Why Construct 3 goes backwards instead of forward

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:34 pm

This is not a rant about technology, but it is about the game industry, and why Scirra is no more one of the "good guys".

I'm fine with it being online/offline with Electron/NW.js, I'm fine with anything that uses HTML5 for good.

But in all, forcing users to pay an expensive annual subscription fee to being able to earn money with the software, it's too 2010 for anyone's taste. And what's more important, it heavily caters to a certain demographic of developers.

This are the users that Construct 3 are leaving out in the dark:

* Students
* People living in poor countries
* People having a bad financial situation
* Designers focusing on non-profits
* Designers focusing on experimentation
* Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free

No, the free version of Construct 3 won't do, since we cannot earn money with it.

What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor). And it's very, very dangerous.

So, in good faith, I cannot recommend Construct 3 to anyone, and I won't be able to recommend Construct 2 in a year or two.

---

I'm a strong supporter of FOSS (Free and Open Source Sofware) applications, mentality, and their community. I believe the future of anything we do in software has a viable alternative in FOSS. We can currently see that in Android, where thanks to FOSS developers we have a good ecosystem and we can have an awesome, full-featured phone for very little money - remember the old "A laptop for every child" program? Now we have it.

Scirra is going against that.

Therefore, due to my work ethics, I must definitely move to another software for game development. I recommend Godot, Unity, Twine, Ren'Py or Unreal Engine, all free solutions, that focus on being enablers. There are many more free software solutions out there. I suggest people to start using them if they care about the future of the game industry.

Cheers, and hopefully Scirra will change their minds. Personally, I'm kinda devastated about this because I always believed in this software and how good it was for first-timers.
Last edited by notnsane on Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
B
33
S
9
G
1
Posts: 156
Reputation: 3,034

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:37 pm

Construct 2 is good, I would recommend this for anyone who wants to make prototype or web, but C3.

C3 is a different story, I personally do not believe it's an upgrade due to experiences from C2. I'm just saying you can stay with C2 and ignore C3.
B
97
S
35
G
29
Posts: 3,139
Reputation: 28,371

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:42 pm

But C2 won't have upgrades in, say, two years. And then it's dead. And when new technologies arise, and new incompatibilites appears, our software is dead.

I think in very, very, very long terms (around 30-40 years) because I'm super concerned about "digital death". So I only use or tend to use stuff that has a very long longevity. I believe HTML5 (and 6, 7, 8, 9) will be around forever.

But why should I pay for C3 when Unity already has a WebGL export? Also Godot. Also UE4, and many other engines.
B
33
S
9
G
1
Posts: 156
Reputation: 3,034

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:44 pm

Can't wait to see their announcement tomorrow :lol:
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,843

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:46 pm

notnsane wrote:But C2 won't have upgrades in, say, two years. And then it's dead. And when new technologies arise, and new incompatibilites appears, our software is dead.

I think in very, very, very long terms (around 30-40 years) because I'm super concerned about "digital death". So I only use or tend to use stuff that has a very long longevity. I believe HTML5 (and 6, 7, 8, 9) will be around forever.

But why should I pay for C3 when Unity already has a WebGL export? Also Godot. Also UE4, and many other engines.


True, besides if C3 brings WebAssembly, I'd pay a subscription fee.

Well, Unity WebGL export is very experimental, I wouldn't recommend you to use it for production because it will have low fps in iPad.
B
97
S
35
G
29
Posts: 3,139
Reputation: 28,371

Post » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:52 pm

notnsane wrote:This is not a rant about technology, but it is about the game industry, and why Scirra is no more one of the "good guys".

What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor). And it's very, very dangerous.



You nailed right there.
B
30
S
11
Posts: 10
Reputation: 2,324

Post » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:44 am

Isn't subscription really better for poorer people or those in poorer countries though? They've said there will still be a free version, and this way when you outgrow free or need a licence the up-front payment is smaller than it would have otherwise been.

As long as the offline support works well and it performs well on potentially weaker hardware I see it as a win for those users.


Native exporters would be nice though, although unless I missed it in the announcement I don't think we've been told whether or not we might be getting those yet.
B
32
S
8
G
2
Posts: 110
Reputation: 3,648

Post » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:45 am

jbadams wrote:Isn't subscription really better for poorer people or those in poorer countries though? They've said there will still be a free version, and this way when you outgrow free or need a licence the up-front payment is smaller than it would have otherwise been.

As long as the offline support works well and it performs well on potentially weaker hardware I see it as a win for those users.


Native exporters would be nice though, although unless I missed it in the announcement I don't think we've been told whether or not we might be getting those yet.


I live in one of developing countries and I can say that subscription based is pretty much not popular around here. We live in strong believe that if we pay for a thing, then we own it and we can use it as long as we wish. Which is not possible if it's subscription based.
I only develop games in my spare time along with my other projects. I don't invest my time on Construct everyday, so paying for a time-limited software feels like a huge waste to me.
B
28
S
8
G
1
Posts: 19
Reputation: 2,245

Post » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:54 am

Subscription is just a marketing name for renting. Someone else made this point in another thread - with a magazine subscription you have physical ownership of the magazines you pay for. With software, you can't use it once you stop renting it.
A big fan of JavaScript.
B
74
S
20
G
69
Posts: 2,205
Reputation: 43,832

Post » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:12 am

notnsane wrote:...

What's even worse, is that forcing an up-front payment also forces making certain kind of games. This is exaclty what the high budget games do: Zero experimentation. Zero originality. Just rehashing everything once and again with only money in mind. All the shovelware and clones after clones we're seeing is product of this mentality (lack of proper education is also an important factor).

...


As other user pointed out too, this is what Construct3 seems to be about. Couldn't agree more with @notnsane, so you can count me out of Construct3.

As an addition to alternative engines pointed out, I'd recommend HaxeFlixel.

Thanks, Scirra, because C2 has been great to me, but I think it's time to move on
B
12
S
2
G
1
Posts: 32
Reputation: 756

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests