content packs

#21 @Guy.

I would be interested. I have always wanted to try to get such a system working. I am most interested in how such a system will affect the animations. If the body parts ae scaled (resized), it has the potential to screw up the alignment of all the animation sequences.

I am open to experimenting with getting a system like this working (time permitting), as I think it would be a great thing for the community to have.

Joe

#22 Phil and I talked about this a while back, we had an idea of setting up various morph targets of the model that Torque would read and then could blend. This would be similar to the animation system I would imagine.

As you can imagine though we did not get too far with this idea because other things in our project got in the way.

Logan

#23 Interesting idea. I am not sure that the built in animation system could handle blending of morph targets as animations.

I would be concerned about the resultant file size. It seems that it would have to save off several meshes in order to have this work, and increase the memory footprint of the shape.

It would be worth a try though. I would be more in favor of a node driven system myself, where separate bones (that are not part of the main skeleton) could be scaled in order to add mass, change the faces shape, etc..

Again, changing the height of the model would most likely cause the feet to slip when animating (not that big a deal) and the arms to not line up with weapons (a big deal)

#24 gamasutra exchange.

#25 How do you like the following idea:
You modellers and artists join forces and create a shop where we can subscribe for an annual fee and download content. For example 200$ per year for high quality and 100$ for lower quality.

Alex

#26 Not a bad idea Alexander. Only problem is that there would have to be a lot of rules and regulations that content providers and seekers would have to follow. Basically that comes down to contract work. And $200 for a year would be pretty darn cheap for a contract. Would be interesting to have around though.

Alc

#27 Greg,
I think with the subscription idea you would get lots of developers who never publish a game (self-study, hobby) if the fee isn't too high and if they don't need the highest quality. Maybe they can upgrade their subscription if they're going to publish the game. The 100$ and 200$ were just my numbers, please post yours.
Another point, if you know the artist which made your model and you are satisfied you can make an individual contract with him.
I know it is difficult to find a way that every artist gets the right share for his work( perhaps the members could vote for their favorite content ).

Alex

#28 I didn't post numbers because it's a tough call. It would depend on a lot of things. To keep the costs low, around the $200 range, the group could create a repository that could be reused by a number of different development teams subscribed (trees, crate, etc.). These items could then be sold individually too by the artist. The catch to the subscription could be that the subscriber gets a couple of custom items. The custom items could based on a point system and each subscriber gets a certain number of points. Could even offer different subsciption packages that give more points.

The point system could be something as follows:
player model 10 pnts
household object 2 pnts
animation sequence 1 pnt

I would say in this case that the subscriber would get around 15 points to start for a basic package.

There are a lot of ways that the group could use their repository to speed up object creation. The first couple of project will be time consuming, but once they get in the swing of things, everything would be peanuts.

Alc

#29 there already is such a thing: Gamasutra Exchange

Markus

#30 Or Turbosquid: (turbosquid.com/

I think the idea here is to provide Torque specific content that works with the Torque engine.

Content obtained from one of the online distributors will not work in the Torque without modifications.

#31 Any reason why turbosquid and gamasutraexchange look exactly the same? Do they both use the same repository of files?

Alc

#32 Yes, I beleive that the Gamasutra Exchange is 'Turbo Squid" powered.

Another comment on all of this. I know that I have a desire to do things to help grow this community and strengthen it. Having to go offsite to get resources sort of defeats the purpose.

#33 Does anyone know what the legality of selling models and textures built specifically to be used with the Torque engine? I'm currently putting together such a pack, which would include: models, textures, .DTS files and maybe even scripts. I guess it wouldn't be a problem to sell the models and textures, but what about the exported files (.DTS) and the scripts? Must these be sold through GarageGames.com, because technically they relate to or are part of the Torque engine?

#34 "people buy torque not only cuz it offers alot, as far as engines go, but it is very inexpensive too. If you try selling comunity player models for 300-500 bucks next to torque, you may just deter potential buyers"

I see your point on this, but the amount of hours that get put into somethin like a character model is a hell of a lot to then sell for any less than about $70 for model and $150+ for source imo.
Torque is initially inexpensive, however you've got to remember, garage games gets extra revenue from royalties...this isn't really an option for artists making packs, so the cost has to be upfront.

And on the subject of the lisence...I pretty much agree with what most people have been saying. It should be clear its non-exclusive (with t&c's to state just that) and that the licence applies to one game only.

#35 I do not think it will be a problem to sell the DTS shapes here. To sell just the source would not be good for programmers who would have to buy 3DSMAX and learn to export shapes just to get something into the game.

I would not sell scripts by themsleves, but it seems that it would be necessary to create scripts fot the shapes that need them (weapons. etc..)

---

As for the subscription method mentioned above, I do not see it working out. How would the money be collected and distributed? How would the subscribers insure that they get their moneys worth? If someone were to set up a subscription system and only two people subscibed, would they be obligated to make shapes for these two people and only receive $400/yr?

#36 Here's my idea for the content packs I'm working on. Everything is bundled. That is, you get the model, texture, .DTS file and script if there is one. I would also include some sound files, but I'm not a audio guy so that's out.

The main reason to include the .DTS files is because some people may not own 3d Max. The other reason is simply a time saver. If you're going to save someone some time, then why not go all the way and export the files for them too? :)

As for pricing this bundle, well I plan to make it super cheap, as in $20 or less. The bundle should include at least 5 models, textures and so forth.

I'm still thinking about the license issue. But it will definitely be in the favor of the developer.

#37 licence's are a good thing, if handled right. You realy dont want to stack crap on a good thing do you? If i buy a model for any price, it should be mine to use in all my games,(i plan on several contuations to my single player game) and several will be FREE at first, till develope ment progresses to a point where the player can have a good idea of whats going on , then wouldnt think twice about paying 5 bucks for the next episode.

if torque packs are going to restrict this, then you lost a paying customer allready. I do beleive that the artists should get a % of any of there work used in a product that actualy makes a profit as will anyone that has anything to do with my project (that is just automatic)

#38 I think part of the whole idea was that the artist wouldn't take a cut of what you do. It's a pain for the artist to try and keep track of all the people they sold to and then also get their cut.

This is just my oppinion but I would say that an episodic adventure would be ok for using the same content packs even with sequal restrictions. That would probably be something you'd have to talk to the artist about. Another option would be to talk to one of the artists to do specific work for you by contract. You could lower the rate if you gave them the rights to sell the content after the project was over. Just an idea.

Alc

#39 Hmmph, I have been trying to word my thoughts and feelings on the various comments for a good ten minutes now, trying to find a way to word my post so that it does not sound rude or condiscending, I apoligize if it does.

On Unlimited Usage...

Prices: If models were to be offered for unlimited use I would expect that the price would be 3x to 10x higher than a single use model. Why should there be a price increase for an optional unlimited use? If an artist will potentially make less in sales from having you back as a repeat customer then they deseve to be compinsated for their hard work, effort, and resources that they spent making this content available to you in the first place. If artists do not feel like they are getting a return they will simply not do any future content packs and this whole setup will have accomplished nothing because we would be in the same situation we are in now.

Updates/Upgrades: Speaking for myself on this one, but unless there was a glaring fault caused by me when I made the work I would not feel inclined to support you in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because once again it is not worth my time, I feel that it quite simply not worth my time to offer support to something that I likely didn't recover my losses on in the first place. I might consider doing it for another fee, but like I said my obligation would end after I finished the model.

Liscensing: I don't even want to know how we would keep track of this to make sure that projects aren't stealing or sharing work from content packs and using them. Hence the reason why a purchase per liscense would work (just like TGE).


On Providing the Source...

This isn't such a bad idea, there are a few issues... The first is this, is the artist responsible for providing a copy of his/her file in every 3D format that supports Torque? The second is copyright issues, what happens if I take offense to a modification that someone made to my work? A third issue is compinsation, an artist should be allowed to charge more for work that provides his/her source. This would give them the choice to provide it and it would give the purchaser an option too.


On TurboSquid...

Also a note on pricing for people who are using TuboSquid to do model comparisons. TurboSquid is in the process of readjusting the prices on models found in its library to make things fair for artists. This means that people will no longer be trying to screw one another around by offering a model for a lower price than another similar model, everything is being adjusted to a fair price for the quality of the work.


Well there is some food for thought.

Logan

#40 Here are my thoughts on ths issue.

@Ace, read through this and let me know your thoughts. The idea here
is to make it attractive to the purchaser while making sure the artist/creator does not get screwed.

In order to ensure the creator of the content does not get screwed, there must be
some sort of license. The scenarios below assume that the content creator will not be recieving
any back end royalties on any projects produced with the content.


Here are the scenarios that could happen that make this necessary.

1.A developer joins several teams and distributes the content to the entire
team, whose members are on several teams. In this scenario, one content pack was purchased
but several people now have the content.

2.The purchaser decides to give away the shapes for free.

3.The purchaser ships several games with the content.


In order to address therse concerns, here is what I think would be a
pretty good, non resticitve liscense.

---
In order to prevent purchasers from 'sharing' the content among sevral teams, the source files are non-distributable.
You can give the DTS shapes to your team in order to get it in the game, but if you want access to the source shapes, you need to buy them.

You cannot give the shapes away for free. Nor can you resell derivative works based on the shapes (unless modifed to the point where they are no longer the same shape.)

You buy one content pack for each shipped product. If you ship two products,
you buy two packs. You can work on several with one purchase, but you buy two packs if you ship two products.

I would shy away from any royalty situation. If you buy a pack, that is all you pay. The artist will
get no back end on your game unless you negotiate a separate contract with them for custom art.

Placing the burden on recieving income on the returns of the sales of the game would make
the system in-effective (INMO).

Note that the cost of the packs I am thinking of is pretty low. $10-$20 for a bunch of trees.

It is unfortunate that you would not purchase if the limitations above were the case. The shapes would not be single use,
but the use cannot be unlimited either.

A balance must be struck. The artists must be able to make money on the shapes to make it worth
their while to produce the shapes. The cost must be low enough for the average GG developer to
afford.

The license is in place to ensure that there are limitations on the use of the content, and thus keep the prices low.

If I were to produce a 'license free' shape, you would be paying my contract
rates, and I am almost positive that no one here is interested in paying that much for a single shape.


In order for this to work (get content to the developers AND make it worth it for the artists)
some system must be set up so that the prices are relativly low and the artists don't get screwed by
releasing something that is not much better than freeware.

What would be the ideal price and liscensing arrangement for a content pack?

If, for instance, you were to purchase a bunch of trees, that work in the torque, and have textures.
What is that worth to you and what sort of usage limitation would you consider non restictive?