Construct as a unity editor extension.

Post » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:28 am

Well, a standalone Construct 3 is in the works ( I hope still the case ) , so ultimately not reliant on anything.
B
32
S
14
G
2
Posts: 76
Reputation: 3,502

Post » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:47 am

BadMario wrote:Well, a standalone Construct 3 is in the works ( I hope still the case ) , so ultimately not reliant on anything.


That's the editor, not the runtime.

That said, I guess it'd be kinda neat if the free version of Construct 3 was the "Player" for apps too, so then it's an all-in-one EXE/etc that you can distribute to people. eg: if it detects a game project already in the folder, the EXE switches function to a game only, unless the developer has specifically chosen to allow someone to edit their game (then at start it asks if you want to PLAY or EDIT game).

@Newt Well sure they pretty much have their own Arcade so a desktop version of that would be nice ;) and a Steam plugin? Yes please!

But seriously a wrapper to native is actually much more useful than just on Steam. It's something Scirra should have had better control over for a long time now/before starting work on C3.
Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
133
S
43
G
18
Posts: 2,246
Reputation: 20,754

Post » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:45 am

There's a world of difference between relying on open-source projects and free software that implements standardised technology with open specifications, and transforming our business in to a UI skin for another closed-source game engine which doesn't care about us at all. If it really came to it, we can and would take over maintenance of any open-source project that we heavily depend on, or switch to another, but that seems pretty unlikely to happen.

FWIW, just one example of the downsides - last I saw Unity's web export was extremely heavyweight, with tens of megabytes of overhead and often 30sec+ to start up on a high-end desktop, and they didn't actually try to support mobile web (at least initially) because the experience was too rough. Compare that to our lightweight engine which can download and start up quickly and run well on pretty much any mobile device now, even when wrapped as a native app. But this kind of thing doesn't seem to stop people from thinking everything would be better if we did that. Honestly, it's actually crazy.
Scirra Founder
B
408
S
242
G
92
Posts: 24,910
Reputation: 198,648

Post » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:04 pm

transforming our business in to a UI skin for another closed-source game engine


I don't think that's what the original poster meant. I am sure he thought code could be added to construct to make it work with Unity, the way Playmaker works. The rest of Construct would stay the same and would have nothing to do with Unity. Now whether the amount of work involved would be worth it, that's another matter.
B
32
S
14
G
2
Posts: 76
Reputation: 3,502

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:48 am

BadMario wrote:Now whether the amount of work involved would be worth it, that's another matter.


Also sort of a reply to Ashley: It is if you want console and desktop export, and technically also mobile export since why would you use HTML5 on mobile when you can just export real Android and iOS apps??

As for "A closed source game engine which doesn't care about us at all", I think there's three major issues with that way of thinking:

1. Chrome/FireFox/whatever is for all intents and purposes a web browser, the ability to render interactive content is something they're improving (SLOWLY) due to HTML5 + WebGL being included in the web standards, but game engines inside HTML5 are not their main focus, and for anyone following the Chrome jank issue they can see that it's been going on for years. We have been lucky with some fixes so far, but I don't think we can assume that anyone on their end really specifically cares about making C2/C3/our exported games work in their browsers. Ashley has been doing a great job at pushing for fixes and I appreciate that, I love Construct and I wouldn't argue if I didn't care about its future.

2. If Unity was a tiny obscure company I'd mind the closed-source part, but when is Scirra going to get their hands dirty in the source code of these open source browsers and make their own player app that's optimized just for Construct games? That's what I'd need to see to believe that a company which hires hundreds of employees to make a game engine is going to be beaten by a small middleware company with a much smaller customer base.

3. Also still considering Unity being a dedicated GAME ENGINE, and that's how they make money, I think it's silly to say they don't care about people being able to make games in their engine. In fact, they've shown more willingness to adapt and change for what their users want than I've seen in a lot of the "more personal and friendly" game engine companies that often attract indie devs by advertising there's no code required (when everything is really just logic, and if an indie had the time to learn they could probably script in LUA or JavaScript without much issue).

Sure, they might make drastic changes that require re-making the plugin, but since C3 so far is just a re-skin of the C2 runtime what's the problem with making new editor interfaces every few years and re-selling? Might as well make it a yearly subscription eh! (and I'd actually pay for it, for real, because Unity is not designed for 2D and it still feels like an add-on, plus events are just nice and I'd feel much more comfortable using them if they exported to some C#/.NET bytecode underneath :) )
Construct Classic - Examples Kit Dropbox is a pile of trash and if you need my old files PM me! :)
B
133
S
43
G
18
Posts: 2,246
Reputation: 20,754

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:02 am

While the idea is not that bad, Scirra just can't afford to spend resources on something like that. I believe it is more important to polish C3 and start working on the new runtime.
B
141
S
34
G
17
Posts: 1,561
Reputation: 21,046

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:58 am

@Jayjay

Like me, you are for a long time here. You should know by now that Ashley is dead set on HTML5. It doesn't matter how many facts you present, or if the whole community begs for it.

Why build and focus on an "events plugin" for an industry standard game engine that exports natively on almost anything and let thousands of developers maintain and upgrade the engine, when you can reinvent the wheel and do all by yourself :roll:

Yes, C3 is a marvelous piece of software, don't get me wrong, but there is a reason why all the bigger games developers moved to other software.

@glerikud
Look at Playmaker and think again (there is also a "little" game named Hearthstone that uses it)

And how you spend more resources focusing only on the event system instead of the whole software (let's not even talk about browsers compatibility now that even the IDE is browser-based).
B
49
S
15
G
6
Posts: 536
Reputation: 7,199

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:12 am

Browser makers are as performance-obsessed as any game engine - especially Chrome. Did you know, for example, it queues all WebGL calls, posts them to another thread, and runs them in parallel as JavaScript execution resumes in the main thread to start processing the next frame? That's an incredibly complex multi-threaded architecture that helps effectively eliminate the overhead of the graphics driver by overlapping it with the next frame's logic. That is so complex to implement that some native engines don't even try, and we get that for free in Chrome. I don't think you properly appreciate just how sophisticated modern browser technology is, and it's one of the reasons we now see C2 benchmarks in Chrome actually rivalling or even exceeding other native engines on the market. And still, we have people here who think we somehow have a slower or inferior engine in some way due to HTML5. You need to catch up - our HTML5 strategy has worked out great, and that is the reality today; it's not 2012 any more.

Anyways, even just using Unity as an engine is a colossal amount of work. It's basically the same as us writing our own native engine, but using Unity as the framework. It's a forbidding amount of work for a startup and will push back everything everyone else wants by months, and - for what? Performance won't be that much better, if at all (I've read several criticisms of the poor performance of Unity for 2D games since it carries a lot of overhead from being a 3D engine). I think all it gets us is PS4 support. I agree that is important and can see how significant that is for many indie games, but that's not something we can justify that amount of work for right now. There's also a chance they could add HTML5 support anyway, like the Xbox One has, making such a project pointless and extremely risky in terms of investing our resources. And hey, at least you can publish to Xbox One with the Xbox Live Creators Program, it's not like you have no access to consoles at all.
Scirra Founder
B
408
S
242
G
92
Posts: 24,910
Reputation: 198,648

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:23 pm

Just a thought.
Given how complex Unity is, I think it would be a better idea if such a thing as an editor extension would be better off being made by someone who has extensive experience with Unity.
That being said, what, if any additions to the new runtime, and sdk can be made to make something like that, or some other type of exporter doable?
Image ImageImage
B
173
S
50
G
194
Posts: 8,570
Reputation: 121,376

Post » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:22 pm

Well, first things first

Back in Flash days, you would make a game, copy 2 lines of code from CPM Star and have a single file to distribute. It worked in every browser.

HTML 5 so far ( after how many years ? ) is shit compared to that. The whole bullshit around the game ( wrappers, distribution, monetization ) takes twice as long as making the actual game.

Anybody wanna address that first?
B
32
S
14
G
2
Posts: 76
Reputation: 3,502

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mumu64 and 1 guest