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.
#4
The problem was that the company who built the engine... did not make their own colladae exporters nor did they develop it to work hand in hand with any one specific exporter. The result was that noone could find a colladae exporter that would properly work in most normal modeling and anaimation situations reliably. They would work sometimes but not always, animations got messed up pretty bad at times but were fine at others, etc. Everything... the format... the exporters... the engines' importers... were all to generic.
I think that making colladae a directly supported format is a great idea, however if you do go this route, could you please seriously consider either developing your own exporters for the more common modeling applications or picking a series of exporters that are either free or "indie affordable" (that ar ea sure bet to be around in the future) and making sure that the engines importers work hand in hand with them on both mesh and animation.
IMHO torques biggest downfall has always been it's art pipeline. Something like this could totally change that around for the better. I just wanted to post the problems that I saw encountered with another engine doing the same thing in hopes that they would not be repeated here. :)
01/12/2009 (10:28 pm)
Just a quick note of concern after reading that you may be implementing support to directly import colladea into Torque 3D. I recently was messing around with another engine that attempted to change to the colladae format for models and animation and what I saw there was that the very thing that makes colladae so popular is also it's biggest downfall. It's so open ended and flexible and therefore easy to use in many applications. The problem was that the company who built the engine... did not make their own colladae exporters nor did they develop it to work hand in hand with any one specific exporter. The result was that noone could find a colladae exporter that would properly work in most normal modeling and anaimation situations reliably. They would work sometimes but not always, animations got messed up pretty bad at times but were fine at others, etc. Everything... the format... the exporters... the engines' importers... were all to generic.
I think that making colladae a directly supported format is a great idea, however if you do go this route, could you please seriously consider either developing your own exporters for the more common modeling applications or picking a series of exporters that are either free or "indie affordable" (that ar ea sure bet to be around in the future) and making sure that the engines importers work hand in hand with them on both mesh and animation.
IMHO torques biggest downfall has always been it's art pipeline. Something like this could totally change that around for the better. I just wanted to post the problems that I saw encountered with another engine doing the same thing in hopes that they would not be repeated here. :)
#5
I think that everyone who has purchased a Torque product has gotten their money's worth; whether they know it or not is a different story. My question, which is really not my business, is: Can GG continue to serve the casual game developer (like me) without the income from the think-you-can-push-a-button-to-make-a-game market or will I be precluded because the focus is now on professional game studios?
01/12/2009 (10:31 pm)
Quote:They have. No question. Was Torque and all they got worth their money? I certainly think so. I think it will be in the future as well, but they are not our core focus.
I think that everyone who has purchased a Torque product has gotten their money's worth; whether they know it or not is a different story. My question, which is really not my business, is: Can GG continue to serve the casual game developer (like me) without the income from the think-you-can-push-a-button-to-make-a-game market or will I be precluded because the focus is now on professional game studios?
Quote:@Rollerjesus: I f'ing love that name btw...ROLLERJESUS! =) Better than Raptorjesus even.:) Thanks, I think it's hilarious too; though most times people think it's a religious spam post when I create a thread... and you thought your blogs created controversy...
#6
01/12/2009 (11:13 pm)
It really seems that you guys are doing all these exciting things at an impossible pace. I'm thankful that you still find the time to update us in such details. Hats off to the whole team.
#7
01/12/2009 (11:19 pm)
@Brett - that's a great summary of 324 posts :) I think spot on with the messages coming from all of us and looking forward to seeing more news on Torque 3D as it develops
#8
- Will TGEA 1.8 receive any more bug fixes or is it considered finished?
01/12/2009 (11:26 pm)
Since my question is continously ignored, I'll ask it again.- Will TGEA 1.8 receive any more bug fixes or is it considered finished?
#9
@Rollerjesus: If you're making casual games, I think Torque will always be in the right price range. Commercial casual games usually have a $50-150k budget with a team of just 2-3 people. I don't see Torque being a burden on that kind of budget of course. For the developer on a shoestring, I think there are, and always will be good options with Torque. TGB (Torque 2D in the next release) is and certainly will be priced lower than Torque 3D.
@Stefan: I think MattF already said that a bugfix / stability update was likely to happen around the time we release Torque 3D. Before or after...not sure. Feature wise, it's definitely considered finished.
01/12/2009 (11:51 pm)
@all: Thank you...it's good to see some (virtual) smiles are still possible in the chaos :)@Rollerjesus: If you're making casual games, I think Torque will always be in the right price range. Commercial casual games usually have a $50-150k budget with a team of just 2-3 people. I don't see Torque being a burden on that kind of budget of course. For the developer on a shoestring, I think there are, and always will be good options with Torque. TGB (Torque 2D in the next release) is and certainly will be priced lower than Torque 3D.
@Stefan: I think MattF already said that a bugfix / stability update was likely to happen around the time we release Torque 3D. Before or after...not sure. Feature wise, it's definitely considered finished.
#10
01/12/2009 (11:54 pm)
@Syllus: Thanks for the input on this...art pipeline is getting a lot of attention, but you're right, there are definitely pitfalls and tough compromises to make, no matter what direction you go in.
#11
01/13/2009 (12:40 am)
Thank you, Brett. Looking forward to how this evolves.
#12
01/13/2009 (1:58 am)
Thanks for keeping it moving forward GG guys. I look forward more and can't wait for the support team to come into play. 
#13
T3D Lite Options:
-----------------
License Deltas +1
Feature Deltas -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1....
Per title Licence -1
.
01/13/2009 (2:12 am)
Quote:I love the smell of napalm in the morningROFL
T3D Lite Options:
-----------------
License Deltas +1
Feature Deltas -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1....
Per title Licence -1
.
#14
Physics, even if it requires a person to get a license with whatever physics engine it is to publish their product, at this point in time there is no reason why every engine shouldn't have physics include, even flash has physics engines for it now. Far more games are going to use physics then arn't, the excuse has always been people would need different phsyics. Truth is most people would need the same physics but having an engine in and working is easier to modify for your needs then getting a physics engine in.
There are plenty of other little things that should be added and should be consider standard features by all game engines. Truthfully I've been considering swtiching to unity3d for a long time now. Although you have to work out a seperate agreement with them if you want the source code, you get so much included in the engine and the tools seems so complete that a lot of projects won't really need the source. That kind of ease of use is exactly what the hobbyist/ lone poor indies need. And those same people are your main customer base. And for anyone reading and wondering why I haven't switched to unity3d since I mentioned it, it is simply for the reason I need to figure out getting a 3d modeller to use for it and I don't have the money for that right now.
So hopefully if you do decide to raise the price, you also make it a much more complete resource
01/13/2009 (3:03 am)
I was going to post on the last blog but by the time I saw it the posts were in the hundreds so decided to wait. I couldn't agree more with the more features/ more polish/ better tools if there were a price hike. I've bought several products over the years and spent probably way too much, problem was I could never do anything real because of the lack of already included features and problems. Now this isn't a hate post but I have always felt this engine needed more included that should be standard with all engines.Physics, even if it requires a person to get a license with whatever physics engine it is to publish their product, at this point in time there is no reason why every engine shouldn't have physics include, even flash has physics engines for it now. Far more games are going to use physics then arn't, the excuse has always been people would need different phsyics. Truth is most people would need the same physics but having an engine in and working is easier to modify for your needs then getting a physics engine in.
There are plenty of other little things that should be added and should be consider standard features by all game engines. Truthfully I've been considering swtiching to unity3d for a long time now. Although you have to work out a seperate agreement with them if you want the source code, you get so much included in the engine and the tools seems so complete that a lot of projects won't really need the source. That kind of ease of use is exactly what the hobbyist/ lone poor indies need. And those same people are your main customer base. And for anyone reading and wondering why I haven't switched to unity3d since I mentioned it, it is simply for the reason I need to figure out getting a 3d modeller to use for it and I don't have the money for that right now.
So hopefully if you do decide to raise the price, you also make it a much more complete resource
#15
01/13/2009 (3:34 am)
Not that I've ever done anything, but I appreciate the update. =/ Just please consider good documentation to be a part of the package. The whole product isn't all just code.
#16
01/13/2009 (4:20 am)
Quote: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.If people need that, then there's a problem either in the code or the docs... you shouldn't have to do support tickets.
#17
Quote:
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.
If people need that, then there's a problem either in the code or the docs... you shouldn't had to do support tickets.
01/13/2009 (4:26 am)
All products have bugs. The key is making sure you get as many of them found as possible. Support is often still necessary, and the idea of support tickets isn't unique to any one business... just takes resources to do.Quote:
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.
If people need that, then there's a problem either in the code or the docs... you shouldn't had to do support tickets.
#18
The collada format is huge and it produces huge files. Importing directly into the engine for use isn't really an option because of how big the files are. Sure, it's great for production. But for shipping the collada format needs to go through a process called conditioning. In most cases, this means converting the callada file your modeling program spit out into a simpler format.
That is whole the intention of collada anyway. That is to make it so companies didn't have to write special exporters for every single modeling program. Since the format is (supposed to be) standard, companies such as GarageGames only have to write exporters (conditioners) for the format itself, rather then wasting time trying to keep up with the API changes of all the modeling programs out there.
01/13/2009 (4:48 am)
@ SyllusThe collada format is huge and it produces huge files. Importing directly into the engine for use isn't really an option because of how big the files are. Sure, it's great for production. But for shipping the collada format needs to go through a process called conditioning. In most cases, this means converting the callada file your modeling program spit out into a simpler format.
That is whole the intention of collada anyway. That is to make it so companies didn't have to write special exporters for every single modeling program. Since the format is (supposed to be) standard, companies such as GarageGames only have to write exporters (conditioners) for the format itself, rather then wasting time trying to keep up with the API changes of all the modeling programs out there.
#19
01/13/2009 (5:44 am)
Not necessarily on the tickets. Sometimes people just need a hand on particularly troublesome tasks. Although in the current state of things, I could see a lot of tickets which would be caused by bugs and bad docs. Hopefully, that will not be an issue with T3D. 
#20
01/13/2009 (6:15 am)
No feature deprecation please. Keep the "licensing delta." ;)
Torque Owner Keith MJK