 year old blog post. Yes, it's probably wrong. It was just an interesting benchmark result. I haven't spent the past 4 years claiming HTML5 games are faster than native. Just that they're fast enough. It is basically fair and correct to say WebGL has identical GPU rendering performance to native code.

A page with Scirra tested benchmarks for each platform(PC/Mac/Linux with PC specs, Android/iOS with model, wrapper vs browser) with a Construct 2/3 version of the exported test file would work wonders in giving people an idea of how relative their current devices are to the test devices.

We already ship some in Construct 3, in the tech demos section.

HessamoddinS wrote:That would be great if Construct would use Electron instead of NW.js

They're the same browser engine, so this would not materially change anything.

digitalsoapbox wrote:Working exports?

Can you point to any specific bug reports so I can look in to the actual issues you're talking about? I'm honestly struggling to figure out precisely what anyone's talking about. There's a lot of vague references. Also some suggestions won't actually help. For example if you turn off spritesheets you'll run in to OS max image limits faster, which would probably break large NW.js games. So when you suggest turning off spritesheets, I think that would cause more problems than it would solve. A lot of the feedback here is like that. Nothing is as simple as it seems, really. It's all tradeoffs.

If everyone can slow down a bit, I can probably address everyone's points in more detail. This thread is literally dumping hundreds of posts with all sorts of mixed and varied concerns in the space of just a couple of days. I really don't like megathreads, I would encourage everyone to please start separate threads per single concern, and stay on topic in those threads, and then I may be better able to comment in a more focused way. (Again, I do think it's a pretty unique thing that you actually can talk directly to the founder, but I'm starting to see the appeal in disappearing behind a corporate team page...)
Scirra Founder
B
395
S
232
G
88
Posts: 24,371
Reputation: 193,762

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:38 pm

Performance wise I can't complain at all. Just recently I started to redo all my in game graphics using the Q3D plugin. As a benchmark, to see what I could expect from 3d performance on a old midrange phone I downloaded a couple of "Made with Unity" games in 3d.. They seemed to perform fairly well. I didn't have any fps counter. It was playable but definitely not any 60fps. It felt like around 25-30 fps.

I built a quick map with mockups, characters with animations and effects some simple game at a similar complexity (geometry, animations, shaders, lights etc. of what I was seeing in the games I tested. I was quite surprised that I was getting around same performance. Around 30fps-50fps even with real time shadows on for characters and moving objects.(which some of the game i tested did not have, without realtime shadows i was getting 40-55fps) Environment shadows was baked, which is pretty common practice. The only thing my test was missing was some proper game mechanics, but there was room for optimization to many of my poly models texture sizes etc.

I did this test to verify weather I should continue down the Real time 3d path with my game or stick with isometric. My conclusion was that for a slightly lower fps than isometric i got a real time 3d game, and not having to worry that much about memory budget, advanced calculations for angles arrow arches and ricochets in isometric etc. and rendering hundreds upon hundreds of character animation frames in various directions.

I didn't try building it though but from previous tests I've always been getting about the same fps after building compared to the normal phone browser.

I can't complain at all, If I can build a 3d game at similar complexity to a Unity game with pretty similar performance. I'd choose C2 any day of the week. Unity still don't have the event sheet. ;) I will share tutorial/capx on that later and good practices for mobile 3d games.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
38
S
15
G
17
Posts: 949
Reputation: 12,320

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:42 pm

Ashley wrote:I'm not going to defend a 4 year old blog post. Yes, it's probably wrong. It was just an interesting benchmark result. I haven't spent the past 4 years claiming HTML5 games are faster than native. Just that they're fast enough. It is basically fair and correct to say WebGL has identical GPU rendering performance to native code.


Hehe, I don't think you need to say it's faster, but for your target audience that last sentence is going to sound the same to them and they'll be upset when they find out what that actually means.

Ashley wrote:Again, I do think it's a pretty unique thing that you actually can talk directly to the founder, but I'm starting to see the appeal in disappearing behind a corporate team page...


We talk to our customers too, it's part of our charm as a small indie team. The same applies for Scirra, not participating in the discussions just proves everyone who says Scirra doesn't listen is right, although I guess ignoring their concerns and locking their threads / bug reports does the same too :o

@tunepunk Q3D is awesome, built on ThreeJS, so you're only seeing the C2 event system and 2D collisions/physics and audio subsystems at work there. Shows more WebGL's strength than Construct's performance.

Also, Unity does have different eventing types: plyGame is quite a bit like event sheets, but there's also PlayMaker and a few other visual scripting tools available for it. It's probably just a matter of time before "I stay with C2 for the event sheet" becomes "I switched to Unity for the event sheet" and it'd be a massive shame if that wasn't an event sheet plugin made by Scirra.
Last edited by Jayjay on Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"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
116
S
41
G
17
Posts: 2,204
Reputation: 19,545

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:44 pm

Ashley wrote:(Again, I do think it's a pretty unique thing that you actually can talk directly to the founder, but I'm starting to see the appeal in disappearing behind a corporate team page...)

LOL. I have my concerns about C2 and C3 but this is definitely one of the things I've always appreciated personally so I hope you don't, tho I see why you might want to.
B
39
S
16
G
6
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7,617

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:46 pm

Jayjay wrote:We talk to our customers too, it's part of our charm as a small indie team. The same applies for Scirra, not participating in the discussions just proves everyone who says Scirra doesn't listen is right, although I guess ignoring their concerns and locking their threads / bug reports does the same too :o


Which threads were unjustly locked that you are referring to?
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
173
S
41
G
34
Posts: 4,397
Reputation: 54,116

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:46 pm

Ashley wrote:@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?

Ashley wrote: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!
Banned User
B
27
S
7
G
58
Posts: 1,229
Reputation: 34,790

Post » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:48 pm

@Ashley @Tom
Reading through the blog posts provided and just going through the most recent ones as a whole actually gave me more faith. I do see that a lot of concerns are being worked on and mostly at this point it's just seeing how things work in c3.

And if I'm not mistaken, being able to export in c2 and upload using the service should alleviate issues that I have. Especially the ad services
Last edited by NotionGames on Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
B
72
S
20
G
9
Posts: 559
Reputation: 13,872

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests