Construct 2 - Realistic State after 1 gazilion downloads

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:01 am

Fimbul wrote:
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?)


I'm still finding workarounds to things to get my game to work and have largely moved on to my larger Unity project until an undetermined time, for now. The particular game is not the issue because these are small autorunner test games mostly based on the autorunner template and therefore SHOULD work (but don't) since the meat of the games is mostly made by Scirra themselves. The problem is, if I can't get these games to work right there is no way I can get a larger project to work right. In essence, these test-games demonstrate that C2 is useless to me for putting out games right now so I do not invest more time with it at the moment. I understand that there are no quick solutions, but I disagree with the problem. I think the problem is one of 1st vs 3rd party. The problem is that scirra doesn't control their own exporters, so no matter what the quality of their product as far as C2 goes, the resulting game quality depends on other parties, and many of those parties don't care about my game because I am not their main target customer (e.g. Ludei). So I think 1st party solutions are necessary, even if it takes long, effort has to be started sometime, or if not, at least official partnerships between Scirra and third parties have to happen. Scirra has to do something to ensure quality since they are the only party who has any responsibility towards me (as I am their direct customer, I am not google Chrome's customer). If it's not started now we'll be in the same boat a year from now.

The reason I insisted on mobile is for a few reasons. CC is good for desktop, I don't need to use anything else. If I want something more than CC, there is Unity. The fact that CC exists largely allows me to not care too much about the money I spent on C2, I try to think of it instead more as a donation toward CC, which deserves it. Another reason for mobile is that I had tried CC and seen that Ashley is a great developer and very knowledgeable. His expertise gave his defense of C2's state more weight in my eyes rather than other users who complained. People complain all the time for all sorts of things, and it's hard to know if those complaints are valid, especially when Ashley, whose work and knowledge is proven to me, posts disagreements about how things are the users' fault. He's been getting a lot of push lately so he's been more willing to admit shortcomings especially in this high profile thread, but that was not the case for a while. The third reason is largely, again, because I trusted the people behind Scirra, I gave their 'sales pitch' page more trust than I guess I should have had. I should, in retrospect, have done more homework. Unfortunately that was not possible because mobile export is not testable on the free version. I think in retrospect, given my bias to trust Ashley's expertise, I think the only thing that would have convinced me that the users were right and Ashley was just overselling the state of mobile would have been those videos @Arima posted earlier comparing C2's performance. It's a shame I didn't find those ahead of time.

In any case I don't see why it matters. Clearly many mobile users seem to agree that they were mislead about C2 capabilities and that should be enough to conclude that it was not somehow just me misinterpreting the message Scirra was putting out. Therefore my specific reasons for picking up C2 for mobile development are not relevant.
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:54 pm

in the end i think that i will be using C2 for quick prototyping and keep on developing the actual games natively, as i can't keep waiting a year or 2 for the android & ios wrappers to support monetization & game center, etc...
B
43
S
11
G
4
Posts: 428
Reputation: 7,459

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:01 pm

This is by no means bragging, but I've sold three non-exclusive licenses for three of my games for a total of $1,500 last year. I paid about $125 for my personal license. So, I feel pretty good about that. This doesn't invalid anyone's comments above and everyone is entitled to their opinions and views, but from my perspective, I'm very happy with my Construct 2 license purchase and look forward to making more money.

I'm currently creating my Redacted game series for Google Play, releasing my first two games for free and hoping to sell my third game. I am using Construct 2 and building Android APK with XDK. After getting the kinks worked out, I feel like this is a good combination, and it will meet my needs for the foreseeable future.
B
33
S
7
G
8
Posts: 312
Reputation: 8,528

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:34 pm

@Manley23 well done my friend. I want to ask you something. Where you sold it?Cause i just saw a site called marketJS and i find it interresting.Or somewhere else?Can you give me a guide?It will be very helpfull.
And something else, i am a little curious. have you a link of your games?thanks in advance if you want send me a pm.wish you best of luck , creativity and success
B
18
S
3
G
1
Posts: 248
Reputation: 2,353

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:27 pm

@Manley23 well done for generating some profits out of your hard work. How can you sell non-exclusive licence for a game? does this mean that you sell the rights to someone to sell the game AS IS in his own name, whilst you continue to sell it yourself?
B
43
S
11
G
4
Posts: 428
Reputation: 7,459

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:37 pm

@spy84 @bjadams - I was actually contacted out of the blue by http://www.hoodamath.com and ended up selling a non-exclusive license for three of my games. A non-exclusive license basically means that the entity that purchases the license can use it for their own site (usually by hosting the game and generating ad traffic/money). But it is non-exclusive, so I am free to shop my game around to other places and sell it again and again. An exclusive license will sell for more money, but then you can only sell it once. Of course, there are gray areas and nothing is set in stone, and you will want all the terms spelled out in a contract so both parties know what to expect and for how long each party must abide by it.
B
33
S
7
G
8
Posts: 312
Reputation: 8,528

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:39 pm

It's impossible to write software without relying on third parties. All modern software development requires relying on additional libraries written by other people. It is actually quite a difficult challenge to write some software that does not rely on any third party code, and it would look something like a custom-written OS that boots to a DOS-like prompt and would not really do anything useful. A native exporter would just rely on different third parties. In particular I'd anticipate buggy graphics drivers as a particular weak point of native platforms; browser vendors to a lot to work around driver bugs where possible in their engines, and where not possible the GPU blacklist ensures things at least work. (While the resulting poor performance can be frustrating, the alternative often means maddeningly mysterious crashes and glitches that can totally ruin the game, so slow but working is actually the better option.) Then there's OS fragmentation (very problematic particularly on Android), compilers/development tools to rely on, more OS-level libraries that may have various issues, and so on. So I don't really agree that a native engine relies any less on third parties at all; it just relies on different technologies, and that doesn't prevent you from getting screwed by the crappy work of some other vendor, graphics drivers being the perfect example of that.
Scirra Founder
B
399
S
236
G
89
Posts: 24,539
Reputation: 195,422

Post » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:29 pm

Manley23 wrote:@spy84 @bjadams - I was actually contacted out of the blue by http://www.hoodamath.com and ended up selling a non-exclusive license for three of my games. A non-exclusive license basically means that the entity that purchases the license can use it for their own site (usually by hosting the game and generating ad traffic/money). But it is non-exclusive, so I am free to shop my game around to other places and sell it again and again. An exclusive license will sell for more money, but then you can only sell it once. Of course, there are gray areas and nothing is set in stone, and you will want all the terms spelled out in a contract so both parties know what to expect and for how long each party must abide by it.



and which are the games you sold?can u send me a link with pm if you want?
B
18
S
3
G
1
Posts: 248
Reputation: 2,353

Post » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:28 am

Ashley wrote:It's impossible to write software without relying on third parties. All modern software development requires relying on additional libraries written by other people. It is actually quite a difficult challenge to write some software that does not rely on any third party code, and it would look something like a custom-written OS that boots to a DOS-like prompt and would not really do anything useful. A native exporter would just rely on different third parties. In particular I'd anticipate buggy graphics drivers as a particular weak point of native platforms; browser vendors to a lot to work around driver bugs where possible in their engines, and where not possible the GPU blacklist ensures things at least work. (While the resulting poor performance can be frustrating, the alternative often means maddeningly mysterious crashes and glitches that can totally ruin the game, so slow but working is actually the better option.) Then there's OS fragmentation (very problematic particularly on Android), compilers/development tools to rely on, more OS-level libraries that may have various issues, and so on. So I don't really agree that a native engine relies any less on third parties at all; it just relies on different technologies, and that doesn't prevent you from getting screwed by the crappy work of some other vendor, graphics drivers being the perfect example of that.

This is way too true.

The major problem we have is HTML5 support across the board is still a very young endeavor and has issues. It gives another platform -one that's implemented on all the other platforms- to distribute a product. It's a standard people can go to that should work the same across all devices, as it's requirements makes it virtually a device on it's own. Once the platforms have enough support in a user agent program that supports HTML5 and implements it well, the complaints should be on par with native programs.

But since it's new it'll have issues getting things as the intent is for stability and speed, and not just optimization. The more support means more speed so going a safe and standard way gets them a significant speed increase in the end anyway.


A good thing to look at is the rise of DirectX vs OpenGL. DirectX was this MS product that was about graphical rendering and such, and like the XBOX people dismissed it at first. For a while it was worse than OpenGL as many cards were optimized for it over the new DirectX. The DX platform grew by having better documentation and worked with the hardware developers -along with having money to back it- to get it to become what has been years as the better and more optimized platform.
If you look at HTML5 we're in the beginning stages still and an optimized user agent that renders HTML5 would have performance similar to native in the end. DirectX did that to the "user agents" (Video Cards), but they had enough money. The web isn't a singular thing, so once more people start adopting, more people will have a demand and in the end that demand is worth more than money.
Last edited by Thndr on Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
B
21
S
8
G
6
Posts: 346
Reputation: 4,891

Post » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:25 am

Ashley wrote:It's impossible to write software without relying on third parties. All modern software development requires relying on additional libraries written by other people. It is actually quite a difficult challenge to write some software that does not rely on any third party code, and it would look something like a custom-written OS that boots to a DOS-like prompt and would not really do anything useful. A native exporter would just rely on different third parties. In particular I'd anticipate buggy graphics drivers as a particular weak point of native platforms; browser vendors to a lot to work around driver bugs where possible in their engines, and where not possible the GPU blacklist ensures things at least work. (While the resulting poor performance can be frustrating, the alternative often means maddeningly mysterious crashes and glitches that can totally ruin the game, so slow but working is actually the better option.) Then there's OS fragmentation (very problematic particularly on Android), compilers/development tools to rely on, more OS-level libraries that may have various issues, and so on. So I don't really agree that a native engine relies any less on third parties at all; it just relies on different technologies, and that doesn't prevent you from getting screwed by the crappy work of some other vendor, graphics drivers being the perfect example of that.


It's clearly a matter of degree. The more pieces out of your control the more problems especially at the level of exporters where controlling them would give a lot more power in even implementing workarounds for other peoples' bugs including some driver bugs etc. Obviously you will never have 100% of the control, but you can have quite a bit more by controlling export. But even so, the main problem with third parties is, as I said, that they don't make us a priority since we are not their customers. If NVidia gives bad drivers for cards users paid them for, those users will go there to complain and NVidia will respond in some way. Going to Ludei does not seem to have this same effect, especially since I didn't give them any money. I'm sure there's other intermediates that don't respond to users but may respond to developers etc. So maybe that's what you guys should do instead, work with these third parties more closely. I do think that in the very very very long term there will likely be some tool that is robust enough. But that is just so uncertain that putting effort in C2 right now doesn't seem worthwhile, since there is no idea of when it will come. In the end, I don't know, you have a lot of theoretical arguments and reasoning but in practice things don't seem to be working out anywhere near at the level of C2's competition and I think that's really what people care about. Maybe this will change.

Anyway the new game I'm playing now is to see whether I finish my larger unity project before C2 export is in a state where I would feel proud to put out my games :P
B
11
S
2
G
3
Posts: 283
Reputation: 1,968

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests