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...
#42
As a first impression, my take on it goes like this: People don't like to have paid for a product (in some cases paid a premium) that now has a EULA which gives Garage Games the right to change the licensing structure at their discretion *after* having already received payment from the end user.
In terms my 7 year old would understand, it's like paying money for the right to ask permission to do something.
My 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
02/15/2008 (3:41 pm)
Having just stumbled on this today, and being in the process of looking for a new engine (for entirely different reasons), I found it an interesting read.As a first impression, my take on it goes like this: People don't like to have paid for a product (in some cases paid a premium) that now has a EULA which gives Garage Games the right to change the licensing structure at their discretion *after* having already received payment from the end user.
In terms my 7 year old would understand, it's like paying money for the right to ask permission to do something.
My 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
#43
GG has always had the right to change the EULA, without notice or reason. (commented edited by poster)
The only time the new license applies for those that have already purchased the engine is if they move to a new upgrade.
02/15/2008 (3:52 pm)
Quote:
that now has a EULA which gives Garage Games the right to change the licensing structure at their discretion *after* having already received payment from the end user.
GG has always had the right to change the EULA, without notice or reason. (commented edited by poster)
The only time the new license applies for those that have already purchased the engine is if they move to a new upgrade.
#44
Virtually any EULA, NDA or Employment Contract in this industry has similar difficult wording. What's noteworthy about the ones I've been involved with is that they often contain arbitration clauses to avoid unneeded legal situations. I see that as noteworthy because that's basically the spirit of what's being asked for in the EULA now - communication. I.e. "Contact licensing if you have questions, let's talk."
As I see it, nothing much has changed except the wording; and nothing has changed in the fact that every time GG updates a EULA we see threads like this for a good while after.
02/15/2008 (4:06 pm)
I fully realize that Stephen, I was simply cutting to the chase of what I was 'hearing' in all of these posts. =) Virtually any EULA, NDA or Employment Contract in this industry has similar difficult wording. What's noteworthy about the ones I've been involved with is that they often contain arbitration clauses to avoid unneeded legal situations. I see that as noteworthy because that's basically the spirit of what's being asked for in the EULA now - communication. I.e. "Contact licensing if you have questions, let's talk."
As I see it, nothing much has changed except the wording; and nothing has changed in the fact that every time GG updates a EULA we see threads like this for a good while after.
#45
In short - EULA change without formal notice is usually enforceable, with solid precedent. EULA change retroactively impacting past versions of most software is almost certainly NOT enforceable, which is why GG's lawyers did it the way they did. It was to make the EULA change solidly legal, not to be nice. Lawyers never do things to be nice, they do things to protect the interests of the people who hire them. ;)
That said, you're absolutely correct that GG has the right to change their EULA for any new version or release. And in fact, it is COMMON practice for software companies to do this. If you read EULAs, you will often see subtle changes between two versions. This is not some unusual thing GG did - it is an accepted practice that pretty much everyone does at some point or another. No one should be having an issue with the change itself - if you stay in the software business long enough, you will do something similar yourself!
02/15/2008 (4:13 pm)
Actually, Stephen, while the right to alter a EULA without notice or reason is pretty universally accepted, it is also generally true that such changes can only take effect with a new version, release, etc. This is in essence to protect the end-user, by preventing changes that are not only without notice, but which are not even noticeable because there was no new version or download to include the changed EULA in.In short - EULA change without formal notice is usually enforceable, with solid precedent. EULA change retroactively impacting past versions of most software is almost certainly NOT enforceable, which is why GG's lawyers did it the way they did. It was to make the EULA change solidly legal, not to be nice. Lawyers never do things to be nice, they do things to protect the interests of the people who hire them. ;)
That said, you're absolutely correct that GG has the right to change their EULA for any new version or release. And in fact, it is COMMON practice for software companies to do this. If you read EULAs, you will often see subtle changes between two versions. This is not some unusual thing GG did - it is an accepted practice that pretty much everyone does at some point or another. No one should be having an issue with the change itself - if you stay in the software business long enough, you will do something similar yourself!
#46
Aw, now Stephen, we were done here.
Okay, any company always has the right to change it's license or EULA from one point on, BUT....
The EULA in place at time of purchase constitutes a contract between GG and the purchaser at that time giving each party certain rights. That being said, what kind of contract allows one party to unilaterally and retroactively change its terms?
What you just said implies (I'm sorry, it doesn't imply it simply states) that GG can go back anytime they want and change any of our EULAs to anything they want to suit your new business model. Is that what you really want to be saying here right now?
02/15/2008 (4:18 pm)
"GG has always had the right to change the EULA, without notice or reason. We've actually been very generous and not retroactively applied the license changes to those that previously purchased the engines, which would have been fully within our legal rights."Aw, now Stephen, we were done here.
Okay, any company always has the right to change it's license or EULA from one point on, BUT....
The EULA in place at time of purchase constitutes a contract between GG and the purchaser at that time giving each party certain rights. That being said, what kind of contract allows one party to unilaterally and retroactively change its terms?
What you just said implies (I'm sorry, it doesn't imply it simply states) that GG can go back anytime they want and change any of our EULAs to anything they want to suit your new business model. Is that what you really want to be saying here right now?
#47
02/15/2008 (4:26 pm)
Stephen: Sorry, GG can't retroactively change the license agreement. 
#48
02/15/2008 (4:36 pm)
What constitutes an upgrade versus bug fixes and follow through?
#49
02/15/2008 (4:58 pm)
I'll retract my statement about retroactive stuff--that's what I get for posting quickly and not thinking things through. Comment edited.
#50
Any time you as a user patch or update any software you are using, you need to understand that the EULA might have been changed at that time, and that you should probably check the license.
02/15/2008 (5:08 pm)
Bug fixes and follow through ARE an upgrade/update, Andrew. Essentially, any opportunity for a new download or patch of a software product is an opportunity for a new EULA. If you play any online games, you'll see that there is generally a new click-through EULA after every patch - that's because each new patch is a new opportunity for them to load a new EULA to you, and they are covering their tails by making you click through it.Any time you as a user patch or update any software you are using, you need to understand that the EULA might have been changed at that time, and that you should probably check the license.
#51
02/16/2008 (5:42 pm)
Was being alittle sarcastic due to an earlier post, but thank you in any case.
#52
What about using torque technology to create and sell game editors. These are editors whose purpose is to simplify the act of making games with Torque technology. A prime examples is a new TorqueX Game Builder that's actually made in TX, or a Torque Constructor type of product made in TGE, or creating an RPG content pack for TGB which includes a full blown dialog/trigger/etc editor.
Technically, these products are not games. I have been planning on a project along these lines for a bit now but haven't even been sure if it's allowed under the EULA.
02/18/2008 (8:10 am)
I have a question about the EULA that may or may not be related to this discussion, since it deals with products that are not specifically games (I own indie licenses to my Torque products, but with the commercial change I guess it also applies to the commercial licenses now).What about using torque technology to create and sell game editors. These are editors whose purpose is to simplify the act of making games with Torque technology. A prime examples is a new TorqueX Game Builder that's actually made in TX, or a Torque Constructor type of product made in TGE, or creating an RPG content pack for TGB which includes a full blown dialog/trigger/etc editor.
Technically, these products are not games. I have been planning on a project along these lines for a bit now but haven't even been sure if it's allowed under the EULA.
#53
02/18/2008 (10:32 am)
I believe anything on that level has requires special licensing from GG. Codepacks have required a commercial license in the pack. For that I would definitely recommend contacting licensing for a definite answer.
#54
We originally purchased the commercial license mainly because of the requirement in the indie license to include a link to garagegames.com, because quite a few casual game portals disallow putting URL's into the games.
This requirement is also now in the commercial license, effectively making it invalid for the portals that disallows this.
I've never quite understood why it was in the indie license from the beginning, as it reduced where indie gamers were allowed to distribute the game, but it being in the commercial license as well now is just plain stupid.
We don't care about the logos and referencing that it's powered by a GarageGames product, but not being able to distribute the game where we want, because of a silly requirement to add an URL, makes no sense at all to me! In fact, the only reason I can see for this, is that GarageGames hopes to sell the games themselves instead while limiting the competition.
- Martin
02/20/2008 (6:02 am)
I just found this thread and wanted to share my own thoughts on the new EULA.We originally purchased the commercial license mainly because of the requirement in the indie license to include a link to garagegames.com, because quite a few casual game portals disallow putting URL's into the games.
This requirement is also now in the commercial license, effectively making it invalid for the portals that disallows this.
I've never quite understood why it was in the indie license from the beginning, as it reduced where indie gamers were allowed to distribute the game, but it being in the commercial license as well now is just plain stupid.
We don't care about the logos and referencing that it's powered by a GarageGames product, but not being able to distribute the game where we want, because of a silly requirement to add an URL, makes no sense at all to me! In fact, the only reason I can see for this, is that GarageGames hopes to sell the games themselves instead while limiting the competition.
- Martin
#55
02/20/2008 (6:32 am)
Apparently GG doesn't publish casual games, so that can't be it. Apparently the tgb promotional requirements can be removed for a fee, making TGB a much less viable development platform for casual games, and introducing hidden costs.
#56
If a portal has that restriction, then contact licensing and see about special contracting for the specific portal.
02/20/2008 (7:49 am)
While it may be for a fee, it may also not be. There seems to be an assumption hidden in this EULA talk that GG is bleeding the indie stone.If a portal has that restriction, then contact licensing and see about special contracting for the specific portal.
Torque Owner Badguy
I make gambling games for all systems, embedded, fixed base.