The iPhone Playing Field
by Jeremy Alessi · 10/20/2008 (10:51 am) · 38 comments
A week ago I was almost positive that I'd be purchasing iTGB. There was one nagging gut feeling though that I just couldn't shake. It was a feeling of uncertainty. Before pulling out my credit card I analyzed my feelings and came away with a few concrete points against iTGB.
-Price
$500 + $100 per title is really just way too expensive for what is really the ultimate indie platform and one that is nearly saturated already with software. Most games in the app store are dropping in price and it looks like the 99 cent mark that has worked so well for music is going to rule the game world as well. Even excellent 3D titles from the likes of Pangea are hovering around the 99 cent mark. So, at a bare minimum you'll need to sell 500 copies of a game just to break even for your purchase of iTGB, not even accounting for your iPhone license. In a quickly saturating market that's a lot of software to move. Furthermore, part of my gut told me that the price wouldn't last and I knew I'd be really peeved to pay $500 for something that would soon drop.
-Speed
From what I gather iTGB is slow. Too slow to use the engine as it was originally designed to be used. So when I thought about porting my game to the iPhone I realized that it's not going to be a simple resolution adjustment and some input changes. No, it's going to be moving the whole game into C++.
-Competition
Now I knew Unity had iPhone support but I also knew it was fairly expensive to get the most out of Unity. Furthermore I had already written my game in TGB and Unity being Mac only was a huge minus for my development preferences. My Mac Mini struggles, what can I say.
I was of course pleased to stumble upon a forum post around the Internets that spoke of a new solution called ShiVa by Stonetrip. I decided to follow my gut instinct and not purchase iTGB and give myself at least a week to see if I could prototype my game with this new tool. I came away from that week succesful.
Now what are the benefits of ShiVa?
-2D/3D
It's full 3D, if I want to do 2D or 3D I can and don't need to purchase two separate licenses as I would with iTorque.
-Platforms
That's right iPhone is just one more platform along with Windows, Mac, Linux, and Wii that ShiVa supports including a web deployment option. You can develop on Windows.
-Price
Oh, did I mention that iPhone deployment is completely free with the license which is only about $230 at the current exchange rate?
-Power
LUA scripting, full physics support, editors for everything under the sun, shaders, etc ... It's a beast for the money.
-Support
When you ask questions or highlight flaws these guys don't whine. They acknowledge your comments and respond quickly with solutions or a note to let you know it's going in the next build. Their attitude is A1 professional and they are hungry to be the game engine of choice.
-Problems
As with any engine ShiVa's not perfect. However, if this were the presidential race iTGB would be John McCain trailing in the polls. Thus the baggage ShiVa has pales in comparison to what iTGB is carrying.
This is my bid for a cheaper iTGB. Give us unlimited use for $100 Garage Games and you've got my vote. Short of that and I'll be supporting ShiVa. In addition as many already know I'm a very vocal supporter of the tools I use which is something to keep in mind.
Thanks for reading. May the best engine win!
-Price
$500 + $100 per title is really just way too expensive for what is really the ultimate indie platform and one that is nearly saturated already with software. Most games in the app store are dropping in price and it looks like the 99 cent mark that has worked so well for music is going to rule the game world as well. Even excellent 3D titles from the likes of Pangea are hovering around the 99 cent mark. So, at a bare minimum you'll need to sell 500 copies of a game just to break even for your purchase of iTGB, not even accounting for your iPhone license. In a quickly saturating market that's a lot of software to move. Furthermore, part of my gut told me that the price wouldn't last and I knew I'd be really peeved to pay $500 for something that would soon drop.
-Speed
From what I gather iTGB is slow. Too slow to use the engine as it was originally designed to be used. So when I thought about porting my game to the iPhone I realized that it's not going to be a simple resolution adjustment and some input changes. No, it's going to be moving the whole game into C++.
-Competition
Now I knew Unity had iPhone support but I also knew it was fairly expensive to get the most out of Unity. Furthermore I had already written my game in TGB and Unity being Mac only was a huge minus for my development preferences. My Mac Mini struggles, what can I say.
I was of course pleased to stumble upon a forum post around the Internets that spoke of a new solution called ShiVa by Stonetrip. I decided to follow my gut instinct and not purchase iTGB and give myself at least a week to see if I could prototype my game with this new tool. I came away from that week succesful.
Now what are the benefits of ShiVa?
-2D/3D
It's full 3D, if I want to do 2D or 3D I can and don't need to purchase two separate licenses as I would with iTorque.
-Platforms
That's right iPhone is just one more platform along with Windows, Mac, Linux, and Wii that ShiVa supports including a web deployment option. You can develop on Windows.
-Price
Oh, did I mention that iPhone deployment is completely free with the license which is only about $230 at the current exchange rate?
-Power
LUA scripting, full physics support, editors for everything under the sun, shaders, etc ... It's a beast for the money.
-Support
When you ask questions or highlight flaws these guys don't whine. They acknowledge your comments and respond quickly with solutions or a note to let you know it's going in the next build. Their attitude is A1 professional and they are hungry to be the game engine of choice.
-Problems
As with any engine ShiVa's not perfect. However, if this were the presidential race iTGB would be John McCain trailing in the polls. Thus the baggage ShiVa has pales in comparison to what iTGB is carrying.
This is my bid for a cheaper iTGB. Give us unlimited use for $100 Garage Games and you've got my vote. Short of that and I'll be supporting ShiVa. In addition as many already know I'm a very vocal supporter of the tools I use which is something to keep in mind.
Thanks for reading. May the best engine win!
About the author
#22
I haven't looked closely at ShiVa or the latest EULA changes from Apple so I may be missing something?
10/21/2008 (1:52 pm)
When I was reading over the iPhone SDK EULA there was an "interpreted code" section that seemed designed specifically to disallow "players" on the iPhone because of the security risk. My understanding is that Apple wants to be pretty strict about requiring each individual app to be signed by the actual developer so that they can track back any issues/holes/problems to the team who developed the app. Having a "player" signed by the developer of ShiVa running your game seems to be in direct violation of that part of the EULA (and its intention).I haven't looked closely at ShiVa or the latest EULA changes from Apple so I may be missing something?
#23
10/21/2008 (2:55 pm)
Shiva has just released their first application on the app store. I downloaded the app and it runs smooth. The app is called iBall3D and is free. it is already in the top 10 best spot. 
#24
10/21/2008 (3:44 pm)
So with that in mind I have to ask again, you still need a mac right (with shiva)? You just don't have to develop the game on the mac? 
#25
10/21/2008 (3:48 pm)
Yes. A Mac is still required.
#26
@everyone: Can anyone confirm if its true or otherwise what Scott said regarding shiva not producing standard .exe files (does all games produced require installation of the web player)?
10/21/2008 (5:25 pm)
Thanks for that David! Any thoughts on dx studio, I'm only put off by the lack of multi-platform capability and (from what I remember) high spec to run the games made with it.@everyone: Can anyone confirm if its true or otherwise what Scott said regarding shiva not producing standard .exe files (does all games produced require installation of the web player)?
#27
And yes, I believe ShiVa requires you to install a player like the Shockwave and Flash stand-alone players. Most of the players are similar to Java in that they compile down to bytecode and then execute it on the player's platform.
10/21/2008 (6:28 pm)
It was alright. It felt like it was trying to do too much without doing it well, especially the modeling side. It is a great rapid development tool, though. I still prefer Unity or GameCore to it when it comes to the interface.And yes, I believe ShiVa requires you to install a player like the Shockwave and Flash stand-alone players. Most of the players are similar to Java in that they compile down to bytecode and then execute it on the player's platform.
#28
10/21/2008 (6:58 pm)
You don't need a player on the iPhone. Yes, you need a Mac to deploy but just whatever you can get your hands on will work. You don't need a really nice machine to deploy apps.
#29
BTW what is it with engine showcases and colorful marble games?
10/21/2008 (7:04 pm)
As it stands iBall3D has impressed me quite a bit. I was impressed by the tools and I'm even more impressed with a working application. It's one of the top free games with 44 solid reviews. Without hearing any official word on an iTGB price drop I think it's time for me to go with ShiVa. This tool is too good to be ignored on the iPhone.BTW what is it with engine showcases and colorful marble games?
#30
EDIT:
@Jeremy:
@David: Yeah, I think it will get better with time (as it seems to do so already), but the lack of multiplatform capability does put me off somewhat, I like the option of spreading my eggs so to speak :P
10/21/2008 (7:11 pm)
Thanks David/Jeremy. I sent an email to their support to find out if the .exe files need the web player (and as a nice means of testing their support response, which was very quick!), and this was the reply I received exactly:Quote:Shiva can produce executable files for windows, macs and Linux. :) andSeems the player is only necessary for playback on the web, which is more then reasonable from my perspective, my interest level just increased again :)
iPhone
Player are for web application.
EDIT:
@Jeremy:
Quote:BTW what is it with engine showcases and colorful marble games?I just think people love balls (that sounds kinda wrong, doesn't it) :D
@David: Yeah, I think it will get better with time (as it seems to do so already), but the lack of multiplatform capability does put me off somewhat, I like the option of spreading my eggs so to speak :P
#31
we did a game for epcot in virtools back in 2000, and I sort of liked it.. but I found the node based scripting to be a bear. I havn't looked into how scripting and stuff goes in Shiva I'll investigate further and post what I find. the low price for all platforms is nice.
My initial comment about their demos is this.. blah blah blah. Nothing super detailed or heavy like you get with Torque. So I'm wondering how optimized their engine is. Any clue to links that might show the engine getting pushed?
The physics is very nice though ;-)
10/21/2008 (8:58 pm)
thank you for this.. very interesting.. I second the virtools comment for sure. The interface looks like virtools the app loading even looks like virtools icons, and the look of the graphics at least from what I've seen looks much like virtools.we did a game for epcot in virtools back in 2000, and I sort of liked it.. but I found the node based scripting to be a bear. I havn't looked into how scripting and stuff goes in Shiva I'll investigate further and post what I find. the low price for all platforms is nice.
My initial comment about their demos is this.. blah blah blah. Nothing super detailed or heavy like you get with Torque. So I'm wondering how optimized their engine is. Any clue to links that might show the engine getting pushed?
The physics is very nice though ;-)
#32
that and their offices are in Antibes I wonder if they started at Virtools.
Lol.. I saw that their stonBox (server) app has a built in payment module? I'd really want to check out that code before I had people sending out their credit card numbers over it ;-)
Not seeing any 3d apps that are giving me the warm fuzzies as far as impressive look or feel, but still it's one more alternative and pushing the price barrier only helps us all ;-)
thanks again for the find.
C
10/21/2008 (9:15 pm)
a little more exploring and the engine looks more and more like virtools. I turned on fraps on their online FPS demo and noticed it had a frame limiter in it which was something Virtools had and actually needed for sync issues.that and their offices are in Antibes I wonder if they started at Virtools.
Lol.. I saw that their stonBox (server) app has a built in payment module? I'd really want to check out that code before I had people sending out their credit card numbers over it ;-)
Not seeing any 3d apps that are giving me the warm fuzzies as far as impressive look or feel, but still it's one more alternative and pushing the price barrier only helps us all ;-)
thanks again for the find.
C
#33
10/22/2008 (1:20 am)
I just wanted to point out that .NET apps deploy as executables as well. Just because something depoys as an executable doesn't mean that it doesn't have an interpreter built into it. That, though would probably pass Apple's muster if they scrutinized it because it is all self contained and is really nothing more than any other game that uses scripting, except the entire game is written in script. 
#34
@Kevin - .Net apps don't have an interpreter built into them (nor are they interpreted at all). There is a JIT compiler and runtime that is preinstalled. The assemblies in the application are compiled as they are loaded and/or accessed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime
10/22/2008 (6:41 am)
Quote:I just wanted to point out that .NET apps deploy as executables as well. Just because something depoys as an executable doesn't mean that it doesn't have an interpreter built into it.
@Kevin - .Net apps don't have an interpreter built into them (nor are they interpreted at all). There is a JIT compiler and runtime that is preinstalled. The assemblies in the application are compiled as they are loaded and/or accessed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime
#35
10/22/2008 (12:53 pm)
Anyways FYI - small update from todays Unity conference keynote. PC version of the editor was shown running in a live demo. No release date announced yet, but its more than vaporware now. You still need a Mac and xcode to make an iPhone game.
#36
10/22/2008 (1:04 pm)
Thanks for the update Thomas :)
#37
10/22/2008 (1:16 pm)
If it true on how Apple pays royalties then the License of iTGE for each app isn't such a good idea. Not for indies. For commercial -> big name companies -> yes .. a license for each app would make sense... but for us small timers.. it's not gonna be worth the money.
#38
Yes, I apologize for not being clear. Those were two separate statements. I didn't intent to imply .NET apps had the CLR buit into them, merely that they were not native apps, yet still .EXE executables. I then went on (without transitioning I guess lol) to point out that .EXEs could also merely be an interpreter with the scripts packed in with them.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
aka:
.NET apps are deployed as .EXE files (executables) but are in fact interpreted code which is executed by a pre-installed player (in this case, the .NET Framework and runtimes). It shows you that just because something is an executable, .EXE, it doesn't mean its not interpreted or running in some kind of player. It could also be an interpreter with the scripts/bytecode packed into a single executable, which is maybe what the ShiVa tool does. In that case, it would be hard to say it's any different from any other game deployed that has scripts, since they are not separate and do not allow other people to run their own scripts/byte code.
10/22/2008 (2:00 pm)
@JaimiYes, I apologize for not being clear. Those were two separate statements. I didn't intent to imply .NET apps had the CLR buit into them, merely that they were not native apps, yet still .EXE executables. I then went on (without transitioning I guess lol) to point out that .EXEs could also merely be an interpreter with the scripts packed in with them.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
aka:
.NET apps are deployed as .EXE files (executables) but are in fact interpreted code which is executed by a pre-installed player (in this case, the .NET Framework and runtimes). It shows you that just because something is an executable, .EXE, it doesn't mean its not interpreted or running in some kind of player. It could also be an interpreter with the scripts/bytecode packed into a single executable, which is maybe what the ShiVa tool does. In that case, it would be hard to say it's any different from any other game deployed that has scripts, since they are not separate and do not allow other people to run their own scripts/byte code.
Employee David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
ShiVa seems interesting, but I get lost in the number of engines that require players for distribution. As long as the company keeps the player working and you don't do anything the player doesn't expect, you should be okay. I haven't sat down and used it like I have DX Studio, though. I wish I had the time, but appendectomies and moving and thesis are calling.