Game Development Community

dev|Pro Game Development Curriculum

Full Speed Ahead!!!!

by Eric Preisz · 03/26/2010 (6:23 pm) · 63 comments


static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/TorqueRoadl.png


The beginning of the second quarter feels like the start of a new year. Let me explain.

Coming on board in the beginning of the year felt like a new year as well –it was an opportunity to drive new ideas, in our new building, under our new leader Lou Castle. The strategy team formed and we worked very hard assessing the competitive landscape, market opportunities, and new, long-term visions. We presented our ideas to the executive leaders many times. We refined, debated, and consolidated until we had a unified mission.

It was a lot of hard work and the process that we went through reminded me of dependency hell which was the term we used to describe the serialization that occurs during strategy planning. When product managers asked me a question, I didn’t always have the answer because the strategy team was either still researching or still debating. We went into the process knowing it would be challenging –and it was.

At the same time, GDC was looming. A conference like GDC consumes a lot of time. The dependencies of the strategy team also affected GDC; however, it’s even more challenging since the week of GDC may be our only chance to talk to people that we might not see until next year. A week is a small window to set the expectations for 12 months.

We solidified high level strategy plans two weeks before GDC. That gave us just enough time to share the strategy team’s information with the internal team and consultants. While at GDC, we affirmed and tweaked the strategies by learning about the competitors and listening to you and our partners.

Lou and I discussed my personal and business goals early in January. One of the goals was to have a budget and portfolio road map in place by March 22nd. We had our meeting last Monday at 8:00 PST, I presented him with our progress and he approved.

So, by now it should be fairly clear why this quarter feels like a new year. Strategies are in place, the budget is in place, managers of products are merging existing plans to meet a budget and unified strategy. This structure gives managers more autonomy and flexibility while still maintaining responsibility and accountability. Motivation thrives in this type of environment.


static.torquepowered.com/static/pg/blogs/eric/TorqueLogoSmall.png

Updates


So while it’s not strategic to share with you our entire strategy, there are some foundations that I can share.

Firstly, for all of you who were waiting for a direction for TorqueX, we have an answer for you. TorqueX has its own line item in our budget. We think John has done a great job working on TorqueX given his resources; but those resources are not enough to keep a product from feeling like a, dare I say it, a red-headed step child ( no offense to step children or red heads it’s just the term I saw in our forums ). We’ve allocated real funds to TorqueX for 2010 and look forward to working with John and others on our aggressive plans. We are building product plans around that budget and we plan to staff-up to meet our new goals with this product line. At this time ( I will update everyone after we do some more work ) we expect to have a major update this year and some near term updates as well.




Secondly, we are looking to improve the experience of the Torque 3D binary. As many of you know by now, we expect to have a draft version of our Torque 3D docs available next week; that’s the first step. We have other plans as well. I’ll let Michael fill everyone in on the details of the docs in an upcoming blog.

I’d like to thank everyone on the forums who gave us the great constructive feedback. The thread started out like a lion and is ending like a lamb –appropriate for the month of March I guess. The constructive criticism helps us move quicker and meet your needs faster.







static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/docs.png
Next, we are looking to improve the quality and user experience of our products. The Full Sail University QA and Usability Lab will be a valuable resource for us on this front. We’ve also brought on Scott Burns as a full time employee. He starts on April 1st ( no joke ) and will work on-site at the University and will help coordinate the lab, intake bugs from the community, and refine the QA and usability process. Welcome aboard Scott! Torque 3D will benefit from the lab as well.

Matt Fairfax will be updating everyone in another two weeks on the status of Torque 3D -but I'll give you some hints now because I'm excited. After we finish Torque 3D 1.1, we will be moving to faster deployment of updates and tighter feedback loops from our community. Many of these feedback loops will focus on usability and quality.

Lastly, as we are moving forward we are looking for opportunities to converge and consolidate functionality. It took us a long time to have all of the different products and branches that exist; it will take a long time to merge that functionality under common tools and runtimes. This process will reduce cost, increase quality, and reduce confusion across for new customers who are learning about the differences between all of our offerings. This is clearly good for both us and the community.



In closing, I’d like to remind everyone that our GDC promotion for Torque 3D Pro and the binary is ending on April 1st. The coupon code is GDC2010 and it only works for Torque 3D Pro. Um…let’s make that April 2nd to reduce any confusion. The response to the Torque 3D Pro promotion has driven a lot of new users –many more than I expected. It seems like there were a lot of people waiting for an opportunity to buy Torque 3D at the pre-release price.

This promotion will be available for only a couple more days so get in while you still can.

So I’ve covered a lot, but there are still many things that I didn’t cover. In the next coming weeks, the people driving each of our products will be filling you in on more details, so look forward to their blogs.

About the author

Manager, Programmer, Author, Professor, Small Business Owner, and Marketer.

#21
03/29/2010 (10:36 pm)
What about releasing beta's like you guys do with T3D and iTGB?
#22
03/30/2010 (8:12 am)
Heya Eric,

I would suggest you guys to take a look at this thread.
http://www.torquepowered.com/community/forums/viewthread/112767

Pino has touched almost every class in the TorqueX engine to fix a multitude of ship stopping memory leaks. It would be great if you guys could make sure those fixes make it into the next release. I'd rather have you guys take a bit longer on it and get all those fixes in.

I know he is still fixing a number of remaining issues, perhaps you guys could sync up. :)
#23
03/30/2010 (10:24 am)
@Eric...I'm going to 2nd Matthew's thoughts here.

A large set of the Torque X user community has been sharing these fixes and our collective findings. Pino's done an amazing job trimming down the memory utilization and drastically improving garbage collection.

So many of us have imported his fixes into our code bases...it would be nice to see them become part of the core so that we don't have to try to replicate this effort when the next release comes out.

--RB
#24
03/30/2010 (11:12 am)
Cautiously happy about Torque X, but happy nonetheless :) I'm with almost everyone on this: please tackle the serious bugs on the engine before adding more features. We don't actually need much more than what is available.

Release after release we become more and more upset about problems with the editor (very bad content handling), calls that don't do what you expect them to, memory leaks, just bad performance, etc. For example, Windows Phone Support? We don't need it _now_!

Also, please focus on Torque X 2D, the product that everyone is actually using. It is 95% percent "done" and just needs a little love to become a very good product.

Let Torque X 3D be a second thought, as it will need lots of work and will still not be usable for a excruciating long period of time, anyway.

Another thing that bothers me _a lot_ is the release cicle of GG that is enormous. We expect a release every two months, but I imagine your internal process doesn't allow that. What about trying a new kind of faster release cicle with Torque X? People won't be mad at bugs when they know they are appearing because you are fixing others.

Just my hopes and wishes.... :(
#25
03/30/2010 (2:58 pm)
I will slightly disagree with Diego, more of us would use TX3D if it were easier, As it is right now I can use it with an acceptable (to me) amount of frustration, no worse than flash, and way better than CSS! However if the editor worked just as it stands now except I could attach my components I would be ecstatic. If it's really using the T3D editor well I cannot say how pleased I'll be.

#26
03/30/2010 (4:09 pm)
Being heavely invested in the TX2D engine with a long term project in the making I personaly would like to see it made the focus.

If I had to choose I'd like to see memory leaks, crash, and other major bugs fixed before any improments to the editor or workflow are made. After all the major bugs are out of the way, editor and workflow improvements are second on my list.

Lastly I'd like to see new features added.

:)
#27
03/30/2010 (6:04 pm)
Awesome, Ive been waiting to hear updates for not only for the Torque 3D Documentation. But for an update on Torque 3D! :)
#28
03/30/2010 (11:19 pm)
About Torque X...any chance you guys are gonna work on Garbage Collection on the 360? On the PC, GC is not so bad, but on the Xbox games are nearly unplayable because of a huge glitch in framerate when a Garbage Collection occurs. Thanks.
#29
03/31/2010 (9:44 am)
Well apparently still being ignored, like ITGE forums there is no response from Luma or GG anywhere .. If you are talking about updates in general might be kind enough to discuss what the future of ITGE? I'm really starting to feel disappointed of this product and how GarageGames has done away with, being a market I believe is the most accessible for any developer, which is growing incredibly "iPad" <- which we do not know if you plan to support, or when? (within 2 years? joke!)

I think you need to be honest with your customers, seem to want to cover many things, creating poor quality to any final product ... should focus on what is your real target and maximize (ITGE, itgb, tx, T3D, blah, blah, blah??) come on!

And of course, this is just my personal opinion about it, and nothing more.
#30
03/31/2010 (9:53 am)
@Edison - Through January and February, I announced our plans for iTorque 3D. You can read the first of those here.

Development started shortly after that and the team has made great progress.
#31
03/31/2010 (11:00 am)
@Henry - I agree with you that more of us would use TX3D if it were easier but I'm looking the pratical side of development: it will involve immensely more work than fixing/maintaining TX2D.

At the current state of TX development we can't ask for both TX3D _and_ TX2D to evolve, at the risk of not having any of them being properly maintained (as they are now). Most people can't work around those frustations you talked about, so the 3D engine is useless to most of us, and will continue to be for a long time even if TP decides to fix it, while TX2D is immensely useful as it is and just needs maintenance.

@Mathew - Totally agree with you!
#32
03/31/2010 (11:59 am)
Personally I would like to see more frequent updates to the progress on T2D. T2D is a game engine I am looking forward to using.

Jason
#33
03/31/2010 (12:30 pm)
Lot’s of interesting topics to cover.

On the topic of convergence, the drive is two fold. It’s extremely wasteful and expensive for us to fix bugs across so many different branches. A lot of times, the updating doesn’t occur. That’s a horrible experience. The other fold is customer facing. We want to deliver a more consistent experience across all of our products to make it easier for you to quickly move from one platform to the next to keep up with the herd of people, new and old school, that are playing games.

Convergence is a long term goal for us and all dollars spent on our product managers must find every possible opportunity to be more modular and connectable. From a tools perspective, we must find every opportunity to have consistent experience. I can’t comment on specific near term convergence plans because it’s hard and there is a lot of risk and direction changing that will occur.

What we don’t want is a tool set that is limited by the least common denominator platform we support. The concept of author once and publish everywhere doesn’t sit well with me. I’d prefer to author 90% and do 10% specialized work to take advantage of the special capabilities of the platform. Hardware and software feature sets are still quite divergent and specialized. For example, progressive meshes make sense on a Cell processor based machine and doesn’t make sense on, say, a draw call limited PC game. If author once deploy everywhere means I give up progressive meshes on the PS3, then you are underutilizing the hardware. Your game will look like the ported version on every platform.

On the topic of smaller update loops. We like this idea too. The challenge is the QA process. I like community QA, but relying on it along makes for a bad experience. You guys don’t like seeing releases, even if they are called beta, with a bunch of bugs. We’ve never had a QA team of any reasonable size –we are building that department with the help of Full Sail University in order to help us be more efficient and cost effective.

On the topic of polish vs. feature development, the answer is one of balance. We need to balance retention and acquisition. If we don’t ever get new developers using our tools you guys will not be happy –trust me. Feature development does help us pay bills and while word of mouth goes a long way, so does that bullet list of features and screen shots. Keeping people once we attracted them goes a long way as well. Again, it’s a balance. If we were to shift the balance to retention only, then we’re talking about a subscription model and game engines as a service. I don’t think you are ready to drop your WOW subscription for a Torque one just yet.

Please keep the Torque X suggestions coming…we are listening…although to be fair, we won’t be able to meet the needs of every developer’s individual need ( that’s why full source is so useful ).

Oh, almost forgot. Thanks to everyone who is posting bug fixes. You are going out of your way to make our product better. Special thanks to Pino.
#34
03/31/2010 (1:23 pm)
Imagine a guy purchases a BRAND NEW Ferrari w/ every option, bell and whistle.. But he wont take the time to learn to drive a manual transmission... So he just drives the ferrari in 1st gear only. Thats what I feel GarageGames does with Torque X. (Its the engine I own.. ) They have a really powerful and innovative product.. Its Feature Packed.. And if you have a Imagination and some time, you can really create some great products.. But the lack of testing makes the engine really frustrating to deal with. The Whole memory leak issue is just 1 of the many issues that plague the engine. Im not talking about minor bugs that dont really matter.. Im talking about MAJOR.. DEAD STOP ISSUES.. I totally and 100percent understand development, and that no software is perfect, nor almost perfect. Coding is nasty.. nasty work, but I know of at least 5 major issues the engine has that.. If it were tested prior to release.. They would 100percent been indentified fixed prior to release.

The website has many broken links, empty pages and there is absolutely no graph or table that lets you see what genre kits or tools are compatible with your engine.. The community is great. But we all need some help from the GarageGame team to fix this engine. I love torque x 2d and have lost Hundreds of hours of sleep working with it.. Im totally committed as the entire community is.. But this Diamond needs to be cleaned and polished so it can sparkle and shine.
#35
03/31/2010 (1:39 pm)
@Eric...a subscription option (and I say option because it might not appeal to everyone) would not be a bad idea. I've said this in the forums in the past.

I've spent about $850 on game engines during my time here at GG. I've been a site member since 2004. That's about $140ish / per year.

Now...admittedly...there were a few years during that span where I would have dropped the service if it was costing me that much...but things seem to be improving (both the products and the GG team/culture).

--RB
#36
03/31/2010 (3:59 pm)
I also like Darrel J's idea about a graph or table that shows you what genre kits and tools are compatible with your engine. It would make it easier for me to purchase extra tools, kits, models, etc... for engines I own.

Personally, I do not like the subscription model. I do not like continual monthly money obligations. I prefer to pay once and be done with it.

You might also consider a royalty model. GG would be paid a percentage of total sales on games created with you engines. If you set up the Great Games Experiment, or some other web site, to sale games through and made it easy for developers to list their games on it this might become rather profitable. Even if not switching totally to the royalty model this might give GG an extra channel of income.

Perhaps you could have a subscription model and a purchase model and let each person decide which they prefer?

Jason
#37
03/31/2010 (11:43 pm)
Subscription model worked well for Blade3D...
#38
04/01/2010 (5:32 am)
Didn't Blade3D go under? ;)

You obviously have to strike a balance between the subscription cost and the cost of game engine production. My personal spend number here has been about $140/year...but I don't know how the math works out on that for GG. It's tough to say...we'll charge $10/month and give our engines away to everyone who pays the monthly fee.

What I would suggest is a subscription rate that gives you access to the best pricing. Take the $1000 price tag for T3D...it's scared some folks off, hence the high adoption during the GDC discount.

If a paid subscriber of say $50 / year, had access to that $500 price tag indefinitely (or maybe even a $300 price tag), then that's a model that could work.

I bought TGE when I first found Garage Games in 2004. I think I bought TGEA the same year (total for both was $300 IIRC), then I didn't spend a dime with GG until this year when I bought TX2D Pro and T3D with the GDC discount.

A subscription model would have at least kept some of my dollars flowing into GG, and better pricing would likely have gotten me into TX2D and T3D earlier.

It'd have to be worthwhile though...perhaps free content packs, free starter kits, or deeply discounted tools to keep subscriptions active during those years between significant engine releases.

Otherwise you'll get alot of guys that come in...buy up your big new releases, then cancel their accounts.

--RB
#39
04/01/2010 (6:58 am)
Hey guys, subscription model conversations are probably going to derail this thread. We don't have any subscription model plans at this time.
#40
04/01/2010 (7:11 am)
I'm usually against the subscription model, but if that would be in place only to cover the updates and it'll be inclusive of email support I might like it, depending on the actual support content provided.

Anyway at it's current state TX doesn't seem ready to be proposed that way because of the large amount of actual bugs in it. I didn't start any project (yet) with T2D and T3D so I'm not really aware of the level of reliability of those, but I've no source code for them, so I really hope they work! :)

I look forward to reading the new TX asset evolution and whatever part of the plans you might want to share with us ;)