License just got more strict?
by John Vanderbeck · in Torque Game Engine · 03/15/2004 (2:17 pm) · 62 replies
Eh?
Despite the news title "Loberalizes" did the engine license just get MORE strict?
Seems to me it did and i'd like to get the skinny on these changes. Seems the indie license just became harder to qualify for.. 250k vs 500k. Not a huge deal I know but I wanted to clarify that.
The other, rather big one, is that we now have to display the GG splash screen?? Maybe i'm just an idiot but I don't remember reading this anywhere in the old license.
Can someone clarify this for me please?
Despite the news title "Loberalizes" did the engine license just get MORE strict?
Seems to me it did and i'd like to get the skinny on these changes. Seems the indie license just became harder to qualify for.. 250k vs 500k. Not a huge deal I know but I wanted to clarify that.
The other, rather big one, is that we now have to display the GG splash screen?? Maybe i'm just an idiot but I don't remember reading this anywhere in the old license.
Can someone clarify this for me please?
#2
Am I making any sense or am I just being a Jerk?
03/15/2004 (2:33 pm)
Yeah the 250k i'm not all bent out of shape over. But i'm fairly certain this advertising clause wasn't in before and frankly i'm a little upset over it. I can understand GG's side of it, but well its something out of the blue now that has me looking things over again. I guess i'd like to see what this "Torque Game Engine Logo" is thats required. Is it the splash screen we see in the demos? If so then my complaint is that isn't what i'd consider a standard engine splash. Its more of an ad for GarageGames itself which bothers me. A splash that said "Powered by The Torque Game Engine" is fine and dandy by me.. one that says "Garage Games" is not. Maybe i'm being anal, but if I don't publish my game through GG, then I really don't want GG's tag on it like they did publish it.Am I making any sense or am I just being a Jerk?
#3
OLD METHOD: You want to publish your game with Real. OK, pony up $10,000 for the commercial license. You want to publish with Shockwave? $10,000 please. eGames? $10,000. You probably will not make $10,000 on any of those deals.
NEW METHOD: $100.
John, if it is important to you to not display the Torque logo, we will be happy to allow you to use the old EULA. In fact, anybody that wants to use the old EULA prior to today is able to. We can't force you to change if you purchased your SDK under the old EULA. You CAN"T mix and match though.
Everybody thinks we are out to screw them... Just take the gift horse. Man., I thought this was some of the best news for Indies since Open Source. The first post blows me away.
We are asking for Torque Game Engine logo, not GG. If you don't want to do that, you can upgrade to the $495 Commercial License.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
03/15/2004 (2:34 pm)
Please read it. It is MUCH more liberal. The odds of your company going over $250,000 in revenue are WAY lower than the odds that you will try to publish with a company that has more than $500,000 in revenue. Here is a for instance:OLD METHOD: You want to publish your game with Real. OK, pony up $10,000 for the commercial license. You want to publish with Shockwave? $10,000 please. eGames? $10,000. You probably will not make $10,000 on any of those deals.
NEW METHOD: $100.
John, if it is important to you to not display the Torque logo, we will be happy to allow you to use the old EULA. In fact, anybody that wants to use the old EULA prior to today is able to. We can't force you to change if you purchased your SDK under the old EULA. You CAN"T mix and match though.
Everybody thinks we are out to screw them... Just take the gift horse. Man., I thought this was some of the best news for Indies since Open Source. The first post blows me away.
We are asking for Torque Game Engine logo, not GG. If you don't want to do that, you can upgrade to the $495 Commercial License.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
#4
While the subtle change in licensing is interesting, I'm very interested in some of the announcements that are forthcoming.
03/15/2004 (2:35 pm)
I don't know. For my project, I doubt I'll be having to upgrade to a commercial license any time soon (though it's nice to dream), and I've always intended to credit GarageGames with anything I did anyway. I personally don't see the big deal about the logo on the splash screen (I was planning on it anyway) since I feel that the more people who see Torque and GarageGames on quality indie titles, the more people we will have joining our community (which means I can whore more resources! ...ahem...).While the subtle change in licensing is interesting, I'm very interested in some of the announcements that are forthcoming.
#5
Calm down Jeff. I'm one of the good guys :) I have always trusted GG as one of the good guys and I KNOW you aren't out to screw me.
But that doesn't change the fact that I try to be apprised of changes and understand them. I'd be an idiot and a bad business owner if I didin't.
I see where you are going now though. I'm no lawyer so I didin't understsand that SUBTLE change. I'm sorry if it went over my head, but I see it now and that is cool. I don't think it would have really had an effect on me either way, but its cool and it IS more liberal.
03/15/2004 (2:39 pm)
Quote:Everybody thinks we are out to screw them... Just take the gift horse. Man., I thought this was some of the best news for Indies since Open Source. The first post blows me away.
Calm down Jeff. I'm one of the good guys :) I have always trusted GG as one of the good guys and I KNOW you aren't out to screw me.
But that doesn't change the fact that I try to be apprised of changes and understand them. I'd be an idiot and a bad business owner if I didin't.
I see where you are going now though. I'm no lawyer so I didin't understsand that SUBTLE change. I'm sorry if it went over my head, but I see it now and that is cool. I don't think it would have really had an effect on me either way, but its cool and it IS more liberal.
#6
03/15/2004 (2:41 pm)
My complaint about the logo has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to give GG proper credit or not wanting to. I was looking at it from a business perspective, and looking at the fact that the current splash screen seen in the demos is not really an appropriate "powered by torque" type credit splash. It could easily be mis understood as "Garage Games published or in some other way was involved in the development and release of this game".
#7
Stop reading between the lines of my posts damnit all.
Its all about presentation. That's why I asked FOR A CLARIFICATION on what the logo is that must be displayed. A logo hell even a movie that simply in essence says "This game is powered by the Torque Game Engine by Garage Games" is fine and dandy by me!
That is different though than a general Garage Games logo that makes it seem there was a relationship that wasn't neccesarily there.
Why the heck do you people have to jump the gun and point your darn fingers at me as a bad person? GEESH.
03/15/2004 (2:44 pm)
You know i'm sick and tired of people jumping the friggen gun when someone says anything.Stop reading between the lines of my posts damnit all.
Its all about presentation. That's why I asked FOR A CLARIFICATION on what the logo is that must be displayed. A logo hell even a movie that simply in essence says "This game is powered by the Torque Game Engine by Garage Games" is fine and dandy by me!
That is different though than a general Garage Games logo that makes it seem there was a relationship that wasn't neccesarily there.
Why the heck do you people have to jump the gun and point your darn fingers at me as a bad person? GEESH.
#8
P.S. This is where I go to see Torque powered games, so if a game is powered by torque, and not published here, I probably wont see it. Also name recognition with GG, is what will sell, its been in many magazines like PCGamer, the most popular PCgame magazine at the moment. Most people that I talk to remembered the name Garage Games from the magazine because it stuck out more then Torque, which noone knew, they just said, "That Garage games thing".
03/15/2004 (2:45 pm)
Oh my goodness, its just a splash screen, I dont think anything like that when I see it. if I really cared who GG was if I didnt already know, I'd look it up, not just automatically assume that it was the publisher.P.S. This is where I go to see Torque powered games, so if a game is powered by torque, and not published here, I probably wont see it. Also name recognition with GG, is what will sell, its been in many magazines like PCGamer, the most popular PCgame magazine at the moment. Most people that I talk to remembered the name Garage Games from the magazine because it stuck out more then Torque, which noone knew, they just said, "That Garage games thing".
#9
That way, if someone made a game like Dangerous Vaults using Torque (please God, no)...it wouldn't look like GarageGames had published it. But it would be known that someone could make an adult game with Torque.
03/15/2004 (2:46 pm)
I can understand that, but from looking at the wording "Torque engine logo" and not "GarageGames Logo" or "default GarageGames splash screen", I was thinking more along the "Powered by the Torque Engine" credit because that makes more sense. Of course I may be completely off-center about that, too. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.That way, if someone made a game like Dangerous Vaults using Torque (please God, no)...it wouldn't look like GarageGames had published it. But it would be known that someone could make an adult game with Torque.
#10
Am I pleased about the advertising clause? Nah, not really. Am I mad about it? Nope. Will it sway me away from using Torque for future projects? Heck no! Me personally, I planned to see about using the TGE logo on the front page of the game - just didn't plan on a full-page splash screen for it. I'd rather it share space on the main game startup screen with my company logo and the publisher's logo. But that's partially a matter of astetics (er... sp?) rather than disliking having to tell the world I used Torque :-) But I ain't gonna bitch - these changes will probably save me a shitload of money here real soon!
03/15/2004 (2:46 pm)
Jeff: I don't think many people believe GG is tryin' to screw them (there are some rare exceptions, but these are usually the same people who complained that GG wasn't paying them to write games, or that GG should automatically publish thier game since they used Torque - in other words, the most unreasonable people possible ;-) However, as usual, everyone tries to get exactly what they want for as little as they can get it. Nature of the beast, man.Am I pleased about the advertising clause? Nah, not really. Am I mad about it? Nope. Will it sway me away from using Torque for future projects? Heck no! Me personally, I planned to see about using the TGE logo on the front page of the game - just didn't plan on a full-page splash screen for it. I'd rather it share space on the main game startup screen with my company logo and the publisher's logo. But that's partially a matter of astetics (er... sp?) rather than disliking having to tell the world I used Torque :-) But I ain't gonna bitch - these changes will probably save me a shitload of money here real soon!
#11
03/15/2004 (2:48 pm)
I didn't try to jump down your throat. I gave my take on the licensing changes and how they wouldn't affect me.
#12
This is not at SUBTLE change. It has bothered me that the main channel for indie games would not be able to pay back the price of a commercial license for the Torque. We have been debating how to handle this problem for nearly a year. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that this change will save a lot of developers a lot of money.
This change is really putting us out on a limb, hoping that increases in numbers will offset the decrease in revenue from Commercial Licenses.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
03/15/2004 (2:49 pm)
Actually, even Unreal or Quake required splash screens on their $500,000 licenses. It just says powered by Torque Game Engine. It is tasteful and does not try to take away anthing from your game. Many, many commercial technologies even require their use to be displayed in ads,etc. Just look at the back of a box sometime. This is not at SUBTLE change. It has bothered me that the main channel for indie games would not be able to pay back the price of a commercial license for the Torque. We have been debating how to handle this problem for nearly a year. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that this change will save a lot of developers a lot of money.
This change is really putting us out on a limb, hoping that increases in numbers will offset the decrease in revenue from Commercial Licenses.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
#13
If we didn't like GG, I don't think we would be here.
Just my few cents though.
Also, from a legal perspective; if you bought the game when the old EULA was in power, you do not have to change to the new one. That would not work practically.
I don't think the new EULA is less good than the old one though.
03/15/2004 (2:52 pm)
I'd have to agree with Vanderback here, people seem to look for things in messages that they can take personally or as offence.If we didn't like GG, I don't think we would be here.
Just my few cents though.
Also, from a legal perspective; if you bought the game when the old EULA was in power, you do not have to change to the new one. That would not work practically.
I don't think the new EULA is less good than the old one though.
#14
03/15/2004 (2:54 pm)
Did I mention that I really do appreciate GG Jeff? I've been here since before torque was even for sale, at the beginning, I know your not out to screw anyone.
#15
It's not subtle for GarageGames, but it's subtle for me since it'll be business as usual for me. I see the $495 license being a HUGE change for GarageGames, though. That potentially breaks open a good profit market (that I'm currently not in). Hence the reason it was subtle to me, and not so subtle to you.
Yes, I like to repeat myself.
03/15/2004 (2:56 pm)
I seem to like to repeat myself.It's not subtle for GarageGames, but it's subtle for me since it'll be business as usual for me. I see the $495 license being a HUGE change for GarageGames, though. That potentially breaks open a good profit market (that I'm currently not in). Hence the reason it was subtle to me, and not so subtle to you.
Yes, I like to repeat myself.
#16
I'm just not too happy about people jumping the gun and labelling me as a jerk and a bad guy simply because i'm wanting to clarify things. I would not be a responsible business owner if I did otherwise.
Anyways as Jeff clarified for me that its a TGE logo, i'm all happy. Where can we get this logo?
03/15/2004 (2:57 pm)
And btw let me apologize for getting a bit irate there.I'm just not too happy about people jumping the gun and labelling me as a jerk and a bad guy simply because i'm wanting to clarify things. I would not be a responsible business owner if I did otherwise.
Anyways as Jeff clarified for me that its a TGE logo, i'm all happy. Where can we get this logo?
#17
In any case, if my company is making 250k then GG can have my commercial license fees. They deserve it. Hell i'll probably buy a commercial license long before that out of appreciation anyway.
03/15/2004 (3:03 pm)
When I said subtle I didin't mean an intentionally subtle change. Subtle as in when I read it I didin't realize the change was from publisher revenue to your own revenue. Thats deinftly a GOOD change, though if I was GG i'd have left that the way it was :pIn any case, if my company is making 250k then GG can have my commercial license fees. They deserve it. Hell i'll probably buy a commercial license long before that out of appreciation anyway.
#18
I do not understand what it is that you don't like.
The $495 license?
03/15/2004 (3:04 pm)
BlakeI do not understand what it is that you don't like.
The $495 license?
#19
03/15/2004 (3:17 pm)
There's nothing that I dislike about the changes. I think that the $495 (while a risky move as Jeff stated) also has the potential to be a very profitable one for GarageGames. Plus, it'll help alleviate the people trying to get around the commercial license (I remember one of the staff mentioning that some people like to dart around the commercial license) by making it MORE affordable to those who feel like darting.
#20
03/15/2004 (3:21 pm)
$495 seems way to cheap for a commcerial license in my book, but hey that's GG's call. If my company has revnues exceeding 250k then a couple grand is not unreasonable for a commercial license.
Torque Owner Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr
Default Studio Name
I can't say I'm fond of the advertising clause (from the license):
I ASSUME (but cannot say for sure) that the Commercial License wouldn't require the advertising clause. But, I haven't seen a copy yet - time to email Jay Moore and inquire about it. If it's not in the Commercial License, then I'll probably upgrade to Commerical for that.
Yep - the breakover point dropped a bit it seems, but, sheesh - I'd be scared if I made $250k and couldn't cover an extra $500 license :-) So I'm with you - it's not a big deal.