My first rant of 2008
by Terry · in General Discussion · 02/03/2008 (3:02 pm) · 56 replies
As more of a casual Torque user I don't post here often, and can't offer much in the way of assistance to other users on the site. I know some would say that nullifies my right to complain about anything, but I don't feel that way.
[rant]
After not having much time over the past year to play with game dev, I stopped in the other day to find a new release of TGB (1.7.1) available. I've been wanting to get back into it, so I downloaded the update and installed it. Looks really good. While doing my standard searches for information, though, I came across the following blog from Brett Seyler in December.
http://www.garagegames.com/blogs/83134/14040
It's about the latest EULA change. It concerns me seemingly more than most, from the limited response I saw. When I first purchased Torque back in '04 the licensing was much different, as when I later purchased a license for the EA of what is now TGEA, and then the T2D EA, and finally the commercial pro license for TGB.
I don't have a problem with noting on a game that Torque was used to create it, but I'm not a fan of being told what I can and can't do with something I purchase. Therefore the commercial pro license of TGB. Now we're at the place where I:
- Have to display a logo/splash screen (please read on before you flame me for that)
- Can't create anything that someone might learn something from
- Can't create "virtual worlds" (what on a computer isn't virtual?)
- Can't create anything unless it's strictly "entertaining"
- Can't create anything for other than PC/Mac
- Have to apparently re-read the EULA for each update I download
Yes, I can use the older version of the software. But if I want updates or bug fixes to the software I bought under one EULA, I have to agree to the new EULA. Am I the only one here saying "Hmmmm..."? Guess I should also be checking updates to content packs, utilities, and add-ons for the same kind of EULA changes.
As stated above about the logo/slash thing, it's not so much that I have a problem with doing it, but I paid for a commercial pro license specifically to have the option. And yes, in the last 4 years I've seen all the "You should be proud of the engine and glad to show it" stuff. Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't do it. Not the point. I've also heard and seen all the "What do you expect for a hundred bucks?" posts, but we're not talking $100 anymore, we're now into thousands all told.
There's an old story about the day the tax collector shows up and takes a dollar. No one complains. In fact, that was so easy the next day he takes two. Not only does no one complain, but some say it's only fair. Next day he takes four. Soon people complain, but who cares, he now has all their money.
What won't I be able to do with this somewhat expensive license on the next update, or the one after that, is my question. I'm not arguing the right of GG to do this, just the business ethics.
continued...
[rant]
After not having much time over the past year to play with game dev, I stopped in the other day to find a new release of TGB (1.7.1) available. I've been wanting to get back into it, so I downloaded the update and installed it. Looks really good. While doing my standard searches for information, though, I came across the following blog from Brett Seyler in December.
http://www.garagegames.com/blogs/83134/14040
It's about the latest EULA change. It concerns me seemingly more than most, from the limited response I saw. When I first purchased Torque back in '04 the licensing was much different, as when I later purchased a license for the EA of what is now TGEA, and then the T2D EA, and finally the commercial pro license for TGB.
I don't have a problem with noting on a game that Torque was used to create it, but I'm not a fan of being told what I can and can't do with something I purchase. Therefore the commercial pro license of TGB. Now we're at the place where I:
- Have to display a logo/splash screen (please read on before you flame me for that)
- Can't create anything that someone might learn something from
- Can't create "virtual worlds" (what on a computer isn't virtual?)
- Can't create anything unless it's strictly "entertaining"
- Can't create anything for other than PC/Mac
- Have to apparently re-read the EULA for each update I download
Yes, I can use the older version of the software. But if I want updates or bug fixes to the software I bought under one EULA, I have to agree to the new EULA. Am I the only one here saying "Hmmmm..."? Guess I should also be checking updates to content packs, utilities, and add-ons for the same kind of EULA changes.
As stated above about the logo/slash thing, it's not so much that I have a problem with doing it, but I paid for a commercial pro license specifically to have the option. And yes, in the last 4 years I've seen all the "You should be proud of the engine and glad to show it" stuff. Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't do it. Not the point. I've also heard and seen all the "What do you expect for a hundred bucks?" posts, but we're not talking $100 anymore, we're now into thousands all told.
There's an old story about the day the tax collector shows up and takes a dollar. No one complains. In fact, that was so easy the next day he takes two. Not only does no one complain, but some say it's only fair. Next day he takes four. Soon people complain, but who cares, he now has all their money.
What won't I be able to do with this somewhat expensive license on the next update, or the one after that, is my question. I'm not arguing the right of GG to do this, just the business ethics.
continued...
#22
I think you're off base, here. The point was that the Eula now disallows the creation of educational games, but before this update it was allowed.
02/08/2008 (1:22 pm)
@Lance:Quote:
It looks like someone is accustomed to educational discounts and is upset that GG gives game-builder discounts without regard to educators.
I think you're off base, here. The point was that the Eula now disallows the creation of educational games, but before this update it was allowed.
#23
02/08/2008 (1:24 pm)
Yeah. I don't think it has anything to do with educational discounts (though educators and educational non-profits should definitely contact licensing about their projects).
#24
Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
I think the core question to clear up is:
Was it GG's intent to require that people making MMORPGs/Online RPGs, games with an educational component, or games which simulate something (flight, racing, etc.), contact their licensing dept to clear their individual game?
Or was it GG's intent that only non-game applications need to worry about it, as the license seems to read?
It would be useful for folks over on MMOWorkshop.com, for instance, to know if each of the dozens of teams or individuals working on various MMORPG/Online RPG style games needs to contact the licensing department or not. ;)
02/15/2008 (7:22 am)
So, another week has gone by, and basically no word from GG about the intent of this change.Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
I think the core question to clear up is:
Was it GG's intent to require that people making MMORPGs/Online RPGs, games with an educational component, or games which simulate something (flight, racing, etc.), contact their licensing dept to clear their individual game?
Or was it GG's intent that only non-game applications need to worry about it, as the license seems to read?
It would be useful for folks over on MMOWorkshop.com, for instance, to know if each of the dozens of teams or individuals working on various MMORPG/Online RPG style games needs to contact the licensing department or not. ;)
#25
02/15/2008 (7:25 am)
Why should they wonder if they're making MMORPGAMES. Or if they are making flight sim games or racing games?
#26
"A virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact via avatars."
The term virtual world is applied accurately within the industry to almost every MMORPG, MMOG, or online RPG out there today. To have virtual worlds singled out in this way is of GREAT concern to the not-small subset of this community interested in making online, multiplayer persistent world games or one sort or another.
The EULA is bloody vague. ;) No one I have spoken to is clear at all whether it means "no virtual worlds" or whether it means "no non-game virtual worlds". I.e., does it bar people from making a game like Minions of Mirth? Or is it meant to only prevent non-game virtual chat environments?
"Simulation" is likewise vague. Non-game simulations, like the oil-refinery training program mentioned in Brett's blog? Or ANY simulation, to include an "F-16 Fighting Falcon" clone?
I am assuming from the wording that "non-game" is the intent. Is that the case? Or is the next person to release a game like Josh did with Minions of Mirth going to be told they are violating their EULA? I understand leaving a EULA somewhat open-ended, but the wording in this area is clear as mud. ;)
02/15/2008 (8:04 am)
Specifically? Because any game taking place in a persistent state world is a virtual world. Great Wikipedia definition of virtual world:"A virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment intended for its users to inhabit and interact via avatars."
The term virtual world is applied accurately within the industry to almost every MMORPG, MMOG, or online RPG out there today. To have virtual worlds singled out in this way is of GREAT concern to the not-small subset of this community interested in making online, multiplayer persistent world games or one sort or another.
The EULA is bloody vague. ;) No one I have spoken to is clear at all whether it means "no virtual worlds" or whether it means "no non-game virtual worlds". I.e., does it bar people from making a game like Minions of Mirth? Or is it meant to only prevent non-game virtual chat environments?
"Simulation" is likewise vague. Non-game simulations, like the oil-refinery training program mentioned in Brett's blog? Or ANY simulation, to include an "F-16 Fighting Falcon" clone?
I am assuming from the wording that "non-game" is the intent. Is that the case? Or is the next person to release a game like Josh did with Minions of Mirth going to be told they are violating their EULA? I understand leaving a EULA somewhat open-ended, but the wording in this area is clear as mud. ;)
#27
So no one should ever make a game with GG tech.
Wait. Game.
Why not debate what a game is? That was a big topic of discussion back in the day with licensing. What exactly constitutes a game? Which is why the category of "serious games" was created...though with a problem of game being in the title and confusion over whether some projects were "serious" enough or not.
With the definition of game in question, people can get even more fearful that their match-3's that are abstracted from any semblance of a virtual world might also be excluded.
Best not to make anything and be safe. Best to not contact licensing to see if your game[i] is really a [i]virtual world or not.
Same with simulations. Because aren't you simulating something with any game? I mean, really. In pong you are creating a rough simulation of table tennis. In any game with a 3D model walking through virtual space (world?), you are simulating something moving realistically/unrealistically through perceived space.
It is all just too confusing, and it isn't really the license language that makes it that way as much as people being fearful of their own concepts of language and semantics.
02/15/2008 (9:12 am)
The term virtual world could be applied to any game (regardless of persistence) in which there is a "world" that exists in "virtual space", too. Persistence is WAY too limiting if you're looking to be limited. So shooters, platformers, rpg's, online or otherwise, would be well inside the definition.So no one should ever make a game with GG tech.
Wait. Game.
Why not debate what a game is? That was a big topic of discussion back in the day with licensing. What exactly constitutes a game? Which is why the category of "serious games" was created...though with a problem of game being in the title and confusion over whether some projects were "serious" enough or not.
With the definition of game in question, people can get even more fearful that their match-3's that are abstracted from any semblance of a virtual world might also be excluded.
Best not to make anything and be safe. Best to not contact licensing to see if your game[i] is really a [i]virtual world or not.
Same with simulations. Because aren't you simulating something with any game? I mean, really. In pong you are creating a rough simulation of table tennis. In any game with a 3D model walking through virtual space (world?), you are simulating something moving realistically/unrealistically through perceived space.
It is all just too confusing, and it isn't really the license language that makes it that way as much as people being fearful of their own concepts of language and semantics.
#28
The change is intended to make non-games require specific custom licenses. Under the EULA as it stands, if you think you are in a gray area, contact licensing@garagegames.com with specifics about your project. Our mission has always been to encourage game development, and to encourage indie game development. It turns out that our tech has other uses, too. We give preferential pricing to people developing games. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fairly compensated for the value of our tech when used in other applications. Rather than try to navigate the crazy world of definitions and subjective perceptions, we're moving to a more case-by-case basis for things which aren't games (which tend to need unique agreements anyway) or for things which are in those gray areas (to protect us from people trying to exploit loopholes). We don't think it's an onerous change.
02/15/2008 (9:12 am)
@Kevin - Games are allowed. If your "flight simulator" is being designed, marketed, and sold like other games in the "flight sim" genre it's a game, and allowed under the EULA. If your flight sim is being designed, marketed, and sold as a training tool for teaching pilots how to react in emergency situations, it's not a game, and not covered by the default EULA.The change is intended to make non-games require specific custom licenses. Under the EULA as it stands, if you think you are in a gray area, contact licensing@garagegames.com with specifics about your project. Our mission has always been to encourage game development, and to encourage indie game development. It turns out that our tech has other uses, too. We give preferential pricing to people developing games. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fairly compensated for the value of our tech when used in other applications. Rather than try to navigate the crazy world of definitions and subjective perceptions, we're moving to a more case-by-case basis for things which aren't games (which tend to need unique agreements anyway) or for things which are in those gray areas (to protect us from people trying to exploit loopholes). We don't think it's an onerous change.
#29
I hope you understand the source of the confusion. That same line *could* have been intended to mean that GG did not consider simulators or virtual worlds to be games, and so was specifically mentioning them to exclude them. There was some speculation that the clause regarding virtual worlds was added to allow GG to generate a new license fee of their choice for anyone who created a highly successful online RPG.
Obviously, that is not the case. :) But that's the sort of broad speculation which crops up when something like this is left unclarified, which is why I have pushed for a more direct answer. That should put it to bed for most Torque users, thank you.
02/15/2008 (9:42 am)
Dan, thanks for the straight answer. Basically, that confirms my impression - that the EULA was meant to read as "non-Game applications, such as non-Game virtual worlds, non-Game simulations," etc.I hope you understand the source of the confusion. That same line *could* have been intended to mean that GG did not consider simulators or virtual worlds to be games, and so was specifically mentioning them to exclude them. There was some speculation that the clause regarding virtual worlds was added to allow GG to generate a new license fee of their choice for anyone who created a highly successful online RPG.
Obviously, that is not the case. :) But that's the sort of broad speculation which crops up when something like this is left unclarified, which is why I have pushed for a more direct answer. That should put it to bed for most Torque users, thank you.
#30
For instance, I drop Kork, a rock, and a tree into the level editor, and I've technically created a "virtual world". Not only that, but technically by taking your current EULA into a court of law you could also make the point that it very much resembles a training sim for the use of a crossbow. In 2 minutes I've made something that (and again I have to use the word) technically I could be taken to task for in a court of law according to the EULA. A judge "can" look at intent, but also "has" to look at the literal text of the license. And nearly anything that can be made with Torque could be construed to be in violation of that license agreement in one way or another.
So, my question would be why even have the terminology now in the EULA when it should just say "You cannot sell, market, or give away any product made with Torque without first contacting licensing for possible applicable additional fees."? And why bother with a commercial license when it doesn't really change anything? You still have to put GG's images, data, and links on the product in the way prescribed by GG; and if the product makes very much money apparently a new license has to be negotiated anyway so that GG isn't "taken advantage of".
It will be interesting to see what happens under the new EULA when some MMO or other "game" that is supposed to fall within the correct boundaries takes off and makes an unexpected fortune.
I guess what bothered me most and still does is the fact that as long as 98% (number pulled out of the air) of the license holders never actually finished or created anything, and the ones that did didn't really make much money, everything was okay. But now that a few people are taking the tech and actually doing some great things with it, we need to change the policy. Just in case it happens again.
I'm not sure it's so much a case of "people being fearful of their own concepts of language and semantics" as it is a case of just watching the nightly news. Company A just made an unexpected pile of dough on product B, and is now being sued by everyone for something or other because it's unclear who has specific rights to what. Seems like Indies have enough other things to worry about...
02/15/2008 (9:54 am)
The problem, though, is that anything could be called a "non-game" if the right logic was applied to it.For instance, I drop Kork, a rock, and a tree into the level editor, and I've technically created a "virtual world". Not only that, but technically by taking your current EULA into a court of law you could also make the point that it very much resembles a training sim for the use of a crossbow. In 2 minutes I've made something that (and again I have to use the word) technically I could be taken to task for in a court of law according to the EULA. A judge "can" look at intent, but also "has" to look at the literal text of the license. And nearly anything that can be made with Torque could be construed to be in violation of that license agreement in one way or another.
So, my question would be why even have the terminology now in the EULA when it should just say "You cannot sell, market, or give away any product made with Torque without first contacting licensing for possible applicable additional fees."? And why bother with a commercial license when it doesn't really change anything? You still have to put GG's images, data, and links on the product in the way prescribed by GG; and if the product makes very much money apparently a new license has to be negotiated anyway so that GG isn't "taken advantage of".
It will be interesting to see what happens under the new EULA when some MMO or other "game" that is supposed to fall within the correct boundaries takes off and makes an unexpected fortune.
I guess what bothered me most and still does is the fact that as long as 98% (number pulled out of the air) of the license holders never actually finished or created anything, and the ones that did didn't really make much money, everything was okay. But now that a few people are taking the tech and actually doing some great things with it, we need to change the policy. Just in case it happens again.
I'm not sure it's so much a case of "people being fearful of their own concepts of language and semantics" as it is a case of just watching the nightly news. Company A just made an unexpected pile of dough on product B, and is now being sued by everyone for something or other because it's unclear who has specific rights to what. Seems like Indies have enough other things to worry about...
#31
02/15/2008 (10:00 am)
Well said, Terry.
#32
I think it's OK, actually, Terry.
Burden of proof would be tough in a case like this. GG would, essentially, have to prove that something is NOT a game, while the defending party would show evidence that it is. Proving that an MMO is not a game would be almost impossible, to borrow from the example you used.
In cases where the primary use of the end product is not for interactive entertainment, the EULA will hold. If you're making a game for people to play for fun, you should be OK.
02/15/2008 (10:14 am)
Quote:The problem, though, is that anything could be called a "non-game" if the right logic was applied to it.
I think it's OK, actually, Terry.
Burden of proof would be tough in a case like this. GG would, essentially, have to prove that something is NOT a game, while the defending party would show evidence that it is. Proving that an MMO is not a game would be almost impossible, to borrow from the example you used.
In cases where the primary use of the end product is not for interactive entertainment, the EULA will hold. If you're making a game for people to play for fun, you should be OK.
#33
I know that if I saw a tech company trying to pull any legal-funny-stuff on a completely legitimate use of the EULA, it would make me think twice about using their product. It's in our best interest, as a company, to not attempt legal shenanigans, and it would be against our vision.
Please continue to clarify and ask for clarification. If one person is confused, and posts with a concern, there are probably many more who have the same concern. The purpose of a EULA is not to confuse people; and the purpose of our EULA is not to try to lure people into some sort of Indy trap.
02/15/2008 (10:16 am)
This is a good discussion, and clarification is important. I would like to just point out, though, that, from the opposite perspective, there would be significant uproar, both internally and externally, if GarageGames tried to "flex" the EULA in some of the ways that you guys are worried about. I know that if I saw a tech company trying to pull any legal-funny-stuff on a completely legitimate use of the EULA, it would make me think twice about using their product. It's in our best interest, as a company, to not attempt legal shenanigans, and it would be against our vision.
Please continue to clarify and ask for clarification. If one person is confused, and posts with a concern, there are probably many more who have the same concern. The purpose of a EULA is not to confuse people; and the purpose of our EULA is not to try to lure people into some sort of Indy trap.
#34
Really, that's core, too. It's in GG's best interest to have successful games made with their product, after all - this helps get the word out, which then generates more sales. ;) I think that hindering that would be poor business, and I'm sure that's not the intent.
02/15/2008 (11:53 am)
Thanks, Pat.Really, that's core, too. It's in GG's best interest to have successful games made with their product, after all - this helps get the word out, which then generates more sales. ;) I think that hindering that would be poor business, and I'm sure that's not the intent.
#35
I'm just not a fan of the forced splash screen... that was the only reason I upgraded to commercial. I fully intend on making nothing but games. Hopefully, they will be entertaining ones.
02/15/2008 (12:21 pm)
I wrote elsewhere about my disappointments with the new EULA, and so far I've held off downloading the latest version..but now I'm in a pickle because I could really use the new functions that were added in 1.7. It'd make the behavior I'm writing much better. So I'm considering it.I'm just not a fan of the forced splash screen... that was the only reason I upgraded to commercial. I fully intend on making nothing but games. Hopefully, they will be entertaining ones.
#36
After every post I make on this I'm always ready to let this drop, then something else comes up that makes me feel the need to reiterate a point. Your post is a good one and should put this to rest, I think. Some of the other posts seemed to somehow beg to be re-addressed. Anyway, done deal. Good sensible reply with nothing that seemed argumentative on the point and it's appreciated. Still doesn't mean I agree, but not everyone will. Time to move along and let it go...
02/15/2008 (12:35 pm)
Thanks Pat. That's a valid point and one that I'd already considered. From my perspective (and possibly others) the main thrust of my posts have been that the original cost of the engine(s) is relatively inconsequential compared to the vast amount of time and effort involved in creating something; only to possibly be faced with yet other mountains to climb through licensing, and the recent EULA change just seems to leave a lot hanging.After every post I make on this I'm always ready to let this drop, then something else comes up that makes me feel the need to reiterate a point. Your post is a good one and should put this to rest, I think. Some of the other posts seemed to somehow beg to be re-addressed. Anyway, done deal. Good sensible reply with nothing that seemed argumentative on the point and it's appreciated. Still doesn't mean I agree, but not everyone will. Time to move along and let it go...
#37
the huge turn off on GG products being the constrained licensing on the engines.
they originally targeted indie style development.
but the crippling constraints hinder that aspect.
The good thing, is there are other routes, and other code bases.
I personally think it is pretty bad business to tell your customers that once you have
signed on, and purchased our product, and paid the fee you will have your design considered for more advanced fee collection.
Basically they dont want to be left out of the 'killer app' if some poor sap uses this engine to create it
they want the hooks in there to rape and pillage from that profit.
When my company asked me if we wanted to use torque, I said no freaking way.
and it was not because of the tech.
02/15/2008 (1:29 pm)
Yup,the huge turn off on GG products being the constrained licensing on the engines.
they originally targeted indie style development.
but the crippling constraints hinder that aspect.
The good thing, is there are other routes, and other code bases.
I personally think it is pretty bad business to tell your customers that once you have
signed on, and purchased our product, and paid the fee you will have your design considered for more advanced fee collection.
Basically they dont want to be left out of the 'killer app' if some poor sap uses this engine to create it
they want the hooks in there to rape and pillage from that profit.
When my company asked me if we wanted to use torque, I said no freaking way.
and it was not because of the tech.
#38
But I don't understand the "rape and pillage" idea or how the new license (or old) cripples indie development.
02/15/2008 (1:51 pm)
I can understand people having issues with contacting licensing because they're not sure where their app falls or because they have some needs (say virtual museum licensing for a non-profit that requires no logos or traditional "credit"), but I don't see it as crippling. I can understand people not wanting specific things like logos for their art pieces or portal requirements as well. I can also understand people being unhappy about EULA changes because that happens anytime a license changes for any piece of software. All of those things make sense to me, and we all have a ton of opinions on them and the varying degrees of these opinions. We see them come up every time there is a EULA change.But I don't understand the "rape and pillage" idea or how the new license (or old) cripples indie development.
#39
and having to pay more money to license the engine due to design choices.
while this was in place before, it was nowhere near as constricting as it is now.
Edit:
I dont see the logo splash screen stuff as an issue, others might.
02/15/2008 (2:00 pm)
Simply due to the now required examination of your product falling into other price categoriesand having to pay more money to license the engine due to design choices.
while this was in place before, it was nowhere near as constricting as it is now.
Edit:
I dont see the logo splash screen stuff as an issue, others might.
#40
02/15/2008 (2:06 pm)
Badguy what industry do you work in? I am curious.
Torque 3D Owner Lance Hampton