Development Blog

This all seems very logical to me. "Leadwerks 5" would struggle to get the beginner audience as other engines have this well covered. Some provide asset flip products while others offer free assets every month. Very hard for Leadwerks to compete in this market space. Especially as they are free although they take a % of anything you make. 

I can see as the owner of Leadwerks why you would be excited with the interest of aerospace and the military in your product. Guaranteed income is a comfort that allows you time to perfect and focus on the future. Hope you don't forget  your original users.

The loss of the Steam workshop is not a big deal as long as you continue the Leadwerks Market place. I think its a good idea to have a place were users can share assets to help each other out and to provided a modest income for those gifted enough to produce something that other users are interested in.

Pricing is very fair. I don't get why you would pay $10/month when you can own Leadwerks for $100. Inside a year you are better off with the pay upfront option. Or does the subscription always have the latest version  and the pay upfront have to pay for updates?

I was never really sold on the idea of calling the new engine Turbo. A google search for Turbo Engine will get lost in thousands of references to automotive products. Looking forward to the next name. 

@Thirsty Panther Thank you for the comments. Regarding game content, what I have seen is that DLCs sell extremely well but it is very hard to get people to buy things through a new store. It even seems like people are more loyal to stores online than they are to the actual brick and mortar store they will shop at! So in the future I will probably focus on official DLC-type model packs and just try to improve the quality and amount of content offered of those, since they actually do sell well.

I plan to release paid updates every 12-18 months. I don't plan on ever going back and building a new foundation for our technology, and from here on out I want continuous forward progression, not any rewrites.

I definitely want to keep giving game developers what they want, because you guys give all the useful feedback. Without that, I can't build good software.

I wish you the best success in your Turbo Engine project.

The translator doesn't help much, a new name for the engine?

12 minutes ago, ?Yue? said:

The translator doesn't help much, a new name for the engine?

It won't be called Turbo. Something else.

Looking forward to the new name, I'm sure it'll be as big as everything you do. 

Regarding the new approach, looking forward to seeing you at work, the world spins very fast and this technology changes very fast. In the end everything will always be beneficial for both you and the users.

On 11/2/2019 at 4:22 AM, Josh said:

I don't plan on ever going back and building a new foundation for our technology, and from here on out I want continuous forward progression, not any rewrites.

Just to tease you, pretty sure you said something very close to this when you were working on 3.  Something like how it'll be the last engine you'll ever need to write.  But I don't think Vulkan even existed back then.  Who knows what new technology will be out there in another 7 years.  I like all the decisions and thoughts posted, btw.

You can name it Leadwerks V.  "V" can stand as a number but also as a Vulkan. Or just Leadwerks engine? Furher updates can be incremented by year, Leadwerks V2021, etc.

LeadVulk  Engine...  

20 hours ago, rogy said:

Or just Leadwerks engine? Furher updates can be incremented by year, Leadwerks V2021, etc.

This system makes sense on several levels.  For one, if it truly is the last engine Josh will ever write, this will cement that further, while 5 implies that there will be a 6.  Next, the yearly paid updates will also jive well with the yearly labeling.  That said, I'm far more concerned about the new features than the label.