Torque 3D Sidebar - Pricing and Licensing
by Brett Seyler · 01/09/2009 (2:57 pm) · 370 comments
This is probably the most candid blog post I'll write all year. It's also likely to be quite long. I'm aiming here to communicate a lot of things and I'm hoping they come out in nice fluid arc, but we'll see. It's supposed to be about GG and you, but we might take some twists and turns getting there. I should also warn anyone who's willing to read through this that there are no clear answers in this blog, just thoughts and questions. While I'm sitting here starting to write this, I'm thinking about how much I like reading Warren Buffett's shareholder letters. I'm certainly not alone in admiring his frank, honest, pull-no-punches style. Buffett's customers are his shareholders, but I notice that very few companies write to their customers this way. What would it be like if they did?
I'm certainly not arrogant enough to draw any kind of comparison between me and the Sage of Omaha, but I really going to try to follow his example in candor and clear communication about business goals.
Most of you probably don't know that I did finance and investment work before joining GG. Though I've always been into games and technology my whole life, it's still a a very weird kind of transition to make from that button up world to the laid back, but hyper-competitve world of a startup software company. Obviously, GG is much more fun, but it's almost demanding in a lot of the same ways finance was for me. You might be surprised how much business is just business, and finding ways to succeed and get more done is universal across those kind of boundaries.
There are a bunch of subjects I'll likely wander around in this post, but the one that bears this post's title is the focus...
RUH-ROH! I can hear the alarm bells going off..."GG is raising prices! I knew it!!!!!!!!!!"
I'll just tear the Band-aid away quickly then. Torque 3D will have a higher price tag than GG'ers are used to from Torque. How much higher? I'm not sure yet to be honest...I've given it a lot of thought, but in the past few months, when I've looked to you guys for feedback, it's always been helpful and understanding, so I figured I'd push my luck and do it again =)
Here are the core principles for GG and Torque that I'm trying to stay true to in working this out:
(1) Make sure that Torque licensing is a sustainable business that allows for signicant reinvestment in the technology--enough to keep Torque at the forefront of modern game engines.
(2) Eat our own dog food. This means we use what we sell, reinforcing the need to reinvest in the technology.
(3) Leverage modern distribution options. This means web publishing, downloadable channels, and any other efforts that upset that status quo in publishing and put more money and control in the developer's hands.
(4) Remain an affordable option for the little guy.
Obviously there's a balance to be struck attempting to serve both (1) and (4). However, there may be less conflict than you'd think. For example, let me talk about (1) a little bit.
Why I'm not worried about Epic or AAA
We made a decision with Torque a long time ago not to compete head to head the top competition in the AAA space. That competitions has emerged in the past decade to be Epic's Unreal engine, first and foremost. While Torque can do a LOT of what Unreal can do, we're executing on a much different business model and strategy...part of it is idealistic, part's pragmatic.
The Unreal engine is driven by the needs of Epic's studio to deliver every year, without fail, on a game with the highest visual impact possible. They succeed, more or less, in doing this with Unreal Tournament and Gears of War. These huge budget AAA games subsidize the enormous cost of developing technology that keeps the games looking better than anything else. By extension, the Unreal engine is percieved as being the best technology at any given time. (Seem like circular logic? Keep reading.)Sure...there are disturbances in the force. Upstarts like Crytek or Gamebryo steal the limelight now and then, but let's be realistic, Unreal dominates AAA engine licensing. When I say AAA, I mean licensing for use in big budget AAA titles. If you're building a $10-$30M game, you're looking at Unreal first. It inspires confidence in your publisher (guaranteeing more money) and it says to the media and press that "this game is going to achieve a certain visual quality bar that you expect from games made with Unreal." This last part in particular is crucial to the hype-train that gets gamers to pay $60 for a game on release day.
Sound like any other industry you can think of? Come...let's all share in the let down and pretend we didn't just get screwed.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't admire Epic's success in both engine licensing and game development. They've figured out how the game is played and beat everyone under the current ruleset. My hat's off to them. But a lot of this blockbuster-game-driven perception about engines is crap IMO. The dirty little secret in AAA games is that great art, far more than tech, creates visual quality. Even so, "UE = visual superiority => best engine" is the common thinking in the games industry and no one--NO ONE--has been able to break Epic's stranglehold on this section of the middleware market for the better part of decade.
How would you change things if it were your desire to do so?
There are two paths that I see...
You can try to beat Epic at their own game. To do this you'd need a premiere game studio with huge budgets to consistently impress on developers and the press that Unreal is no longer the best performing engine tech around. This means truly high end tech and *really* high end artists that can push the technology's boundaries.
Crytek appears to be trying to execute on this strategy, and they've had some success. id, while a major innovator in game dev technology, appears only casually interested in upsetting the state of Epic's AAA middleware domination. Gamebryo has some good tech and a good marketing / sales team, but no dedicated studio to consistently test the tech and then demonstrate where they stack up next to Unreal or other AAA competitors, so I think they're doomed to fail in AAA. Valve plays a role similar to id. They appear to only casually pursuing licensing of their Source engine.
So that's it... Crytek is the only reasonable candidate to unseat Epic as the AAA engine licensing champion. Why don't I think that will happen? In order to do it, Crytek needs to do it year after year for a sustained period of time, and that demands a lot of money. Epic's makes financially successful games that subsidize the costs of developing their tech. Crytek, to date, has not.
Even for hardcore gamers and the press, it's not just about the good looks, it's also about being on the right platforms, being able to tell a good story in-game. Developers have to find the right gameplay hooks to make a game rewarding. As visually impressive as Crysis is (far more than any UE3 game IMO), the game lacked what was needed to achieve maintream (and financial) success. Minimum hardware requirements that were totally off the charts on the game's release didn't help much either.
Does it make sense for GarageGames to try to go to head-to-head with Epic in the same fashion? Well, maybe we'd consider it if the AAA engine licensing space were a growth market or currently underserved, but it's neither. AAA engine licensing has been a fairly stagnant market for years now and Epic'c never conceded more than about 50% of the available revenue, so I don't know about you, but doing bloody battle for a slice of a pie that isn't growing seems kind silly to me.
So, if not head-to-head with Epic, where does Torque fit? What's the angle? Well, our goal is not really to "beat" Epic, it's to change the game (in the "meta" sense of the word). We think it's dumb that games cost $60 and that the best selling games published by the biggest publishers all essentially answer to Walmart.
Games should be cheaper.
Gamers should have more variety.
Developers should feel comfortable taking more risks.
None of these are possible without upsetting the status quo. This is why we created Torque and put a $100 no royalties price tag on it in 2001. This is why we created InstantAction.com so that we could build our own audience and connect gamers to developers with no interference from publishers or retailers. Both efforts serve the same goal of making it easier (and more affordable) for developers to take risks.
Torque exists to provide developers (starting with our own game studio) with the means to take these kinds of risks, to create games that can achieve AAA-level visual quality, but with a focus on what makes games fun. We want our studio and you to innovate in ways that matter most to gamers. Portal didn't need next-gen visuals or a multi-million dollare engine to win over gamers. It could have easily been built with Torque. Just the same, Marble Blast Ultra didn't need super-high end rendering. To make the point even clearer, look at Phil Hassey's Galcon. Phil built this game in Python all by himself and it's currently one of the most played games on InstantAction.
We think this evolution, bridging the divide between developers and gamers, enabling greater risk taking at lower cost, is where the industry must go. The faster it gets there, the more Torque makes sense to a wider audience of game developers. As a company, we've always aimed to support platforms and technologies that make this happen faster. I put Steam, WiiWare, XBLA, PSN, id's Quakelive and InstantAction.com all on that list. In fact, without Steam, I doubt Valve could comfortably afford to take the kind or risks they do. We'd all, as gamers and game developers, be much worse off without if they hadn't bucked the system and created the most effective digital distribution platform on the planet. (Go Valve!)
Let's think again about the balance between enabling the little guy, and being in a position to reinvest in Torque and sustain this effort to encourage risk taking in games. Who do we mean by the little guy? Does a hobbyist who never publishes anything serve these goals? Probably not...let's talk about that...
We're building Torque to enable a particular set of developers: those who can persevere though the challenge of game development. This means outfits like Fro Games, Stickman Studios, Sickhead Games, and Tilted Mill to cite some recent examples. In the recent Game Developer profile on TGEA for the Front Line awards, I think they hit the nail on the head.
Are you one of these developers? A lot of you might not know yet. Some of you may not know whether you even want to push that hard or take that much time. You might be happy with game development as a curiousity and have no interest in ever publishing your work. This does not mean Torque is not for you.
Just as Photoshop, Flash, Max and Maya are built for professional use with professional licensees in mind, so is Torque. And just as plenty of amateurs and hobbyists use Adobe and Autodesk tools with no intention of making their work public, so will amateur and hobbyist Torque users. Still, often times, these tools make professionals of people who didn't know if they had what it in them, and we hope Torque does the same.
If we want Torque to effectively serve professionals and that set of developers who have the fortitude and talent to give it a real shot, we need to re-evaluate Torque's license fee. We can't do this effectively for $150 / seat, at least not with Torque 3D. Torque has thousands and thousands of licensees, but developing engine technology is very complicated and very expensive--certainly more complicated and expensive than developing games.
Attaching a $150 / seat price Torque has created a quality perception that does not do justice to Torque's capabilities. GarageGames could *easily* spin out a new business under a different banner and sell TGEA / Torque 3D right next to all the other major AAA engines for hundreds of thousands of dollars per title. Why don't we? Because it doesn't help us with (3) or (4). We'd be quickly assimilated into the tiny space left over by Epic and fighting tooth and nail with everyone else for 3-4 licensing tile deals per year. It wouldn't help us with games. It would disrupt the broken industry model. It wouldn't do much of anything good for games or gamers.
So what price makes sense? What's commensurate with the value Torque provides? Again, I don't know the answer to this yet. It's not $150 / seat and it's not $295 / seat. Perhaps it's $1000. Perhaps it's more. I look at products like Flash ($699) or 3ds Max ($3495) / Maya ($4995) and compare them with Torque. Torque is more complex from an engineering perspective and Torque is in a smaller, more niche market. Both of these factors would argue for a higher price. What about (4)? What's affordable for the little guy? What's going to be the right price that makes it acceptable for developers who ship product to feel comfortable taking risks with a good chance of success? Hard questions to answer.
I've also noticed that Unity, which appears to be competing more with Flash than game engines, is priced many multiples higher than Torque and yet, it's attracted a license base of primarily hobbyists and amateur developers. Even though Unity now offers a lower priced "Indie" version of its tool that deprecates major features and significant license freedom, for a long time you couldn't buy Unity for less than $1000 / seat. How does that compare with Torque (a much more capable and mature engine technology that actually provides source code)?
There's another consideration that's really important to me, and that's all you reading this. Many of you have been loyal GG customers and Torque users for a long time...in some cases much longer than I've been here myself. You've become accustomed to Torque's low price. Even if it costs GG money in the short term, I don't want to see this community lose is vibrance or engagement because Torque's no longer an affordable technology to stay current with.
While I haven't figured out how it will work yet, I have decided that when Torque 3D is ready for relase, we'll offer it with an option that makes it much more affordable for TGEA owners to make the move. New licensees who don't already own TGEA at that point will pay full price, whatever that ends up being. I should also note that TGEA 1.8 will probably remain an affordable option at the low end throughout 2009, but if we can, we'll provide a better, affordable substitute with Torque 3D...perhaps with some sort of meaningful feature or license delta. This might mean that Indie vs. Commercial changes, or goes away as well.
My ideal outcome is that in mid-2009, everyone who wants to continue working with Torque in the future will be using Torque 3D and sharing resources and knowledge with the rest of the community. This product is the largest investment we've ever made in engine tech and our expectations are high, but better I think to disclose our thoughts and intentions on things like this sooner rather than later. I'm very confident that for those of you who are really engaged in making games, upgrading to Torque 3D will be an easy choice well justified by the value it adds to your talent and dedication.
More sidebars and development blogs to come. This is post #5.
Torque 3D development blogs:
- Post #1 - Kickoff
- Post #2 - Apparatus and Warrior Camp
- Post #3 - Luma's racing kit
- Post #4 - Josh Engebretson and Web Publishing
- Post #5 - Pricing and Licensing
- Post #6 - Pricing and Licensing CONTINUED
- Post #7 - Wetness & Precipitation
- Post #8 - Screeen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO)
- Post #9 - Matt Langley and the Torque Launcher
- Post #10 - Chris Robertson and Collada
- Post #11 - Depth of Field
- Post #12 - Advanced Lighting
- Post #13 - Soft Particles
- Post #14 - World Editor
- Post #15 - Pricing and Licensing ANNOUNCED!
- Post #16 - GDC Live Edition
- Post #17 - River & Road Editors
- Post #18 - Beta is UP!
- Post #19 - Light Rays, Undercity, Material Editor
- Post #20 - Mass Market Hardware
- Post #21 - Beta: Part Deux
- Post #22 - Marching Towards Beta 3
- Post #23 - pureLIGHT
- Post #24 - Lighting, Terrain, and Cloth
- Post #25 - Beta 3!
- Post #26 - Coming Soon!
About the author
Since 2007, I've done my best to steer Torque's development and brand toward the best opportunities in games middleware.
#183
To be fair, I'd give the nod to Unity in editor UI polish and usability for now, and support for multiple script languages is also cool. The physics thing is really a red herring though. Unity uses PhysX which is powerful so long as you're using primitives and not sending a lot of data over the network. There are PhysX, ODE, and Bullet implementations for TGEA that do just as much if not more, but we're not all the way to an abstracted physics API at this stage. That's a near term goal though.
01/11/2009 (1:10 am)
@Ugur: That's a pretty quick and easy answer, so I'll just jump in with some high points...rendering, networking, terrain tools, shader tech, lighting / shadows...To be fair, I'd give the nod to Unity in editor UI polish and usability for now, and support for multiple script languages is also cool. The physics thing is really a red herring though. Unity uses PhysX which is powerful so long as you're using primitives and not sending a lot of data over the network. There are PhysX, ODE, and Bullet implementations for TGEA that do just as much if not more, but we're not all the way to an abstracted physics API at this stage. That's a near term goal though.
#184
Torque lacks features, everybody says that; but nobody is specific about it; Unity lacks features just as fine but they have a different way of presenting the engine on their website and all those bugs and fixes and old systems (videocards) support is just that, fixes and support, however impressive that long list looks. I worked with unity and features missing from torque could just as well miss from unity for how crappy they were implemented.
I have a theory of my own about game engines and I noticed that good engines are those who 'look' good, period; if the demo art/levels look crappy, the engine is crappy; I think I made my point last summer about good old tge being capable of more than the average new guy suspected; no bragging here, just trying to say this: torque is not a mature engine if the developer is not mature enough to learn the tool before using it;
Torque will never be the perfect engine, no engine can ever be; trying this is insane, it's like making a game engine for all game ideas out there;
01/11/2009 (1:14 am)
Ugur@ I think it is fair to assume here that Unity and Torque are quite mature engines for their price; you just can't rule that out; If you think Source or Unreal is easier to develop games with, think again; Any game project has unique features and unique developers. The 'make game' button is yet to be invented;Torque lacks features, everybody says that; but nobody is specific about it; Unity lacks features just as fine but they have a different way of presenting the engine on their website and all those bugs and fixes and old systems (videocards) support is just that, fixes and support, however impressive that long list looks. I worked with unity and features missing from torque could just as well miss from unity for how crappy they were implemented.
I have a theory of my own about game engines and I noticed that good engines are those who 'look' good, period; if the demo art/levels look crappy, the engine is crappy; I think I made my point last summer about good old tge being capable of more than the average new guy suspected; no bragging here, just trying to say this: torque is not a mature engine if the developer is not mature enough to learn the tool before using it;
Torque will never be the perfect engine, no engine can ever be; trying this is insane, it's like making a game engine for all game ideas out there;
#185
01/11/2009 (1:16 am)
can
#186
It's my impression that they are less concerned with advancing the power of their engine tech, or reaching platforms like the xbox and ps3 than they are concerned with making a case for adoption in web dev over flash as a provider of richer content. In this respect, you bet...this is good for games and good for indies. Flash has been stagnant for years and needs a good kick in the pants to really move richer content on the web.
I would rather see GG and Unity work together to undermine and disrupt the status quo than end up slugging it out and harming each other to the detriment of both our overall efforts. Again, this is why I don't want Torque to be focused on AAA...it's not a growing space...casual is growing, web gaming is growing, and the sort of mid-core / mid-budget games appear to be growing as well. The latter isn't yet a well defined space, but it appears to be huge, and that's where I think Torque fits the best.
01/11/2009 (1:17 am)
I've said before btw, that I think Unity is really doing good stuff for games, and they should be commended for their efforts. They deserve the success they've had to this point and I think there's plenty of room for both Torque and Unity to thrive. It's my impression that they are less concerned with advancing the power of their engine tech, or reaching platforms like the xbox and ps3 than they are concerned with making a case for adoption in web dev over flash as a provider of richer content. In this respect, you bet...this is good for games and good for indies. Flash has been stagnant for years and needs a good kick in the pants to really move richer content on the web.
I would rather see GG and Unity work together to undermine and disrupt the status quo than end up slugging it out and harming each other to the detriment of both our overall efforts. Again, this is why I don't want Torque to be focused on AAA...it's not a growing space...casual is growing, web gaming is growing, and the sort of mid-core / mid-budget games appear to be growing as well. The latter isn't yet a well defined space, but it appears to be huge, and that's where I think Torque fits the best.
#187
I think Derek is absolutely right here, and notice that this was the initial impression that you saw from commentors like Dave Young up at the top. A higher price on the engine really opens up room for 3rd party products to price themselves more in accordance with the effort they take to develop, and the time they save developers who use them. I'd look at AFX as a perfect example of this. In any fair world, Jeff would have been rewarded 2-3X what he has been for AFX. With TGE at $150 and TGEA at $295, it's pretty hard for him to charge more than $100. I know this isn't all that profitable for him, but given what AFX does, and how popular it is, Jeff should be seeing a lot more reward.
01/11/2009 (1:21 am)
Re: 3rd party products...I think Derek is absolutely right here, and notice that this was the initial impression that you saw from commentors like Dave Young up at the top. A higher price on the engine really opens up room for 3rd party products to price themselves more in accordance with the effort they take to develop, and the time they save developers who use them. I'd look at AFX as a perfect example of this. In any fair world, Jeff would have been rewarded 2-3X what he has been for AFX. With TGE at $150 and TGEA at $295, it's pretty hard for him to charge more than $100. I know this isn't all that profitable for him, but given what AFX does, and how popular it is, Jeff should be seeing a lot more reward.
#188
01/11/2009 (1:33 am)
...making a content pack of 20+ models with textures, scripts and all that and charging for that at the average price of a low poly chair on turbosquid isn't really paying your bills, ain't it? the low price forces a content developer to produce more, always something new and fast; you end up with either crappy content or you just don't meet the deadlines. To make a living off that you need a release a week; And to be a successful release you need to work on it 1.5/2 months; now that's an equation I want to see einstein solve...
#189
I think that having a per title fee is kind of lame too. We tried it on the iPhone stuff and it's been okay, but really, it just seems to add complexity and overhead that are unneeded. We'll probably formally announce this and fix it in the near future (killing off the per title iTorque stuff), but that's not something I want to do with Torque 3D.
The way I see this working out most effectively would be if GG updated Torque 3D in a big enough way ever year that upgrading to a new version would be an easy choice. Per title fees make sense when the tech is a lot more expensive (like for consoles), but on PC...well it's sort of like a test ground for whether or not any particular concept, prototype, or even small game will pick up traction and take off. I don't want to stifle that.
So, I'm leaning toward a license structure that looks pretty similar to what we have now + a less expensive way for people to tinker and experiment. This could look like binary only (which is like modding, but allows for you to participate in a team project that could have commercial publishing ambitions) at the low end, and an unlimited title publishing license at the high end. Or, we could do the "use-only" license at the low end (no publishing), and the unlimited title publishing at the high end. I'm pretty open to either of those options, or a combination thereof.
What I really don't want to end up doing is having to splinter the code base for a feature delta. That's how we ended up with TGE / TGEA, and it sucks. So...feature delta as long is it's modular and doesn't create maintenance issues or code base splintering...license delta maybe...if it were something pretty meaningful (like publishing vs. no publishing).
Really good ideas coming out though. I'm going to keep reading and commenting on stuff as I can.
01/11/2009 (1:34 am)
Re license structure:I think that having a per title fee is kind of lame too. We tried it on the iPhone stuff and it's been okay, but really, it just seems to add complexity and overhead that are unneeded. We'll probably formally announce this and fix it in the near future (killing off the per title iTorque stuff), but that's not something I want to do with Torque 3D.
The way I see this working out most effectively would be if GG updated Torque 3D in a big enough way ever year that upgrading to a new version would be an easy choice. Per title fees make sense when the tech is a lot more expensive (like for consoles), but on PC...well it's sort of like a test ground for whether or not any particular concept, prototype, or even small game will pick up traction and take off. I don't want to stifle that.
So, I'm leaning toward a license structure that looks pretty similar to what we have now + a less expensive way for people to tinker and experiment. This could look like binary only (which is like modding, but allows for you to participate in a team project that could have commercial publishing ambitions) at the low end, and an unlimited title publishing license at the high end. Or, we could do the "use-only" license at the low end (no publishing), and the unlimited title publishing at the high end. I'm pretty open to either of those options, or a combination thereof.
What I really don't want to end up doing is having to splinter the code base for a feature delta. That's how we ended up with TGE / TGEA, and it sucks. So...feature delta as long is it's modular and doesn't create maintenance issues or code base splintering...license delta maybe...if it were something pretty meaningful (like publishing vs. no publishing).
Really good ideas coming out though. I'm going to keep reading and commenting on stuff as I can.
#190
All that aside, it's a pretty even revenue split for GG between the licenses sold online (mostly hobbyist stuff), those sold offline (non-game stuff, console), and educational licensing. The online business so far is the most difficult to address because you're all such a diverse group...providing options to please everyone just confuses new visitors...trying to apply a simple set of options to everyone leaves some people feeling like they've been overlooked or considered unimportant. The way I see it though, for the past 3-4 years, GG has erred way too far on the "host of options" side of the equation, and it's gotten to the point that, for new users hitting the homepage for the first time, it's very difficult to tell what exactly is the right option for them. Look at this:
TGEA
TGB
TGE
TX 3D
TX 2D
Torque for Wii
Torque 360
iTGB
iTGE
It's gotten pretty damn silly, but there are two parts of the problem that I see. One is poor presentation. 90% of new visitors to the website are looking for a PC product, so it makes sense to group all non-PC stuff under one category IMO. Anyway, new website coming soon will help with some of this stuff, but we've also make efforts with the current site to help with better navigation.
The other part of this confusion has an obvious source: too many products. If I want to make a 3D game for PC, I should be looking at one SDK. Same for 2D. That's a big part of what we're aiming for.
01/11/2009 (1:45 am)
@Pathros: Just wanted to say that I like this break down and the options you're presenting here. It's really hard to put a revenue tag on the categories here because there's some "soft" revenue that comes from the "pro" and "indie" categories because they provide great success stories to point to. Without those and just hobbyists, well it's kind of hard to believe the dream without some examples right? I think they're necessary to the hobbyist effort. All that aside, it's a pretty even revenue split for GG between the licenses sold online (mostly hobbyist stuff), those sold offline (non-game stuff, console), and educational licensing. The online business so far is the most difficult to address because you're all such a diverse group...providing options to please everyone just confuses new visitors...trying to apply a simple set of options to everyone leaves some people feeling like they've been overlooked or considered unimportant. The way I see it though, for the past 3-4 years, GG has erred way too far on the "host of options" side of the equation, and it's gotten to the point that, for new users hitting the homepage for the first time, it's very difficult to tell what exactly is the right option for them. Look at this:
TGEA
TGB
TGE
TX 3D
TX 2D
Torque for Wii
Torque 360
iTGB
iTGE
It's gotten pretty damn silly, but there are two parts of the problem that I see. One is poor presentation. 90% of new visitors to the website are looking for a PC product, so it makes sense to group all non-PC stuff under one category IMO. Anyway, new website coming soon will help with some of this stuff, but we've also make efforts with the current site to help with better navigation.
The other part of this confusion has an obvious source: too many products. If I want to make a 3D game for PC, I should be looking at one SDK. Same for 2D. That's a big part of what we're aiming for.
#191
I get where you're coming from with this. Like I said though, if need be, just pretend Torque 3D is another bugfix / usability pass on TGEA 1.8. It's not, but that's the best I can provide with risking "breaking promises" and such down the road because I said we were going to "try" to do X, Y, and Z.
If you're calling my words worthless...that's okay I suppose, you don't have to read them. A lot of the feedback I've seen in the last year from this community has been "show us more" pre-launch and give us "more transparency." That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to balance what I can show (i.e. what I'm confident that we'll finish and include in the next release) with what we have planned to do, but might risk getting cut.
We get tired of getting called "liars," so we're pretty careful about mentioning features that could later be thrown back at us as "promises." I'm doing the best I can...I don't think that showing the kind of progress on a new FPS genre kit that I showed here is worthless marketing hype. Same goes for the Luma racing kit, and Josh's progress on web publishing. Those are all essentially feature announcements. If you want the full list, contact me privately and I'll let you know what we're aiming for, but I won't post something like that publicly when, at this point, it's just a target spec, not a promised spec.
I do think this blog is appropriately timed though. The later I had made this announcement, the more deflated a number of community members would have been. We know that some people are not going to be able to afford to upgrade right away, and I've got a lot more cool stuff to show in the next couple months. Actually much cooler stuff than we've seen or mentioned thus far. Talking about what this new product should cost, or at least getting it out there that it won't be $295, is the right thing to do early IMO. That's why I did it.
Don't sell yourself short Mike =) I think you're certainly capable of more than just idle tinkering with Torque. You may not consider yourself "elite", but you're certainly capable of creating a successful product.
On TGEA 1.8 hanging around...well yes...maybe it will maybe it won't. If it doesn't, it will be because some version of Torque 3D offers a better option for a similar price. No one wants to maintain old code =) And speaking of that, not maintianing or updating TGE from here doesn't mean it wouldn't be avaialable for use. Maybe we could just set it up with Github and those that wanted to keep using it or improving it could. If that's a desirable option for enough people, we'll definitely do it.
BTW...appreciate you taking me at my word and not assuming the worst. Nothing's more frustrating than trying to do the right thing by people just to get slapped or slandered for it. Thanks for participating in a helpful way.
01/11/2009 (2:08 am)
@Mike Rowly:Quote:Without a feature list, how are we supposed to answer your question? You are asking us to give you a price to charge without knowing what the engine is going to look like. To make a long post short...We cannot, Cannot answer your question with the information you have given us. Marketing hype is just that. Worthless words. This blog post should have waited for a while until you could tell us what features t3d would have. This blog is not appropriate at this time.
I get where you're coming from with this. Like I said though, if need be, just pretend Torque 3D is another bugfix / usability pass on TGEA 1.8. It's not, but that's the best I can provide with risking "breaking promises" and such down the road because I said we were going to "try" to do X, Y, and Z.
If you're calling my words worthless...that's okay I suppose, you don't have to read them. A lot of the feedback I've seen in the last year from this community has been "show us more" pre-launch and give us "more transparency." That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to balance what I can show (i.e. what I'm confident that we'll finish and include in the next release) with what we have planned to do, but might risk getting cut.
We get tired of getting called "liars," so we're pretty careful about mentioning features that could later be thrown back at us as "promises." I'm doing the best I can...I don't think that showing the kind of progress on a new FPS genre kit that I showed here is worthless marketing hype. Same goes for the Luma racing kit, and Josh's progress on web publishing. Those are all essentially feature announcements. If you want the full list, contact me privately and I'll let you know what we're aiming for, but I won't post something like that publicly when, at this point, it's just a target spec, not a promised spec.
I do think this blog is appropriately timed though. The later I had made this announcement, the more deflated a number of community members would have been. We know that some people are not going to be able to afford to upgrade right away, and I've got a lot more cool stuff to show in the next couple months. Actually much cooler stuff than we've seen or mentioned thus far. Talking about what this new product should cost, or at least getting it out there that it won't be $295, is the right thing to do early IMO. That's why I did it.
Quote:We are the ones actually supporting GG with all the little purchases we make thru GG. If you price us out, all you will have left are the elite, and they may as well go to one of the major engines. The bottom line is, we all love torque. That's why we are here. In a year or two, tgea 1.8 will be gone as it's code will be outdated. Then what's left? Don't tell me tgea 1.8 will be kept alive. Everyone here knows that is not true. Just like tge, it will be gone. Remember us little guys. We are your bread and butter.
Don't sell yourself short Mike =) I think you're certainly capable of more than just idle tinkering with Torque. You may not consider yourself "elite", but you're certainly capable of creating a successful product.
On TGEA 1.8 hanging around...well yes...maybe it will maybe it won't. If it doesn't, it will be because some version of Torque 3D offers a better option for a similar price. No one wants to maintain old code =) And speaking of that, not maintianing or updating TGE from here doesn't mean it wouldn't be avaialable for use. Maybe we could just set it up with Github and those that wanted to keep using it or improving it could. If that's a desirable option for enough people, we'll definitely do it.
BTW...appreciate you taking me at my word and not assuming the worst. Nothing's more frustrating than trying to do the right thing by people just to get slapped or slandered for it. Thanks for participating in a helpful way.
#192
Dude...do you know it costs to license Unreal 2 without royalties? TGEA is *well* beyond that and Epic still gets $300k + for tech that's now many generations old and never was exactly "clean." There's also no easy path to the Wii with it. Ask people who've used it, TGEA is easily in that league or better.
Appreciate your input / comments on docs and support though...of course, if we entered the AAA space with TGEA, the support would need a dramatic improvement...that's something Epic provides that we don't at Indie prices.
As for the Frontline Award going to my head...well...I'm still kind of shocked we won actually given that we were up against AAA engines with much higher profiles in the games press, but I would have made this same argument to you last year and the year before. If there were 100,000 people working with Unreal engine as there are with Torque, you'd see some *serious* complaints about documentation, support, code cleanliness, etc. Same applies to any other AAA engine out there btw. Even Crytek (which is pretty newly architected) is renowned for ridculously complex code systems with documention only available in German =)
01/11/2009 (2:18 am)
@Gerald:Quote:Brett's claim that you could easily charge hundreds of thousands of dollars per title for TGEA had me a little concerned that you guys let the Front Line Award go to your heads a bit ;)
Dude...do you know it costs to license Unreal 2 without royalties? TGEA is *well* beyond that and Epic still gets $300k + for tech that's now many generations old and never was exactly "clean." There's also no easy path to the Wii with it. Ask people who've used it, TGEA is easily in that league or better.
Appreciate your input / comments on docs and support though...of course, if we entered the AAA space with TGEA, the support would need a dramatic improvement...that's something Epic provides that we don't at Indie prices.
As for the Frontline Award going to my head...well...I'm still kind of shocked we won actually given that we were up against AAA engines with much higher profiles in the games press, but I would have made this same argument to you last year and the year before. If there were 100,000 people working with Unreal engine as there are with Torque, you'd see some *serious* complaints about documentation, support, code cleanliness, etc. Same applies to any other AAA engine out there btw. Even Crytek (which is pretty newly architected) is renowned for ridculously complex code systems with documention only available in German =)
#193
No. This is crazy talk. See my comment on his blog if you must, but yikes. How we did we get on this track?
01/11/2009 (2:22 am)
Re: Britton's comments about this being some kind of IAC corporate trojan horse (or whatever was meant)...No. This is crazy talk. See my comment on his blog if you must, but yikes. How we did we get on this track?
#194
Don't keep TGE(A) around. Even at a low price it won't be any good for GG's reputation. Show the best and greatest to anyone interested. Selling outdated code will make people believe that is the current state of your technology.
01/11/2009 (2:23 am)
A less expensive entry point binary only version would be great (given that the engine is akin to TGB on this matter, if else forget it).Quote:$0-$50 A "tools only" version. No source, non commercial use only.Sounds good, people would need to upgrade to commercial indie if they want to ship, and that would be a good incentive for GG to help us really succeed. Maybe with higher prices than that, but not too much or I (hobbyist trying to break through with reasonable game projects) wouldn't be able to afford it ^^'
$150-250 A "non commercial indie" license. Includes source, but doesn't allow for commercial distribution of products.
$250-$500 A "commercial indie" licence. Includes source, allows distribution of commercial products.
$1000-$1500 A "commercial" license. Source included, support included, unlimited product releases/skus.
Don't keep TGE(A) around. Even at a low price it won't be any good for GG's reputation. Show the best and greatest to anyone interested. Selling outdated code will make people believe that is the current state of your technology.
Quote:If I want to make a 3D game for PC, I should be looking at one SDK.By that... would you mean... Torque 3D being also capable of building XNA projects and therefore replacing Torque X?!
#195
01/11/2009 (2:24 am)
lol @ what a gigantic monster this post has become...can't help it...cracking myself up in a SF hotel room all by myself. Okay...onto the next commentors. 
#196
Not at all. I was talking in general. Thats why I stated that I actually do believe you.
Btw, by elite, I'm talking about those precious few who have had the great fortune of making a successful game with torque. It's not meant as a slight in any way.
Edit: hehe, you are only 90 miles from me.
01/11/2009 (2:30 am)
Quote:If you're calling my words worthless...that's okay I suppose
Not at all. I was talking in general. Thats why I stated that I actually do believe you.
Quote:We get tired of getting called "liars," so we're pretty careful about mentioning features that could later be thrown back at us as "promises."I don't blame you there at all. It would get on my nerves too. Well, actually, it does when people take a... "we may add this or this, but we just don't know yet" as a "we promise this and this". Makes no since to me. It's a stretch at best, so I fully understand why you don't announce things until they are actualy IN the engine.
Quote: do think this blog is appropriately timed though. The later I had made this announcement, the more deflated a number of community members would have been.I fully understand, but if we assume the engine is going to be nothing more than a bug fixed 1.8 with some cool new starter packs, it's not worth as much as say, just for argument.... fully seperated physics implementation that makes it as simple as writing a wrapper to get your fav. physics engine to play nice with torque. This is where my statements are comming from.
Quote:Don't sell yourself short Mike =) I think you're certainly capable of more than just idle tinkering with Torque. You may not consider yourself "elite", but you're certainly capable of creating a successful product.snicker...hehe I've got you fooled. :-D just kidding here btw.
Quote:On TGEA 1.8 hanging around...well yes...maybe it will maybe it won't. If it doesn't, it will be because some version of Torque 3D offers a better option for a similar price. No one wants to maintain old code =) And speaking of that, not maintianing or updating TGE from here doesn't mean it wouldn't be avaialable for use.exactly what I was talking about. :-)
Quote:BTW...appreciate you taking me at my word and not assuming the worst.You are welcome. I know you all are doing your best to make torque as great as it can be, and still thinking of us "little guys" as well.
Btw, by elite, I'm talking about those precious few who have had the great fortune of making a successful game with torque. It's not meant as a slight in any way.
Edit: hehe, you are only 90 miles from me.
#197
Britton, I like you man, but that's not nice =) There's more talent in this community than any other I've seen. And while Torque might be changing it's place in the market somewhat, GG is not. I will abide by (4). $3500 is off the mark for new pricing. Way too high. Torque 3D's full feature set will be available for far less than this. I would say that we're not really considering anything above $2k.
01/11/2009 (2:31 am)
From Britton..Quote:Guys, you are just a bunch of indie dreamers. GG is not a game indie engine company anymore. GG is something bigger. You will gladly pay $3,500 (if you can) when you see what happens next.
Britton, I like you man, but that's not nice =) There's more talent in this community than any other I've seen. And while Torque might be changing it's place in the market somewhat, GG is not. I will abide by (4). $3500 is off the mark for new pricing. Way too high. Torque 3D's full feature set will be available for far less than this. I would say that we're not really considering anything above $2k.
#198
I'd rather mix it up and make the case that Torque is worth much more than feel like we have to apologize for Torque's quality and sheepishly say "but it's just $150..." That's not doing us, the product, or the community any favors.
In any case, I don't accept that Torque is not just as amazing of a product at a higher price as it is at $150 or $295.
01/11/2009 (2:38 am)
From Ian...Quote:At $100-$200 you have an amazing product. At $1000 you have something eminently attackable by users and competitors.
I'd rather mix it up and make the case that Torque is worth much more than feel like we have to apologize for Torque's quality and sheepishly say "but it's just $150..." That's not doing us, the product, or the community any favors.
In any case, I don't accept that Torque is not just as amazing of a product at a higher price as it is at $150 or $295.
#199
Hmmm...probably not going to buy Torque 3D :)
01/11/2009 (3:09 am)
Quote:if the price morethan 600$ for indie license,i will leave torque even with extra free hooker with it...
Hmmm...probably not going to buy Torque 3D :)
#200
Well since I've worked with UE2 and UE3 myself, I don't really have to ask anybody. Sorry, but I would dispute your claim that TGEA is well beyond UE2. From a rendering technology standpoint it's a little bit past UE2 in some areas. Atlas and the limited per-pixel lighting/procedural shaders is the only major area that is better, and the latter is easily implemented in UE2 (it's implemented in 2X already).
Compare that to the infinitely superior AI features in UE2, the ragdoll physics, and the toooools. The primary reason that the higher-end engines command the price that they do is the tools, because tools = productivity. Unreal has lots of tools, TGEA has practically no tools worth anything. UE2 code isn't as clean as UE3 is, but it's still a far sight cleaner than TGEA.
And your question is fairly disingenuous anyway, because the only people that are still licensing UE2 really are the ones that already have their own house-specific codebases built on it and are willing to pay the price in order to avoid changing over to a new engine. Do you honestly think that Ubi would pay $350,000 to license TGEA with no prior investment in it?
I really don't mean to bash TGEA, I love TGEA as a game engine, and I love GarageGames, but let's not get carried away ;) The reason TGEA and Unity were able to compete with the likes of Crytek, Gamebryo and Source for the Front Line Awards is because of your price compared to your features, not because the engine really competes with them them from a technology or productivity standpoint. And they gave Unreal their own category to give somebody else a chance.
01/11/2009 (3:10 am)
Quote:Dude...do you know it costs to license Unreal 2 without royalties? TGEA is *well* beyond that and Epic still gets $300k + for tech that's now many generations old and never was exactly "clean." There's also no easy path to the Wii with it. Ask people who've used it, TGEA is easily in that league or better.
Well since I've worked with UE2 and UE3 myself, I don't really have to ask anybody. Sorry, but I would dispute your claim that TGEA is well beyond UE2. From a rendering technology standpoint it's a little bit past UE2 in some areas. Atlas and the limited per-pixel lighting/procedural shaders is the only major area that is better, and the latter is easily implemented in UE2 (it's implemented in 2X already).
Compare that to the infinitely superior AI features in UE2, the ragdoll physics, and the toooools. The primary reason that the higher-end engines command the price that they do is the tools, because tools = productivity. Unreal has lots of tools, TGEA has practically no tools worth anything. UE2 code isn't as clean as UE3 is, but it's still a far sight cleaner than TGEA.
And your question is fairly disingenuous anyway, because the only people that are still licensing UE2 really are the ones that already have their own house-specific codebases built on it and are willing to pay the price in order to avoid changing over to a new engine. Do you honestly think that Ubi would pay $350,000 to license TGEA with no prior investment in it?
I really don't mean to bash TGEA, I love TGEA as a game engine, and I love GarageGames, but let's not get carried away ;) The reason TGEA and Unity were able to compete with the likes of Crytek, Gamebryo and Source for the Front Line Awards is because of your price compared to your features, not because the engine really competes with them them from a technology or productivity standpoint. And they gave Unreal their own category to give somebody else a chance.
Torque Owner Ugur Ister
fair enough and yeah, my question wasn