Concerns from a "Serious" developer

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:21 am

Jayjay wrote:
tunepunk wrote:Yes they got that. Hopefully C3 has better mobile export options. That was pretty much a given one. They never really marketed C2 as a mobile game engine, more of a desktop html5 engine, but it's nice they are taking notice since html5 games run fairly smooth on mobiles nowadays.


I have to disagree, WiiU, iOS and Android are three of the top four platforms they are advertising as "Build Once. Publish Everywhere." on the Scirra homepage ( https://www.scirra.com/ )

Looking at Construct 3, it's the same, they list "HTML5, Steam, iOS, Android" and thankfully took off the WiiU export ( https://www.construct.net/ ).

Also, desktop export has been a nightmare, our game still doesn't work on Linux and Mac OSX because it's larger than 500MB.

Once again "Serious" developers are getting surprise gotcha's that you may not have encountered personally/yet, but they basically are show-stoppers. We spent the past year porting our prototype to C# in Unity and have made immense gains that would be seen as "impossible" to people who haven't yet encountered the dark side of C2 and started looking around at what other engines have been up to since CC died.


I don't even know why android, iOS, windows phone etc, is on the list for C2, since it pretty much required 3rd party build service. I'm not arguing with that, exports to advertised platforms should work... period... without hassle. You need to be able to run your games....But providing a plethora of plugins for every ad network, monetization model, game type and platform. I would not say that's scirra's job, especially not for the price we're currently paying, which is dirt cheap.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
42
S
18
G
19
Posts: 1,055
Reputation: 14,044

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:29 am

@tunepunk Agreed, but Scirra does get to decide their final price and I think commercial developers would be fine if in-app ad plugins were a business license-only feature or an otherwise optional, paid asset on the asset store.

Although I think yet another way to solve that whole issue regarding IAP though is premium/paid support, which would be one of the few things to actually make sense as a yearly subscription.

That way Scirra's customers can directly have some influence over the direction of the software so it meets their needs, and Scirra can be have a recurring revenue stream to stay in full time operation while still allowing a one-time purchase available to hobbyist developers (with cloud build also being a feature worth keeping behind the subscription pay-wall).
Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
127
S
43
G
18
Posts: 2,240
Reputation: 20,592

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:51 am

@Jayjay

The problem is the pricing. there's pretty much nothing in Business vs Personal that differs (except how much you can earn?). I wouldn't mind paying even more than that if I got access to some of the pro stuff, more export platforms, more ad-networks, pretty much stuff that are targeted at studios rather than hobbyists.

Either that or Scirra should be utilizing their own shop to monetize. They could sell more of their own products. They could make and sell their own plugins, instead of bundling it all for free. I never expect anything to be included, and I'm more than happy to pay for services/tools that makes my life as a dev easier.

If a user base in a certain group get big enough we would naturally see more of those type of plugins/behaviors in store.

Currently, I'm making my game in C2, in 3D using Q3D, Multiplayer for mobile.... talk about shooting my self in the foot??? The worst combination ever.... I would be more than happy to just toss 500EUR on the table, please give me that god damn 3D viewport in the editor, and official 3D support. If it was possible I would pay a developer to make a viewport just for me.... but I've already expored that option it's not possible. I even tried other editors, but I'm not comfortable with anything else than the event sheet..... soooo

I wouldn't mind paying 500EUR also for an Event sheet plugin made by Scirra, for other engines.... that's how much I like the event sheet.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
42
S
18
G
19
Posts: 1,055
Reputation: 14,044

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:09 am

NotionGames wrote:
newt wrote:Well if they were to try to take the console route, how would they go about it?

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



Well, technically as a Game Dev you need to understand technology and what's possible or not. If you ask Scirra for console development but dont know what's the extent of what you are asking and you expect a positive answer then you might be deceived later.

I would love for C3 to export to consoles, but since the engine wasn't build around that idea, it might be quite difficult in the future unless consoles embrace HTML5 which its almost impossible. Also, developing for consoles is not just plug and play.

Only venture would be for them to extent with Unity. But then again might still produce weird results for consoles.
B
43
S
12
G
14
Posts: 488
Reputation: 10,570

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:43 am

It's clear from majority of posts that people see the potential of construct, but the lack of export is why people are losing faith.

@FraktalZero While I appreciate the C3 engine wasn't built around the idea of console export, my question is shouldn't it have been? When you're building and marketing a product shouldn't you request from your user base a list of requirements or requests? A simple focus group of the top end developers games , who's games they use to advertise the product - this forum in itself has shown with comments from such developers, what they wanted to see in the new software and not only didn't get but were never asked!
B
3
Posts: 3
Reputation: 181

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:55 am

It's also a bit ironic that it's not the webgames (with the exception of There is No Game) or mobile games that they're using to advertise Construct but larger "made for desktop" games whos developers have all left because the product didnt support what they needed for those games to be a bigger success. Yet it's the mobile/web games that they seem to be making Construct for and focusing all their efforts?
B
43
S
23
G
21
Posts: 735
Reputation: 12,132

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:09 am

@Barzoukasj
You get me wrong. I wish C2 would've been able to export to console and same for C2. I've been asking for this for years. But C3 did not include it.
I agree with you that devs should 've been asked about their needs.
B
43
S
12
G
14
Posts: 488
Reputation: 10,570

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:26 am

Agree with @FraktalZero

But the main thing is...If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2?

I think Construct is it's own nemesis sometimes. It's so easy to do a basic game that pretty much anyone can do it with a little bit of learning how the event sheet works. The problem with this is, do the games run well? I can only speak from my own experience trying to develop for mobile. At first I thought, bleehhhh performance sucks, but it turned out it's my own code/events that sucked. It was easy to make the game do what I wanted, but it's so hard to make the game do things efficiently.

I'm sure there is a lot of talent on this forum, and a lot of people have great ideas, but just because you can do things, doesn't mean it will perform great on your desired platform. I've been struggling on and off with my first game for about 2 years. Often I put my main project to the side, and just mess around with C2 and it's capabilities, doing small test projects, just to try out some features/plugins whatever, and learning.

But one thing I noticed, is that it's much harder than you think, very similar to my previous job developing for consoles. When I worked at DICE, we had a very very limited memory budget for UI, for Battlefield: Bad Company. You have grand ideas of what you wanna do but is set back by technology and what you actually can do....

Developing for Consoles is more to it than just pushing out a game. Every console has their own QA department making sure things are up to par, and performing well. It's not like Google Play store where any "developer" can upload their clones and shovelware. You have to make sure on screen elements for buttons follow UI guidelines, and is clearly visible for a variety on TV screens and resolutions. Your game is not going to pass, if it's not up to par, at least that's what it's what like working on AAA title a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's a bit different if the console has an indie dev section.... but anywho

So even if Scirra provided console export, you have a lot more working against you that just creating a game. Even if html5 games were supported better on consoles. It's gonna be pretty hard I guess.


TLDR:
When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.

So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.

It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.
Follow my progress on Twitter
or in this thread Archer Devlog
B
42
S
18
G
19
Posts: 1,055
Reputation: 14,044

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:42 am

tunepunk wrote:When you have a game you want to develop, I think it's better to chose the tool right for the job, than expecting your tool to adopt to your needs. Your best bet is to chose an engine that is specifically designed for your purpose and does it well.

So back to my first question. If you want to do Console Games, why do you chose, C2/C3?, it's not designed for it. And consoles are generally not designed to run HTML5 games.

It's like choosing MS paint to do advanced photo editing like what you would do in Photoshop.


It's a fair point, but I think it comes back to Construct having a bit of an identity crisis - perhaps partly because of its legacy with Construct Classic. I'm developing purely for Windows desktop, and you'd think it would be simple right? Nope. What is C2 actually good for exporting to? Not desktop, not mobile. Browser games, but who plays those? It's like having a Rolls Royce but only being able to drive it up the drive way. I think what the devs are failing to realize is that people are here because of the workflow, not the tech. People aren't attracted to Construct because it's html 5 based - it's the great workflow.
B
67
S
25
G
4
Posts: 212
Reputation: 7,084

Post » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:43 am

I know the difficulties of exporting to consoles. Been in the gaming industry for more than 12 years here in Montreal and for the past 4 years working in local indie companies.
So I know the struggles from every perspective.

Now, why I chose C2? Well, after doing so much crunch you end up with little time to develop games on your spare time, so it was the obvious choice at that time. hence is no longer the right option and I'm moving to Unity instead. At some point I was opting for Haxe but at the end I prefer what Unity offers so far.
B
43
S
12
G
14
Posts: 488
Reputation: 10,570

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lancifer and 0 guests