Torque 3D Sidebar - Pricing and Licensing
by Brett Seyler · 01/09/2009 (6:57 am) · 369 comments
This is probably the most candid blog post I'll write all year. It's also likely to be quite long. I'm aiming here to communicate a lot of things and I'm hoping they come out in nice fluid arc, but we'll see. It's supposed to be about GG and you, but we might take some twists and turns getting there. I should also warn anyone who's willing to read through this that there are no clear answers in this blog, just thoughts and questions. While I'm sitting here starting to write this, I'm thinking about how much I like reading Warren Buffett's shareholder letters. I'm certainly not alone in admiring his frank, honest, pull-no-punches style. Buffett's customers are his shareholders, but I notice that very few companies write to their customers this way. What would it be like if they did?
I'm certainly not arrogant enough to draw any kind of comparison between me and the Sage of Omaha, but I really going to try to follow his example in candor and clear communication about business goals.
Most of you probably don't know that I did finance and investment work before joining GG. Though I've always been into games and technology my whole life, it's still a a very weird kind of transition to make from that button up world to the laid back, but hyper-competitve world of a startup software company. Obviously, GG is much more fun, but it's almost demanding in a lot of the same ways finance was for me. You might be surprised how much business is just business, and finding ways to succeed and get more done is universal across those kind of boundaries.
There are a bunch of subjects I'll likely wander around in this post, but the one that bears this post's title is the focus...
RUH-ROH! I can hear the alarm bells going off..."GG is raising prices! I knew it!!!!!!!!!!"
I'll just tear the Band-aid away quickly then. Torque 3D will have a higher price tag than GG'ers are used to from Torque. How much higher? I'm not sure yet to be honest...I've given it a lot of thought, but in the past few months, when I've looked to you guys for feedback, it's always been helpful and understanding, so I figured I'd push my luck and do it again =)
Here are the core principles for GG and Torque that I'm trying to stay true to in working this out:
(1) Make sure that Torque licensing is a sustainable business that allows for signicant reinvestment in the technology--enough to keep Torque at the forefront of modern game engines.
(2) Eat our own dog food. This means we use what we sell, reinforcing the need to reinvest in the technology.
(3) Leverage modern distribution options. This means web publishing, downloadable channels, and any other efforts that upset that status quo in publishing and put more money and control in the developer's hands.
(4) Remain an affordable option for the little guy.
Obviously there's a balance to be struck attempting to serve both (1) and (4). However, there may be less conflict than you'd think. For example, let me talk about (1) a little bit.
Why I'm not worried about Epic or AAA
We made a decision with Torque a long time ago not to compete head to head the top competition in the AAA space. That competitions has emerged in the past decade to be Epic's Unreal engine, first and foremost. While Torque can do a LOT of what Unreal can do, we're executing on a much different business model and strategy...part of it is idealistic, part's pragmatic.
The Unreal engine is driven by the needs of Epic's studio to deliver every year, without fail, on a game with the highest visual impact possible. They succeed, more or less, in doing this with Unreal Tournament and Gears of War. These huge budget AAA games subsidize the enormous cost of developing technology that keeps the games looking better than anything else. By extension, the Unreal engine is percieved as being the best technology at any given time. (Seem like circular logic? Keep reading.)Sure...there are disturbances in the force. Upstarts like Crytek or Gamebryo steal the limelight now and then, but let's be realistic, Unreal dominates AAA engine licensing. When I say AAA, I mean licensing for use in big budget AAA titles. If you're building a $10-$30M game, you're looking at Unreal first. It inspires confidence in your publisher (guaranteeing more money) and it says to the media and press that "this game is going to achieve a certain visual quality bar that you expect from games made with Unreal." This last part in particular is crucial to the hype-train that gets gamers to pay $60 for a game on release day.
Sound like any other industry you can think of? Come...let's all share in the let down and pretend we didn't just get screwed.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't admire Epic's success in both engine licensing and game development. They've figured out how the game is played and beat everyone under the current ruleset. My hat's off to them. But a lot of this blockbuster-game-driven perception about engines is crap IMO. The dirty little secret in AAA games is that great art, far more than tech, creates visual quality. Even so, "UE = visual superiority => best engine" is the common thinking in the games industry and no one--NO ONE--has been able to break Epic's stranglehold on this section of the middleware market for the better part of decade.
How would you change things if it were your desire to do so?
There are two paths that I see...
You can try to beat Epic at their own game. To do this you'd need a premiere game studio with huge budgets to consistently impress on developers and the press that Unreal is no longer the best performing engine tech around. This means truly high end tech and *really* high end artists that can push the technology's boundaries.
Crytek appears to be trying to execute on this strategy, and they've had some success. id, while a major innovator in game dev technology, appears only casually interested in upsetting the state of Epic's AAA middleware domination. Gamebryo has some good tech and a good marketing / sales team, but no dedicated studio to consistently test the tech and then demonstrate where they stack up next to Unreal or other AAA competitors, so I think they're doomed to fail in AAA. Valve plays a role similar to id. They appear to only casually pursuing licensing of their Source engine.
So that's it... Crytek is the only reasonable candidate to unseat Epic as the AAA engine licensing champion. Why don't I think that will happen? In order to do it, Crytek needs to do it year after year for a sustained period of time, and that demands a lot of money. Epic's makes financially successful games that subsidize the costs of developing their tech. Crytek, to date, has not.
Even for hardcore gamers and the press, it's not just about the good looks, it's also about being on the right platforms, being able to tell a good story in-game. Developers have to find the right gameplay hooks to make a game rewarding. As visually impressive as Crysis is (far more than any UE3 game IMO), the game lacked what was needed to achieve maintream (and financial) success. Minimum hardware requirements that were totally off the charts on the game's release didn't help much either.
Does it make sense for GarageGames to try to go to head-to-head with Epic in the same fashion? Well, maybe we'd consider it if the AAA engine licensing space were a growth market or currently underserved, but it's neither. AAA engine licensing has been a fairly stagnant market for years now and Epic'c never conceded more than about 50% of the available revenue, so I don't know about you, but doing bloody battle for a slice of a pie that isn't growing seems kind silly to me.
So, if not head-to-head with Epic, where does Torque fit? What's the angle? Well, our goal is not really to "beat" Epic, it's to change the game (in the "meta" sense of the word). We think it's dumb that games cost $60 and that the best selling games published by the biggest publishers all essentially answer to Walmart.
Games should be cheaper.
Gamers should have more variety.
Developers should feel comfortable taking more risks.
None of these are possible without upsetting the status quo. This is why we created Torque and put a $100 no royalties price tag on it in 2001. This is why we created InstantAction.com so that we could build our own audience and connect gamers to developers with no interference from publishers or retailers. Both efforts serve the same goal of making it easier (and more affordable) for developers to take risks.
Torque exists to provide developers (starting with our own game studio) with the means to take these kinds of risks, to create games that can achieve AAA-level visual quality, but with a focus on what makes games fun. We want our studio and you to innovate in ways that matter most to gamers. Portal didn't need next-gen visuals or a multi-million dollare engine to win over gamers. It could have easily been built with Torque. Just the same, Marble Blast Ultra didn't need super-high end rendering. To make the point even clearer, look at Phil Hassey's Galcon. Phil built this game in Python all by himself and it's currently one of the most played games on InstantAction.
We think this evolution, bridging the divide between developers and gamers, enabling greater risk taking at lower cost, is where the industry must go. The faster it gets there, the more Torque makes sense to a wider audience of game developers. As a company, we've always aimed to support platforms and technologies that make this happen faster. I put Steam, WiiWare, XBLA, PSN, id's Quakelive and InstantAction.com all on that list. In fact, without Steam, I doubt Valve could comfortably afford to take the kind or risks they do. We'd all, as gamers and game developers, be much worse off without if they hadn't bucked the system and created the most effective digital distribution platform on the planet. (Go Valve!)
Let's think again about the balance between enabling the little guy, and being in a position to reinvest in Torque and sustain this effort to encourage risk taking in games. Who do we mean by the little guy? Does a hobbyist who never publishes anything serve these goals? Probably not...let's talk about that...
We're building Torque to enable a particular set of developers: those who can persevere though the challenge of game development. This means outfits like Fro Games, Stickman Studios, Sickhead Games, and Tilted Mill to cite some recent examples. In the recent Game Developer profile on TGEA for the Front Line awards, I think they hit the nail on the head.
Are you one of these developers? A lot of you might not know yet. Some of you may not know whether you even want to push that hard or take that much time. You might be happy with game development as a curiousity and have no interest in ever publishing your work. This does not mean Torque is not for you.
Just as Photoshop, Flash, Max and Maya are built for professional use with professional licensees in mind, so is Torque. And just as plenty of amateurs and hobbyists use Adobe and Autodesk tools with no intention of making their work public, so will amateur and hobbyist Torque users. Still, often times, these tools make professionals of people who didn't know if they had what it in them, and we hope Torque does the same.
If we want Torque to effectively serve professionals and that set of developers who have the fortitude and talent to give it a real shot, we need to re-evaluate Torque's license fee. We can't do this effectively for $150 / seat, at least not with Torque 3D. Torque has thousands and thousands of licensees, but developing engine technology is very complicated and very expensive--certainly more complicated and expensive than developing games.
Attaching a $150 / seat price Torque has created a quality perception that does not do justice to Torque's capabilities. GarageGames could *easily* spin out a new business under a different banner and sell TGEA / Torque 3D right next to all the other major AAA engines for hundreds of thousands of dollars per title. Why don't we? Because it doesn't help us with (3) or (4). We'd be quickly assimilated into the tiny space left over by Epic and fighting tooth and nail with everyone else for 3-4 licensing tile deals per year. It wouldn't help us with games. It would disrupt the broken industry model. It wouldn't do much of anything good for games or gamers.
So what price makes sense? What's commensurate with the value Torque provides? Again, I don't know the answer to this yet. It's not $150 / seat and it's not $295 / seat. Perhaps it's $1000. Perhaps it's more. I look at products like Flash ($699) or 3ds Max ($3495) / Maya ($4995) and compare them with Torque. Torque is more complex from an engineering perspective and Torque is in a smaller, more niche market. Both of these factors would argue for a higher price. What about (4)? What's affordable for the little guy? What's going to be the right price that makes it acceptable for developers who ship product to feel comfortable taking risks with a good chance of success? Hard questions to answer.
I've also noticed that Unity, which appears to be competing more with Flash than game engines, is priced many multiples higher than Torque and yet, it's attracted a license base of primarily hobbyists and amateur developers. Even though Unity now offers a lower priced "Indie" version of its tool that deprecates major features and significant license freedom, for a long time you couldn't buy Unity for less than $1000 / seat. How does that compare with Torque (a much more capable and mature engine technology that actually provides source code)?
There's another consideration that's really important to me, and that's all you reading this. Many of you have been loyal GG customers and Torque users for a long time...in some cases much longer than I've been here myself. You've become accustomed to Torque's low price. Even if it costs GG money in the short term, I don't want to see this community lose is vibrance or engagement because Torque's no longer an affordable technology to stay current with.
While I haven't figured out how it will work yet, I have decided that when Torque 3D is ready for relase, we'll offer it with an option that makes it much more affordable for TGEA owners to make the move. New licensees who don't already own TGEA at that point will pay full price, whatever that ends up being. I should also note that TGEA 1.8 will probably remain an affordable option at the low end throughout 2009, but if we can, we'll provide a better, affordable substitute with Torque 3D...perhaps with some sort of meaningful feature or license delta. This might mean that Indie vs. Commercial changes, or goes away as well.
My ideal outcome is that in mid-2009, everyone who wants to continue working with Torque in the future will be using Torque 3D and sharing resources and knowledge with the rest of the community. This product is the largest investment we've ever made in engine tech and our expectations are high, but better I think to disclose our thoughts and intentions on things like this sooner rather than later. I'm very confident that for those of you who are really engaged in making games, upgrading to Torque 3D will be an easy choice well justified by the value it adds to your talent and dedication.
More sidebars and development blogs to come. This is post #5.
Torque 3D development blogs:
- Post #1 - Kickoff
- Post #2 - Apparatus and Warrior Camp
- Post #3 - Luma's racing kit
- Post #4 - Josh Engebretson and Web Publishing
- Post #5 - Pricing and Licensing
- Post #6 - Pricing and Licensing CONTINUED
- Post #7 - Wetness & Precipitation
- Post #8 - Screeen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO)
- Post #9 - Matt Langley and the Torque Launcher
- Post #10 - Chris Robertson and Collada
- Post #11 - Depth of Field
- Post #12 - Advanced Lighting
- Post #13 - Soft Particles
- Post #14 - World Editor
- Post #15 - Pricing and Licensing ANNOUNCED!
- Post #16 - GDC Live Edition
- Post #17 - River & Road Editors
- Post #18 - Beta is UP!
- Post #19 - Light Rays, Undercity, Material Editor
- Post #20 - Mass Market Hardware
- Post #21 - Beta: Part Deux
- Post #22 - Marching Towards Beta 3
- Post #23 - pureLIGHT
- Post #24 - Lighting, Terrain, and Cloth
- Post #25 - Beta 3!
- Post #26 - Coming Soon!
About the author
Since 2007, I've done my best to steer Torque's development and brand toward the best opportunities in games middleware.
#22
With a price tag of 1000 though I kinda agree with Cains , you would loose a bit of potential customer base. I realize that there is a need to make money, and to pay folks in these hard times. But Torque has alway set a presedence that they can compete with larger engines for less. There are a few engines that claim to be better and some are.. but then you look at their 10k or 100k price tags for the "real" engine and tools and that pretty much excludes your entire target audience. The core imo of indie developers are hobbyiest and entry level folks. ( yes i know that alot of folks 10-20 years still consider themselves indie, but if your making X00,000 dollars ever year on profits, are you really still in that same category?)
01/09/2009 (10:33 am)
well the way i see it, right now Torque has 5 versions but for a this question TGB and Torque X are set aside.. We have TGE, TGEa and T3d. Now i understand that TGEa will become T3d but follow my logic. Release a final TGE as the "hobbyist edition" (with the question of what will become of AFX?) for the new 150 dollar price tag. Then offer the 1.8 TGEA for the 295 as the last release for the "indie edition". This keeps the projects live and gives persons a good indie starter area. (again with a AFX option for extra.) then offer T3d for lets see $500-1000 seems like a nice round scale up. Then you have addon packs, AFX for 125, a Shader pack for 100, New environmental packs, ect.. What you get is a engine, with a variety of options for the indies thats not outside of reasonablilty. With a price tag of 1000 though I kinda agree with Cains , you would loose a bit of potential customer base. I realize that there is a need to make money, and to pay folks in these hard times. But Torque has alway set a presedence that they can compete with larger engines for less. There are a few engines that claim to be better and some are.. but then you look at their 10k or 100k price tags for the "real" engine and tools and that pretty much excludes your entire target audience. The core imo of indie developers are hobbyiest and entry level folks. ( yes i know that alot of folks 10-20 years still consider themselves indie, but if your making X00,000 dollars ever year on profits, are you really still in that same category?)
#23
Personally I would rather see GG just ramp the price up the $1000 and use the extra money to leverage more resources to make Torque 3D into a bigger and better engine. But I also understand that there are a lot of hobbyists and guys that don't have that kind of dough, hence why I posted the 3 flavor option.
01/09/2009 (10:36 am)
@SurgePersonally I would rather see GG just ramp the price up the $1000 and use the extra money to leverage more resources to make Torque 3D into a bigger and better engine. But I also understand that there are a lot of hobbyists and guys that don't have that kind of dough, hence why I posted the 3 flavor option.
#24
Please do your best to remember the little guy while you increase your price so that you can not only substain yourselves, but also grow as the good company that GG has always been.
Keep the GG "dream" that started GG forever on going...
Doesn't GG stand for GarageGames after all?...
01/09/2009 (10:41 am)
Well, I did have this huge long response that pretty much echoed alot of what everyone else is feeling then I hit post comment and it vanished =X! Go figure. Guess I wasn't supposed to post it so I'll say it short and sweet lol.Please do your best to remember the little guy while you increase your price so that you can not only substain yourselves, but also grow as the good company that GG has always been.
Keep the GG "dream" that started GG forever on going...
Doesn't GG stand for GarageGames after all?...
#25
Seems to me like a number of companies with products in the range of several thousand $$ have lately done this very successfully with a true win/win situation for both users and the developer.
01/09/2009 (10:45 am)
I second Rodney's thoughts on the pricing structure. Affordable non-commercial licenses (that's what the hobbyist license amounts to) are a very, very good thing IMHO that allows individuals access to high-quality tools while broadening the userbase of a product and at the same time guaranteeing that if someone makes money with the product, he/she'll have to go for a proper license.Seems to me like a number of companies with products in the range of several thousand $$ have lately done this very successfully with a true win/win situation for both users and the developer.
#26
I also more or less agree with the many of the previous posts, but I would add...
As you never thought about modulating the upgrade price on a "per user" base? Maybe adding to the discount for TGEA an extra bonus in the form of a promotional code, the amount of this calculated taking into consideration how much in the past the user has spent on GG store?
Also (maybe this yet in place) giving extra bonus to great community contributors (in terms of submitted or ported resources or other way to contribute).
I think would be a nice way to remunerate and mantein the acquired customer base avoiding a big flooding away at least of those that have contributed in the past in terms of money spent or work done...
I also think the idea of a hobbyst/educational license would be not so bad... and as some people said it is difficult to think how much we are able/disposed to spent for T3D without knowing what features and improvements it will add, so this can be ipotized when we will have more info about it but i think I would be not able to spend more than $400/450 for the upgrade...
One further thoughts is... what about modulate the engine price giving a base set of features out of the box and sell some additional modules on GG store just for those who need them?
Those my 2 cents...
Oh, and of sure... you have been an "example in candor and clear communication about business goals." :-D
01/09/2009 (10:52 am)
@ Brett: I can understand and agree with the points you raised...I also more or less agree with the many of the previous posts, but I would add...
As you never thought about modulating the upgrade price on a "per user" base? Maybe adding to the discount for TGEA an extra bonus in the form of a promotional code, the amount of this calculated taking into consideration how much in the past the user has spent on GG store?
Also (maybe this yet in place) giving extra bonus to great community contributors (in terms of submitted or ported resources or other way to contribute).
I think would be a nice way to remunerate and mantein the acquired customer base avoiding a big flooding away at least of those that have contributed in the past in terms of money spent or work done...
I also think the idea of a hobbyst/educational license would be not so bad... and as some people said it is difficult to think how much we are able/disposed to spent for T3D without knowing what features and improvements it will add, so this can be ipotized when we will have more info about it but i think I would be not able to spend more than $400/450 for the upgrade...
One further thoughts is... what about modulate the engine price giving a base set of features out of the box and sell some additional modules on GG store just for those who need them?
Those my 2 cents...
Oh, and of sure... you have been an "example in candor and clear communication about business goals." :-D
#27
The community here (imo) has really driven TGE/A to great heights. By narrowing your target audience down to the "elite" (Fro Games, Sickhead, etc.), you're going to decrease your community based support, in which GG is so fondly known for.
01/09/2009 (10:59 am)
I agree that an educational or hobbyist license would be appropriate. It would allow a much wider audience to continue using your technology. That would provide a greater possibility for community driven bug fixes, enhancements (Alex Scarborough's DRL/TGEA 1.8 anyone?), documentation, and of course the lovely forum Q&A's. The community here (imo) has really driven TGE/A to great heights. By narrowing your target audience down to the "elite" (Fro Games, Sickhead, etc.), you're going to decrease your community based support, in which GG is so fondly known for.
#28
I do disagree though, in the 'creating an engine' is harder than creating a game. You are in the controlled seat when doing an engine, sort of back end environment, as where game development adds the human factor and all the entertainment and interaction fluff. One thing more, the comment about connecting gamers to developers without interference from publishers, I found a little funny, I think that GG have been sliding towards that role for a while -just look at the newsletters, way more publisher than tech stuff.
Anyways, I'm a dreamer. I want to make a mmorpg that have my ideas and interaction built into it, but I'm also a realist. Very few true Indies can complete that task, and as Dave puts it -there's too much need of ARTCODERS atm. Anyways, the current out of the box is too distant for a mmo, so that is set aside while we make a melee game, but then again. A melee game needs the eye candy that is a bit lacking in the current engines, if it's there Ill port the very day it's released. And an option for current licence holders to port at reduced cost to T3D, compared to a full scale price tag is a clever move. Its in trend with previous moves, it encourages to a swift port, it brings in cash in, and it adds manpower, eyes and hands to increase the feature creep ;)
Surge, Mark, and yourself have raised some interesting points; people grow with their tools, and restricting the newbie dreamer due to cost -might result in increased competition in the very area you want to rest, as Britton also mentioned, or decrease the innovation scene.
I do by the way think that ticket support, would be a downgrade compared to a public way of discussing issues like we have atm. but a more organized system would be a good thing. That being said, I need aid for my game, your engine is my current solution, raise the bar to 1000$ and I'm still around -cause I have a dream and my games will go gold, but as others have said as well, remember your base, the way global development are going and the macro economics..
Just my 2 cents
PS: I dislike this sites editor...
01/09/2009 (11:06 am)
Brett, this is a very good post and it's interesting that it comes around at this point. The range of engines from GG, surely is in the opposite end of the huge AAA ones. But as I see it the whole environment of game development is changing, huge blockbuster ones being a tremendous ROI risk and casual games a swamp of 'too much work'. Placing yourself where you're aiming at is indeed a clever move. The whole concept of being -the Indies friend, offering a engine supporting innovation at grass root level is what aided you guys in getting that Game Developer Frontline award I assume.I do disagree though, in the 'creating an engine' is harder than creating a game. You are in the controlled seat when doing an engine, sort of back end environment, as where game development adds the human factor and all the entertainment and interaction fluff. One thing more, the comment about connecting gamers to developers without interference from publishers, I found a little funny, I think that GG have been sliding towards that role for a while -just look at the newsletters, way more publisher than tech stuff.
Anyways, I'm a dreamer. I want to make a mmorpg that have my ideas and interaction built into it, but I'm also a realist. Very few true Indies can complete that task, and as Dave puts it -there's too much need of ARTCODERS atm. Anyways, the current out of the box is too distant for a mmo, so that is set aside while we make a melee game, but then again. A melee game needs the eye candy that is a bit lacking in the current engines, if it's there Ill port the very day it's released. And an option for current licence holders to port at reduced cost to T3D, compared to a full scale price tag is a clever move. Its in trend with previous moves, it encourages to a swift port, it brings in cash in, and it adds manpower, eyes and hands to increase the feature creep ;)
Surge, Mark, and yourself have raised some interesting points; people grow with their tools, and restricting the newbie dreamer due to cost -might result in increased competition in the very area you want to rest, as Britton also mentioned, or decrease the innovation scene.
I do by the way think that ticket support, would be a downgrade compared to a public way of discussing issues like we have atm. but a more organized system would be a good thing. That being said, I need aid for my game, your engine is my current solution, raise the bar to 1000$ and I'm still around -cause I have a dream and my games will go gold, but as others have said as well, remember your base, the way global development are going and the macro economics..
Just my 2 cents
PS: I dislike this sites editor...
#29
I also wonder if a option like Maya has with its free Maya PLE edition would be a good resolution for the real low end hobbiest that dont want to shell out the dough.
Anyway just my thoughts
01/09/2009 (11:06 am)
I agree on a price hike for T3D. While I love the fact GG has catered to us poor/low budget indies for so long with very low costs, I always wondered how long they could keep it up. I know a lot of people might not be happy about it, but I think for GG's continued success it is a necessity. I would gladly pay $1000 for T3D, and I live paycheck to paycheck like most of us here, but of course I dont know yet on what T3D's end product will be, I'm expecting/hoping a lot though. One thing I am expecting from T3D/GG is a final solid engine that will be updated from here on out instead of a new engine you have to buy and learn every few years. As you compare T3D to other packages in this blog I own Max, Maya and Flash and I want to invest in a product that will stick around for the long haul and I dont have to worry about buying and learning a new variation of their product. I wish they would have done this for TGE from the beginning, but im not in the inner workings of GG, so I assume they have a good reason. For this reason I have been contemplating just sticking with my C4 license cause I only want to focus on one product that I have complete faith in and I feel C4 will follow this path, but I will hold out a decision until T3D is complete and out the door. I also feel that T3D should have paid upgrades( on major upgrades of course and not bug fixes) just as I do for my Max, Maya and adobe CS4 packages.I also wonder if a option like Maya has with its free Maya PLE edition would be a good resolution for the real low end hobbiest that dont want to shell out the dough.
Anyway just my thoughts
#30
According to me, the change in direction is rather logical, and can be seen in the same light as when you buy a gaming console or a printer. The cost of the console or the printer never cover the development costs, but they offer the potential to the manufacturer to sell you games or ink cardridges that are much more profitable. I guess that's what GG wants to do : they want to find the right price to 'weed out' the hobbyists that won't ever produce a game. Because that's why GG is building Torque nowadays : it's an entrypoint for InstantAction and the games shop on Steam. If you don't produce a game (and possible royalties), you're too expensive.
From a company point of view, it's logical. But companies don't do 'community feel'. If you raise the prices too much (I would stop at 750$), you'll loose many people giving resources to the community for free. Every scrap of code will have to be paid for, of won't be shared with the community. I don't think the Epic Games forums abound with licensees giving each other hints about how they solved a problem in their upcoming game.
It would be a shame, as many of us have invested much time (and in some cases, also important money) in the Torque technology. I would hate being pushed towards some other engine because of a major price hike, even if quality and documentation would improve considerably.
01/09/2009 (11:08 am)
As some of you, I have been asking myself countless times how GG was keeping itself afloat during all these years with the license type offered in combination with the prices they have been charging. According to me, the change in direction is rather logical, and can be seen in the same light as when you buy a gaming console or a printer. The cost of the console or the printer never cover the development costs, but they offer the potential to the manufacturer to sell you games or ink cardridges that are much more profitable. I guess that's what GG wants to do : they want to find the right price to 'weed out' the hobbyists that won't ever produce a game. Because that's why GG is building Torque nowadays : it's an entrypoint for InstantAction and the games shop on Steam. If you don't produce a game (and possible royalties), you're too expensive.
From a company point of view, it's logical. But companies don't do 'community feel'. If you raise the prices too much (I would stop at 750$), you'll loose many people giving resources to the community for free. Every scrap of code will have to be paid for, of won't be shared with the community. I don't think the Epic Games forums abound with licensees giving each other hints about how they solved a problem in their upcoming game.
It would be a shame, as many of us have invested much time (and in some cases, also important money) in the Torque technology. I would hate being pushed towards some other engine because of a major price hike, even if quality and documentation would improve considerably.
#31
I think this is a smart move for GG, and maybe long overdue. It's a very tough nut to crack, I'm not jealous. I think Brett put it well all the factors that come into play. I really don't have a good opinion on this, as I have no idea the best way to handle such a needed move without causing a ruckus, but there are a lot of smart guys at GG, and their commitment to the customers is unfathomable.
I think that's actually part of the problem (a good problem to have), everyone knows that to improve and grow the tech they need to raise the prices somewhat, but at the same time there is a unspoken agreement among the GG fellows to make game making accessible to everyone. A really tough nut to crack, good luck!
01/09/2009 (11:09 am)
Wee-ooo, I can already tell this is going to be a huge thread. I think this is a smart move for GG, and maybe long overdue. It's a very tough nut to crack, I'm not jealous. I think Brett put it well all the factors that come into play. I really don't have a good opinion on this, as I have no idea the best way to handle such a needed move without causing a ruckus, but there are a lot of smart guys at GG, and their commitment to the customers is unfathomable.
I think that's actually part of the problem (a good problem to have), everyone knows that to improve and grow the tech they need to raise the prices somewhat, but at the same time there is a unspoken agreement among the GG fellows to make game making accessible to everyone. A really tough nut to crack, good luck!
#32
01/09/2009 (11:11 am)
It's a given that the tech is getting BETTER and not WORSE though, and I would much rather have a higher engine price than to pay for a bunch of separate upgrades over time! 
#33
01/09/2009 (11:19 am)
I think the strategy of raising prices and the caliber of the average user is a fine goal. But what is the criteria for success that's been hinted at? Are you successful when you finish and sell a game? Or when your total revenue exceeds the sunk cost of the engine? When your game reaches X sales? Publication? When you no longer have a job outside of developing games? I would say there's a wide range for "success" and with it a range of what can be afforded by developers. 
#34
If that's the case, I think it's a big mistake. Because hobbyists like myself buy content packs and addons in addition to the engine itself. So by excluding hobbyists, you're cutting off a revenue stream. Maybe not a large revenue stream, but still revenue nonetheless. I just looked at my purchase history. Only ~40% of the money I've spent on GarageGames over the years was for TGE/TGEA itself. The rest was for tools, addons, etc. And I bet there are a lot of people that are the same way. I've also bought Torque-related books from Amazon and other places. I've bought texture packs from sites other than GG, exclusively for use with Torque.
And I'm just a hobbyist who will probably never release a game. Raising T3D out of the range of hobbyists cuts off all that other revenue. I'm not saying GG shouldn't do that, but I think they should consider it carefully before doing it.
01/09/2009 (11:33 am)
@David Janssens: "I guess that's what GG wants to do : they want to find the right price to 'weed out' the hobbyists that won't ever produce a game."If that's the case, I think it's a big mistake. Because hobbyists like myself buy content packs and addons in addition to the engine itself. So by excluding hobbyists, you're cutting off a revenue stream. Maybe not a large revenue stream, but still revenue nonetheless. I just looked at my purchase history. Only ~40% of the money I've spent on GarageGames over the years was for TGE/TGEA itself. The rest was for tools, addons, etc. And I bet there are a lot of people that are the same way. I've also bought Torque-related books from Amazon and other places. I've bought texture packs from sites other than GG, exclusively for use with Torque.
And I'm just a hobbyist who will probably never release a game. Raising T3D out of the range of hobbyists cuts off all that other revenue. I'm not saying GG shouldn't do that, but I think they should consider it carefully before doing it.
#35
Now if this happens then why not charge 1500+ for T3D and on the hobbyist side charge 100 for TGE 1.5.0+ creating 2 options. The TGE option will remain for hobbyists so if thats what they decide to do its cost effective, and if the person or team is serious about making a game then they would be more invested in that decision by paying for it.
The hobbyist version would be the indy choice and the T3D version would be the commercial version.
TomFeni
01/09/2009 (11:40 am)
Well as a hobbyist I think this is the event that causes people to deside to either fish or cut bait, Ie Buy T3D if your serious about making development a living or remain with Torque 1.5.0+ for hobbyists.Now if this happens then why not charge 1500+ for T3D and on the hobbyist side charge 100 for TGE 1.5.0+ creating 2 options. The TGE option will remain for hobbyists so if thats what they decide to do its cost effective, and if the person or team is serious about making a game then they would be more invested in that decision by paying for it.
The hobbyist version would be the indy choice and the T3D version would be the commercial version.
TomFeni
#36
Easy Answer: more built in features that use the WYSIWYG approach!
Remember, Independent Developers are just that, hobbyists that do this in their spare time.
Unless you are a hardcore and completely devoted to make only games and have not a day job, I don't think people have the time to implement this feature and that feature just to be competitive with an Engine that costs just a bit more, but has all of these features implemented.
So a price of $499.00 with all the features of Neoaxis and Unity would be OK with me.
01/09/2009 (11:59 am)
"I've also noticed that Unity, which appears to be competing more with Flash than game engines, is priced many multiples higher than Torque and yet, it's attracted a license base of primarily hobbyists and amateur developers."Easy Answer: more built in features that use the WYSIWYG approach!
Remember, Independent Developers are just that, hobbyists that do this in their spare time.
Unless you are a hardcore and completely devoted to make only games and have not a day job, I don't think people have the time to implement this feature and that feature just to be competitive with an Engine that costs just a bit more, but has all of these features implemented.
So a price of $499.00 with all the features of Neoaxis and Unity would be OK with me.
#37
I play it safe when I owe creditors, when I have a large sum of money saying "this had better be successful, because I payed a lot for it." I don't think I'd take a lot of risk in such an environment.
Risk happens when the barrier to entry is low. Risk happens when there is a minimal cost of failure. Risk happens when you can fail repeatedly until you stumble across that one good idea that succeeds.
Counter-Strike was originally a mod for the Half-Life engine.
Portal started as a student project originally called "Narbacular drop".
Half-Life itself was originally a Quake mod.
All of these games started out with very low costs. Two were merely mods of existing games. One was created from scratch as a homework assignment for a senior project. None of them started out with $1000 of initial investment.
It wasn't until later that they became best selling blockbusters backed by expensive game engines.
I think that right now Torque is a good "first game" engine - something that can be used to create somebody's first game without a lot of financial risk, so that all of the risk is in the game play rather than the finances.
If, however, it costs $1000, it no longer fits for a first game. It becomes a "second game" engine - an engine you can afford only if your first game was fairly successful. It's something you buy if you've already tried a concept and you're fairly certain it works. There is more financial risk, but considerably less game play risk, because you've already tried the concept and know it works.
01/09/2009 (12:01 pm)
I think you have the price / risk line reversed.I play it safe when I owe creditors, when I have a large sum of money saying "this had better be successful, because I payed a lot for it." I don't think I'd take a lot of risk in such an environment.
Risk happens when the barrier to entry is low. Risk happens when there is a minimal cost of failure. Risk happens when you can fail repeatedly until you stumble across that one good idea that succeeds.
Counter-Strike was originally a mod for the Half-Life engine.
Portal started as a student project originally called "Narbacular drop".
Half-Life itself was originally a Quake mod.
All of these games started out with very low costs. Two were merely mods of existing games. One was created from scratch as a homework assignment for a senior project. None of them started out with $1000 of initial investment.
It wasn't until later that they became best selling blockbusters backed by expensive game engines.
I think that right now Torque is a good "first game" engine - something that can be used to create somebody's first game without a lot of financial risk, so that all of the risk is in the game play rather than the finances.
If, however, it costs $1000, it no longer fits for a first game. It becomes a "second game" engine - an engine you can afford only if your first game was fairly successful. It's something you buy if you've already tried a concept and you're fairly certain it works. There is more financial risk, but considerably less game play risk, because you've already tried the concept and know it works.
#38
If you need to raise the price because you need the additional income to cover the development costs, then that's understandable.
If you raise to price to increase the quality perception of Torque then that would be a bad reason.
The hobbyist game dev market is very finicky. If you upset them then they run to another engine.
The true indie/semi-pro devs will pay for the increase as long as there is a continued support level, and that there is value in the newer product line.
If the upgrade path from TGEA to Torque 3D is not going to cause devs to spend a massive number of re-programming hours on existing projects then they would follow. If it requires a lot of rework then they may not and just wait until anopther project comes up that warrants the move.
01/09/2009 (12:32 pm)
I believe that...If you need to raise the price because you need the additional income to cover the development costs, then that's understandable.
If you raise to price to increase the quality perception of Torque then that would be a bad reason.
The hobbyist game dev market is very finicky. If you upset them then they run to another engine.
The true indie/semi-pro devs will pay for the increase as long as there is a continued support level, and that there is value in the newer product line.
If the upgrade path from TGEA to Torque 3D is not going to cause devs to spend a massive number of re-programming hours on existing projects then they would follow. If it requires a lot of rework then they may not and just wait until anopther project comes up that warrants the move.
#39
For me, I would never have purchased TGE if the price were that high. As a once professional, now hobbyist game developer, my budget is probably much lower than some of the successful indie developers.
Another concern is changing the license terms. Already the license is curtailed - we can only develop for PC/MAC, we can only make something that is considered a game. Technically, making a model of our house and giving that to someone with an executable is a violation. Personally, I'm OK with the current license, but I wouldn't be happy with even more restrictions. And please don't go down some distribution limit license.
If you look at my account, you would see I have purchased quite a few things from GG. These things i would not have purchased had the prices been much higher, or the license been more restrictive.
01/09/2009 (12:45 pm)
My personal opinion is that $1000 is too high. I feel this will signifantly lower the number of people who purchase T3D, and significantly curtail the sale of addon packs. When we heard that there would be a charge for T3D, I was expecting it to be $495 or less. For me, I would never have purchased TGE if the price were that high. As a once professional, now hobbyist game developer, my budget is probably much lower than some of the successful indie developers.
Another concern is changing the license terms. Already the license is curtailed - we can only develop for PC/MAC, we can only make something that is considered a game. Technically, making a model of our house and giving that to someone with an executable is a violation. Personally, I'm OK with the current license, but I wouldn't be happy with even more restrictions. And please don't go down some distribution limit license.
If you look at my account, you would see I have purchased quite a few things from GG. These things i would not have purchased had the prices been much higher, or the license been more restrictive.
#40
This is kinda sad that as a early adopter of TSE/TGEA promised all kinda goodies if you jump in early
when its cheep! and full of bugs...Sit on your hands from 1.0 to 1.8 tapping fingers on desk waiting for working Kits driveing/fps Shadows that look right!!and cover all things not just cars and player models Unless you like blob shadowed trees in that case your happy. Only thing i see is some Mac support/openGl ..that don't work in windows from what i hear.
And now the new hipe T3D new fps/driving kits content (lipstick?)...same pig? only new cool things Ive seen
are kits sold from others to help fix what the engine lacks in content.
You need to make a commercial engine to pay the bills do so more power to you but can you call it Garage games Torque with a straight face.
Sorry for that rant havering a bad year
01/09/2009 (12:45 pm)
Jack the cost up that much and 3/4 of the hobbyist and artists like me will move on to something cheaper .This is kinda sad that as a early adopter of TSE/TGEA promised all kinda goodies if you jump in early
when its cheep! and full of bugs...Sit on your hands from 1.0 to 1.8 tapping fingers on desk waiting for working Kits driveing/fps Shadows that look right!!and cover all things not just cars and player models Unless you like blob shadowed trees in that case your happy. Only thing i see is some Mac support/openGl ..that don't work in windows from what i hear.
And now the new hipe T3D new fps/driving kits content (lipstick?)...same pig? only new cool things Ive seen
are kits sold from others to help fix what the engine lacks in content.
You need to make a commercial engine to pay the bills do so more power to you but can you call it Garage games Torque with a straight face.
Sorry for that rant havering a bad year
Torque Owner wiseman2
I'm also a hobbiest and hopeful indie developer. I turned 40 yesterday, and have been interested in making games since my first trash80 back in the mid 80's. However I also have 5 children and more bills than I can manage at times. Last year I went to the emergency room 1 time feeling ill with chest pains. The first time I had ever felt that bad...I was there for 13hours, and the doctors never were able to tell me what was wrong. They charged me 11,000 for that 13 hours.
The point I'm trying to make is that for the average person, even $350 takes some saving, because things come up. Big things. The economy in the U.S. blows right now... More and more people are losing their jobs, and luxury items aren't being bought.
I know of too many people that can't afford most of the software they use, and thus just pirate it. If your product becomes overpriced at all you risk that also. Your clients also have to obtain art packages or purchase content too. And while there are many low price options for modeling and art, the most attractive ones as you point out are very expensive for the average user.
So if your price goes up too much you're opening yourselves to be traded on the p2p sites just like maya and 3dmax and all the other higher priced software titles.
I personally think that it's easier to make more money with licensing options with an inexpensive version for hobbyists... not pushing them away, and thus leaving them open to upgrade their license if they make something good. This even leaves it open for them to purchase content from your store as they go along , even if they never publish.
For every license you lose , how much revenue do you lose on content purchases?