Questions that T3D gamasutra article brings up...
by Chris Cain · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 03/18/2009 (2:42 pm) · 8 replies
Well, I have two very important questions about T3D now that I've read that gamasutra article...
1. Are we going to be able to allow people to mod our games anymore? The answer almost certainly appears to be a no... because it appears that the way to "mod" the game will be the same way "make" a game with T3D, in which case there will be no point in releasing the $250 version if someone could get it for free legally by just finding a free, mod-friendly T3D game.
2. Since the $250 engine will no longer have source access, are we going to be able to make non-cookie-cutter games? eg, if I want to add sprinting, are we going to be able to do that? Or maybe I want players to be able to walk on ceilings... etc. Or are features like that restricted to just the $1000 version. I understand you could work generic things like sprinting into T3D, but I'm more concerned with the user being able to add specialish features like that on his own, I'm simply using examples.
1. Are we going to be able to allow people to mod our games anymore? The answer almost certainly appears to be a no... because it appears that the way to "mod" the game will be the same way "make" a game with T3D, in which case there will be no point in releasing the $250 version if someone could get it for free legally by just finding a free, mod-friendly T3D game.
2. Since the $250 engine will no longer have source access, are we going to be able to make non-cookie-cutter games? eg, if I want to add sprinting, are we going to be able to do that? Or maybe I want players to be able to walk on ceilings... etc. Or are features like that restricted to just the $1000 version. I understand you could work generic things like sprinting into T3D, but I'm more concerned with the user being able to add specialish features like that on his own, I'm simply using examples.
#2
1) If you need to release a modable game, you'll have to talk to GG about licensing the editor tools for that.
2) You'll be able to do some more with script, though there are still going to be a lot of limitations. The biggest limitation of course is going to be that TorqueScript is fairly slow. Realistically you're not going to make much of a game with just script, so the Basic version is either going to be for those who want to just make a simple game, or for artists and scripters to use. Having the Basic license will allow you to work with binary versions built by owners of the Pro license, so your programmers can add advanced functionality and expose it to script.
3) Everybody on the team will need a license now, including artists. Yes, it's a major change from the traditional Torque licensing model, which was expected. Not exactly a clone of the Unity license model, since you still don't get source code with the Pro version of Unity, you just get more features. The source code license carries the "contact us" price tag, which means it's going to be pretty steep ;)
03/20/2009 (12:38 am)
Some of these things were addressed at the IRC hour.1) If you need to release a modable game, you'll have to talk to GG about licensing the editor tools for that.
2) You'll be able to do some more with script, though there are still going to be a lot of limitations. The biggest limitation of course is going to be that TorqueScript is fairly slow. Realistically you're not going to make much of a game with just script, so the Basic version is either going to be for those who want to just make a simple game, or for artists and scripters to use. Having the Basic license will allow you to work with binary versions built by owners of the Pro license, so your programmers can add advanced functionality and expose it to script.
3) Everybody on the team will need a license now, including artists. Yes, it's a major change from the traditional Torque licensing model, which was expected. Not exactly a clone of the Unity license model, since you still don't get source code with the Pro version of Unity, you just get more features. The source code license carries the "contact us" price tag, which means it's going to be pretty steep ;)
#3
Currently neither of my artists even deal with the engine at all. They typically do their stuff to the specs I give them, hand it off to me when finished, then I let them know if anything needs changed. The closest the modeler ever gets to the engine is sometimes he'll check the model/animation in STP, but all that tells him is everything might be named and rendered correctly.
I have a feeling that when Matt said that artists would need a license last night it was with the assumption that they would drop stuff into the engine themselves for testing. Hopefully I'm not wrong there.
03/20/2009 (6:02 am)
The artists thing still needs to be cleared up as I don't think artists would actually need to have a license. I forgot to bring this up when it was mentioned last night. All an artist needs Maya/Max/etc, and the exporter.Currently neither of my artists even deal with the engine at all. They typically do their stuff to the specs I give them, hand it off to me when finished, then I let them know if anything needs changed. The closest the modeler ever gets to the engine is sometimes he'll check the model/animation in STP, but all that tells him is everything might be named and rendered correctly.
I have a feeling that when Matt said that artists would need a license last night it was with the assumption that they would drop stuff into the engine themselves for testing. Hopefully I'm not wrong there.
#4
That's what I figured they meant too. Early days anyhow, I'm sure the main focus is on GDC right now. Nothing like deadlines to cause chaos!
03/20/2009 (7:51 am)
Quote:I have a feeling that when Matt said that artists would need a license last night it was with the assumption that they would drop stuff into the engine themselves for testing.
That's what I figured they meant too. Early days anyhow, I'm sure the main focus is on GDC right now. Nothing like deadlines to cause chaos!
#5
03/20/2009 (8:54 am)
I have a question.. so does that mean the demo(if any will now just be static games essenatially) that GG releases will no longer include a editor, or similar material? Im curious how the demo issue will be resolved.
#6
In any case, this is an interesting development... I'll have to see what it costs to license the editor. This limits its appeal to me for PC games... I only got into programming because of moddable games, so the editor license seems like a necessity for someone like me who absolutely has to have his games moddable.
03/20/2009 (8:58 am)
I bet they'll do something similar to the current TGB demo.In any case, this is an interesting development... I'll have to see what it costs to license the editor. This limits its appeal to me for PC games... I only got into programming because of moddable games, so the editor license seems like a necessity for someone like me who absolutely has to have his games moddable.
#7
03/20/2009 (11:01 am)
Yes, of course they can't tell you that an artist has to have a license if they're not going to touch the engine. With Collada support they probably won't even need to use a Torque exporter.
#8
As is said by others in this thread, if the artist never touches the tools packaged with Torque 3D then an artist wouldn't need a license, there would be no way to enforce it since an artist could theoretically pass off Collada files to someone with a license. Though if that artist wants to bring in assets themselves with the Torque 3D tools, tweak materials with thew new in-editor material editor, tweak datablocks, build levels, etc, then a Basic license is a great option.
This isn't really a "clone" of Unity, partially because what Gerald already said, Unity Pro -still- doesn't offer source code, plus this is more mimicking how quite a few pieces of software work (the mass majority), to use tools of the software you need to purchase it.
03/20/2009 (11:07 pm)
An artist would need a license for Torque 3D (that Basic license is ideal for this if they're working with a coder who had a Pro license) if they work with the editors or any of the tools packaged with Torque 3D.As is said by others in this thread, if the artist never touches the tools packaged with Torque 3D then an artist wouldn't need a license, there would be no way to enforce it since an artist could theoretically pass off Collada files to someone with a license. Though if that artist wants to bring in assets themselves with the Torque 3D tools, tweak materials with thew new in-editor material editor, tweak datablocks, build levels, etc, then a Basic license is a great option.
This isn't really a "clone" of Unity, partially because what Gerald already said, Unity Pro -still- doesn't offer source code, plus this is more mimicking how quite a few pieces of software work (the mass majority), to use tools of the software you need to purchase it.
Torque 3D Owner David Stocker
The price listed seems to be $250 per seat for non source access and $1000 per seat for source access. This sounds like a completely different licensing model than TGE/TGEA and seems like a clone of the Unity license model. Traditionally, the torque license has been for source code access. An artist did not need a copy. In fact, the collaborative editing tool takes advantage of this to allow multiple client sessions to run the editor. Will T3D also require a license for everyone on the team?
If so, this means no more minor contributors in projects.