Torque 3D Sidebar - Pricing and Licensing CONTINUED
by Brett Seyler · 01/12/2009 (9:00 pm) · 55 comments
Okay...I get it...324 comments and counting...you guys care and we're definitely paying attention. It's never easy to address topics like price and value, but I'm really glad we did. There was a lot of really good feedback and a LOT of good ideas about how to make future Torque products work for hobbyists, indies, and professionals. It was a good conversation to have.
Here are the main points I'm taking away from last Friday's blog...
1. Support, especially ticketed support is in high demand. If GG can find a way to provide this, there are Torque developers willing to pay for it.
2. A low entry point to Torque is important, even if it means some restrictions in the EULA or deprecating some features.
3. Greater polish, usability, stability and overall quality are paramount attributes for a high-end Torque product.
4. A focus on tools, and particularly usability in the World Editor, is the most important area to address in Torque 3D.
There were also a lot of you that were uncomfortable speculating what an acceptable price would be for Torque 3D given that little has been announced, certainly no formal spec. This is totally understandable, but that feedback itself is really telling. More often then not, Torque developers seemed to welcome the idea of a higher priced Torque 3D, so long as the value justified the higher price. The response could have been "I can't afford anything more than $250 for game development no matter what." I didn't expect to see a lot this, but I know there are those of you for whom this really is just a hobby and one that you don't have a huge budget for.
In this series of blogs, I'll continue providing more and more info as we're confident that we can deliver it. There's a lot we've talked about publicly already, but much more we haven't. We've talked about loading Collada files directly into the engine, providing extensive updates to genre kits (including adding all new ones), improving performance, stability and polish over TGEA 1.8, adding new editors and features to the World Editor, etc.
I'll grant you all that if I were looking at that list and comparing it with TGEA 1.8, I might need more convincing. We're still months away from a Torque 3D release, so don't worry, there will be a lot more to show before we get there.
No final decisions have been made about pricing or licensing structure other than there will be change and that Torque 3D will be priced higher than TGEA. Will TGEA 1.8 go away in favor of a Torque 3D "Lite" or something like that? We don't know yet, but whatever we offer, it will be a better value than TGEA 1.8 is at present, and if you own TGEA, you'll be credited, at least partially toward any or all versions of Torque 3D.
Thanks again for all you who posted on the last blog. I can't believe we didn't break this old site with the number of comments, but I look forward to continuing to show and discuss new stuff on the new site.
More sidebars and development blogs to come. This is post #6.
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.
#22
I learned Torque 3D is coming - that's great for the 3d community. I learned Torque X 3.0 is around the corner - cool. But no info on TGB. Is there a post, blog, anything? Is it coming in 2009?
Ok, I found something, my bad: In the Torque 3D and Torque 2D future Vol.2, Nov 18. 2008, there is some info on the next TGB -> probably called Torque 2D, probably a paid upgrade. Some news here?
+ I learned about the Torque 2 -> Juggernaut -> final product process. It really helps to understand what's taking so long ;) This really helps to cool down hotheads like me. Too bad I found it after 4 days...
Sorry for the OT.
01/13/2009 (8:36 am)
@Brett Seyler: You mention TGB next release - Torque 2D: I have been looking for a road map, plan, anything concerning TGB future, without finding anything.I learned Torque 3D is coming - that's great for the 3d community. I learned Torque X 3.0 is around the corner - cool. But no info on TGB. Is there a post, blog, anything? Is it coming in 2009?
Ok, I found something, my bad: In the Torque 3D and Torque 2D future Vol.2, Nov 18. 2008, there is some info on the next TGB -> probably called Torque 2D, probably a paid upgrade. Some news here?
+ I learned about the Torque 2 -> Juggernaut -> final product process. It really helps to understand what's taking so long ;) This really helps to cool down hotheads like me. Too bad I found it after 4 days...
Sorry for the OT.
#23
Being that it was $100 it wasn't too big of a deal. TGE and TGEA are based around making engine modifications, modifications to the actual C++ source code to really achieve results - yes the scripting language is great but you have to have a grasp on both to make the product work. This is quite a bit different than TGB where you can actually accomplish quite a bit without ever laying eyes on the C++ end of the code.
I remember GG doing a poll about what type of features we'd like to see in TGE/TGEA. I think it might be time for an official poll for Torque 3D. Some ideas I have for features include: Advanced physics system, A* Pathfinding, advanced lighting & shadows, an overhauled World Editor and overhauled GUI system that would support animations - somewhat like a TGB basic.
01/13/2009 (3:24 pm)
I second what Gareth mentioned. When I originally bought TGE, it was mostly a leap of faith, I had no idea what I was getting into, the demo really showed me nothing of what I really needed to know before purchasing TGE.Being that it was $100 it wasn't too big of a deal. TGE and TGEA are based around making engine modifications, modifications to the actual C++ source code to really achieve results - yes the scripting language is great but you have to have a grasp on both to make the product work. This is quite a bit different than TGB where you can actually accomplish quite a bit without ever laying eyes on the C++ end of the code.
I remember GG doing a poll about what type of features we'd like to see in TGE/TGEA. I think it might be time for an official poll for Torque 3D. Some ideas I have for features include: Advanced physics system, A* Pathfinding, advanced lighting & shadows, an overhauled World Editor and overhauled GUI system that would support animations - somewhat like a TGB basic.
#24
01/13/2009 (3:34 pm)
There is not a poll but this thread: What would you like to see addressed in Torque 3D? ...
#25
01/13/2009 (5:02 pm)
Thanks JoZ - I don't visit the forums as much as I should these days :) 
#26
01/13/2009 (5:46 pm)
@Andrej: We are definitely working on a release of Torque 2D (formerly known as TGB). In fact, that's one of the reasons we're so stoked to have Melv May aboard as a full-time employee rather than a contractos, as he is one of the original primary architects of the engine. He and Phillip O'Shea are the engine and tool leads on this projects respectively, and they have done some proof of concept work that we're excited about, but not quite ready to show. Rest assured, when we get to the point when we're confident that the min specs can be met (like we have with Torque 3D), we'll be doing similar blogs on the site to give you an advance preview.
#27
Also, are there plans for a particle editor of some description? I recall seeing one for T2D way back, and think it would be a really useful feature in someting like TGE/A and T3D :)
Cheers!
Ian
01/13/2009 (11:35 pm)
I'm a new starter, and whilst I can't say this is a hobby for me, I can certainly say that having a price tag of ~$1000 will make the decision quite easy to stick with TGE/A. I don't mean that in any negative way, but our budget has already hit $704 (AUS) and we've just started - it's simply what we can afford realistically. I know this isn't the blog about the pricing, so with that said T3D is sounding positive, and I wanted to ask if it will be possible/feasible to port code from a TGE/A base, to T3D, or is it radically different?Also, are there plans for a particle editor of some description? I recall seeing one for T2D way back, and think it would be a really useful feature in someting like TGE/A and T3D :)
Cheers!
Ian
#28
For the particle editor, press F5 in game. It will save your particle cs file in (i think) the root folder.
@Brette
You missed something about why people like tge over tgea. It's absolutely simple to get objects into tge. It can sometimes be a balding experience getting objects into tgea where they aren't black. (even in 1.8.0)
I personally like tgea over tge, but sheesh!! I almost went bald trying to get my dts objects to show up lit.
I'm truely looking forward to T3D. I'm hoping for the simplicity of tge with the awesome effects of tgea.
oops, forgot that real smilie....
it worked. 
01/14/2009 (1:04 am)
@ IanFor the particle editor, press F5 in game. It will save your particle cs file in (i think) the root folder.
@Brette
You missed something about why people like tge over tgea. It's absolutely simple to get objects into tge. It can sometimes be a balding experience getting objects into tgea where they aren't black. (even in 1.8.0)
I personally like tgea over tge, but sheesh!! I almost went bald trying to get my dts objects to show up lit.
I'm truely looking forward to T3D. I'm hoping for the simplicity of tge with the awesome effects of tgea.
oops, forgot that real smilie....
it worked. 
#29
01/14/2009 (4:39 am)
@Mike Rowley: Have you tried relighting? If they are DIFs that would cause them to be black until relit. Another thing that can cause it is if you are missing the shaders directory or if you are using a broken shader.
#30
01/14/2009 (5:18 am)
I think that Garagegames' most valuable asset is not the Torque software but the community around it. Making the acquisition price for T3D low and releasing updates to paid subscribers, would serve to maintain that community and the feedback that it provides.
#31
All I can say is that yes, me and everybody else working for me got a hell of deal when they bought TGE- but only because we got the source code with it, and access to all the resources and forums around the engine. I think we've hit every performance glitch, bug, rock, and snag you can on this project; and if I had paid a dime more for it after all the aggravation it has caused me I think I would have punched my monitor. Broken vehicle physics, a rigid object that still crashes the engine after a collision, rendering glitches in OSX that don't show up elsewhere, and an out-of-the-box crash in debug builds... However, it's all OK, because I can fix it, and I only paid $150 for it.
Now, I've made enough of an investment in Torque that I'm not going away anytime soon. I'll be buying several T3D licenses here, right about the time it becomes available. And I'm sure I'll end up forking out several grand for the privilege. But I can tell you one thing- at the new price point, the engine better SPARKLE, and I'm talking about EVERY feature that is included in the engine. There just won't be an excuse for it- you'll drop developers like flies, who will go away jilted and not bringing more people into the fold. The people in the community are the ones who bring the real value to TGE/A. If you put a feature on your bullet list, it better be bullet-proof. And you can bet that if I look at T3D, and find the same (broken) vehicle code that's been in there since 2002, I will be finding another alternative.
The upside of this is that you really have a chance with this one. If you can pull it off, hand me something that just works- something I can spend time debugging my own code in, rather than your code- you'll be doing everybody justice. Price won't be an issue- I'll be giving you whatever you want and coming back for more, and so will a lot of other developers.
01/14/2009 (6:16 am)
Makes my whole plan of "The first game will pay for the second game, and that game should pay for everything else" seem really forward thinking.All I can say is that yes, me and everybody else working for me got a hell of deal when they bought TGE- but only because we got the source code with it, and access to all the resources and forums around the engine. I think we've hit every performance glitch, bug, rock, and snag you can on this project; and if I had paid a dime more for it after all the aggravation it has caused me I think I would have punched my monitor. Broken vehicle physics, a rigid object that still crashes the engine after a collision, rendering glitches in OSX that don't show up elsewhere, and an out-of-the-box crash in debug builds... However, it's all OK, because I can fix it, and I only paid $150 for it.
Now, I've made enough of an investment in Torque that I'm not going away anytime soon. I'll be buying several T3D licenses here, right about the time it becomes available. And I'm sure I'll end up forking out several grand for the privilege. But I can tell you one thing- at the new price point, the engine better SPARKLE, and I'm talking about EVERY feature that is included in the engine. There just won't be an excuse for it- you'll drop developers like flies, who will go away jilted and not bringing more people into the fold. The people in the community are the ones who bring the real value to TGE/A. If you put a feature on your bullet list, it better be bullet-proof. And you can bet that if I look at T3D, and find the same (broken) vehicle code that's been in there since 2002, I will be finding another alternative.
The upside of this is that you really have a chance with this one. If you can pull it off, hand me something that just works- something I can spend time debugging my own code in, rather than your code- you'll be doing everybody justice. Price won't be an issue- I'll be giving you whatever you want and coming back for more, and so will a lot of other developers.
#32
OK, I'll try and make my point in a shorter fashion this time.
01/14/2009 (6:18 am)
AHHHH!! My wonderful, 500 word, thoughtful post- EATEN!OK, I'll try and make my point in a shorter fashion this time.
#33
So a tiered pricing system would be a lot more commercially sensible than having several crippled versions around all the time.
01/14/2009 (12:27 pm)
Just tuppence-worth from a long time coder. You already know this but just to flag it up. Keeping one version of any software is a lot cheaper in terms of support, development and maintenance. A HUGE amount cheaper. Maintaining several codebases and keeping them in synch all the time is not nice, leads to all sorts of bugs and incompatibilities and over time becomes a nightmare.So a tiered pricing system would be a lot more commercially sensible than having several crippled versions around all the time.
#34
I have spent about US$ 600,00 on it, including content packs, etc...
Plus another US$ 150,00 in books + shipping.
And I would love to spend another US$ 1,000 on it.
I wwould also see no problem in scrapping it and buying a new version for about US$ 650.00 to US$ 1,000.00 - let's say, US$ 850.00, proovided:
* Documentation is provided wih it, so I do not have to buy books from Amazon, for instance.
* The new version includes rigid-body physics that are based in ODE, for instance.
I would pay an extra US$ 150.00, if it were capable of deploying an executable that would run on the browser, as a plugin.
Well, as a matter of fact, I would be willing to pay up to an extra US$ 500.00 for tthat functionality alone.
So, in sort, US$ 1,250.00 to US$ 1,500.00 would be perfectly alright, if it delivers decent documentation off the box, plus decent physics and the capability of running as a web plugin.
Don't get me wrong... I love TGEA.
But I moved to lite-C, and totally discarde TGEA, just bbecause of its physics.
Well, maybe the physics is there already (ODE based) in TGEA, but, if it is, it is hidden in the documentation.
Some people would not pay US$ 1,500.00 for it.
But then again, you could have a smaller version, with lmited physics, and a watermark, just like 3DGS does.
Well, hat is just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Rui
01/14/2009 (12:55 pm)
I have boughht TGEA and I love it.I have spent about US$ 600,00 on it, including content packs, etc...
Plus another US$ 150,00 in books + shipping.
And I would love to spend another US$ 1,000 on it.
I wwould also see no problem in scrapping it and buying a new version for about US$ 650.00 to US$ 1,000.00 - let's say, US$ 850.00, proovided:
* Documentation is provided wih it, so I do not have to buy books from Amazon, for instance.
* The new version includes rigid-body physics that are based in ODE, for instance.
I would pay an extra US$ 150.00, if it were capable of deploying an executable that would run on the browser, as a plugin.
Well, as a matter of fact, I would be willing to pay up to an extra US$ 500.00 for tthat functionality alone.
So, in sort, US$ 1,250.00 to US$ 1,500.00 would be perfectly alright, if it delivers decent documentation off the box, plus decent physics and the capability of running as a web plugin.
Don't get me wrong... I love TGEA.
But I moved to lite-C, and totally discarde TGEA, just bbecause of its physics.
Well, maybe the physics is there already (ODE based) in TGEA, but, if it is, it is hidden in the documentation.
Some people would not pay US$ 1,500.00 for it.
But then again, you could have a smaller version, with lmited physics, and a watermark, just like 3DGS does.
Well, hat is just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Rui
#35
Dont kill de comunity, GG is great because:
1. low cost engine.
2. source code.
3. community (the points 1 and 2 helps...)
in graphics features:
TGE= dx 8 $150
TGEA= dx 9 $ 295
T3D = DX 9 or 10 ???
i think that $ 300 is a good price...
many many of us want make games, but only someones finish him, and only someones are succefully...
01/14/2009 (4:34 pm)
Please GG, dont make money with your engine, make millions with your own games making with your engine :D...Dont kill de comunity, GG is great because:
1. low cost engine.
2. source code.
3. community (the points 1 and 2 helps...)
in graphics features:
TGE= dx 8 $150
TGEA= dx 9 $ 295
T3D = DX 9 or 10 ???
i think that $ 300 is a good price...
many many of us want make games, but only someones finish him, and only someones are succefully...
#36
In my opinion, if you can make it GREAT, then $600-1,200 is more than reasonable for a indie studio. Problem is for those who want to be a studio, but simply live at home as kids...
What'd I'd like to see is this. Make T3d, make documentation, make it about as good as TGE... Good, very capable, excellent feature list, and sell if for $200... If you're an indie and aren't willing to make $200, then something's wrong. Some people get about that much in a single Christmas. Anyway, once the necessities are done, drop it, keep support, forums that kinda thing, but don't bother developing it unless you feel like it... However keep a T3d $1k source code included version for those who have made a game and made a few hundred.
01/14/2009 (6:43 pm)
I realize (to some extent) how difficult it would be to develop two engines. However in this case to be honest, I think its necessary...In my opinion, if you can make it GREAT, then $600-1,200 is more than reasonable for a indie studio. Problem is for those who want to be a studio, but simply live at home as kids...
What'd I'd like to see is this. Make T3d, make documentation, make it about as good as TGE... Good, very capable, excellent feature list, and sell if for $200... If you're an indie and aren't willing to make $200, then something's wrong. Some people get about that much in a single Christmas. Anyway, once the necessities are done, drop it, keep support, forums that kinda thing, but don't bother developing it unless you feel like it... However keep a T3d $1k source code included version for those who have made a game and made a few hundred.
#37
01/14/2009 (8:25 pm)
Definitely no feature deprecation.
#38
I've always thought Torque was too cheap. Don't get me wrong, I was glad I could stick it on my credit card without having to worry about it as a major purchase, but as a business model, selling a game engine the way Torque has been sold doesn't make sense to me. Apart from not giving GG the revenue to offer much support, it also creates an expectation of cheapness for add-on products that makes that then an unattractive business to get into.
Anyway, you're looking to two different markets here by the sound of things, 'professional indies' and hobbyists. So that's going to require two licencing models:
Pro:-
I think tech like a game engine should be licenced on a per-title basis (I notice you already decided to do that with iTorque). Forget about per-seat licences for the core tech, this isn't an end-user application. Offer a choice of a significant price ($5-10k?) for royalty-free rights or a royalty-incuring deal for a much lower price. These indies are set up as proper businesses so you should be able to make a royalty-based deal work there.
Because you are not charging per-seat you need to take care of the incremental costs of bringing new customers in another way. I'd suggest charging for support separately. Offer industry-leading support at a price GG can afford (perhaps even make a small profit from) instead of regarding support as an operating expense.
For hobbyists:-
Continue to offer Torque at a very low price. It comes with no support beyond the forums and there are limits on use of the engine: You can only publish through GG and when you do GG gets a significant cut (30-40%). Sounds a little draconian, but since most hobbyist licences never finish anything it doesn't affect them and those that do would have the option to upgrade their licence to the pro version before publishing.
Besides, iPhone developers can only distribute via the AppStore (with Apple receiving a 30% cut) and I don't hear many complaints about that deal. Concentrating distribution in one channel helps everyone by generating a lot more traffic.
There would be no add-on support option for the hobbyist edition and that would be enough to stop serious developers going with the hobbyist edition and upgrading at the last minute.
Anyway, just more ideas for Brett to think about, assuming he does read the blog comments :) I won't be getting into a debate with other Torque users about these ideas.
01/15/2009 (12:40 am)
My 2p...I've always thought Torque was too cheap. Don't get me wrong, I was glad I could stick it on my credit card without having to worry about it as a major purchase, but as a business model, selling a game engine the way Torque has been sold doesn't make sense to me. Apart from not giving GG the revenue to offer much support, it also creates an expectation of cheapness for add-on products that makes that then an unattractive business to get into.
Anyway, you're looking to two different markets here by the sound of things, 'professional indies' and hobbyists. So that's going to require two licencing models:
Pro:-
I think tech like a game engine should be licenced on a per-title basis (I notice you already decided to do that with iTorque). Forget about per-seat licences for the core tech, this isn't an end-user application. Offer a choice of a significant price ($5-10k?) for royalty-free rights or a royalty-incuring deal for a much lower price. These indies are set up as proper businesses so you should be able to make a royalty-based deal work there.
Because you are not charging per-seat you need to take care of the incremental costs of bringing new customers in another way. I'd suggest charging for support separately. Offer industry-leading support at a price GG can afford (perhaps even make a small profit from) instead of regarding support as an operating expense.
For hobbyists:-
Continue to offer Torque at a very low price. It comes with no support beyond the forums and there are limits on use of the engine: You can only publish through GG and when you do GG gets a significant cut (30-40%). Sounds a little draconian, but since most hobbyist licences never finish anything it doesn't affect them and those that do would have the option to upgrade their licence to the pro version before publishing.
Besides, iPhone developers can only distribute via the AppStore (with Apple receiving a 30% cut) and I don't hear many complaints about that deal. Concentrating distribution in one channel helps everyone by generating a lot more traffic.
There would be no add-on support option for the hobbyist edition and that would be enough to stop serious developers going with the hobbyist edition and upgrading at the last minute.
Anyway, just more ideas for Brett to think about, assuming he does read the blog comments :) I won't be getting into a debate with other Torque users about these ideas.
#39
My budget for developing these sort of application is a range a magnitude lesser than a budget to develop a full game.
So the royalty model is a stopper for me.
I come to Torque for is no-royalty model expressly.
My 4 main reasons I came to Torque (and I passed a few months comparing a few engines) were :
- its cheap entry price that make it affordable (and permit me to buy some content pack to learn more of Torque engine)
- it's community that is important and very active
- its full source code access
- its no-royalty model
Nicolas Buquet
www.buquet-net.com/cv/
01/15/2009 (7:44 am)
I use Torque to make exhibition kiosk that last from 1 day to 15 days.My budget for developing these sort of application is a range a magnitude lesser than a budget to develop a full game.
So the royalty model is a stopper for me.
I come to Torque for is no-royalty model expressly.
My 4 main reasons I came to Torque (and I passed a few months comparing a few engines) were :
- its cheap entry price that make it affordable (and permit me to buy some content pack to learn more of Torque engine)
- it's community that is important and very active
- its full source code access
- its no-royalty model
Nicolas Buquet
www.buquet-net.com/cv/
#40
I first had such a one on my suggested licensing structure in the previous blog page 18, but I decided that most will decide that the costs are too high and that they will use the royality free competitors, be it C4 or Unity Pro or whatever.
But as owner if iTGB I can say that some affordable flat fee royality ($100 per title or alike for indie) would be acceptable. If I ever get any of my projects out with any of the royality free techs and make cash with it, I will buy some stuff of the store just to generate some inflow on your end.
As for physics beeing integrated: PhysX or Newton 2. I clearly prefer PhysX due to the fully integrated gpu physics. but fully working bindings against both would be great.
I know that this is already mentioned for TGEA 1.8.0 as sources to the ball game on InstantAction, but I've to say that I have not seen either in my SDK unless it was hidden even better than the Source Documentation ;)
01/15/2009 (2:53 pm)
I agree, a % royality would definitely send me to another technology right away.I first had such a one on my suggested licensing structure in the previous blog page 18, but I decided that most will decide that the costs are too high and that they will use the royality free competitors, be it C4 or Unity Pro or whatever.
But as owner if iTGB I can say that some affordable flat fee royality ($100 per title or alike for indie) would be acceptable. If I ever get any of my projects out with any of the royality free techs and make cash with it, I will buy some stuff of the store just to generate some inflow on your end.
As for physics beeing integrated: PhysX or Newton 2. I clearly prefer PhysX due to the fully integrated gpu physics. but fully working bindings against both would be great.
I know that this is already mentioned for TGEA 1.8.0 as sources to the ball game on InstantAction, but I've to say that I have not seen either in my SDK unless it was hidden even better than the Source Documentation ;)
Torque 3D Owner Gareth Fouche
"A low entry point to Torque is important, even if it means some restrictions in the EULA or deprecating some features."
Of utmost importance (Others may have said this already, so forgive me if they have). I could afford a higher price for T3D, yes, given a few months of saving. But the main problem is I couldn't afford to pay that price just to find out whether I want to upgrade or not. Demos are nice, so are bullet point feature lists. But I've learned the hard way that you can't REALLY judge what it is like to develop a game with an engine until you actually get into the code and start modifying things, implementing features beyond what the demos show. That's when the real issues and limitations are run into.
If there is no low entry point for me to evaluate devving with T3D beyond just playing with the demos and some scripting, I probably won't be able to justify, to myself, that cost. I know a 3D engine like Torque is worth that amount of money but it's a significant amount that I can't spend lightly. It's the cost of a brand new high end PC or a cintiq digital tablet. I can't buy those lightly either. Hell, it's the price of a new furniture set for my lounge, and I haven't spent on that yet, despite strong hinting from the girlfriend. ;)
So I really encourage you to provide a way for hobbyists to experience what it is like to build a game on T3D, even if they can't publish it, without it being too feature crippled, just so we can evaluate the value of what will be, for most of us, a significant investment.