You must pay $5000 for every casual game
by Arsen Gnatkivskyi · in Torque Game Engine · 10/12/2008 (2:19 pm) · 34 replies
For people who are developing casual games by means of TGB and planning to distribute them by means of casual games distributors. (Big Fish, RealArcade).
I want to turn community's attention to one unpleasant moment which can be found in TGB EULA (Indie and Commercial) and which can cause considerable and unexpected for you expenses or your games' benefit loss.
So, first of all look at EULA point 2.b.
Here we can see the list of companies which can help you distribute your game created on the basis of TGB. It's attractive, isn't it? Absolutely it is. But it is attractive only till the time you start dealing with these companies and ask them to distribute your game. Then you will find out that these companies (at least two of them for sure - Big Fish and RealArcade) have the demand:your game must not include any website links.
Citation from RealArcade:
gamedevs.realarcade.com/GameSubmission/faq.jsp
But the above demand conflicts with the point 4.c.i. EULA
So, having acquired Indie or Commercial license TGB you will not be able to distribute your game through the distributors listed in EULA 2.b.
I used the given e-mail licensing@garagegames.com to find out how much I have to pay for waiving from the www.garagegames.com link in the credits.
There was an answer from Davey Jackson ( www.garagegames.com/my/home/view.profile.php?qid=54612 ) who explained that it is impossible to waive only the link in the credits but it has the possibility of waiveng the link, full screen Torque Game Builder logo in the start up and inscription: "This game is powered by Torque Game Builder". All that would cost $5000 per each game from which the link was supposed to be waived!!!
That means if you are planning to publish your game on Big Fish or RealArcade (I am dead sure there are other ones) and you are using for this TGB, get ready to pay $5000 for each game!!!
I want to state once again. I wanted to remove only link, all the rest from point 4 EULA may be present.
Personally I am not going to pay $5000 for waiving because I consider this price unreasonable and unacceptable.
So it is obvious that my cooperation with these publishers is abortive which will lead up to loss. If this question is not resoluted further games will have to be developed on the basis of different engine.
To finish I've got the question to GarageGames team.
Is that link in the credits so worth for developers to waive from TGB? Do you really believe that a potential game developer having seen the inscription "This game is powered by Torque Game Builder" will not be that smart and use google searching words "Torque Game Builder"!?
I am absolutely sure when you composed this demand (EULA 4.c.i) you didn't know that this would cause overwhelming obstacles for lots of game developers. So I would propose to remove from EULA point 4.c.i.
I want to turn community's attention to one unpleasant moment which can be found in TGB EULA (Indie and Commercial) and which can cause considerable and unexpected for you expenses or your games' benefit loss.
So, first of all look at EULA point 2.b.
Quote:Licensee may have the games published on PC, Macintosh, or Linux
through any downloadable channel or retail distribution (CD / DVD box sales)
including but not limited to self-publishing, Games for Windows, Steam,
Direct2Drive, RealArcade , Yahoo! Games, PopCap, Big Fish ,
MSN Games, Pogo. Licensee does not have to offer the Games to
GarageGames for publication.
Here we can see the list of companies which can help you distribute your game created on the basis of TGB. It's attractive, isn't it? Absolutely it is. But it is attractive only till the time you start dealing with these companies and ask them to distribute your game. Then you will find out that these companies (at least two of them for sure - Big Fish and RealArcade) have the demand:your game must not include any website links.
Citation from RealArcade:
gamedevs.realarcade.com/GameSubmission/faq.jsp
Quote:
All URL's (hot or cold) must be removed from the game:
1. Developer and Publisher links
2. Upsell buttons
3. Text weblinks (example: www.website.com)"
But the above demand conflicts with the point 4.c.i. EULA
Quote:(c) Licensee agrees to include in the "About" box or in the credits screen:
(i) a link to www.garagegames.com ... This requirement may be waived for an
additional fee. Contact licensing@garagegames.com for details.
So, having acquired Indie or Commercial license TGB you will not be able to distribute your game through the distributors listed in EULA 2.b.
I used the given e-mail licensing@garagegames.com to find out how much I have to pay for waiving from the www.garagegames.com link in the credits.
There was an answer from Davey Jackson ( www.garagegames.com/my/home/view.profile.php?qid=54612 ) who explained that it is impossible to waive only the link in the credits but it has the possibility of waiveng the link, full screen Torque Game Builder logo in the start up and inscription: "This game is powered by Torque Game Builder". All that would cost $5000 per each game from which the link was supposed to be waived!!!
That means if you are planning to publish your game on Big Fish or RealArcade (I am dead sure there are other ones) and you are using for this TGB, get ready to pay $5000 for each game!!!
I want to state once again. I wanted to remove only link, all the rest from point 4 EULA may be present.
Personally I am not going to pay $5000 for waiving because I consider this price unreasonable and unacceptable.
So it is obvious that my cooperation with these publishers is abortive which will lead up to loss. If this question is not resoluted further games will have to be developed on the basis of different engine.
To finish I've got the question to GarageGames team.
Is that link in the credits so worth for developers to waive from TGB? Do you really believe that a potential game developer having seen the inscription "This game is powered by Torque Game Builder" will not be that smart and use google searching words "Torque Game Builder"!?
I am absolutely sure when you composed this demand (EULA 4.c.i) you didn't know that this would cause overwhelming obstacles for lots of game developers. So I would propose to remove from EULA point 4.c.i.
Thread is locked
#2
It's seems the distributors you listed are being more unreasonable than GarageGames, whether that's the norm or not. They're, in essence, limiting your own rights in order to get your game out there, which may or may not be ok for you. If you had a publisher, they probably wouldn't allow you to distribute through that mechanism either, due to the URL requirements.
Not being able to advertise your own website (for support or for other products/information you may be providing) or that of your publisher (if you had one) doesn't sound too friendly to me.
10/12/2008 (3:23 pm)
Have you contacted the distributors concerning the problem and asking them if they may have a soution (maybe a new revenue split, exception, etc)? It's seems the distributors you listed are being more unreasonable than GarageGames, whether that's the norm or not. They're, in essence, limiting your own rights in order to get your game out there, which may or may not be ok for you. If you had a publisher, they probably wouldn't allow you to distribute through that mechanism either, due to the URL requirements.
Not being able to advertise your own website (for support or for other products/information you may be providing) or that of your publisher (if you had one) doesn't sound too friendly to me.
#3
10/12/2008 (3:48 pm)
Totally agree with Kevin. You sound very annoyed with GarageGames, but it is the distributor who is pushing you into this no-sense. 
#4
10/12/2008 (5:21 pm)
It seems like the intent of the restriction is to stop the developer from selling the game out from under the portal, and cutting them out of the profit. Have you discussed this with the portal? Perhaps they don't mind. 
#5
My 2c
Ashley Leach
www.silhouette-studios.com.au
10/12/2008 (6:21 pm)
Im fairly sure that GG indy requirement has been around since the early early days of TGE, which was before BigFish games existed. So lets not pretend they sat in a dark corner and schemed. Garage Games wants people to know about their cool engines, big fish games doesnt want you to channel their client base away from their website. No one is being dodgy or unreasonable really, they just have slightly conflicting goals. My 2c
Ashley Leach
www.silhouette-studios.com.au
#6
10/12/2008 (6:33 pm)
Hmmm... Sounds like if the other sites start publishing very profitable Indie games, the hold outs will change their requirement and allow the links. After all, GG is not the only one requiring links. I have several content things for my game that require some sort of link in the about as well. So not unreasonable in my opinion.
#7
I frankly disagree. We use to expect agressive behaviour from "high-end" publishers, and somehow it feels reasonable to analize every little detail when houndreds of millions of dollars are on the table.
But now it seems like some Casual/Indie publishers, are suddenly following their big counterparts, forcing you to remove links from your game? Sounds MAD to me.
Specially, if we take in mind the need for synergy on this market: the public its not permanently "channeled" from one portal to another, the movement by no means represent a one-way road! (that its somehow a naive assumption on their part if thats the case).
10/12/2008 (6:34 pm)
Quote:No one is being dodgy or unreasonable really, they just have slightly conflicting goals.
I frankly disagree. We use to expect agressive behaviour from "high-end" publishers, and somehow it feels reasonable to analize every little detail when houndreds of millions of dollars are on the table.
But now it seems like some Casual/Indie publishers, are suddenly following their big counterparts, forcing you to remove links from your game? Sounds MAD to me.
Specially, if we take in mind the need for synergy on this market: the public its not permanently "channeled" from one portal to another, the movement by no means represent a one-way road! (that its somehow a naive assumption on their part if thats the case).
#8
Of course I talked about this case with distributors and they refuse to do any exceptions for me.
Of course, distributors demand too much according to website links but this is absolute free-will - you agree and earn money or you don't agree and you don't earn money.
The situation with TGB is all the same, or:
- To use TGB and pay $5000 per game and sell games by means of distributors having big profit, or
- To use another engine (which doesn't demand any links) and not to pay $5000 selling via distributors having big profit, or
- To use TGB and not to have any distributor cooperation having very low benefit.
Probably you don't know that Big Fish and RealArcade are the "whales" on the market of casual games distribution and presence of your game in their stock is a huge plus for you. More, as I have already mentioned there are other distributors (www.nevosoft.ru etc.) that have the demand to games concerning the website link. So, it is easier to quit TGB than to ask every distributor to do an exception for a developer. Concerning $5000, I am dead sure that 99% of potential TGB buyers are not ready to pay such big amount of money for each new game because they do not have the guarantee that sum of benefit will cover the sum of demand($5k).
GG as the company which is interested in wide usage of TGB must understand that the specified point in EULA causes irresistible obstacles for distributing TGB on the market of casual games.
10/13/2008 (5:34 am)
I do not blame anyone in anything, I am simply giving you the piece of information that I hadn't myself which is why I've got some kind of trouble.Of course I talked about this case with distributors and they refuse to do any exceptions for me.
Of course, distributors demand too much according to website links but this is absolute free-will - you agree and earn money or you don't agree and you don't earn money.
The situation with TGB is all the same, or:
- To use TGB and pay $5000 per game and sell games by means of distributors having big profit, or
- To use another engine (which doesn't demand any links) and not to pay $5000 selling via distributors having big profit, or
- To use TGB and not to have any distributor cooperation having very low benefit.
Probably you don't know that Big Fish and RealArcade are the "whales" on the market of casual games distribution and presence of your game in their stock is a huge plus for you. More, as I have already mentioned there are other distributors (www.nevosoft.ru etc.) that have the demand to games concerning the website link. So, it is easier to quit TGB than to ask every distributor to do an exception for a developer. Concerning $5000, I am dead sure that 99% of potential TGB buyers are not ready to pay such big amount of money for each new game because they do not have the guarantee that sum of benefit will cover the sum of demand($5k).
GG as the company which is interested in wide usage of TGB must understand that the specified point in EULA causes irresistible obstacles for distributing TGB on the market of casual games.
#9
There were always publishers who pushed too much by establishing draconian conditions, and the casual market is not the exception, despite the fact that theoretically, it should be.
The morality of the story is always the same, YOU are the one who choose to give them that power. Sadly, money is always an overestimated part in the equation.
I guess you see a shortcut to money in the act of complaining to the tool developer (which in this case, is one of the most important indie supporters in the field), instead of working out a better distribution model (like many other developers already did).
10/13/2008 (10:46 am)
Quote:Probably you don't know that Big Fish and RealArcade are the "whales" on the market of casual games distribution and presence of your game in their stock is a huge plus for you.You assume too much. You are not the only one out there who knows what RA and BF are, you know?
There were always publishers who pushed too much by establishing draconian conditions, and the casual market is not the exception, despite the fact that theoretically, it should be.
The morality of the story is always the same, YOU are the one who choose to give them that power. Sadly, money is always an overestimated part in the equation.
I guess you see a shortcut to money in the act of complaining to the tool developer (which in this case, is one of the most important indie supporters in the field), instead of working out a better distribution model (like many other developers already did).
#10
Another option;
Create a cut down version of your game, make it a viral flash game (maybe one or two levels), and distribute this on the flash sites, some of which can give you 400+ hits per day with a link back to your website where your game is hosted, display... now play the full game on the last page with a link.
Only spend $5000 on splash screen removal if your game title is a huge success, or you are producing your 2nd or 3rd title and you can justify this cost, or you just have deep pockets and you don't want to display it for various reasons.
Once your game is known, word of mouth and reviews will only aid the initial marketing you have done.
Developing a game doesn't come without it's price tag, either way - you don't get something for nothing.
10/13/2008 (11:17 am)
Self distribution is the key to start with, get yourself a banner advert and place it on www.game-advertising-online.com from 5c a click through to your game website, generate enough sales then you should have enough to either not bother about placing it on distribution sites, but use the money to pay for further advertising revenue on the likes of gamespot or other game related channels, or to remove the splash screen on your game if you will.Another option;
Create a cut down version of your game, make it a viral flash game (maybe one or two levels), and distribute this on the flash sites, some of which can give you 400+ hits per day with a link back to your website where your game is hosted, display... now play the full game on the last page with a link.
Only spend $5000 on splash screen removal if your game title is a huge success, or you are producing your 2nd or 3rd title and you can justify this cost, or you just have deep pockets and you don't want to display it for various reasons.
Once your game is known, word of mouth and reviews will only aid the initial marketing you have done.
Developing a game doesn't come without it's price tag, either way - you don't get something for nothing.
#11
Considering I find GG's EULA requirements far more acceptable than the distributors you're looking at I don't really understand why you expect GG to roll over because the distributors won't. GG depend on referrals and promotion as much as the next guy.
10/13/2008 (11:21 am)
Gad, I hate over dramatic tabloid style thread titles, they catch me out every time... dramah!Quote:Of course I talked about this case with distributors and they refuse to do any exceptions for me.
Considering I find GG's EULA requirements far more acceptable than the distributors you're looking at I don't really understand why you expect GG to roll over because the distributors won't. GG depend on referrals and promotion as much as the next guy.
#12
Splash screens and the "about link" are an important part of our advertising strategy, as successful games inform new potential game makers of the benefits of using Torque. In addition to loss of advertising, there are real legal costs for us to amend our EULA on a case-by-case basis. Because of this waiving our splash screen is priced above our standard licensing fees.
@Arsen: I find it regrettable that instead of continuing our private conversation about your game's license, you've chosen post a panic message in the attempt to raise public opinion against our standard licensing conditions. While, I would not say you are directly trolling, your intent here is similar: Your post is not simply an altruistic public notice, rather you are looking to rally popular support against our EULA to exert pressure on us and, hopefully, improve your position. It is also not the case that I/we have stone walled you and refused to discuss a compromise.
10/13/2008 (11:53 am)
Regarding EULA changes/waivers:Splash screens and the "about link" are an important part of our advertising strategy, as successful games inform new potential game makers of the benefits of using Torque. In addition to loss of advertising, there are real legal costs for us to amend our EULA on a case-by-case basis. Because of this waiving our splash screen is priced above our standard licensing fees.
@Arsen: I find it regrettable that instead of continuing our private conversation about your game's license, you've chosen post a panic message in the attempt to raise public opinion against our standard licensing conditions. While, I would not say you are directly trolling, your intent here is similar: Your post is not simply an altruistic public notice, rather you are looking to rally popular support against our EULA to exert pressure on us and, hopefully, improve your position. It is also not the case that I/we have stone walled you and refused to discuss a compromise.
#13
Let me add my 5 cents into the discussion.
Playground SDK by PlayFirst has the same EULA statement. However, they officially stated on their forums, that if a publisher demands all URLs to be removed, it wouldn't be a break of EULA.
Besides, you already got the logo in the game. And most internet users are using Google to find the necessary websites. So I am not sure that you will benefit from a direct link within a game more, than from a "Built with Torque Game Builder" splash screen. In my opinion, a successful game with this logo will bring you more customers than a "www.garagegames.com" link.
Asking for the $5000 to remove the link is enough reason to demand a moneyback and cancel all development on TGB. And also a good reason to warn other developers about this issue. If you want to lost customers - go on, and ask for a $5000. But if you want your engine to be promoted - a splash logo is more than enough.
Take a look at the BlitzBasic. No stupid demands about links, and it is FAR more popular than Torque Game Builder.
In fact, I am grateful to Arsen about this warning. Because I was going to develop my next game in TGB. Now I am seriously thinking about Playgroun SDK - its not that simple, but since I plan to sell my game through the major portals, I don't want to have a big headache about the EULA demands when my game will be done.
10/13/2008 (2:52 pm)
Davey:Let me add my 5 cents into the discussion.
Playground SDK by PlayFirst has the same EULA statement. However, they officially stated on their forums, that if a publisher demands all URLs to be removed, it wouldn't be a break of EULA.
Besides, you already got the logo in the game. And most internet users are using Google to find the necessary websites. So I am not sure that you will benefit from a direct link within a game more, than from a "Built with Torque Game Builder" splash screen. In my opinion, a successful game with this logo will bring you more customers than a "www.garagegames.com" link.
Asking for the $5000 to remove the link is enough reason to demand a moneyback and cancel all development on TGB. And also a good reason to warn other developers about this issue. If you want to lost customers - go on, and ask for a $5000. But if you want your engine to be promoted - a splash logo is more than enough.
Take a look at the BlitzBasic. No stupid demands about links, and it is FAR more popular than Torque Game Builder.
In fact, I am grateful to Arsen about this warning. Because I was going to develop my next game in TGB. Now I am seriously thinking about Playgroun SDK - its not that simple, but since I plan to sell my game through the major portals, I don't want to have a big headache about the EULA demands when my game will be done.
#14
How foolish can comments be?
Seems to me that Davey is right on the spot with his assumption of flaggelants flocking to the feast :x
10/13/2008 (3:04 pm)
Quote:Asking for the $5000 to remove the link is enough reason to demand a moneyback and cancel all development on TGB.
How foolish can comments be?
Seems to me that Davey is right on the spot with his assumption of flaggelants flocking to the feast :x
#15
You can thank Arsen if you want, but you should also gather from Davey's post that nothing is set in stone. GarageGames is willing to work with a developer or team to get your game out the door, even if that means bending on our own policy.
Issue - To display or not display a link:
GarageGames - Flexible EULA if you enter private discussion
Big Portal Company - Absolutely rigid, does not care
The remainder of your poster is bordering on being malicious, and is deviating from the message of the OP.
10/13/2008 (3:08 pm)
@Kostiantyn - Time for my 2 cents (sorry, GG doesn't pay me enough to throw around the big nickel). The EULA for each engine is available before, during, and after purchase. Though the theme of most responses is not geared toward this, a few lines from a couple of posters insinuate some hidden mischief on GarageGames's end. I know this isn't the main point, but I just want to make sure that is clear.You can thank Arsen if you want, but you should also gather from Davey's post that nothing is set in stone. GarageGames is willing to work with a developer or team to get your game out the door, even if that means bending on our own policy.
Issue - To display or not display a link:
GarageGames - Flexible EULA if you enter private discussion
Big Portal Company - Absolutely rigid, does not care
The remainder of your poster is bordering on being malicious, and is deviating from the message of the OP.
#16
Its clear to me, that when I have my game finished and want to submit it to the major portal, I don't want to pay a $5000 just for the ability to do that without a clear understanding of how much profit should I have.
If you don't agree with that - its your personal problem. If you are fool enough to pay $5000 for the right to post your game to major portal - I can just congratulate GG with such customers.
10/13/2008 (3:08 pm)
Christian:Its clear to me, that when I have my game finished and want to submit it to the major portal, I don't want to pay a $5000 just for the ability to do that without a clear understanding of how much profit should I have.
If you don't agree with that - its your personal problem. If you are fool enough to pay $5000 for the right to post your game to major portal - I can just congratulate GG with such customers.
#17
Its clear to me, that when I have my game finished and want to submit it to the major portal, I don't want to pay a $5000 just for the ability to do that without a clear understanding of how much profit should I have.
If you don't agree with that - its your personal problem. If you are fool enough to pay $5000 for the right to post your game to major portal - I can just congratulate GG with such customers.
10/13/2008 (3:15 pm)
Christian:Its clear to me, that when I have my game finished and want to submit it to the major portal, I don't want to pay a $5000 just for the ability to do that without a clear understanding of how much profit should I have.
If you don't agree with that - its your personal problem. If you are fool enough to pay $5000 for the right to post your game to major portal - I can just congratulate GG with such customers.
#18
Please, everyone keep it civil.
10/13/2008 (3:18 pm)
@Kostiantyn - You are allowed your opinion, and it is valued here in the community. However, personal attacks are unprofessional and counterproductive.Please, everyone keep it civil.
#19
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Playground SDK or Blitz's viewpoint and there is also nothing wrong with the TGB viewpoint. Blitz doesn't have to put a logo, link, or even mention them anywhere in their product as far as I recall. Of course, you have to build your engine from scratch in their language (and BlitzMax is a very fun language to program in). Playground looks like a nice SDK as well, though I'm not as familiar with it as I am with other groups. I'm sure their licensing department will work with developers in the same fashion that Davey has been working with Arsen depending on the specific portal requirements for a project. Most game engine technology licensing departments will work with the developers if there is a specific need.
But you're comparing licensing models as if there is a direct 1:1 correlation between the products you mention, which just is not the case. Different companies have different ideas and differing licensing options for a reason. If you do not wish to display any logos, put up links, credit developer's hard work, etc for whatever reason (artistic reasons usually the most prominent in discussions on frontend logos for example, though not at the core of this discussion), then by all means choose the engine/language that is right for you--I include languages since you chose Blitz as an example.
There is no hidden mischief here. We're not about giving you a "gotcha!" at the last moment. As Michael and Davey both noted, we are not inflexible with our licensing as long as you contact us and try to work with us (and especially if there is a big portal contact waiting in the wings). The vast majority of projects never get started, let alone completed. And of those that do, there are numerous distribution models available. The licensing covers these basic models. But if you need something for a specific portal, we will have to work with your team. Just like most middleware vendors out there.
But if TGB's not for you, and you do not wish to discuss license negotiations for portal specifics for a publishable product, then choose another engine. I'm an avid Torque supporter (and avid Unity and BlitzMax fan) but I'm not going to pretend that every engine is right for everyone, especially if someone wishes to make jump-assumptions about licensing rigidity without entering into an actually licensing discussion about their publishing options.
10/13/2008 (3:21 pm)
@Konstantin TeterinThere's absolutely nothing wrong with Playground SDK or Blitz's viewpoint and there is also nothing wrong with the TGB viewpoint. Blitz doesn't have to put a logo, link, or even mention them anywhere in their product as far as I recall. Of course, you have to build your engine from scratch in their language (and BlitzMax is a very fun language to program in). Playground looks like a nice SDK as well, though I'm not as familiar with it as I am with other groups. I'm sure their licensing department will work with developers in the same fashion that Davey has been working with Arsen depending on the specific portal requirements for a project. Most game engine technology licensing departments will work with the developers if there is a specific need.
But you're comparing licensing models as if there is a direct 1:1 correlation between the products you mention, which just is not the case. Different companies have different ideas and differing licensing options for a reason. If you do not wish to display any logos, put up links, credit developer's hard work, etc for whatever reason (artistic reasons usually the most prominent in discussions on frontend logos for example, though not at the core of this discussion), then by all means choose the engine/language that is right for you--I include languages since you chose Blitz as an example.
There is no hidden mischief here. We're not about giving you a "gotcha!" at the last moment. As Michael and Davey both noted, we are not inflexible with our licensing as long as you contact us and try to work with us (and especially if there is a big portal contact waiting in the wings). The vast majority of projects never get started, let alone completed. And of those that do, there are numerous distribution models available. The licensing covers these basic models. But if you need something for a specific portal, we will have to work with your team. Just like most middleware vendors out there.
But if TGB's not for you, and you do not wish to discuss license negotiations for portal specifics for a publishable product, then choose another engine. I'm an avid Torque supporter (and avid Unity and BlitzMax fan) but I'm not going to pretend that every engine is right for everyone, especially if someone wishes to make jump-assumptions about licensing rigidity without entering into an actually licensing discussion about their publishing options.
#20
Here is the situation. I am about to develop a new game, an I really want to use TGB. However, I plan to sell this game exclusively through Big Fish Games in the future.
$5000 is a big money for me, I don't have them. So right now its easier to me to switch to another engine than to start to develop with TGB.
What options may I have when the game will be done? Can you say me something to convince that I still need to develop a game with a Torque Game Builder? Self-distribution is not an option, because when it comes to casual games, you can't sell them well enough if they will not be published by the major portals.
And I still believe, that a "Made with Torque" splash screen in a popular game on Big Fish Game will bring much more attention to the engine, than a link in self-distributed game.
10/13/2008 (3:21 pm)
Michael:Here is the situation. I am about to develop a new game, an I really want to use TGB. However, I plan to sell this game exclusively through Big Fish Games in the future.
$5000 is a big money for me, I don't have them. So right now its easier to me to switch to another engine than to start to develop with TGB.
What options may I have when the game will be done? Can you say me something to convince that I still need to develop a game with a Torque Game Builder? Self-distribution is not an option, because when it comes to casual games, you can't sell them well enough if they will not be published by the major portals.
And I still believe, that a "Made with Torque" splash screen in a popular game on Big Fish Game will bring much more attention to the engine, than a link in self-distributed game.
Torque 3D Owner Peter Simard
Default Studio Name