Torque 3D Sidebar - Pricing and Licensing
by Brett Seyler · 01/09/2009 (6:57 am) · 369 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.
#282
However, I think you are providing a knee jerk reaction with some rash statements. We are not kicking hobbyists out. Saying TGEA 1.8 is the most buggy build yet is completely false. I want you compare TGEA 1.8 to 1.0, 1.3, and 1.4.
Your claim of changing our name and mission statement is a low blow and adds nothing to your post. Growth of GG means hiring new team members to work on improving existing products and planning for future releases. Think about all the new employees added in the past year, and what that has done for the community.
I stated earlier that you still have TGB, TGE, and TGEA 1.8 to work with. All three remain low cost options for Indies and hobbyists.
As Gerald said, innovation is demonstrated through released games. We are attempting to broaden are target developers, but have already set up plans to keep Indies and Hobbyists involved.
01/11/2009 (2:39 pm)
@Jesse - I get the feeling you did not take the time to read through all the posts and employee replies here. There's a lot of posts, so I'm not surprised. This whole discussion is full of life and passion, which I absolutely love. It's worth reading through.However, I think you are providing a knee jerk reaction with some rash statements. We are not kicking hobbyists out. Saying TGEA 1.8 is the most buggy build yet is completely false. I want you compare TGEA 1.8 to 1.0, 1.3, and 1.4.
Your claim of changing our name and mission statement is a low blow and adds nothing to your post. Growth of GG means hiring new team members to work on improving existing products and planning for future releases. Think about all the new employees added in the past year, and what that has done for the community.
I stated earlier that you still have TGB, TGE, and TGEA 1.8 to work with. All three remain low cost options for Indies and hobbyists.
As Gerald said, innovation is demonstrated through released games. We are attempting to broaden are target developers, but have already set up plans to keep Indies and Hobbyists involved.
#283
This is one of those posts that really stands to me. I've been following this blog like a hawk since Friday; and appreciate many of the comments by everybody. Personally many of the comments about people wanting more/better/cleaner/less bugs/etc or just excited in general about Torque 3D really gives fuel to my fire about the product. I want to give my all; and so do the rest of my coworkers.
But reading a post like this really pains me; almost because it seems like as if you don't understand something. We're not in any way, shape, or form pulling the rug out from under you. I'm going to reiterate the fact that TGE and TGEA are still available to you; just as they were before, and just as they are now.
I also don't agree that TGEA 1.8 is the buggiest build yet; and I highly believe that that's a very opinionated remark. The way any company's build system works is; the higher the number, the more sophisticated the product is.
In the midst of this reply; I also want to congratulate you for the countless hours of blood, sweat, and emotion (plus all of the actual money that entails) you give to release your products. That shows true dedication to what you believe in.
Nearing the end of your post is what alerted me though. We still take great pride in proving powerful and professional tools for beginners to learn with(TGB/TGE); and we still take great pride in providing tools for enthusiasts and hobbyists to realize their dream (our whole product line up). I guess I personally just don't understand what your talking about.
I truly hope this one blog, for whatever reason, doesn't turn your cheek against Torque products; the GarageGames spirit will live on, and I hope your here to continue to realize it with us.
01/11/2009 (2:57 pm)
@Jesse McKinneyThis is one of those posts that really stands to me. I've been following this blog like a hawk since Friday; and appreciate many of the comments by everybody. Personally many of the comments about people wanting more/better/cleaner/less bugs/etc or just excited in general about Torque 3D really gives fuel to my fire about the product. I want to give my all; and so do the rest of my coworkers.
But reading a post like this really pains me; almost because it seems like as if you don't understand something. We're not in any way, shape, or form pulling the rug out from under you. I'm going to reiterate the fact that TGE and TGEA are still available to you; just as they were before, and just as they are now.
I also don't agree that TGEA 1.8 is the buggiest build yet; and I highly believe that that's a very opinionated remark. The way any company's build system works is; the higher the number, the more sophisticated the product is.
In the midst of this reply; I also want to congratulate you for the countless hours of blood, sweat, and emotion (plus all of the actual money that entails) you give to release your products. That shows true dedication to what you believe in.
Nearing the end of your post is what alerted me though. We still take great pride in proving powerful and professional tools for beginners to learn with(TGB/TGE); and we still take great pride in providing tools for enthusiasts and hobbyists to realize their dream (our whole product line up). I guess I personally just don't understand what your talking about.
I truly hope this one blog, for whatever reason, doesn't turn your cheek against Torque products; the GarageGames spirit will live on, and I hope your here to continue to realize it with us.
#284
No one has said anything about charging for bug fixes (in fact I said the opposite earlier). We didn't last time we did a paid upgrade and we won't this time.
01/11/2009 (3:32 pm)
If there is truly a bug in TCPObject in TGEA, please submit a bug report over in the TGEA Bug Forum. This is honestly the first we've heard of it. We can't fix things you guys never tell us about.No one has said anything about charging for bug fixes (in fact I said the opposite earlier). We didn't last time we did a paid upgrade and we won't this time.
#285
GarageGame has to think of the future. Rising costs are part of that future. Rising costs for everything for everyone is part of the future, there is no getting around that. We've seen hints and glimmers of Torque's future, and in private it may even be possible to have some our concerns, questions, and/or expectations regarding details addressed; the future does look good. Brett and others have promised more details about T3D in the future -- when they are able to present anything definite. That's the nature of accountability and business, we have to respect that. New tools, new docs, new features, it all justifies raising the price. It's the keeping it affordable that will be tricky.
Even price comparisons between other development tools and luxury items. Some of those comparisons make no sense to me and have no bearing whatsoever. My dev tools consists of Visual Studio Express, Crimson Editor, Constructor, Blender -- all of which are free. I have made some money from Torque in the last year and even received a royalty from GarageGames for a content pack - my initial investment(s) in Torque have been repaid. Releasing a game definitely means I could justify new and better development tools. Luxury items: I don't own a TV (I gave it away), neither do I own an X-Box, Nintendo, or Playstation. I do own 4 guitars & 2 amps, a cello, a violin, three computers, and many-many books; so I do understand the concept of value and justification of costs for a hobby. I think the point that a lot of people are missing is that some people see game development as more than just a dream or a hobby and GarageGames does need to cater to that market also - not just the lowest man on the totem pole.
A lot of ideas have been thrown around: feature deltas, license deltas, support tickets, etc, etc. A lot of desire has been shown for new and improved tools. A lot of questions about bug resolutions and future support. There are merits to almost all arguments for/against anything I've seen. Feature deltas or license fee per title: I strongly oppose those ideas.
edit: post was too long - sorry ;)
01/11/2009 (3:33 pm)
This thing has grown huge and inflamed such passion and comment -- wow! Sometimes we get a little too carried away in the moment and it's good to step away and review things at a distance. Two days ago I made an overly critical comment about "unfulfilled promises"; in hindsight and in reviewing past posts/blogs/etc (somewhat due to a few emails I've recieved in the last two days) I have to say now that most of those "promises" were actually a grab bag of wished for features from the community. We can debate the merits of and lack of wanted features from the past all we want, but why do so here? GarageGames has gone far and beyond any "promises" that where made in the past. Sure some of the polish and "fixing" has been a little late but in what I've seen since I've observed this community beginning in 2003 (I never held an account or a license until 2007) the crew that's here now is probably the best there has been. Just step back and look at what we've gained in the past couple of years compared to before. GarageGame has to think of the future. Rising costs are part of that future. Rising costs for everything for everyone is part of the future, there is no getting around that. We've seen hints and glimmers of Torque's future, and in private it may even be possible to have some our concerns, questions, and/or expectations regarding details addressed; the future does look good. Brett and others have promised more details about T3D in the future -- when they are able to present anything definite. That's the nature of accountability and business, we have to respect that. New tools, new docs, new features, it all justifies raising the price. It's the keeping it affordable that will be tricky.
Even price comparisons between other development tools and luxury items. Some of those comparisons make no sense to me and have no bearing whatsoever. My dev tools consists of Visual Studio Express, Crimson Editor, Constructor, Blender -- all of which are free. I have made some money from Torque in the last year and even received a royalty from GarageGames for a content pack - my initial investment(s) in Torque have been repaid. Releasing a game definitely means I could justify new and better development tools. Luxury items: I don't own a TV (I gave it away), neither do I own an X-Box, Nintendo, or Playstation. I do own 4 guitars & 2 amps, a cello, a violin, three computers, and many-many books; so I do understand the concept of value and justification of costs for a hobby. I think the point that a lot of people are missing is that some people see game development as more than just a dream or a hobby and GarageGames does need to cater to that market also - not just the lowest man on the totem pole.
A lot of ideas have been thrown around: feature deltas, license deltas, support tickets, etc, etc. A lot of desire has been shown for new and improved tools. A lot of questions about bug resolutions and future support. There are merits to almost all arguments for/against anything I've seen. Feature deltas or license fee per title: I strongly oppose those ideas.
edit: post was too long - sorry ;)
#286
After giving it some thought I think I would prefer a breakdown like this which keeps inline with the current system, yet allows expansion and scalar growth without alienating any particular group:
Trial/Demo
no source
can't publish games
full features
free
Hobbyist/Learning
source code/non-transferrable
full features
can't publish games -- maybe a special distribution clause for schools
$200-$400
* this allows anyone to try T3D and learn, doesn't break the bank either
Indie
source code/per programmer/non-transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $75,000
GG splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
$500-$1000 (max)
* this doesn't kill the dream of many of us here, we can still make and release games
Commercial (lower)
source code/per programmer/non-transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $250,000
GG splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
can purchase support tickets
$2500-$5000
* let's face it: if you can make more than $50,000 with your "hobby" then you are more than a dabbler,
you are a commercial entity and can more than justify the cost.
Commercial (medium)
source code/per seat/transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $1,000,000
no splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
can purchase support tickets
$10,000-$20,000
Commercial (higher)
source code/per seat/transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games
no splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
guaranteed support
$25,000+
Support tickets: could be monthly/yearly subscription, or per title
Bug fixes: any unified bug fixes should be rolled into all existing engines as a free point upgrade. This let's all current users reap some of the benefits that seem to be hinted at and have been long requested - would probably appease most of the community.
01/11/2009 (3:40 pm)
Feature deltas or license fee per title: I strongly oppose those ideas. Just some thoughts / possible suggestions:After giving it some thought I think I would prefer a breakdown like this which keeps inline with the current system, yet allows expansion and scalar growth without alienating any particular group:
Trial/Demo
no source
can't publish games
full features
free
Hobbyist/Learning
source code/non-transferrable
full features
can't publish games -- maybe a special distribution clause for schools
$200-$400
* this allows anyone to try T3D and learn, doesn't break the bank either
Indie
source code/per programmer/non-transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $75,000
GG splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
$500-$1000 (max)
* this doesn't kill the dream of many of us here, we can still make and release games
Commercial (lower)
source code/per programmer/non-transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $250,000
GG splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
can purchase support tickets
$2500-$5000
* let's face it: if you can make more than $50,000 with your "hobby" then you are more than a dabbler,
you are a commercial entity and can more than justify the cost.
Commercial (medium)
source code/per seat/transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games with total earnings under $1,000,000
no splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
can purchase support tickets
$10,000-$20,000
Commercial (higher)
source code/per seat/transferrable
full features
you can publish any number of games
no splash screen, etc
possible distribution/royalties model with GarageGames/IA
guaranteed support
$25,000+
Support tickets: could be monthly/yearly subscription, or per title
Bug fixes: any unified bug fixes should be rolled into all existing engines as a free point upgrade. This let's all current users reap some of the benefits that seem to be hinted at and have been long requested - would probably appease most of the community.
#287
There is a bug in 1.7.1 and it was raised on the bugs forum here and here, Rene Damm posted a fix and it looks like it made it into TGEA 1.8 which is great.
My question is not to point out there is a bug, but that they do creep into some really crucial parts thats always the way no matter how good a coder you are, to track this down I went through all of our code, looking at issues with that and our game host and then a fair bit of debugging through the script and engine code to figure that it was connecting but dropping that connection in platformnet - couldn't find any bugs listed for that so I tried again to re-affirm before finally stumbling across the tcpobject post above that provided the answer.
Now there's got to be a better way that both GG and the community (I think it's a shared issue) can log and catalogue bugs than using a forum, I'd love to see a proper bug tracking system where you can easily query for known bugs in 1.7.1 and even if I have to implement the known fixes myself it'd be a great step forward for Torque and it's ease of use.
Also as I mentioned in an earlier post release notes would be great too so I could tell if 1.8 fixes a particular bug without having to compare engine source code :)
01/11/2009 (5:01 pm)
@Matt - With regards to:Quote:If there is truly a bug in TCPObject in TGEA, please submit a bug report over in the TGEA Bug Forum. This is honestly the first we've heard of it. We can't fix things you guys never tell us about.
There is a bug in 1.7.1 and it was raised on the bugs forum here and here, Rene Damm posted a fix and it looks like it made it into TGEA 1.8 which is great.
My question is not to point out there is a bug, but that they do creep into some really crucial parts thats always the way no matter how good a coder you are, to track this down I went through all of our code, looking at issues with that and our game host and then a fair bit of debugging through the script and engine code to figure that it was connecting but dropping that connection in platformnet - couldn't find any bugs listed for that so I tried again to re-affirm before finally stumbling across the tcpobject post above that provided the answer.
Now there's got to be a better way that both GG and the community (I think it's a shared issue) can log and catalogue bugs than using a forum, I'd love to see a proper bug tracking system where you can easily query for known bugs in 1.7.1 and even if I have to implement the known fixes myself it'd be a great step forward for Torque and it's ease of use.
Also as I mentioned in an earlier post release notes would be great too so I could tell if 1.8 fixes a particular bug without having to compare engine source code :)
#288
What I was worried about (and missed the first time through the blog) was that in order to get fixes for the bugs that do exist in 1.8 (and there are a lot of them sadly) we would have to pay the upgrade fee for something we already bought but had issues with, or as suggested move to T3D in order to get those issues resolved since for a long time they have been holding us up. Take for instance the shader lighting bug in TGEA.
With this little gem certain shader maps (like spec and normal) turn off intermittently depending on the cameras angle and the lighting angle so you get flickering materials that blink on one second and off another. We reported this bug months ago but never even got a follow-up on it from GG letting us know it has been investigated or anything of that nature. To date the bug is still there. This compounding of no real easy way to report or check on legitimate existing bugs as well as new bugs being introduced by new features which IMO should only come after the build is as stable as it can be lead to my comments in regards to 1.8 being the most buggy build yet. As of right now you just post bugs in the forum and hope someone @ GG sees them which doesn't always work. In that circumstance unfixed bugs get transferred into new builds because the GG Engine coders have better things to do than monitor forums 24/7. As Andy said there needs to be a better way maybe a bug submission and tracking tool.
Now we cant exactly release a game with the maps blinking on and off sporadically, we have traced it back to the lighting code but haven't gotten anywhere beyond that and our code staff was pulled onto other tasks more important in hopes that 1.8 would have a fix for it, sadly it does not but were still hopeful. The fear we have is that we would have to pay to get bugs like this fixed or upgrade to T3D and to be honest, most of our team, yours truely included, are hungry college students doing this for fun (this is not for a class or credit we are doing it because we want to and feel its worthwhile). We don't have a ton of cash to go out and buy 1000+ dollar upgrades or engines.
Heck the low initial investment is what got us to purchase TGE and the EA of TGEA and start tinkering. For the most part we owned most of the engine licenses before we even knew each other very well or that we would someday come together to create something really quite cool. We all purchased the engine to tinker and learn, we started out as hobbyist, and as hobbyist we dissected the engine and began to learn from it on our own on how it all came together and worked. Now granted 90% of our staff came from backgrounds modding Tribes 1, 2, and TV to some degree so we knew somewhat what to expect and look forward to, but that low cost of the engine once again saved us and allowed us to buy more copies of the engine when we did recruit new engine staff along the way to help on the code side of things. If the engine cost much more we could have never afforded to pull this off using this engine, we would have had to look for other engines to use. Or the project never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Now I know we are probably the exception to the rule here and that indeed most hobbyist tinkerers never get around to producing anything of consequence. But maybe, just maybe, you guys are going about this all wrong.
This is going to sound kind of odd but maybe instead of charging for the engine or pricing it too high for hobbyist you give it away to everyone for free. Yes Free. Now you do this under the stipulation that you cannot publish commercial games or projects for profit, but for educational use, and free projects anyone can use it with all its tools without limitations. Now if people wanted to produce commercial profit games with it (or decided to after playing with it and realizing its the best darn thing on the planet) then you would work them into a pricing bracket and additional perks that both the client and GG could benefit from (publishing deals, marketing help, whatever..).
Now I know this sounds crazy when you are trying to increase GG revenue in order to re invest in your product and make it even better but doing this has a lot of shadow reward to it. That is reward that you may not see instant monetary benefit from it but over time you do make a profit from it in terms of loyal customers that can use and spread your engine all over the place thereby growing the community and user base. As this cycle picks up and people become familiar with the engine better and better the chances become that if they do decide to try and go indie or pro they will seek you out as they already are familiar with the engine package. Heck, that's what we did!
Even if they never do anything of consequence with it then there is no harm to anyone and in fact everyone still gets a sweet deal. You (Garage Games) has a loyal fan for life due to letting people explore the engine for free. Which in turn those tinkerers will spread the word of this cool engine that doesn't cost anything unless you are publishing a game. Somewhere along the line if they do decide to try and make a game, guess who they will be checking out first due to their familiarity with the product already, Garage Games. Once again this is what happened for us. We already knew its capabilities and on the art and script side a good deal on how to use it. Which is why we turned to Garage Games first when we were planning things three years ago.
In an ideal situation you couple this with different marketing strategies such as making sure schools that teach game design know that this nice new advanced engine can be used for free for students and anyone that wants to use it, and you have yourself one hell of a marketing strategy. Chances are good those students will be tought what's modern and affordable. If nothing else its more live bodies in your engine testing it. Adding to the community and if there projects are any good they will no doubt include these in their portfolios for others to see and play. In turn when they graduate they take with them the knowledge and experience of YOUR engine which they carry into the workforce with them thereby spreading the word that the latest Garage Games engine is something to consider when making games.
Even if they decide to go indie or produce a game on their own if they already know your engine because it was readily available for anyone to tinker around with, chances are good they will use it for prototyping and if they do decide they like the direction a project it is headed and want to pursue getting it published then they go through you to get it done.
Its a win win for everyone then. At the very minimum you increase your user base, the community, and the germination of the engine into a true mover and shaker in the industry, and who knows what other projects our out there like ours is that never would happen if the engine was priced out of the range of hobbyist. So why not empower these hobbyist to become more, instead of shunning them out of existence?
01/11/2009 (6:18 pm)
Well after re-reading everything again Im going to come out and apologies for approaching my original post in such an angry tone it was unwanted, and despite our constant battle with TGEA I acknowledge and respect the time you guys put in to your products and your community. I also realize that GG needs to grow and change with the market and the $250 price tag (or whatever it changed to after EA) is not enough to float a company on and that new features should cost more. I also realize that the current amount of products GG offers is unsustainable and that there really needs to be a new flagship product that consolidates all of the various GG engines into one that can be better maintained instead of spreading resources out amongst so many projects.What I was worried about (and missed the first time through the blog) was that in order to get fixes for the bugs that do exist in 1.8 (and there are a lot of them sadly) we would have to pay the upgrade fee for something we already bought but had issues with, or as suggested move to T3D in order to get those issues resolved since for a long time they have been holding us up. Take for instance the shader lighting bug in TGEA.
With this little gem certain shader maps (like spec and normal) turn off intermittently depending on the cameras angle and the lighting angle so you get flickering materials that blink on one second and off another. We reported this bug months ago but never even got a follow-up on it from GG letting us know it has been investigated or anything of that nature. To date the bug is still there. This compounding of no real easy way to report or check on legitimate existing bugs as well as new bugs being introduced by new features which IMO should only come after the build is as stable as it can be lead to my comments in regards to 1.8 being the most buggy build yet. As of right now you just post bugs in the forum and hope someone @ GG sees them which doesn't always work. In that circumstance unfixed bugs get transferred into new builds because the GG Engine coders have better things to do than monitor forums 24/7. As Andy said there needs to be a better way maybe a bug submission and tracking tool.
Now we cant exactly release a game with the maps blinking on and off sporadically, we have traced it back to the lighting code but haven't gotten anywhere beyond that and our code staff was pulled onto other tasks more important in hopes that 1.8 would have a fix for it, sadly it does not but were still hopeful. The fear we have is that we would have to pay to get bugs like this fixed or upgrade to T3D and to be honest, most of our team, yours truely included, are hungry college students doing this for fun (this is not for a class or credit we are doing it because we want to and feel its worthwhile). We don't have a ton of cash to go out and buy 1000+ dollar upgrades or engines.
Heck the low initial investment is what got us to purchase TGE and the EA of TGEA and start tinkering. For the most part we owned most of the engine licenses before we even knew each other very well or that we would someday come together to create something really quite cool. We all purchased the engine to tinker and learn, we started out as hobbyist, and as hobbyist we dissected the engine and began to learn from it on our own on how it all came together and worked. Now granted 90% of our staff came from backgrounds modding Tribes 1, 2, and TV to some degree so we knew somewhat what to expect and look forward to, but that low cost of the engine once again saved us and allowed us to buy more copies of the engine when we did recruit new engine staff along the way to help on the code side of things. If the engine cost much more we could have never afforded to pull this off using this engine, we would have had to look for other engines to use. Or the project never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Now I know we are probably the exception to the rule here and that indeed most hobbyist tinkerers never get around to producing anything of consequence. But maybe, just maybe, you guys are going about this all wrong.
This is going to sound kind of odd but maybe instead of charging for the engine or pricing it too high for hobbyist you give it away to everyone for free. Yes Free. Now you do this under the stipulation that you cannot publish commercial games or projects for profit, but for educational use, and free projects anyone can use it with all its tools without limitations. Now if people wanted to produce commercial profit games with it (or decided to after playing with it and realizing its the best darn thing on the planet) then you would work them into a pricing bracket and additional perks that both the client and GG could benefit from (publishing deals, marketing help, whatever..).
Now I know this sounds crazy when you are trying to increase GG revenue in order to re invest in your product and make it even better but doing this has a lot of shadow reward to it. That is reward that you may not see instant monetary benefit from it but over time you do make a profit from it in terms of loyal customers that can use and spread your engine all over the place thereby growing the community and user base. As this cycle picks up and people become familiar with the engine better and better the chances become that if they do decide to try and go indie or pro they will seek you out as they already are familiar with the engine package. Heck, that's what we did!
Even if they never do anything of consequence with it then there is no harm to anyone and in fact everyone still gets a sweet deal. You (Garage Games) has a loyal fan for life due to letting people explore the engine for free. Which in turn those tinkerers will spread the word of this cool engine that doesn't cost anything unless you are publishing a game. Somewhere along the line if they do decide to try and make a game, guess who they will be checking out first due to their familiarity with the product already, Garage Games. Once again this is what happened for us. We already knew its capabilities and on the art and script side a good deal on how to use it. Which is why we turned to Garage Games first when we were planning things three years ago.
In an ideal situation you couple this with different marketing strategies such as making sure schools that teach game design know that this nice new advanced engine can be used for free for students and anyone that wants to use it, and you have yourself one hell of a marketing strategy. Chances are good those students will be tought what's modern and affordable. If nothing else its more live bodies in your engine testing it. Adding to the community and if there projects are any good they will no doubt include these in their portfolios for others to see and play. In turn when they graduate they take with them the knowledge and experience of YOUR engine which they carry into the workforce with them thereby spreading the word that the latest Garage Games engine is something to consider when making games.
Even if they decide to go indie or produce a game on their own if they already know your engine because it was readily available for anyone to tinker around with, chances are good they will use it for prototyping and if they do decide they like the direction a project it is headed and want to pursue getting it published then they go through you to get it done.
Its a win win for everyone then. At the very minimum you increase your user base, the community, and the germination of the engine into a true mover and shaker in the industry, and who knows what other projects our out there like ours is that never would happen if the engine was priced out of the range of hobbyist. So why not empower these hobbyist to become more, instead of shunning them out of existence?
#289
Actually, the real "minimum" of giving away our tech for free and hoping that enough people will ship a game to keep us in business at some point in the distant future is that we run out of money while we wait and have to close GarageGames =(
01/11/2009 (6:50 pm)
Quote:
At the very minimum you increase your user base, the community, and the germination of the engine into a true mover and shaker in the industry
Actually, the real "minimum" of giving away our tech for free and hoping that enough people will ship a game to keep us in business at some point in the distant future is that we run out of money while we wait and have to close GarageGames =(
#290
TGE 1.5.2 - $150
TGEA 1.8 - $295
TGB 1.7.4 - $100
Total - $545
Not to mention other tools like Torsion, AFX, RTS Kit and various content packs but having access to the fully array Torque brand engines does already cost $545 at indie levels.
01/12/2009 (1:37 am)
The way I look at the pricing scheme is that a lot of us already are paying upwards of $500 for the Torque brand of engines. Many of us develop between TGE, TGEA and TGB for our work. This leads to the following.TGE 1.5.2 - $150
TGEA 1.8 - $295
TGB 1.7.4 - $100
Total - $545
Not to mention other tools like Torsion, AFX, RTS Kit and various content packs but having access to the fully array Torque brand engines does already cost $545 at indie levels.
#291
This is a fair point, though TGEA 1.8 includes license to TGE and if you own TGE, you only pay the price delta to upgrade to TGEA. This means the combined cost of owning TGEA / TGE is only $295.
01/12/2009 (1:43 am)
@Matt Huston:This is a fair point, though TGEA 1.8 includes license to TGE and if you own TGE, you only pay the price delta to upgrade to TGEA. This means the combined cost of owning TGEA / TGE is only $295.
#292
Been a long time since I purchased TGEA :)
My point being that if Torque 3D (a product we know basically nothing about) has all the great features of all of those combined plus great support. I don't see anything wrong with paying a bit higher price, it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to be $100. $1000 seems a bit steep to me but somewhere in between is probably the right price.
Also, I am sure you already have considered the fact that Torque is used by a large group of users where the dollar isn't the main currency and they don't get as much bang for your buck as us Americans.
01/12/2009 (2:03 am)
@BrettBeen a long time since I purchased TGEA :)
My point being that if Torque 3D (a product we know basically nothing about) has all the great features of all of those combined plus great support. I don't see anything wrong with paying a bit higher price, it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to be $100. $1000 seems a bit steep to me but somewhere in between is probably the right price.
Also, I am sure you already have considered the fact that Torque is used by a large group of users where the dollar isn't the main currency and they don't get as much bang for your buck as us Americans.
#293
01/12/2009 (2:07 am)
@Matt: Yes...currency volatility is a huge pain the ass, both for sales on the website and for lost of the people who we contract development work from outside the U.S. Torque 3D won't have anything like TGB functionality built in, it will be for 3D rendering only, but I take your point...it needs to be a big step up. It will be and I'm confident that people will believe that as I'm free to show more and more of what's happening.
#294
^not to divert things overmuch, but that's a bit inaccurate. Bought TSE EA, and recently tossed over to upgrade to TGE 1.5 so we can grab AFX later.
Edit: actually, that brings up an interesting point - what plans (if any just yet) are you willing to disclose in regards to assisting 3rd party extension vendors maintain their add-ons for the new system if you're looking at this as more of a major upgrade than a true fresh start?
01/12/2009 (2:08 am)
um..Quote:
This is a fair point, though TGEA 1.8 includes license to TGE and if you own TGE, you only pay the price delta to upgrade to TGEA. This means the combined cost of owning TGEA / TGE is only $295.
^not to divert things overmuch, but that's a bit inaccurate. Bought TSE EA, and recently tossed over to upgrade to TGE 1.5 so we can grab AFX later.
Edit: actually, that brings up an interesting point - what plans (if any just yet) are you willing to disclose in regards to assisting 3rd party extension vendors maintain their add-ons for the new system if you're looking at this as more of a major upgrade than a true fresh start?
#295
"Unity's $1500 minimum if you want to do anything with it besides publish to the Mac with static lights, blob shadows and no shaders".
Unity Indie has: dynamic lighting, shaders, publishing to the web (publishing to Windows/Mac standalone with Indie is coming in Unity 2.5). Graphically, the only thing missing from Unity Indie is render-to-texture effects (and by extension, image postprocessing and realtime shadowmaps). But dynamic lights, custom shaders, terrain/vegetation and other graphics things - all of them are in Indie.
Just a clarification!
01/12/2009 (2:16 am)
@Brett Seyler: I think you got some facts mixed up."Unity's $1500 minimum if you want to do anything with it besides publish to the Mac with static lights, blob shadows and no shaders".
Unity Indie has: dynamic lighting, shaders, publishing to the web (publishing to Windows/Mac standalone with Indie is coming in Unity 2.5). Graphically, the only thing missing from Unity Indie is render-to-texture effects (and by extension, image postprocessing and realtime shadowmaps). But dynamic lights, custom shaders, terrain/vegetation and other graphics things - all of them are in Indie.
Just a clarification!
#296
??? That's news to me. I just listed what they had (nearly verbatim) on their licensing FAQ page. It says:
and defines features inluded in "Pro" but not "Indie" as:
So this is Mac only for the current version right?
So you have shadows but not "realtime" shadows. You use baked in lightmaps and "Projectors" or blob shadows.
This is a shader right? No shaders in Indie. Shader in Pro.
So no video in Indie right?
So there's a rendering API (not source) that you get access to with "Pro" but that's off limits with Indie.
Like I said, I just read the website:
http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses
01/12/2009 (2:35 am)
@Aras: ??? That's news to me. I just listed what they had (nearly verbatim) on their licensing FAQ page. It says:
Quote:
Restrictions on Indie
Unity Indie may not be licensed and used by companies or incorporated entities that had a turnover in excess of US$100,000 in their last fiscal year.
and defines features inluded in "Pro" but not "Indie" as:
Quote:Publishing to Windows
With Unity Pro, you can build a standalone Windows executable version of your game. Additionally, web player games viewed on Windows will not display the Unity watermark when published with the Pro version.
So this is Mac only for the current version right?
Quote:Realtime Shadows
Unity Pro supports realtime self-shadowing shadows that just work. With Unity Indie it is of course still possible to use lower-end shadowing techniques, like Lightmaps or Projectors.
So you have shadows but not "realtime" shadows. You use baked in lightmaps and "Projectors" or blob shadows.
Quote:
Render-to-Texture Effects
This is a shader right? No shaders in Indie. Shader in Pro.
Quote:
Video Playback and Streaming
Import and play back videos.
So no video in Indie right?
Quote:Low-Level Rendering Access
Need to use custom rendering techniques, bypassing Unity's rendering pipeline?
So there's a rendering API (not source) that you get access to with "Pro" but that's off limits with Indie.
Like I said, I just read the website:
http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses
#297
I understand the price increase. But you also have to understand the user.
I... as example... expect a lot from T3D.
- a new dts-format which meets the requirements of a modern engine
- improved ShowToolPro where we can import collada, tweak the model (Portals, ...) and export this model to dts
- also the possibility to view the model with Shaders and dynamic Shadows (ShowToolPro)
- same with Constructor (in the case Interiors will be further supported)
- interpret animated collision meshes inside the engine
- tools to create caves and overhangs in the terrain
- tools to create seamless textures between terrain, caves and overhangs
- a lot of bugfixes from older versions (1.7.1 / 1.8)
I know it is much but this would be real improvements. And this features would justify the higher price (for me).
@all User
You must understand that GG has to survive. I am also not excited about the price increase but if GG has to close their offices (lack of money)... we... the user... lose a great engine. So the best solution would be a balanced license system.
@Garagegames (again)
To orient the next engine only to professionals would be a big mistake because each professional was previously a beginner/rookie/novice.
01/12/2009 (2:53 am)
@GaragegamesI understand the price increase. But you also have to understand the user.
I... as example... expect a lot from T3D.
- a new dts-format which meets the requirements of a modern engine
- improved ShowToolPro where we can import collada, tweak the model (Portals, ...) and export this model to dts
- also the possibility to view the model with Shaders and dynamic Shadows (ShowToolPro)
- same with Constructor (in the case Interiors will be further supported)
- interpret animated collision meshes inside the engine
- tools to create caves and overhangs in the terrain
- tools to create seamless textures between terrain, caves and overhangs
- a lot of bugfixes from older versions (1.7.1 / 1.8)
I know it is much but this would be real improvements. And this features would justify the higher price (for me).
@all User
You must understand that GG has to survive. I am also not excited about the price increase but if GG has to close their offices (lack of money)... we... the user... lose a great engine. So the best solution would be a balanced license system.
@Garagegames (again)
To orient the next engine only to professionals would be a big mistake because each professional was previously a beginner/rookie/novice.
#298
"So this is Mac only for the current version right?"
Partly correct. Right now, publish to web (either platform) or standalone Mac.
"This is a shader right? No shaders in Indie. Shader in Pro."
Shaders != Render to texture. No offfence, but ask someone who knows about graphics.
"So no video in Indie right?"
Correct. No video streaming or decoding.
"So there's a rendering API (not source) that you get access to with "Pro" but that's off limits with Indie."
Yes. And that is used very, _very_ rarely. I mean, it's an API to emulate OpenGL's immediate mode. How often would you use that?
Anyway. I'll shut up now. Peace.
01/12/2009 (4:17 am)
@Brett Seyler:"So this is Mac only for the current version right?"
Partly correct. Right now, publish to web (either platform) or standalone Mac.
"This is a shader right? No shaders in Indie. Shader in Pro."
Shaders != Render to texture. No offfence, but ask someone who knows about graphics.
"So no video in Indie right?"
Correct. No video streaming or decoding.
"So there's a rendering API (not source) that you get access to with "Pro" but that's off limits with Indie."
Yes. And that is used very, _very_ rarely. I mean, it's an API to emulate OpenGL's immediate mode. How often would you use that?
Anyway. I'll shut up now. Peace.
#299
If GG decides to go with tiered pricing, I'd be opposed to the lowest tier being a non-profit tier. After all, if a game created in the lowest tier *does* succeed, where is the author going to get the money for a more expensive tier?
It only stands to reason that if something is successful, it should also be profitable. I can see placing restrictions on a sub-$1000 tier, but I think cutting off profit should not be one of those restrictions.
One of the ways to differentiate the tiers may be access to more group oriented resources. This is something that I've seen in Microsoft's "team system" versions of Visual Studio. The standard and express versions offer tools that an individual can use at prices that are vastly more affordable to an individual. The team system versions offer a lot of tools that allow a team to work together and at a higher price point that matches the larger group that has more resources.
Offer individual tools and individual pricing to individuals - and offer team tools and team pricing for larger groups and companies. That's my suggestion.
01/12/2009 (5:35 am)
I see a lot of comments for tiered pricing, but many of them are pushing for the $200-$500 tier to be non-commercial, ie you can't use it to make a profit.If GG decides to go with tiered pricing, I'd be opposed to the lowest tier being a non-profit tier. After all, if a game created in the lowest tier *does* succeed, where is the author going to get the money for a more expensive tier?
It only stands to reason that if something is successful, it should also be profitable. I can see placing restrictions on a sub-$1000 tier, but I think cutting off profit should not be one of those restrictions.
One of the ways to differentiate the tiers may be access to more group oriented resources. This is something that I've seen in Microsoft's "team system" versions of Visual Studio. The standard and express versions offer tools that an individual can use at prices that are vastly more affordable to an individual. The team system versions offer a lot of tools that allow a team to work together and at a higher price point that matches the larger group that has more resources.
Offer individual tools and individual pricing to individuals - and offer team tools and team pricing for larger groups and companies. That's my suggestion.
#300
Somehow I came across GarageGame page. I thought 100 dollars for sound support AND a whole engine!? I ended up buying it as pretty much an impulse buy. At the time I had been a professional developer for about 8 years, and I had some experience with game development. It took me approximately 6 months before I knew Torque well enough to do anything useful with it. Keep in mind I was able to make 3d Breakout in a few hours with Ogre3D.
I started doing programming contract work with Torque maybe about 6 months after that. Whenever I worked on a project, it felt like the main thing I was doing was fixing bugs. I know that Torque is more stable now, but each release is still pretty buggy. One example of a critical bug in 1.8 is that full screen support does not work on Mac OS X. I would be making my own game with Torque, but its way too buggy. All I do now is download the latest release of TGEA or TGB every month or so, find some really obvious bugs and then delete the directory. I do not have any time to fix bugs in a product I paid for anymore.
Other developers I talk to have the same sort of experience with Torque. I have talked to developers that have shipped games using Unreal, Gamebryo and other such engines. Many of them tried to make games with Torque and failed due to bugs or the complexity of doing even the most simple things in the engine. In fact my customers were typically developers that were used to the higher end engines, bought Torque to make a game or prototype and were getting killed by the complexity and bugs.
Raising the price of the engine not going to make higher end indie developers buy the engine. Most of those indies are already using an engine that works great for them or have heard really bad things about Torque from other developers. The main thing higher end indies care about is productivity. They do not have time to chase down bugs. That time they use to chase down bugs cuts into their bottom line. They do not have time to learn an extremely complicated engine. From what I have seen Torques main customer is the hobbyist developer. Some of those hobbyist developers end up making games, others do not. Hobbyists can deal with things being a little rough around the edges, since their productivity does not matter as much.
The price change would basically change the market Torque is in and eliminate almost all (much more than 90%) of their current customers. Actually $100 dollars was pretty much the pricing sweet spot. If Torque wasn't $100 dollars when I went to the site, I would not have bought the product. If there were multiple tiers I also would not have bought the product. If TGB was $250 when I first purchased it, I would not have bought it. Even the $80 dollars I paid for the EA was stretching what I was willing to pay. Most of the developer that I have heard of that are finishing games with Torque wouldn't have been able to buy Torque if it was $1000. In fact those are the exact reasons I won't buy Unity, even though I have heard REALLY good things about it. The features are tiered based on pricing, even the indie version is quite expensive and I do not get the source code.
This isn't meant to be a negative post and I don't hate you guys. I just wanted to state my honest opinion on the subject. I do want to let you guys know that I will not be able to upgrade to T3D after the price increase.
01/12/2009 (5:48 am)
Okay so my comment is most likely going to just disappear into the noise, but I thought I would give my two cents on this pricing change. When I bought Torque I was working with Ogre3D and thought it was great. I created a 3D breakout prototype in it in a few hours and really liked it. The prototype had all the nice next gen effects like stenciled shadows, shaders and so on. It just worked, but Ogre3D was only a graphics engine. So I started looking around for a 3D sound library and found FMOD. It was 100 dollars per product for a shareware license, but the shareware license seemed extremely restrictive.Somehow I came across GarageGame page. I thought 100 dollars for sound support AND a whole engine!? I ended up buying it as pretty much an impulse buy. At the time I had been a professional developer for about 8 years, and I had some experience with game development. It took me approximately 6 months before I knew Torque well enough to do anything useful with it. Keep in mind I was able to make 3d Breakout in a few hours with Ogre3D.
I started doing programming contract work with Torque maybe about 6 months after that. Whenever I worked on a project, it felt like the main thing I was doing was fixing bugs. I know that Torque is more stable now, but each release is still pretty buggy. One example of a critical bug in 1.8 is that full screen support does not work on Mac OS X. I would be making my own game with Torque, but its way too buggy. All I do now is download the latest release of TGEA or TGB every month or so, find some really obvious bugs and then delete the directory. I do not have any time to fix bugs in a product I paid for anymore.
Other developers I talk to have the same sort of experience with Torque. I have talked to developers that have shipped games using Unreal, Gamebryo and other such engines. Many of them tried to make games with Torque and failed due to bugs or the complexity of doing even the most simple things in the engine. In fact my customers were typically developers that were used to the higher end engines, bought Torque to make a game or prototype and were getting killed by the complexity and bugs.
Raising the price of the engine not going to make higher end indie developers buy the engine. Most of those indies are already using an engine that works great for them or have heard really bad things about Torque from other developers. The main thing higher end indies care about is productivity. They do not have time to chase down bugs. That time they use to chase down bugs cuts into their bottom line. They do not have time to learn an extremely complicated engine. From what I have seen Torques main customer is the hobbyist developer. Some of those hobbyist developers end up making games, others do not. Hobbyists can deal with things being a little rough around the edges, since their productivity does not matter as much.
The price change would basically change the market Torque is in and eliminate almost all (much more than 90%) of their current customers. Actually $100 dollars was pretty much the pricing sweet spot. If Torque wasn't $100 dollars when I went to the site, I would not have bought the product. If there were multiple tiers I also would not have bought the product. If TGB was $250 when I first purchased it, I would not have bought it. Even the $80 dollars I paid for the EA was stretching what I was willing to pay. Most of the developer that I have heard of that are finishing games with Torque wouldn't have been able to buy Torque if it was $1000. In fact those are the exact reasons I won't buy Unity, even though I have heard REALLY good things about it. The features are tiered based on pricing, even the indie version is quite expensive and I do not get the source code.
This isn't meant to be a negative post and I don't hate you guys. I just wanted to state my honest opinion on the subject. I do want to let you guys know that I will not be able to upgrade to T3D after the price increase.
Torque Owner Redacted
/dirt poor here, $500 dollars is honestly too much for me, couldn't upgrade at that price if I wanted to
//times are tough all over