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.
#62
So please keep in mind that the Big Boys are also thinking about the indie engine market where GG currently rules.
01/09/2009 (2:15 pm)
Not too long ago Mark Rein told me that they were considering having a new indie license for the small developers so they could afford to develop using the Unreal Engine.So please keep in mind that the Big Boys are also thinking about the indie engine market where GG currently rules.
#63
01/09/2009 (2:16 pm)
If you put in such a high price and start pricing out the indies would the term "GarageGames" still be applicable? 
#64
"This system's been used in a game and rolled in" is not the same as "this systems been verified to work with this engine revision", which often leads to frustration, acrimony, and numerous statements to the effect that "hey, it's example code, you're supposed to modify it to get it working right"
Turn that on it's head a bit, and make a profit off the Q/A needed to make sure those systems work. Rather than one big price point (and at $1000, I for one would never have purchased the engine), nickle and dime it a bit, charging for examples. 350 for an engine + 15 for the source plug ins to get say, video playing, +25 for a vehicle pack(one for each type say), for example, quickly grows the price for those in a hurry with the cash they can spend, without crippling the ability of the folks *without* that kind of green (and we are in a recession, like it or not, so small amounts of cash matter again) to proceed with their tinkering.
Just my .02
01/09/2009 (2:17 pm)
Sticky problem of course. I would like to highlight one of my own major concerns with the current crop of engine usage examples, however as a point of concern: Lack of depth. Internally, the engine has the capability of streaming levels, and vehicles of almost every stripe, just to name two sets of features off the top of my head not actually demonstrated by the present 1.7/1.8 releases that could be highly useful. "This system's been used in a game and rolled in" is not the same as "this systems been verified to work with this engine revision", which often leads to frustration, acrimony, and numerous statements to the effect that "hey, it's example code, you're supposed to modify it to get it working right"
Turn that on it's head a bit, and make a profit off the Q/A needed to make sure those systems work. Rather than one big price point (and at $1000, I for one would never have purchased the engine), nickle and dime it a bit, charging for examples. 350 for an engine + 15 for the source plug ins to get say, video playing, +25 for a vehicle pack(one for each type say), for example, quickly grows the price for those in a hurry with the cash they can spend, without crippling the ability of the folks *without* that kind of green (and we are in a recession, like it or not, so small amounts of cash matter again) to proceed with their tinkering.
Just my .02
#65
Also, at any price point, there should be an expected evolution of the product in order to justify the set price over time. Otherwise you've got a product that is falling behind technically with a price that stays the same, ultimately falling dead. So certainly some engine improvements and evolution should be the nature of the business model for the engine. So one or two minor new bullet items on the feature list with each major release doesn't necessarily justify a price increase.
01/09/2009 (2:18 pm)
Outside of inflation, any price increase should equal feature and quality increases. Can't have one without the other. If T3D is truly evolving at the rate the the price is increasing (sans inflation), then by all means go forth. But if it's "Hey the other guys are charging this much, we should too!", then it's an MBA trying to make more money out of an already proven successful business.Also, at any price point, there should be an expected evolution of the product in order to justify the set price over time. Otherwise you've got a product that is falling behind technically with a price that stays the same, ultimately falling dead. So certainly some engine improvements and evolution should be the nature of the business model for the engine. So one or two minor new bullet items on the feature list with each major release doesn't necessarily justify a price increase.
#66
Sorry to be a bit rude but you have been...
I partially share your point of view as that of Britton but I don't think increasing the price too much for everybody would be a good idea.. it will undermine some of the base of GG success (community) and also I'm not sure will increase the revenues so much (at least not so much as be flessible having more licenses terms...) I fear in the end to really increase the revenues GG will be forced to raise again the price and will finish to slighlty approde to acting more or less as the business model it was dreaming to change...
And in the end why we must not in some way at least ask GG to be coherent to what it ever claimed?
I'm not saying GG doesn't want to be coherent to what claimed but only that your reasoning like "come on, business is business, you have no right to blame!" it sounds a bit too much bad...
01/09/2009 (2:19 pm)
Stefan... from the start of this blog your posts seems to be the worst (in terms of bad attitude!)... I really hope you will remain the "gold medal" winner...Sorry to be a bit rude but you have been...
I partially share your point of view as that of Britton but I don't think increasing the price too much for everybody would be a good idea.. it will undermine some of the base of GG success (community) and also I'm not sure will increase the revenues so much (at least not so much as be flessible having more licenses terms...) I fear in the end to really increase the revenues GG will be forced to raise again the price and will finish to slighlty approde to acting more or less as the business model it was dreaming to change...
And in the end why we must not in some way at least ask GG to be coherent to what it ever claimed?
I'm not saying GG doesn't want to be coherent to what claimed but only that your reasoning like "come on, business is business, you have no right to blame!" it sounds a bit too much bad...
#67
If its just a company then you are right, and I don't care.
01/09/2009 (2:19 pm)
@Stefan its not charity, its a vision. Every company has a mission statement and should have a vision. When you pick up a vision like "changing the way games are made and payed" you offer a unique service. The world works in the long run by rewarding those who provide such value. If its just a company then you are right, and I don't care.
#68
This seems a fair compromise to me. Keep a lower price, but add small additional charges for additional features, such as true ragdolls and physics, aircraft, etc.
01/09/2009 (2:21 pm)
Quote:
. Rather than one big price point (and at $1000, I for one would never have purchased the engine), nickle and dime it a bit, charging for examples. 350 for an engine + 15 for the source plug ins to get say, video playing, +25 for a vehicle pack(one for each type say), for example, quickly grows the price for those in a hurry with the cash they can spend, without crippling the ability of the folks *without* that kind of green (and we are in a recession, like it or not, so small amounts of cash matter again) to proceed with their tinkering.
This seems a fair compromise to me. Keep a lower price, but add small additional charges for additional features, such as true ragdolls and physics, aircraft, etc.
#69
01/09/2009 (2:32 pm)
We are in a recession. I have found a disturbing trend with many companies lately -- to drastically increase costs to the consumer, and not just to a level that would even remain congruent if the economy was flourishing. It is a strange form of methodology that I still fail to see the logic behind. Where are these customers that have thousands of dollars to spend on a consistently shaky engine in which you are targeting? I am in disbelief to this consistent mentality (not with just GG) that is so far from proper balance.
#70
I can afford to pay $1,000.00 have my own company and I'd write it off as a business expense. I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about the guys like two artists that made Buccaneer. They scrounged to survive while they made their game. Could they afford $1,000.00?
GG touches on my basic belief in independence and free enterprise. It touches on the very foundation of what makes America great to me. Its premise is in line with my whole personal belief system. It touches on video games which is a topic I love dearly.
I have a lot more invested in torque and GG, than the cost of the next license. I did not create GG or torque, but I feel like its may baby too. I don't want to lose something this special. I don't want torque to be taken away from the dirt poor artists with big dreams.
01/09/2009 (2:37 pm)
@Jamie, (and others) a feature based price is not bad, and it may be a good compromise.I can afford to pay $1,000.00 have my own company and I'd write it off as a business expense. I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about the guys like two artists that made Buccaneer. They scrounged to survive while they made their game. Could they afford $1,000.00?
GG touches on my basic belief in independence and free enterprise. It touches on the very foundation of what makes America great to me. Its premise is in line with my whole personal belief system. It touches on video games which is a topic I love dearly.
I have a lot more invested in torque and GG, than the cost of the next license. I did not create GG or torque, but I feel like its may baby too. I don't want to lose something this special. I don't want torque to be taken away from the dirt poor artists with big dreams.
#71
I think such a big price increase will cut out a large chunk of the community and the large active community was one of the big reasons I first chose Torque over one of its competitors. We have 10 people on our team at the moment and there's probably only 2 of us that could afford a $1000 outlay for a hobby project because the others are young (late teens/early twenties) and pushed for cash so even if I decided to purchase the already tough act of finding a good hobbyist team would become much harder with fewer members to team up with.
Not to mention fewer people means less content packs, less games, less resources and less chance that some of the real stars that come out of the community would even be here in the first place. Most of the resources come from the hobbyist community who are much more willing to share their code and work than your professional users (of course Plastic Games are a notable exception to that rule).
I also think of the current community and when I've had questions or problems the answers and the support has generally come from the likes of Stefan Lundmark, Jaimi McEntire, Surge, Edward, Dalo, etc and rarely see much help being offered from the more commercial and professional small studios you mention (Fro Games, Stickman studios,etc)... start to lose that kind of community support base and I can only see the community shrink vastly and go elsewhere.
If so many people do leave as I think they would they are going to look for another product either open source or for the $100-$400 mark where Torque has been so strong as an offering in the past.
Personally I really don't think that you can start comparing Torque against products like 3d Studio Max, flash, maya, etc and the price tags they attract - lets face it the QA of Torque products released isn't great and list upon list of bugs are raised and never fixed or its the community that offer fixes for your products, half the time nobody from the Garage even acknowledges that it's a bug and rarely offer advice, couple that with weak documentation, missing chunks of code and next to no support and in my opinion TGEA has a long way to go to be comparable with these offerings with which you'd like to compare yourself!!!
I really hope this isn't the direction the Garage is going under it's new owners but I guess that's one problem of being bought by a big company, they care about profit and not the ideals of anyone being able to fulfil their dream and create a game. An increase is inevitable and quite rightly deserved for what is a great product just please keep it in the range that us really small guys can afford.
01/09/2009 (2:44 pm)
I'm a hobbyist developer and member/supporter of the community for a number of years and can safely say this really is a worrying blog for me on a number of levels, the need to start managing peoples expectations on price increases before you've even mentioned much more than a few bullet points about new features and changes in Torque 3D does not sit well with me at all.I think such a big price increase will cut out a large chunk of the community and the large active community was one of the big reasons I first chose Torque over one of its competitors. We have 10 people on our team at the moment and there's probably only 2 of us that could afford a $1000 outlay for a hobby project because the others are young (late teens/early twenties) and pushed for cash so even if I decided to purchase the already tough act of finding a good hobbyist team would become much harder with fewer members to team up with.
Not to mention fewer people means less content packs, less games, less resources and less chance that some of the real stars that come out of the community would even be here in the first place. Most of the resources come from the hobbyist community who are much more willing to share their code and work than your professional users (of course Plastic Games are a notable exception to that rule).
I also think of the current community and when I've had questions or problems the answers and the support has generally come from the likes of Stefan Lundmark, Jaimi McEntire, Surge, Edward, Dalo, etc and rarely see much help being offered from the more commercial and professional small studios you mention (Fro Games, Stickman studios,etc)... start to lose that kind of community support base and I can only see the community shrink vastly and go elsewhere.
If so many people do leave as I think they would they are going to look for another product either open source or for the $100-$400 mark where Torque has been so strong as an offering in the past.
Personally I really don't think that you can start comparing Torque against products like 3d Studio Max, flash, maya, etc and the price tags they attract - lets face it the QA of Torque products released isn't great and list upon list of bugs are raised and never fixed or its the community that offer fixes for your products, half the time nobody from the Garage even acknowledges that it's a bug and rarely offer advice, couple that with weak documentation, missing chunks of code and next to no support and in my opinion TGEA has a long way to go to be comparable with these offerings with which you'd like to compare yourself!!!
I really hope this isn't the direction the Garage is going under it's new owners but I guess that's one problem of being bought by a big company, they care about profit and not the ideals of anyone being able to fulfil their dream and create a game. An increase is inevitable and quite rightly deserved for what is a great product just please keep it in the range that us really small guys can afford.
#72
Yeah, but excluding hobbyists doesn't break the vision of changing how games are made and played.
If they increase the price to say $1000, then they clearly have a reason to, and believe that this will increase revenue, which in the end is what matters.
01/09/2009 (2:48 pm)
Quote:
@Stefan its not charity, its a vision. Every company has a mission statement and should have a vision. When you pick up a vision like "changing the way games are made and payed" you offer a unique service. The world works in the long run by rewarding those who provide such value.
If its just a company then you are right, and I don't care.
Yeah, but excluding hobbyists doesn't break the vision of changing how games are made and played.
If they increase the price to say $1000, then they clearly have a reason to, and believe that this will increase revenue, which in the end is what matters.
#73
Please =)
01/09/2009 (2:56 pm)
Stick to supporting indie communities in these hard economic times please.... $300 or less!Please =)
#74
Slot something in at just under the $500 mark with a non-commercial or a very limited commercial license so us dreamers and hobbyists have that first rung available to get on the ladder and develop, prototype and test before we have to stump up the monies for a "proper" indie license which lets us sell a game.
I might never progress beyond where I am now with Torque, but if $1000+ becomes the entry level for this community I'll consider myself priced out of it. Give me the $500 first rung and if/when I progress you'll get the extra out of me for the "second rung" $1000 license.
01/09/2009 (3:00 pm)
I'll throw my support behind the banded approach with a lower priced "learning edition". $1000 might work as an entry level for an indie commercial license similar to the current arrangement but that same price point will discourage a lot of hobbyists who traditionally have gone on to become the life blood of this community. Slot something in at just under the $500 mark with a non-commercial or a very limited commercial license so us dreamers and hobbyists have that first rung available to get on the ladder and develop, prototype and test before we have to stump up the monies for a "proper" indie license which lets us sell a game.
I might never progress beyond where I am now with Torque, but if $1000+ becomes the entry level for this community I'll consider myself priced out of it. Give me the $500 first rung and if/when I progress you'll get the extra out of me for the "second rung" $1000 license.
#75
I see an indiscriminate increase of price really blowing away the most of the GG community...
At least to mantein it alive for some time GG must have to fix all the bugs in TGEA 1.8, delivering finally the product they figurate to us since the era of TSE Early Adopter license...
If T3D will cost $1000 I don't want to buy it at least for more than a year and not mainly for the $1000 but for the risk that the community will be blown away and the repercussion this will have on the product (that as many people yet pointed out has been bug fixed a lot by the community) and the support (this provided EXCLUSIVELY by the community members). If after a year or more I find my prevision has been totally wrong at that point maybe I can take the risk purchasing T3D...
01/09/2009 (3:05 pm)
Me too I don't think GG want to move away from their roots I only think they risk to made a mistake taking a decision that can in the end puth them on the way that will deliver them away from their roots with maybe little possibility to even come back when they will realize they made a mistake...I see an indiscriminate increase of price really blowing away the most of the GG community...
At least to mantein it alive for some time GG must have to fix all the bugs in TGEA 1.8, delivering finally the product they figurate to us since the era of TSE Early Adopter license...
If T3D will cost $1000 I don't want to buy it at least for more than a year and not mainly for the $1000 but for the risk that the community will be blown away and the repercussion this will have on the product (that as many people yet pointed out has been bug fixed a lot by the community) and the support (this provided EXCLUSIVELY by the community members). If after a year or more I find my prevision has been totally wrong at that point maybe I can take the risk purchasing T3D...
#76
Anyway, I would put $2000 for T3D if it's add NAT Traversal! :)
I would allways choose a Torque product for making a multiplayer game because I'm confident it will have a rock solid network engine.
01/09/2009 (3:07 pm)
I can understand the change in price range but here at Frogames we wouldn't be able to bought 2 licences of a $1000 engine to make our first games. Even now it's something difficult for us.Anyway, I would put $2000 for T3D if it's add NAT Traversal! :)
I would allways choose a Torque product for making a multiplayer game because I'm confident it will have a rock solid network engine.
#77
There's a lot to be said for selling pickaxes, wheelbarrows, whiskey, and bread to gold miners.
Things are different now than in '03. There are several good/great/upcoming indie-friendly, license-friendly, source-friendly, cross-platform and wallet-friendly engines out there now. Panda3D (BSD license!), irrlict, G3D, C4, and Unity spring to mind. There are others, too, and I'm sure more are actively being developed and polished and perfected.
GG should charge what they think the market will bear for their products, and with whatever terms and restrictions they want. We, as customers, are free to consider the GG value proposition, and then vote with our wallets and our most precious resource: our time.
My advice to GG: if you're truly interested in selling a platform for game development, take a good, honest look at the capabilities, features, ease-of-use, terms, and time-to-money of the competition (both commercial and free), and pick a pricing structure that you think the market will bear.
01/09/2009 (3:13 pm)
When TGE first cost $100.0 with full source code, cvs access, liberal usage license terms -- that was a tremendous value. For the price of a good reference book or two, one could read and learn and try things, and a few even shipped things.There's a lot to be said for selling pickaxes, wheelbarrows, whiskey, and bread to gold miners.
Things are different now than in '03. There are several good/great/upcoming indie-friendly, license-friendly, source-friendly, cross-platform and wallet-friendly engines out there now. Panda3D (BSD license!), irrlict, G3D, C4, and Unity spring to mind. There are others, too, and I'm sure more are actively being developed and polished and perfected.
GG should charge what they think the market will bear for their products, and with whatever terms and restrictions they want. We, as customers, are free to consider the GG value proposition, and then vote with our wallets and our most precious resource: our time.
My advice to GG: if you're truly interested in selling a platform for game development, take a good, honest look at the capabilities, features, ease-of-use, terms, and time-to-money of the competition (both commercial and free), and pick a pricing structure that you think the market will bear.
#78
Does this mean that even some of these studios that are targeted for T3D may have a hard time with the price increase?
01/09/2009 (3:15 pm)
@Mathieu= that's interesting to hear.Quote:
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.
Does this mean that even some of these studios that are targeted for T3D may have a hard time with the price increase?
#79
I was debating whether to buy TGEA at $150, and now it looks like I'll move on. I completely agree with your premise, a $1000 price point is dirt cheap for even a small game studio who plan to actually release something, but for something that is effectively a hobby and I have no plans to monetize, there's no way I can justify that.
I'd be interested in a "hobbyist" license that didn't allow commercial use at all, or a "dual license" scheme like OpenTNL's GPL (but that's probably a bad idea because people's ignorance and misunderstandings of the GPL would drive them away). One of the original motivations for the insanely low price point was to grow a community, and it worked.
Good luck, I'll continue to follow GG's growth, and I hope you can find a way to strike this difficult balance.
Joel
01/09/2009 (3:36 pm)
That's a shame. I don't have the time or dedication to make a complete game, I'm squarely in the "tinkerer" camp. But I've worked as a commercial developer on some very large games in the past, so for me it's nice to have a complete, commercial quality game engine with toolchain and source to play with at home and explore ideas. I was debating whether to buy TGEA at $150, and now it looks like I'll move on. I completely agree with your premise, a $1000 price point is dirt cheap for even a small game studio who plan to actually release something, but for something that is effectively a hobby and I have no plans to monetize, there's no way I can justify that.
I'd be interested in a "hobbyist" license that didn't allow commercial use at all, or a "dual license" scheme like OpenTNL's GPL (but that's probably a bad idea because people's ignorance and misunderstandings of the GPL would drive them away). One of the original motivations for the insanely low price point was to grow a community, and it worked.
Good luck, I'll continue to follow GG's growth, and I hope you can find a way to strike this difficult balance.
Joel
#80
(I also know of quite a few commercial software development companies - especially outside of games - that are less-than-rigorous about making sure their licensing properly reflects their usage).
Now granted, the issue isn't the same - it's a lot harder for someone to get away with selling a product built from a pirated engine than one that was merely created using a pirated authoring tool. That's not my point. The point is that it's not such an apples-to-apples comparison. You can't just say, "Oh, look, Flash costs $699 and everybody and their cousin is using it!" Yeah, they are, but they ain't paying $699 for it (especially not through every upgrade).
What might make more sense is a tiered approach. You have an indie license and a "commercial" license... what you may want to do is to break it up the indie pricing into an indie "student" and an indie "professional." The biggest differences would be:
#1 - You can not sell a game made with the indie "student" license.
#2 - "Student" licenses only get limited customer support.
#3 - EXTREMELY easy (and inexpensive) upgrade from student to professional, and from professional to commercial.
#3 - Professional and Commercial licenses get access to point-releases, online CVS, etc.
#4 - Major release pricing is similar between student & pro -- $100 either way to go from major version to major version regardless of what your license is, for example.
#5 - Whatever other differentiation is needed, but there doesn't need to be much beyond #1 and #2.
The key idea would be that Joe Beginner could invest in torque technology for the still-low price of say $295 for a "student" license... and spend a couple of years monkeying around with the technology before he's ready to get serious and release his game commercially. At that point, he merely needs to pay the difference between the student and professional versions (Maybe $200?) and he's ready and legal to release his game to the world and make money on it.
Not that I'm keen on a price increase. But the thing is, people come into these other packages on the cheap, and then as they become professionals they gradually upgrade (or get their companies to pay for the upgrade) to the full-priced versions. When you are just curious and wanting to dink around with something you may or may not do anything with, $500 is a lot of money. But when you are ready to make several times that, $500 isn't nearly as much of a hurdle.
There's another crucial point which you made yourself. The dirty secret is that it is the art quality that makes the visual quality of the game, more than the engine code. This applies to you, as well. There are a lot of other engines out there within the indie price-point of $FREE to $1000 or so, and talented artwork and a solid and convenient tools pipeline will make any of them shine. Indies can flow downhill to the other, less expensive products too, especially when they are first starting out and have limited cashflow to throw into their "hobby." Microsoft has done very well by undercutting the competition with cheaper products, but having those products "scale" in usefulness and price as their customers become more capable of affording it.
01/09/2009 (3:49 pm)
I have some level of confidence in the feeling that an awful lot of what's going on in the amateur space with Flash and 3DSMax is not being done by people who have paid full price for said products. They've used student-priced versions, and they are, unfortunately, using pirated copies. (I also know of quite a few commercial software development companies - especially outside of games - that are less-than-rigorous about making sure their licensing properly reflects their usage).
Now granted, the issue isn't the same - it's a lot harder for someone to get away with selling a product built from a pirated engine than one that was merely created using a pirated authoring tool. That's not my point. The point is that it's not such an apples-to-apples comparison. You can't just say, "Oh, look, Flash costs $699 and everybody and their cousin is using it!" Yeah, they are, but they ain't paying $699 for it (especially not through every upgrade).
What might make more sense is a tiered approach. You have an indie license and a "commercial" license... what you may want to do is to break it up the indie pricing into an indie "student" and an indie "professional." The biggest differences would be:
#1 - You can not sell a game made with the indie "student" license.
#2 - "Student" licenses only get limited customer support.
#3 - EXTREMELY easy (and inexpensive) upgrade from student to professional, and from professional to commercial.
#3 - Professional and Commercial licenses get access to point-releases, online CVS, etc.
#4 - Major release pricing is similar between student & pro -- $100 either way to go from major version to major version regardless of what your license is, for example.
#5 - Whatever other differentiation is needed, but there doesn't need to be much beyond #1 and #2.
The key idea would be that Joe Beginner could invest in torque technology for the still-low price of say $295 for a "student" license... and spend a couple of years monkeying around with the technology before he's ready to get serious and release his game commercially. At that point, he merely needs to pay the difference between the student and professional versions (Maybe $200?) and he's ready and legal to release his game to the world and make money on it.
Not that I'm keen on a price increase. But the thing is, people come into these other packages on the cheap, and then as they become professionals they gradually upgrade (or get their companies to pay for the upgrade) to the full-priced versions. When you are just curious and wanting to dink around with something you may or may not do anything with, $500 is a lot of money. But when you are ready to make several times that, $500 isn't nearly as much of a hurdle.
There's another crucial point which you made yourself. The dirty secret is that it is the art quality that makes the visual quality of the game, more than the engine code. This applies to you, as well. There are a lot of other engines out there within the indie price-point of $FREE to $1000 or so, and talented artwork and a solid and convenient tools pipeline will make any of them shine. Indies can flow downhill to the other, less expensive products too, especially when they are first starting out and have limited cashflow to throw into their "hobby." Microsoft has done very well by undercutting the competition with cheaper products, but having those products "scale" in usefulness and price as their customers become more capable of affording it.
Torque 3D Owner Jason Ravencroft
I like GG, I think they're good guys. Really though, there's times when I think as a hobbyist, going to Source and just making a mod would be much more reasonable. The Torque Engine is fine, but there is no way it's comparable to some of the engines listed in this blog. That's OK though, because it's a cheaper alternative for hobbyists, indies, and amateurs. When you're affordable, people are forgiving.
Tiered functionality isn't such a bad idea, I'm personally fine with it. Although merely raising the price won't raise the marketability (or respect) of the engine. Releasing a good game would make a lot more than just upping the cost of the tools *and* would justify the cost increases. From the outside, the current business model seems unsustainable, selling tools on the cheap just doesn't look to be the profitable.
As it is now though, there is nothing in Torque to justify these high costs. The documentation is a joke and the Torque portfolio is underwhelming. Fix the documentation, fix the engine, then people will tolerate a huge spike in prices. Asking for more money without upping your own game strikes me as a little bit silly. To be honest, if a hobbyist just wanted to make an FPS, which is the main demonstration (not even a fraction of a game) for Torque, they should just go buy a copy of Half Life two for much less than the price of Torque and make a mod with a much more capable engine.