Too bad...

That would be a Proof-of-Concept at best.

Personally, I think that a proof of concept is absolutely enough. We know, as HTML5 devs, how quickly you can iterate, how easily you can bug-stomp and test new features, and open up your work to new platforms. Scirra are now working with the same advantage we've always had. I don't think it will be long before we see all of C2's features carried across to C3, and more.

I also think that what's 'enough' for the team to produce is entirely up to them. It's up to us as consumers to vote with our wallets, and produce useful feedback where we can.

[Tom]

3 years work being labelled as proof of concept is a bit harsh - I don't feel this is an accurate representation of what we're put up so far at all. People are already making games in it. Proof of concept would not be anywhere near as functional.

But we are testing pretty much C2 on browser.

On launch, C2 didn't include an image editor, a physics engine, tilemapping, social media integration, complex collision polygons, multiplayer, not even half the exporters or publishing plugins, web-font support, lighting, positioned audio, LOS, debugger or profiler... the list goes on. I know a lot of these things are missing from C3 at present - but this team is no slouch! Have a little faith.

I was one of the first adopters of C2, and the thing that sold it to me was the physics engine

@Tom I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that simply porting C2 to the browser would be a proof-of-concept. I personally believe that C3 is more then that. My view is simply that the stage C3 is in right now is more like an alpha testing phase (squashing hundreds of bugs) then a public beta (allowing the public to test out the programs features and give usability feedback before release).

I will support it, because that money will be used to fund Construct's Team to continue building on it.

I agree for the most part, however this makes me look at all the times people have requested new features and also the response scirra gave to those requests. Based on all of it, it draws a picture of what scirra wants the end product to look like. From my perspective I get the feeling that scirra has settled on the stuff that is already within it and aren't looking to improve or change those parts that much. I think what they focused on most for c3 was how to make it work in a browser- and during this process there were things they could add that made sense to have because the browser let them have it- like css and fonts, etc. Were these things stuff that they wanted to add before the idea of a browser editor? probably not.. Basically, I get the impression they are satisfied with what construct is before the idea of putting it in the browser.
I could be wrong, and maybe they have some goals for other ways to improve construct- I'm still waiting to see what those are. What will the sdk be like? How will they move forward with development of C3 after bug fixes are mostly solved? There is still plenty of things to look forward to, but we don't know what they are yet- at least I don't.

When I first saw Construct 3 running inside the Chrome browser, I was a little bit sceptical. However, I have to say it is stable here, but I only was browsing and looking to the user interface.

then I played the Kiwi game, just to see how the new engine was performing. I received an error that not all features where supported by the free version of C3 (which is normal warning).

I found the Kiwi game performing better than I expected before. I was afraid that the Chrome browser would influence Construct 3 performance. That was not the case, at first sight I do not see anything slowing down.

Saturday, I will meet my companion because we like to workout a new game idea. We will see if we can use C3 for this new game. Nevertheless, we prefer the full paid subscription version, which we use the moment it becomes available.

Maybe following a tutorial first to see where that leads us. Especially a tutorial written for the free version of Construct 2.

It seems logical to me first test the free version. It may look now C2, however keeping things simple gives Scirra the possibility to fix bugs and improve the initial edition much easier. I look forward to see more features appearing near the end of the beta cycle.

I am sure Construct 3 will be an ever developing product. I like very much what I see in Construct 3.

I know how C2 was at the beginning but:
If Unity right now releases a new version which got less features than previous one, it would be a disaster. Why?
Well, because users already got on-going projects which they would like to test with the newer functionalities.

This is normal. I expect to be able to test my project with the new version of Construct before making my mind up.

So far the result was? Well, lets start searching for other more friendly solutions such as Unity.
I dislike the idea, but its business. There's no faith here, just business. either C3 augment my project performance and fixes past issues or either it doesn't.
While it might still be a great engine for a lot, it simply might not suits my needs.

So right now that's the feeling I got.

After trying out the demo projects and giving the program a quick test, I'm split. From an engineering standpoint this an amazing feat. Achieving all of this in a browser is very impressive. The editor runs smoothly, at least for the simple sample projects that were provided. It runs on iOS and Android now, as well as Mac and Linux. Great. But I don't care about that as a Windows developer. Running in a browser is more of a hindrance than anything. Running in a browser is better for Scirra, since they can easily port the editor to all platforms. But why would I want an additional point of failure/slowdown in my IDE? Answer: I wouldn't. It's cool to be able to edit a project on a phone or tablet (the main feature of being in a browser) but it's more of a novelty than a useful feature.

It's basically just Construct 2.

The "free edition" is essentially useless. 25 events, and for some reason even more strict restrictions on layers and effects, as if "25 events" wasn't enough. The free edition is for you to try the thing, and then subscribe. There is no useful free version like Unity has. I was thinking they would make the free version actually usable with Construct 3 since it costs so much more, but I guess I was wrong.

I see this as being a very good program for education or schools, since it works on all platforms.

But as developer on windows (as is everyone here) there's no point to using it over C2. Construct 2 does everything I need if I want to make a HTML5 game. The small amount of features it adds to 2 just aren't worth the cost. It's a marvel of engineering, but why bother using it when Construct 2 exists if you're on windows? If this was a new product and there was no Construct 2, it would be much better received by the community.

Many people are upset with it because it really adds nothing new, yet costs so much more.

I was thinking they would make the free version actually usable with Construct 3 since it costs so much more, but I guess I was wrong.

You would think they'd allow more events like 200 or 300 so that people would become more invested in their projects. If you spend enough time to use up 300 events, chances are you have begun to actually make something that you want to continue developing and then at that point paying makes more sense.

[Ashley]

Most of the new features are subscriber-only so you can't try them out in the public beta right now (although you will be able to during the Newgrounds Gamejam). Take a look through the blog posts, there is actually a lot new in C3, it's just not all accessible right now.