Ultra Software Company Blog

Way to go Josh. Right on time before christmas.

An option for Paypal has been added in the store, for your convenience.

Am I misreading this or do new customers get 3.1 for $99 less than existing customers (who already paid $199 to purchase just 3.0)? And what about water, networking and other features? If we need to pay $99 for each of those features every year then this engine will get very expensive. Or will those be added to 3.1 next year?

Our business model is to maintain a low price and charge for upgrades on a roughly annual basis. This ensures that development is inline with what the customer base wants; the upgrade rate gives me a metric that tells me how well development is meeting everyone's needs.

 

Products that take the "free upgrades for life" approach always fail because they are 100% reliant on new customers, and eventually that slows down. There are lots of software applications I own that eventually died out because they never charged for updates, when I would have been happy to pay to get more out of them.

+1 on the no mobile upgrade cost when it comes out!

 

If we need to pay $99 for each of those features every year then this engine will get very expensive.

 

We got 3 very nice features in this upgrade so I'd be shocked if each feature you listed itself will be an upgrade on it's own. As much as some people hate on 3.0 it was a good upgrade. We got pathfinding, csg, mobile support, run on wider range of hardware, and a more solid engine with the transition to C++ as it's core.

 

Honestly even if we did pay $99 for each of those features, which I don't think we will, it'll still be cheaper than some other engines. $99 /yr is cheaper than most of my other hobbies, and those don't really offer me the chance to make any money from them

I guess you forgot to add the not-already-customers of Leadwerks 3.0 who pledged $200+ to the section for the receivers of the 3.1 upgrade.

If one were currently developing a game for PC using a version of Leadwerks 2, would it be a good idea to switch to 3.1 now, since 3.0 was mostly for smartphone games?

I guess you forgot to add the not-already-customers of Leadwerks 3.0 who pledged $200+ to the section for the receivers of the 3.1 upgrade.

Kickstarter backers are receiving version 3.1 as was promised in the campaign. Is that what you meant?

 

If one were currently developing a game for PC using a version of Leadwerks 2, would it be a good idea to switch to 3.1 now, since 3.0 was mostly for smartphone games?

The new features in 3.1 are focused on PC development, and the renderer is more similar to the one from Leadwerks 2, so I think you will be comfortable on that.

I have no problems paying some money for yearly upgrades. Not 99$, but 199$ for yearly upgrades which bring a resonable amount of new features are 100% justifiable and will keep leadwerks a live.

Bought it. Linux support was an important reason

I hope 3.2 will have some easy to use integrated GUI .......

Kickstarter backers are receiving version 3.1 as was promised in the campaign. Is that what you meant?

Yes, thx.

I have absolutely no problem with upgrade fees in general. My confusion is with why all the costs of the upgrade go to existing customers. Why not charge less to existing customers and add some of the cost to new buyers? 3.1 costing the same as 3.0 for new purchases seems odd.

 

Or, imagine if this trend continues. Even as an existing customer, in 2 years, you'd be better off buying 3.3 from scratch instead of buying 3 upgrades. It would save you money. Seem a bit strange?

@gamecreator But then you wouldn't ever use the product because you'd always be waiting to save money. It's like cable or dish. They always give big savings to new customers to try and get them to convert. If you want the product/service, at some point you bite the bullet and make the purchase knowing that they may have bigger savings later for newer customers.

Personally, I think anywhere from $50-70 would be fair while $99 is pushing the cost/benefit analysis over the long haul. Upgrade fees themselves are not a problem. Rather, the business model should be that features are added at such a rate as to attract and retain a large user base at that lower rate. What's the attrition rate at $99/year?

 

Products die because users are not retained and there is no growth. The upgrade fee is only a part of the equation. I would suggest that this model of planning for yearly paid updates will work against an aggressive campaign to fortify the user base. The clockwork approach leaves me with a sense of something missing or that I'm being trapped.

 

That said, it remains to be seen whether the Linux port will create additional synergies and growth. If 'yes', what should the upgrade fee be under those circumstances? Optimistic planning might have resulted in an upgrade fee of $50-70. Have faith.

if i have version 3.0 can't upgrade 3.1 free ?

Products that take the "free upgrades for life" approach always fail because they are 100% reliant on new customers, and eventually that slows down. There are lots of software applications I own that eventually died out because they never charged for updates, when I would have been happy to pay to get more out of them.

 

Firstly, not all products on this model die out - one example is PureBasic.

Also, I agree with other comments that it seems upgrade prices are too high compared with the full product.

 

Also, other products that do charge for upgrades, normally charge for full version (e.g. 3.0 -> 4.0) upgrades only, and not point releases (3.0 ->3.x).

 

Finally, if I pledged for the KS and I get 3.1 when due, is there anyway to get that Steam Indie Edition as well either for free (preferably) or for a low atractive price?

I don't see how $99 a year is all that much. Save $8.33 a month and you'll be good each year.

 

Josh could be naming these releases by major number if that would make people feel better, but it's about the features added not the release number.

I understand that Josh has underpriced the engine (in his eye) and he's overpricing the updates to compensate - like companies do with consoles and games. It's a rough business model but if he honestly thought 3.0 was worth $1000 originally, I guess he's making compromises too.

Finally, if I pledged for the KS and I get 3.1 when due, is there anyway to get that Steam Indie Edition as well either for free (preferably) or for a low atractive price?

All Kickstarter backers who got a reward with any version of the software will get a free Steam key for the Indie Edition before January 6th. Even if you don't run Windows, hold onto this because the Linux version on Steam will have some special features.

I don't think the updates are overpriced at all. Look at Unity Pro. It's $1,500! If you look at the feature list between them it's fairly comparable and LE is way cheaper! If you purchased 3.0 and upgrade to 3.1 you'll have paid like $300? It would take 12 more years of $99 upgrades to finally hit Unity Pro's cost. I've been more productive with LE than I was with even the indie version of Unity (that's just my experience obviously).

 

Personally, I just don't think $99/yr upgrades are overpriced when comparing it to some other popular engines.

how do you know to which Steam user the upgrade needs to be granted?

Rick, Leadwerks competes with more than just one of the most expensive engines on the market. Saying it's cheaper than Unity doesn't say much.

 

But I'm with you in that by far Leadwerks fits me best. I'll pay this upgrade grudgingly and then continue to enjoy using the engine.

Yearly upgrade at a reasonable price is fine by me so long as there is a big/good update. You can also look at the fact that you get small updates throughout the year.

 

how do you know to which Steam user the upgrade needs to be granted?

In your profile there's a place for your Steam ID.

@gamecreator I agree, but from my experience it's one of the closest in terms of a polish editor and great API that doesn't take royalties so that's why I used it.

Again, I'm not opposed to upgrade costs and will likely (maybe) do this one but I would rather see a model of constant development and releases, with no lulls in the middle of the year. No bizarro marketing philosophies or teasers, just plain reliability. The example of Purebasic was offered earlier. Such an approach provides some confidence that the user base will grow. As noted above, this market is not captive meaning that users can simply switch, impacting the entire community. The potential for silence in the middle of the year is the perfect time to lose clients - too much ambiguity. Or, as in the case with Adobe, users often choose every second upgrade cycle. For a small operation that can prove fatal. And, again, the community suffers as a whole.

 

Just my two cents.