Can't say I'm surprised to hear that. If it's any consolation there are quite a few of us here who have never looked back following the move.

The engine here is a bit more 'low level' than Leadwerks so takes a bit of getting used to and a lot of digging to figure it out ... but it's definitely worthwhile. Just about everything and more on the Leadwerks wishlist for the next 2 years is already here and actively supported and a lovely set of tools too!

Welcome aboard

haha la la land... Three wise monkeys

(06-09-2013 03:08 PM)RedOcktober Wrote:  add RedOcktober to the line of Leadwerks refugees... and yes, for the very same reason the guys above have mentioned...

it looks like he's getting ready to charge all those poor guys who just paid for a license, an additional fee for the 3.1 update... i just alluded to it, and the ban hammer came down for 2 days...

i'm just fed up with that guy... can't tolerate it any longer...

i'm just waiting for the reaction when he announces his next price increase in order for people to license what they should've had from the start...

--Mike

an additional license fee to publish in 3.1 when you already have 3.0? Are you kidding me? How can people be so smart that they can make a game engine, but yet have no common sense how to market it? First, I would make a game engine that was easy to use...meaning it would resemble a million other game engines out there. Big companies tell their employees to make apps that resemble other competitive products all the time, and for good reason. Why? People always want what is familiar to them. They are more likely to use it because it cuts down on the learning curve. This is common sense. Secondly, the editor would appeal to non-programmers, giving as much functionality to the non programmer that I could, because there are way more amature modelers and level designers out there than programmers; Again, Common sense. And lastly, I would stay away from money schemes, like the one that he's trying to pull. But I just don't get it. I see potentially great game engines all the time, that end up making at least one of these mistakes. Simple marketing skills doesn't require a lot of knowledge. It only requires basic common sense and the passion to sale you something.

(06-09-2013 10:27 PM)Shatterstar Wrote:  an additional license fee to publish in 3.1 when you already have 3.0? Are you kidding me? How can people be so smart that they can make a game engine, but yet have no common sense how to market it? First, I would make a game engine that was easy to use...meaning it would resemble a million other game engines out there. Big companies tell their employees to make apps that resemble other competitive products all the time, and for good reason. Why? People always want what is familiar to them. They are more likely to use it because it cuts down on the learning curve. This is common sense. Secondly, the editor would appeal to non-programmers, giving as much functionality to the non programmer that I could, because there are way more amature modelers and level designers out there than programmers; Again, Common sense. And lastly, I would stay away from money schemes, like the one that he's trying to pull. But I just don't get it. I see potentially great game engines all the time, that end up making at least one of these mistakes. Simple marketing skills doesn't require a lot of knowledge. It only requires basic common sense and the passion to sale you something.

Actually it was the opposite with Leadwerks... We here that moved to Esenthel from leadwerks are mostly programmer centric. We left because LE was becoming a generic non-programmer pleaser. This made limitations for the programming side of things and it was too much so we left.

What did he make that you can't change with code now? Please, explain a limitation that he has now that you could do before. You got me curious.

Are you an LE advocate or something?

Nah I ain't gonna bother explaining this it's behind me now.

I'm not a Leadwerk advocate at all. I was wondering if the game engine really is flawed? "Programmer centric." Being a programmer doesn't make most programmers dislike a game engine just because it helps non-programmers. There are plenty of brilliant programmers that do use non-programmer friendly engines. The most successful game engines that have ever been made are non-programmer pleasers. It allows for the game to get finished faster. I never said it makes the game engine better, or worse...im just saying you will sell more licenses if your game engine is a non-programmer pleaser. I believe Greg understands this...that's why Esenthel 1.0 had so many features and tools to work with. 1.0 pleased both the Programmer and the non-programmer alike. Esenthel 2.0 is already a programmer pleaser, so the next logical step is to try and please non-programmers as well. It might take Greg a few years to get Esenthel 2.0 to where he wants it to be...but 2.0 will be a non-programmer pleaser just as much as it is a programmer pleaser. Just look at his Road map, non-programmer friendly features and tools will eventually come. We all know that 3d artist are very talented people and are just as important to making a good game.

I think enough has been said previously in this thread and others about the issues and reasons why most of us left. Although I'm sure there will continue to be some migration from Leadwerks to Esenthel which will inevitably raise this topic each time I don't see any point in debating the issue any more.

I agree that engines should be friendly towards both the programming and artist communities and founded on a sensible and stable marketing strategy which users respect as well as being actively supported by the developer. I believe we have that in Esenthel.

i left leadwerks since version 2.1x and waited for the v3 while i focused on other engines. I have to say that the early stages of LE were very interesting and nice because of the nice community which build up.
I left Leadwerks because i developed a bad feeling about the engine code after some time (hard to explain, performance, bugs and i needed portability, anyways LE didnt feel round for me)
Another reason was that i bought several engine licenses but when i contacted the support i got no answer for weeks.
I cant tell you that Leadwerks is a bad engine, for sure its not.
The others got it to the point "esenthel already has all this"
I like the lowlevel of Esenthel as it has many many possibilities. I don't know the limitations of LE3 but about 1-2 years ago, it already seemed that LE moves into the direction of a Game Maker where coding is not really relevant.
What i can tell is that it was very funny for me when i heard that good people which always supported the community with knowledge where banned because they posted what they thought, which everyone felt, but not everybody would tell to the public.
These guys were some part of the success of LE, i don't know how Josh could do that.
But no matter, hopefully greg will keep on listening to the community/customers as always.
Now most people from LE are finally here which is really good.
Actually i think Esenthel is unbeatable and has a really low price for what you get! (i think thats an important reason).

well... as far as im concerned, he violates the terms of the EULA, which is an enforceable contract, when he denies a licensed user access to online facilities essential for the use and exploitation of the licensed software...

i'm now looking at legal options...

i think this guys gone beyond what is allowable, and i'm gonna let the public know it on evert public forum that will allow... and if necessary, pursue it in a court of law...

it's nothing personal... just business...

--Mike

thank you Xzessmedia and Mike for giving me more details. Yeah, If you found a bug and reported it, and nobody was doing anything about it, that would be too frustrating. Not getting an answer back for weeks is bad customer service, and is uncalled for. Having a good core to your engine is the most important. What he did to you Mike sounds like theft. I would seek legal options too. Xzessmedia, you say Game Maker where coding is not as relevant; I'm still wondering about what this means? I'm not bashing anyone. I just want a clearer understanding. I'll give an example of what I think you are talking about. Say the game engine comes with wind simulator boxes that you can put inside the game world. That would make coding less relevant because you didn't have to code it yourself. Is that what you are talking about?

(06-10-2013 02:31 PM)RedOcktober Wrote:  well... as far as im concerned, he violates the terms of the EULA, which is an enforceable contract, when he denies a licensed user access to online facilities essential for the use and exploitation of the licensed software...

i'm now looking at legal options...

i think this guys gone beyond what is allowable, and i'm gonna let the public know it on evert public forum that will allow... and if necessary, pursue it in a court of law...

it's nothing personal... just business...

--Mike

He can deny you access to everything except the licensed software. Esenthel can also ban you from these forums.

The problem here is with "essential" to use the software, which is simply not true.

Leave it all be guys, and have fun here on the Esenthel forums, where there is a better developer at the top, and also a good and active community

Quote:He can deny you access to everything except the licensed software.

not true... as a licensee, you must have access to the documentation and any ancillary files necessary for you to exploit the license...

--Mike

Just remember to keep your opinion to places where it's welcome. If you go posting "LE sucks, go get Esenthel" everywhere, it gives you and Esenthel a bad name-it's akin to spam. If you are going to write a review, give LE the credit it is due; be truthful, and try to be objective.
That being said, it was already covered in a few topics the reason why people moved from LE. We are happy to have the emigrants, but please, let's not turn into a competitor-bashing community.
Mike, welcome to the Esenthel community.

Totally agree with rubeus