Construct 2 - Realistic State after 1 gazilion downloads

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:14 pm

Ok, maybe I shouldn't give my 2cents right now, as I'm a real C2 newb. BUT my head being full of ideas, having enough programming knowledge to theoretically be able to finish a game in a 'normal' programming framework, I never was able to really finish a game. Why? Clustered and little free time (children... young children, etc..)
I actually finished an app with gamemaker years ago (the old version), but it was tedious and took me a realy long time.
Now with C2 I'm progressing at such a fast pace every day, like I never would have imagined. That's really really motivating. And it's by no mean simply drag&drop. No, I refactor every time a little milestone is reached.

So, in terms of getting things done C2 is a godsend for me.

That said, I know that I won't be able to do all types of games I would like, but that's ok, every tool has its defined purpose. That's why I learn Unity 3D, too. But it's 95% C2 and 5% Unity.

Of course, the main purpose for having bought C2 is being able to actually produce sellable games. And that's the little concern I have. Little, because I tested some Android and iOS games and they were working and mostly fun, with and without adds. So it's doable. The whole process could be more streamlined and dummie-safe, but when you rely on 2nd hand services it may cause grief, like cocoonjs does. Ashley was confident that they would prove to be an essential service, but helas, it didn't happen and everybody here feels let down.

What to do? Difficult. Concentrate on the base stuff of C2 and hope that very soon a working solution will emerge? I think that's what Ashley is actually doing right now. My idea (right or wrong) would be to help out an open-source solution like Ejecta. Maybe even paying someone from the Ejecta-Team, so to better influence the direction it's heading.

Whatever, I'm happy to see my game grow steadily and at good pace, so I'm confident to have it released this year.
I haven't encountered any deal-breaking show-stoppers inside C2 yet, so it can't be that bad ;)
B
11
S
1
G
1
Posts: 81
Reputation: 892

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:18 pm

Hear @fimbul please. An IDE SDK should be the next priority, that would open doors for many cool IDE plugins, even some commercial, supported ones.
And, why the hell are you talking about Windows XP? o_o Bejesus, people only use that on their office networks, who are too lazy to update.
B
38
S
8
G
3
Posts: 439
Reputation: 6,876

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:23 pm

spy84 wrote:- I understand that youve got a lot experience. im shocking that these thoughts are from an experienced developer like you.Because experience means years and you are not a child to speak this way. What it means we pressure for mobile and you with your rights will pressure Ashley to NOT focus on mobile. Ashley is not a dog or a cat...He has his plan for what he will do. And for the moment he gave us many alternatives desktop,mobile,consoles and we are talking about our problems/our worries to find out where things will go.
In the end you bought c2 for a specific thing, others (like me) also bought it for html but mainly for mobiles. All have opinion there is no need to push someone.

Well everyone has opinions, sure. I'm not saying mobile users deserve nothing. You and I want different things, and it's ok.
I can understand if Ashley spends time creating a facebook/twitter plugin or looks for solutions to mobile-exclusive issues, even if I never use any of that. I understand. But it has to be done within reason.
If everyone starts chanting "mobile mobile mobile" and no one disagrees, Scirra might get the impression that everyone wants mobile stuff, and that is not the case, so I speak - this is what I mean by "pressuring" Ashley.
I want scirra to see that people like me, people who don't care about mobile, exist. And people like me would prefer if the desktop got a bit more attention.

Heck, the decision to support an open source solution like ejecta might even be a good choice! I can stand a few months of Ashley working on that, even though it won't benefit me. But spending the next few years working on native exporters? No way.
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:39 pm

fimbul wrote:Still, I would expect HTML5 developers, by definition on the bleeding edge of tech, to not care about outdated/unsupported platforms.


Quite a few of us are only HTML 5 developers because we want to make games with C2 but have no other export options.

fimbul wrote:Why shouldn't the state of MMF be used as a baseline for comparison? You're well aware Ashley, or as he was known back then, Tigerworks, made construct due to dissatisfaction with clickteam's solutions. This is in part due to Ashley being a better developer, but the vast majority of it is due to learning from clickteam's mistakes!


You just described why the state of MMF shouldn't be used for comparison. Ashley has proven to consistently be a better developer with better design ideas. MMF has been stuck on legacy code and structure for ages and C2 was built properly without those problems. They're just too different to compare.

fimbul wrote:Hiring someone new doesn't change anything: that is one person that is sucking money from Scirra. That same person could be developing something else instead. It's as if you all think the editor is perfect already when it's far from it!


Someone's not 'sucking money from Scirra' if they are contributing to C2 and implementing features people want, even if you personally don't want them.

I don't think the editor is perfect, and I haven't gotten the impression that others arguing for native do either. I've stated repeatedly that if native exporters were to happen without hiring someone else, then they should be made later after the rest of the todo list is done.

fimbul wrote:Actually I can, and I just did. My personal grievances with Apple aside, the point is that you're always reliant own third parties


That... Doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you're calling iOS overpriced hype because we're reliant on apple, a third party, to develop iOS? We're even more reliant on microsoft for their development of windows. Not to mention...

fimbul wrote:And there's that "third parties are unreliable" issue again. Back when clickteam was developing the android exporter, they ran into some bug in the official Android SDK that prevented them from continuing. Chrome for windows 8 ARM still has many of it's capabilities artificially limited. JIT compilers for iOS are inaccessible, third parties cannot compile. Apple's software can, though, so it's not an engineering or technological problem. This goes to show that even when making native compilers, the list of possible problems with third parties is huge!


You're arguing FOR one of the main reasons to make native exporters - exporting HTML 5 only causes scirra to be much MORE reliant on third parties, and more third parties, rather than less!

I'm not saying making native exporters would be problem free, of course it wouldn't. However, as said, the jit compilers on iOS being inaccessible is one of the points that native would solve since we wouldn't have to use them at all.

fimbul wrote:Sticking to HTML5 has its cons, but at least there you know the issues will eventually be fixed, since you have giant players throwing their weight behind HTML5's success.


That's still relying on third parties to fix them. Besides, how do you know that they'll be fixed? Because they're large companies? Google just discontinued support for hardware acceleration on XP and vista. I know you don't care about it, but a lot of the rest of us do. Who's to say they won't make some other decision that significantly impacts us? As you stated, apple doesn't let anyone compile JavaScript except for themselves. They've had this stance for years. What makes you think they'll change that stance? I'm very grateful to intel for making node webkit and crosswalk, as well as them making it free, but what if they change their minds? What if ludei changes course and decides to become a publisher or makes some other decision that ends their service for getting HTML 5 games on iOS? What if they desire to use an exorbitant pricing structure that most of us can't afford? What if they never manage to get their platform working properly for everyone? Guess what happens - our only option is to switch over to another third party - if there even is one - and hope they do better.

By making native, we rely on third parties far, far less than sticking with HTML 5, where every single device C2 exports to is more dependent on third parties than if it was native.

Example dependencies:

Native windows desktop: Microsoft.
HTML 5 desktop: Microsoft, google, intel. Possibly others, I'm not sure who else is involved (node.js, webkit, etc).

Native iOS: apple.
HTML 5 iOS: apple and ludei or intel.

It's like this everywhere, and not only does HTML 5 require support of a company's operating system, but it also requires that company to additionally properly support HTML 5 in a way that is sufficient for us making games (for example - sony. Ps4. Gaming machine. Yet C2 games run terribly on its browser).

fimbul wrote:Why do you think Ashley's solutions would be better than existing solutions?


I've already explained that in my previous posts. Another point I didn't mention is they did quite a good job on construct classic's runtime, and that was their first attempt. I imagine a 2.0 would be even better, same as how C2 is better than CC.

fimbul wrote:can you imagine the waste it would be if we had a native blackberry exporter? Symbian? Tizen? XNA? Ouya? Windows Mobile? Ubuntu touch? Palm OS? Bada?


It's pretty obvious which platforms are the successful ones by now. Native could be made for the major players, and HTML 5 would still exist for the rest. A native exporter would not have to be made until a platform had proven itself.

fimbul wrote:Keep in mind I'm talking about the IDE only, not the engine powering the games or the exporter. The most complicated parts are the event editor, the image editor, and the saving/loading of it all into XML. Sounds like, at most, a few months work to convert, though only @Ashley can say with any certainty.


I'm doubtful the IDE could be easily decoupled from the exporter engine and such (and besides, what would be the point then if you had to bring it back from the web to desktop to export?), but because neither of us know the specifics of how C2 works behind the scenes it's pointless to speculate.
Moderator
B
95
S
34
G
33
Posts: 3,006
Reputation: 27,874

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:10 pm

Fimbul wrote:If you guys want to pressure Ashley to focus on mobile exporters, then I am within my rights as a buyer to pressure Ashley to NOT focus on mobile and keep his current strategy of a pure-HTML5 product. When this product started (and when I purchased my license) it was all about the desktop, so when business decisions start impacting the quality for me (and make no mistake, if Ashley were to focus on native exporters, the desktop side would suffer), I have to speak.


You have a lot of opinions about how what you want is whant really matters which largely makes those opinions irrelevant to many C2 users. I don't want to pressure Ashley into doing anything other than what C2 claims it can do, regardless of my own uses for it. If he doesn't have the team size to support those things maybe it would behoove Scirra to stop implying those things are supported. C2 and mobile is not ready, and the fact that there isn't a huge 'Beta' or even 'Alpha' tag when they advertise that means that Scirra is misleading us. Scirra can't have it both ways, where they tell paying customers their product can do something but it really can't. They should support both mobile and desktop because that's what they claim. They should not support only desktop but proceed to collect money from mobile game designers by promising a mobile game design product and then funneling that into only improving desktop game quality while mobile game quality is, at this point, unworkable in most cases.

You're thinking about this only from Scirra's perspective and your own perspective, but not from the perspective of small design teams with small budgets who blow their budget on C2 due to misleading promises of mobile support only to find that they can't actually make their games. C2 is not CC, where Ashley is making it for free. Ashley is selling us a product and making claims about that product. The options are to either stop making those claims or to fulfill those claims for all customers. Anything else is not acceptable, nor do you get special preference because C2 originally started with desktop support.
Last edited by Juryiel on Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

Post » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:26 pm

Fimbul wrote:Steam stats say XP usage is around 10%, and steam's demographic is the same as the one you're probably aiming for. XP usage stats are

If you believe that 17.5% of the market is Russian, then maybe you should learn to speak the language.
B
27
S
9
G
2
Posts: 154
Reputation: 2,833

Post » Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:21 am

@juryiel

"The options are to either stop making those claims or to fulfill those claims for all customers."

+1

so it should be:

Android*
iOS**

* - via beta Crosswalk
** - via CocoonJS, small games***
*** - games with large memory use can cause "force close" on devices with too less memory (512 MB Ram: iPhone 4, iPod Touch, old iPad)

:)
B
18
S
7
G
1
Posts: 783
Reputation: 4,247

Post » Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:53 am

@Arima:
Arima wrote:You just described why the state of MMF shouldn't be used for comparison. Ashley has proven to consistently be a better developer with better design ideas. MMF has been stuck on legacy code and structure for ages and C2 was built properly without those problems. They're just too different to compare.
And clickteam has many developers, and had many others in the past. Like it or not, they were pioneers. Sure, they could've ditched old structures long ago, but saying Ashley has better design ideas is telling only part of the story. Construct is the superior product, sure, but it wouldn't exist if it weren't for clickteam.

In addition, you're suggesting we forego the only baseline we have available to compare! Yes there are products that have successfully implemented the exporter strategy - unity comes to mind - but why are those better as comparison models?
Arima wrote:Someone's not 'sucking money from Scirra' if they are contributing to C2 and implementing features people want, even if you personally don't want them.
I wasn't very clear, sorry. I meant that a new employee is using resources regardless of what they're working on. I would rather have a new hire working on features that benefit everyone.
Arima wrote:I don't think the editor is perfect, and I haven't gotten the impression that others arguing for native do either. I've stated repeatedly that if native exporters were to happen without hiring someone else, then they should be made later after the rest of the todo list is done.
The todo list will never be "done". What I wanted to say is that it seems like people want the exporters now, which in my mind implies - mobile issues asside - that they'd be happy if the software stayed the way it is now for a few more years
Arima wrote:That... Doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you're calling iOS overpriced hype because we're reliant on apple, a third party, to develop iOS? We're even more reliant on microsoft for their development of windows. Not to mention...
I don't like apple - maybe our cultural differences are making this feeling hard to understand - in my country, an iPhone 5s costs the equivalent to $4500 (adjusted for GDP per capita) so maybe now you can understand why I think it's overpriced hype (in the US it costs $800). I think they provide one of the worse environments for developers. Microsoft sucks as well. HTML5 at least is stable, in that there's less of a risk it will be discontinued, like both Apple and Microsoft have done time and again.
Arima wrote:You're arguing FOR one of the main reasons to make native exporters - exporting HTML 5 only causes scirra to be much MORE reliant on third parties, and more third parties, rather than less!
I disagree. With HTML5 you're reliant on a single technology stack. The responsibility for complying with the standards lie with the vendors. And that's not even counting the ease of use of the APIs, the many frameworks/OSS solutions and the community - an esoteric bug with HTML5 is more likely to have a solution or workaround than an esoteric bug with Android/iOS/WP8/etc.
Arima wrote:I'm not saying making native exporters would be problem free, of course it wouldn't. However, as said, the jit compilers on iOS being inaccessible is one of the points that native would solve since we wouldn't have to use them at all..
And I think it would only compound the problems. Just go to any forum for a product that offers exporters: the vast majority of posts are either complaints about lack of functionality or complaints about bugs.
Arima wrote:That's still relying on third parties to fix them. Besides, how do you know that they'll be fixed? Because they're large companies?

The chances of something being fixed are better if you're not the only one experiencing the issue. I doubt XNA would've been abandoned if it were the primary mean of developing for the XBOX.
Arima wrote:As you stated, apple doesn't let anyone compile JavaScript except for themselves. They've had this stance for years. What makes you think they'll change that stance? I'm very grateful to intel for making node webkit and crosswalk, as well as them making it free, but what if they change their minds? What if ludei changes course and decides to become a publisher or makes some other decision that ends their service for getting HTML 5 games on iOS? What if they desire to use an exorbitant pricing structure that most of us can't afford? What if they never manage to get their platform working properly for everyone? Guess what happens - our only option is to switch over to another third party - if there even is one - and hope they do better.
Because if you're using a widely adopted tech, there's always someone you can run to if your current vendor doesn't work (see phonegap). If Apple wasn't considered a status symbol, I bet they would've gone the way of the blackberry.
Arima wrote:By making native, we rely on third parties far, far less than sticking with HTML 5, where every single device C2 exports to is more dependent on third parties than if it was native.
Maybe, but you'll also have less leverage if you need something changed or fixed.
Arima wrote:It's pretty obvious which platforms are the successful ones by now. Native could be made for the major players, and HTML 5 would still exist for the rest. A native exporter would not have to be made until a platform had proven itself.
As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to make money on app stores. If you catch the early boom, money comes much more easily, which means you'd have to figure out whose phone/os is going to be the next big thing. You also have to factor in the time it takes for you to create a working exporter, as well as a feature-complete exporter. Also the time it takes for a developer to create their game on said exporter. And that's not even counting the fact that versions change and SDKs break. By the time you're finished, what guarantee do you have that the platform will still be financially viable? It's a risk you have to take. It's a risk clickteam took, and they've been bitten in the ass for it many many times.
Arima wrote:... and besides, what would be the point then if you had to bring it back from the web to desktop to export?...
I'm not talking about turning C2 into a web app. I'm talking about rebuilding the IDE in javascript while retaining it's status as a desktop software, downloads and all. See the brackets editor for an example.

@Juryiel:
Juryiel wrote:If he doesn't have the team size to support those things maybe it would behoove Scirra to stop implying those things are supported. C2 and mobile is not ready, and the fact that there isn't a huge 'Beta' or even 'Alpha' tag when they advertise that means that Scirra is misleading us.

I wouldn't use the word misleading, as that implies malice, but yes, I agree. Maybe Scirra should clarify that exporting to mobile is quite finicky, especially on anything older than a top-of-the-line smartphone.
Juryiel wrote:You're thinking about this only from Scirra's perspective and your own perspective, but not from the perspective of small design teams with small budgets
...
nor do you get special preference because C2 originally started with desktop support.
Whoah, it's not like that! If I really cared only about myself, I would be pressuring Scirra to add more application-making features, since that's my primary source of income.
What I'm advocating are features that help EVERYONE, not just mobile users:
  • Better/more integrated tilemap object
  • more/better modularity features such as widgets and nested objects
  • ability to run construct apps without draw calls - for server-side programming in multiplayer, so you won't have to code your server in a different language - this would make small MMOs possible within construct, for instance.
  • better ajax support
  • collaborative design capabilities (two people working simultaneously on the same game)
  • an IDE SDK
  • converting the editor to open web tech and opening it's source code (for the IDE only, again I'm not talking about the game engine or the exporter)
  • who knows, maybe even an exporter SDK, so people like @Tomsstudio can try making their own native exporters

@aurora-australis:
Aurora Australis wrote:If you believe that 17.5% of the market is Russian, then maybe you should learn to speak the language.
You want to convince me that localizing games to Russian is a good idea? I'm convinced. Hey, maybe learning Russian isn't so bad either.
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

Post » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:24 am

Fimbul wrote:Whoah, it's not like that! If I really cared only about myself, I would be pressuring Scirra to add more application-making features, since that's my primary source of income.
What I'm advocating are features that help EVERYONE, not just mobile users:
  • Better/more integrated tilemap object
  • more/better modularity features such as widgets and nested objects
  • ability to run construct apps without draw calls - for server-side programming in multiplayer, so you won't have to code your server in a different language - this would make small MMOs possible within construct, for instance.
  • better ajax support
  • collaborative design capabilities (two people working simultaneously on the same game)
  • an IDE SDK
  • converting the editor to open web tech and opening it's source code (for the IDE only, again I'm not talking about the game engine or the exporter)
  • who knows, maybe even an exporter SDK, so people like @Tomsstudio can try making their own native exporters


But how are these features useful to everyone? I've already completed both a game AND its sequel (by completed I mean they work on desktop) but I've been sitting on them for a while now because mobile export is not working well. How exactly does anything on your list help me or others like me? The issue is, all the things you ask for are extras in the face of basic functionality lacking from mobile users especially on iOS. Those things are all good, but before they become useful to me in any way I need to first be able to reliably export my games to my target platforms.

As far as whether what Scirra is doing is 'malicious', I'm not sure if that's how I would describe it, but it is certainly willful. They are aware of the state of mobile games with C2, yet rather than making it clear they choose to only say positive things about it. My guess is because doing otherwise will cost them customers. So it is clearly willfully misleading.
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

Post » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:39 am

Juryiel wrote:I've already completed both a game AND its sequel ... I need to first be able to reliably export my games to my target platforms.

Scirra ... are aware of the state of mobile games with C2 ...So it is clearly willfully misleading.

Yes, the current state of mobile games with C2 is bad, I'm not denying it. But exporters don't help you either! Making feature-compatible native exporters for android AND iOS would take a long time, so you would have to seat on your games for at least another few years! Also, by the time those years pass, the devices in the market will already be powerful enough to run your games, so the exporter would probably be redundant.

Now, I'm assuming you already tried to optimize your game and even sent a capx to Ashley for guidance, and those things didn't work. If so, right now your best bet is to hope intel exporter works better, or that C2 integrates with Ejecta, and that ejecta somehow solves your problems.

There are no quick solutions to your problem. You are right to be angry that mobile sucks (but to be honest, threads complaining about performance are nothing new, why did you insist on making mobile games when the whole board consistently complains that mobile is broken?)
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests