Construct 2 - Realistic State after 1 gazilion downloads

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:27 am

@Arima

Is your disappoint to do with mobile technology generally or C2 using an interpreted language. There are major problems with developing for a mobile platform when compared to desktop.
B
12
S
3
G
4
Posts: 57
Reputation: 3,186

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:22 pm

Back to the basics. Super-duper features are nice, but
Make basic features - Ad, GameCenter, IAP, etc - work surely on every platform first.
I think that's the real value of HTML5.
B
23
S
8
G
1
Posts: 172
Reputation: 2,780

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:42 pm

Ashley wrote:@hollowthreat - Ludei now maintain the CocoonJS plugin.

And we all know it'll take ludei forever to update the plugin, ios dev experience on C2 continue to be crippled :(
Doo Doo Diving App Store | Google Play

Donut Pirate App Store | Google Play
B
17
S
2
G
1
Posts: 195
Reputation: 1,578

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:54 pm

shaircast wrote:Back to the basics. Super-duper features are nice, but
Make basic features - Ad, GameCenter, IAP, etc - work surely on every platform first.
I think that's the real value of HTML5.


I've put my game on hold to work on my Native thingy.

Ad via Admob IOS + Android /tick
IAP IOS + Android /tick
Gamecenter IOS only atm /sadface

How important is WebGL Effects on mobile to everyone? Cause these are really, really hard to code :(.
I might have to hire someone to code it for me.
B
10
S
2
G
1
Posts: 92
Reputation: 926

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:11 pm

ryackov wrote:
5000 paying subscription members paying $100 per year will see Construct 2 grow to become what we all need it to become.

Nothing prevents you from donating $100 to Scirra with a check in the mail.


Donations do jack to fund anything of value. This thread is about the realistic state of construct2. Without a revenue stream outside of 1 sale transactions, construct 2 state is going to be none existent.
Donations are not a business model. Donations don't pay for employees. Donations don't fund new features. Features that have been raised in this thread which will require more manpower to implement and maintain.
Features that are absolutely necessary to keep construct2 in the marketplace.
You think you can do these things, but you can't, Nemo!
Just keep reading.
Just keep learning.
B
65
S
16
G
9
Posts: 1,429
Reputation: 12,728

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:37 pm

@tomsstudio - as I've tried to mention before in the thread, WebGL effects are only the tip of the iceberg. You're going to have a long list of major unsupported features. We would offer more help if we thought it would result in a commercial grade product.
Scirra Founder
B
403
S
238
G
89
Posts: 24,654
Reputation: 196,145

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:50 pm

Ashley wrote:@tomsstudio - as I've tried to mention before in the thread, WebGL effects are only the tip of the iceberg. You're going to have a long list of major unsupported features. We would offer more help if we thought it would result in a commercial grade product.


I'm going to have to disagree with you here Ashley.

WebGL is daunting, ill admit.
Multiplayer will be the longest feature to code in. I will probably require help from someone on this.

But all the other features i have looked at in Construct 2 are already in development/or already have modules.
Your help would be appreciated, but not necessary :)

Like i said before, i truly do love construct 2, i appreciate the work you and Tom have done, it is truly amazing, it has inspired me :)
B
10
S
2
G
1
Posts: 92
Reputation: 926

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:54 pm

Oh, and @Arima - you argue "there's too much uncertainty", but with a native port you'll have uncertainty over supported features instead. As I said before, a native engine is not going to be a magic bullet where everything works perfectly, it will tradeoff performance for other porting incompatibilities.

I also absolutely cannot see why examples of single bugs like memory management is an argument for the extraordinarily expensive and time consuming development of native engines. It is *obviously* much easier to fix those problems first before even considering it. This is an ongoing work in progress, but we will get there.

With modern devices with an up to date browser and OS, performance is already outstanding: as I said before my Nexus 5 can outperform some of the desktop machines in our office on some benchmarks. There's an argument to make a native engine to support older devices, but a native engine could easily take so long to develop to maturity that the next generation of phones and software updates would have already filtered down and far reduced the problem. This already happened with desktop. I dread the idea that we spend a year holding up everything else to write a native engine, and then by the time we're done HTML5 performance on mobiles is not a problem. What a colossal waste that would be!
Scirra Founder
B
403
S
238
G
89
Posts: 24,654
Reputation: 196,145

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Ashley wrote:Oh, and @Arima - you argue "there's too much uncertainty", but with a native port you'll have uncertainty over supported features instead. As I said before, a native engine is not going to be a magic bullet where everything works perfectly, it will tradeoff performance for other porting incompatibilities.

I also absolutely cannot see why examples of single bugs like memory management is an argument for the extraordinarily expensive and time consuming development of native engines. It is *obviously* much easier to fix those problems first before even considering it. This is an ongoing work in progress, but we will get there.

With modern devices with an up to date browser and OS, performance is already outstanding: as I said before my Nexus 5 can outperform some of the desktop machines in our office on some benchmarks. There's an argument to make a native engine to support older devices, but a native engine could easily take so long to develop to maturity that the next generation of phones and software updates would have already filtered down and far reduced the problem. This already happened with desktop. I dread the idea that we spend a year holding up everything else to write a native engine, and then by the time we're done HTML5 performance on mobiles is not a problem. What a colossal waste that would be!


Ok Ashley i agree with you.. in 3 years the most phones would have 2-3gb RAM very fast CPUs better HTML5 support etc.. but with my comleted games now ? That's my only problem with this engine and the main page promises.. Just waiting for Intel crosswalk updates ( when ? how much longer ? I wait from the 1st day for the mobile exports to be REAL ..) or a native exporter from some hero..

(A little too intense here but please forgive me, everyone has it's dreams and this is the only way to push construct 2 development the way i need it )
B
35
S
11
G
3
Posts: 97
Reputation: 3,478

Post » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:10 pm

The main problem with C2 is that it was based on un-fully tested and implemented future web tech that won't be fully realized for 5 or maybe even 15 years from now. This is what us Construct classic users were worried about. A lot of pieces had to fall into place from third parties to work, and for the most part on desktop it did. But there is still no unified cohesiveness when it come to gaming standers on all browsers on every platform. Gaming standers on all browsers on every platform is the selling point for Scirra on the front page. This is the strength and weakness of C2, because in the future web gaming will be a powerful stander but you're asking people to pay for that now. I think Scirra may have done the right thing by going the HTML5 rout in the long term by that I means using C2 in the future years. In the short term C2 will be the point of anger and frustration for developers not making game for desktop.
B
21
S
4
G
4
Posts: 280
Reputation: 2,934

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests