A Virtual World?
by Rick · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 01/28/2008 (7:50 am) · 9 replies
Maybe something like vSide but more to creating content in world letting the members do the building but we would provide the building materials and the music in the world.
About the author
#2
02/10/2008 (2:03 pm)
Well, it's not that they're not allowed, but GG wants to discuss licenses for virtual worlds that are not strictly MMO's is how I understand it. It would be best to actually email GG directly to get clarification on this. 
#3
Sorry, just had to post. lol.
02/13/2008 (1:46 pm)
They could be anything from free run RPG world like a Kotor kinda thing to MMO's.Sorry, just had to post. lol.
#4
I think a clarification on the part of Stephen wrt to what is allowed and what is not would go a long way toward preventing these threads in the future.
02/14/2008 (1:28 am)
My understanding is that the using Josh Ritter's TMMOKit is valid under the current licence and it is clearly a virtual world building resource as Raph Koster and Richard Bartle use the term. Now being diku-like, there is no question that it is a game, so it does not violate the licence. In principle, a graphical MOO (social world) is also purely entertainment if there is no RMT and there is a wide spectrum between Second Life and the children of Diku. At what point does it stop being an MMO and start being classified as a non-game virtual world? When players can create content? When there is RMT? I think a clarification on the part of Stephen wrt to what is allowed and what is not would go a long way toward preventing these threads in the future.
#6
Still, if you believe your Virtual World could invalidate your license, it is your best interest to contact GG with some details of your game design and wait for a decisive answer before you start developing it.
02/27/2008 (3:13 pm)
The way I understood GG's meaning of Virtual world, was for Real Life city emulations that taught something educational like say driving a car in Manhatten, or worse.. Real World topography for terrorist training.Still, if you believe your Virtual World could invalidate your license, it is your best interest to contact GG with some details of your game design and wait for a decisive answer before you start developing it.
#7
02/27/2008 (3:34 pm)
All this probably came to be cause the people at NASA got a torque license for $100. They probably felt like they could have got so much more money out of NASA.
#8
Um, if a terrorist wanted to use Torque for training purposes, I don't think they'd be worried about license clauses. And there are plenty of higher accuracy, and mind you, free DEM viewers. Heck, even Google Earth would work for the purposes I believe you were hinting at. For a terrorist to program stuff, level designers to make a mission, etc... Is quite a stretch. But I guess it could happen. Unlikely and inefficient, but possible...
I'd like to see what NASA used the engine for. I believe they got Torque because it was cheap, and most likely they could quickly prototype something for a certain project. I doubt they use it for anything super important, or at least depend on it for anything important. I don't think they'd have bought a license if it was $10k is my point. If GG feels burned that NASA bought a license for $100-150, then that's just unfair. I don't think GG does, but who are we to say they are or aren't?
Bottom line is, I don't see any good reason to limit our ability to make virtual worlds or non-game applications. If there is a good explanation I missed, please point me towards it. We pay $150 for a TGE license, get full source code, and then the only obstacle standing in our way of doing WHATEVER we want with our product, are simple words in a little text file. Legality sucks in my opinion, because these little words thought up by a guy somewhere far away, effects what I can do with what I payed for.
Look at open source- there are "okay" engines out there that don't, whatsoever, limit what you're allowed to do. And they are free. So why, would a "good" engine that we pay for, have limitations on what we're allowed to do? This just doesn't make sense from a "we support the indies" kind of standpoint.
I'm an independent developer, and I use Torque. But I'm limited by it, not empowered. Unless I'm only targeting specific types of games; This isn't freedom! Example:
The other day, I was at my friends Sushi bar. From time to time, people with fat wallets and successful business' come in. Sometimes we make small talk. Sometimes, they need something I can offer, and we hit it off. This was almost one of those days. Somebody owned a business that made custom boats/yachts, and he wanted an application that a user could walk around their new custom boat virtually, in 3D. He explained he wasn't sure on the specifics, but that the boats were designed in a CAD program (makes sense), and that he didn't want any fancy surroundings or full levels, just a clean looking virtual representation of the boats he made.
Wow, that would be easy I thought. If he's using CAD, it shouldn't be hard to get the boat models into Torque. I could make this app easy and fairly quickly. But then I remembered that Torque had this whole license thing going on, where I wasn't allowed to make non-game apps without contacting them for permission first. So I passed the job up. I could have programmed it from the ground up, or used some open-source alternative. But he wanted the app quite soon.
Now, if that had happened a different way, I would have used the money I got from the project to upgrade to TGEA, perhaps buy some cool content packs or something. I think the license needs to change, to allow us to make non-game apps. Actually, to make anything we want. Can anyone explain, why and how things became this way with the license?
Keep in mind a lot of this was food for thought, meant to provoke thought that is. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, and what I say isn't necessarily my opinion. It's more unbiased, kinda rhetorical I guess. I'm happy with Torque, but I must say I am a little disappointed in what appears to be some greediness. And I don't want to be- I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong. It's just when a corporation starts fiddling with a license so much, and starts charging more for this or that, and limits use A or B... The words "corporate" and "greed" come into mind.
02/27/2008 (4:42 pm)
I don't think it's so much because NASA bought a license, or because terrorists might use it for training...Um, if a terrorist wanted to use Torque for training purposes, I don't think they'd be worried about license clauses. And there are plenty of higher accuracy, and mind you, free DEM viewers. Heck, even Google Earth would work for the purposes I believe you were hinting at. For a terrorist to program stuff, level designers to make a mission, etc... Is quite a stretch. But I guess it could happen. Unlikely and inefficient, but possible...
I'd like to see what NASA used the engine for. I believe they got Torque because it was cheap, and most likely they could quickly prototype something for a certain project. I doubt they use it for anything super important, or at least depend on it for anything important. I don't think they'd have bought a license if it was $10k is my point. If GG feels burned that NASA bought a license for $100-150, then that's just unfair. I don't think GG does, but who are we to say they are or aren't?
Bottom line is, I don't see any good reason to limit our ability to make virtual worlds or non-game applications. If there is a good explanation I missed, please point me towards it. We pay $150 for a TGE license, get full source code, and then the only obstacle standing in our way of doing WHATEVER we want with our product, are simple words in a little text file. Legality sucks in my opinion, because these little words thought up by a guy somewhere far away, effects what I can do with what I payed for.
Look at open source- there are "okay" engines out there that don't, whatsoever, limit what you're allowed to do. And they are free. So why, would a "good" engine that we pay for, have limitations on what we're allowed to do? This just doesn't make sense from a "we support the indies" kind of standpoint.
I'm an independent developer, and I use Torque. But I'm limited by it, not empowered. Unless I'm only targeting specific types of games; This isn't freedom! Example:
The other day, I was at my friends Sushi bar. From time to time, people with fat wallets and successful business' come in. Sometimes we make small talk. Sometimes, they need something I can offer, and we hit it off. This was almost one of those days. Somebody owned a business that made custom boats/yachts, and he wanted an application that a user could walk around their new custom boat virtually, in 3D. He explained he wasn't sure on the specifics, but that the boats were designed in a CAD program (makes sense), and that he didn't want any fancy surroundings or full levels, just a clean looking virtual representation of the boats he made.
Wow, that would be easy I thought. If he's using CAD, it shouldn't be hard to get the boat models into Torque. I could make this app easy and fairly quickly. But then I remembered that Torque had this whole license thing going on, where I wasn't allowed to make non-game apps without contacting them for permission first. So I passed the job up. I could have programmed it from the ground up, or used some open-source alternative. But he wanted the app quite soon.
Now, if that had happened a different way, I would have used the money I got from the project to upgrade to TGEA, perhaps buy some cool content packs or something. I think the license needs to change, to allow us to make non-game apps. Actually, to make anything we want. Can anyone explain, why and how things became this way with the license?
Keep in mind a lot of this was food for thought, meant to provoke thought that is. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, and what I say isn't necessarily my opinion. It's more unbiased, kinda rhetorical I guess. I'm happy with Torque, but I must say I am a little disappointed in what appears to be some greediness. And I don't want to be- I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong. It's just when a corporation starts fiddling with a license so much, and starts charging more for this or that, and limits use A or B... The words "corporate" and "greed" come into mind.
#9
As far as not being able to do non-game applications and the like, it doesn't bother me. I have no intention and I'm sure about 95% of us on this site do. I've seen a few applications of TGE to simulations and virtual worlds (those being like PCD Lounge that was built a couple years ago, not an MMO) that have had huge corporate backing. Those are also much different uses therefore the people would not be able to use the forums and resources to help them as much for developing. I think they get different support from GarageGames therefore probably pay a substantial amount more. This is just my thoughts on it and could be different from GG official take on it
In the end I'm certain it is far from corporate greed :)
02/27/2008 (5:12 pm)
I'm certain NASA did not pay $100 for a license. It's always been that you had to get a separate license for simulations, education, non-game, etc so I'm sure they got a little more out of NASA than $100.As far as not being able to do non-game applications and the like, it doesn't bother me. I have no intention and I'm sure about 95% of us on this site do. I've seen a few applications of TGE to simulations and virtual worlds (those being like PCD Lounge that was built a couple years ago, not an MMO) that have had huge corporate backing. Those are also much different uses therefore the people would not be able to use the forums and resources to help them as much for developing. I think they get different support from GarageGames therefore probably pay a substantial amount more. This is just my thoughts on it and could be different from GG official take on it
In the end I'm certain it is far from corporate greed :)
Torque 3D Owner Edward