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.
#82
As long as you don't do monthly subscription (oh come on), don't split the license like Vista (ultimate, yeah right) and do a indie/commercial combination with special prices for maybe NASA and Academia, you should be fine; My price guess is this:
$1250 Indie (remember, you still have tge, tgea for indie stuff)
$4500 Comercial
$ ? Academia, Education
and finally
$100.000.000. NASA
This is what I would find affordable, that's my seat view only.
I would like to have a thick marker for this: don't kill the dream. GG is unique in industry, it has probably the largest community and going 'corporate' would kill this within the year.
01/09/2009 (4:04 pm)
Totally understandable to rise of the price tag; 100$ won't work again, we're talking a heavily developed engine here, capable of many AAA features. However, with all the crap going on around the world and very difficult times, you still have to find that threshold to keep the old user base on board and allow new ones to jump aboard. This the toughest part of the work you need to do and I don't want to be in your shoes:) Well..As long as you don't do monthly subscription (oh come on), don't split the license like Vista (ultimate, yeah right) and do a indie/commercial combination with special prices for maybe NASA and Academia, you should be fine; My price guess is this:
$1250 Indie (remember, you still have tge, tgea for indie stuff)
$4500 Comercial
$ ? Academia, Education
and finally
$100.000.000. NASA
This is what I would find affordable, that's my seat view only.
I would like to have a thick marker for this: don't kill the dream. GG is unique in industry, it has probably the largest community and going 'corporate' would kill this within the year.
#83
Brett's heart is in the right place.
But... I have no interest in console games, or Xbox and DirectX. I don't care about the Wii. I want to focus on PC and mac games. Perhaps the best thing to do is to keep the Mac and PC versions of T3D cheap. That way the little guys can afford it. Charge more for the console licenses. That way anyone can start with an affordable price for development on windows and Mac with the knowledge they could buy the other license when needed.
I suggest the following T3D license structure
$395.00 for windows / MAC development
$500,000.00 for Xbox 360
$750,000.00 for Wii
Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?
...
01/09/2009 (4:09 pm)
I apologize if I sound negative. Raising prices is probably necessary. I remember when garage games was 8 guys with a dream. Maybe I just fear change. Brett's heart is in the right place.
Quote:
(1) Make sure that Torque licensing is a sustainable business that allows for significant 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.
But... I have no interest in console games, or Xbox and DirectX. I don't care about the Wii. I want to focus on PC and mac games. Perhaps the best thing to do is to keep the Mac and PC versions of T3D cheap. That way the little guys can afford it. Charge more for the console licenses. That way anyone can start with an affordable price for development on windows and Mac with the knowledge they could buy the other license when needed.
I suggest the following T3D license structure
$395.00 for windows / MAC development
$500,000.00 for Xbox 360
$750,000.00 for Wii
Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?
...
#84
Except TGEA is currently a bit buggy to be called stable (YMMW) and there's no mention if fixes will be rolled in before T3D releases. This is the only thing that worries me. I'm willing to pay for upgrades, but not bug fixes.
01/09/2009 (4:13 pm)
Quote:
$1250 Indie (remember, you still have tge, tgea for indie stuff)
Except TGEA is currently a bit buggy to be called stable (YMMW) and there's no mention if fixes will be rolled in before T3D releases. This is the only thing that worries me. I'm willing to pay for upgrades, but not bug fixes.
#85
01/09/2009 (4:18 pm)
Don't make the lowest version student/academia only please... some of us are a long ways removed from being a "student" these days :) 
#86
I agree with the folks who've said that for a significant increase in price, I would expect a significant increase in support. You guys are also going to have to become better at following through on your promises, and at that price point you'll no longer be able to depend so heavily on your userbase to handle your support issues like you do now.
I've got to be honest here, some of the failed promises made regarding TSE have annoyed me a fair bit, but my game is too far along in its development cycle to change engines... $1000 for the license cost is more than I think I'd be willing to pay when you guys didn't finish delivering what you sold me the first time. I even did do research into other engines for my next project.
So, right now, my gut says that such a significant change in licensing costs would cause me to just stop at the last engine I get with what I've paid for now, and my next project would move to a different engine... not because I can't afford the $1000, but because I'd be concerned that I wouldn't get what I paid for again.
01/09/2009 (4:29 pm)
Too much to this thread to read the whole thing, but I wanted to put in my opinion.I agree with the folks who've said that for a significant increase in price, I would expect a significant increase in support. You guys are also going to have to become better at following through on your promises, and at that price point you'll no longer be able to depend so heavily on your userbase to handle your support issues like you do now.
I've got to be honest here, some of the failed promises made regarding TSE have annoyed me a fair bit, but my game is too far along in its development cycle to change engines... $1000 for the license cost is more than I think I'd be willing to pay when you guys didn't finish delivering what you sold me the first time. I even did do research into other engines for my next project.
So, right now, my gut says that such a significant change in licensing costs would cause me to just stop at the last engine I get with what I've paid for now, and my next project would move to a different engine... not because I can't afford the $1000, but because I'd be concerned that I wouldn't get what I paid for again.
#87
I personally have contracted professionally on two games using TGE, one being "Neuromatrix", the other is "Rapunsel" which I am currently finishing. To be frank, I found TGE to be poor in engine quality, and yes the documentation was / is a joke by professional standards. I stuck with it because their are confused customers that are willing to pay me to sort thru this mess. It is still the only option for 3D game engines with full source code and a low price point with a full feature set needed to make a game. C4 is getting there, and the code is of high quality and the real time lighting features are great, so I think it will be a very interesting competitor to GG when its more feature complete.
Now I understand the limited options that GG has or had in its development path, and I really really really do appreciate the vision and intention of the company helping developers make good games at a reasonable price. The question is are you making an engine that can really help developers leverage their time into making a game, or get stuck in a mess that is hard to get anything done?
I know the engine was used for Tribes, and it showed. There was all sorts of messy code structure that seems like it was done to get the game shipped. That's is understandable. The fact that it made it into the code structure of TGE, and continues to this day, was also understandable in light of GG's limited budget.
Now I own the license to TGEA and TGB, but I have not worked with them in depth yet, so I cant say what improvements were made to the structure of the code there. I am hoping that the code of T3D will be rewritten in a modular clean way all the way thru the code base, and that there will be much better documentation. Its funny that what professional developers needed in terms of documentation from TGE is coming out now from Ed Maurina's second book. We need that kind of documentation at release of T3d, not years later. I don't mean to disparage Ed, because his first book was what made TGE understandable at all, and was a lifeline. If T3D is another engine release with the same poor documentation and poor internal code, but with more bells and whistles, I will pass unless I have a paying contract where I need to pick it up.
Please polish your tech and hire more than one person to do documentation, it's really critical. Working with the TGE has been painful, and it that needs to change really, if you want your company to take off. I don't believe Unity's success comes from being a mac engine, but rather its ease of use and work flow. I think it's also why TGB is much more accessible than TGE ever was. I don't think its necessary for T3D to be a drag and drop WYSIWYG editor, but at least have it be clear how to make a real game with it with no head scratching and getting stuck doing basic tasks.
Back to the discussion of pricing of T3d, I too like the idea of having tiers so that the hobbyists can still play around without forking over a grand (which will be very hard to justify for many folks on a limited budget). Maybe a version without source code and a non-removable GG title page on load that says made with hobbyist version. It would be illegal to publish anything with that version. A step up could be the non-source code verion, withe the same title page, but with rights to publish one title making small revenues. Next up would be a semi-pro version that comes with source code, no GG title page, but no support and the rights to publish one title. Finally a fully professional version with a dedicated support system and no title limits. I would suggest the hobbyist version might be under 500, the semi pro for 1000, and the pro version like 5 to 10 k (since support is expensive).
Also on the issue of support, one thing that was really useful in the beginning of my development with TGE was the IRC channel, which is now gone. How about you have GG host a IRC channel, that users can come hang out in and ask questions to other users. Then have a second IRC channel for users buying the higher priced versions of the engine, with GG staff there for questions? The only hesitation about this I have is that the answers given in IRC might not get into the forums where other users can find it, but if you had really good starting docs it might not be that big a problem.
One last thought, please focus the engine development too, we need less engine version's not more, as that splits the community. I would have you drop future development of TGE and TGEA and have one code base for T3d. Simpler is better in my mind, in terms of code maintainability and bug fixing.
Ok this post is getting long, so I better stop.... just know that if you raise the price without raising the quality and usability of the engine by similar amounts, you will lose a lot of folks, who will vote with their feet and head to other engines.
01/09/2009 (4:29 pm)
Brett, I give you credit for being making this difficult post. I know this is a big change to consider for GG, but yes you have to have a sustainable business model to remain in business, and your income has to be at least equal to the costs of running the company. So I give you credit for discussing this change with the community beforehand. That is community spirit.I personally have contracted professionally on two games using TGE, one being "Neuromatrix", the other is "Rapunsel" which I am currently finishing. To be frank, I found TGE to be poor in engine quality, and yes the documentation was / is a joke by professional standards. I stuck with it because their are confused customers that are willing to pay me to sort thru this mess. It is still the only option for 3D game engines with full source code and a low price point with a full feature set needed to make a game. C4 is getting there, and the code is of high quality and the real time lighting features are great, so I think it will be a very interesting competitor to GG when its more feature complete.
Now I understand the limited options that GG has or had in its development path, and I really really really do appreciate the vision and intention of the company helping developers make good games at a reasonable price. The question is are you making an engine that can really help developers leverage their time into making a game, or get stuck in a mess that is hard to get anything done?
I know the engine was used for Tribes, and it showed. There was all sorts of messy code structure that seems like it was done to get the game shipped. That's is understandable. The fact that it made it into the code structure of TGE, and continues to this day, was also understandable in light of GG's limited budget.
Now I own the license to TGEA and TGB, but I have not worked with them in depth yet, so I cant say what improvements were made to the structure of the code there. I am hoping that the code of T3D will be rewritten in a modular clean way all the way thru the code base, and that there will be much better documentation. Its funny that what professional developers needed in terms of documentation from TGE is coming out now from Ed Maurina's second book. We need that kind of documentation at release of T3d, not years later. I don't mean to disparage Ed, because his first book was what made TGE understandable at all, and was a lifeline. If T3D is another engine release with the same poor documentation and poor internal code, but with more bells and whistles, I will pass unless I have a paying contract where I need to pick it up.
Please polish your tech and hire more than one person to do documentation, it's really critical. Working with the TGE has been painful, and it that needs to change really, if you want your company to take off. I don't believe Unity's success comes from being a mac engine, but rather its ease of use and work flow. I think it's also why TGB is much more accessible than TGE ever was. I don't think its necessary for T3D to be a drag and drop WYSIWYG editor, but at least have it be clear how to make a real game with it with no head scratching and getting stuck doing basic tasks.
Back to the discussion of pricing of T3d, I too like the idea of having tiers so that the hobbyists can still play around without forking over a grand (which will be very hard to justify for many folks on a limited budget). Maybe a version without source code and a non-removable GG title page on load that says made with hobbyist version. It would be illegal to publish anything with that version. A step up could be the non-source code verion, withe the same title page, but with rights to publish one title making small revenues. Next up would be a semi-pro version that comes with source code, no GG title page, but no support and the rights to publish one title. Finally a fully professional version with a dedicated support system and no title limits. I would suggest the hobbyist version might be under 500, the semi pro for 1000, and the pro version like 5 to 10 k (since support is expensive).
Also on the issue of support, one thing that was really useful in the beginning of my development with TGE was the IRC channel, which is now gone. How about you have GG host a IRC channel, that users can come hang out in and ask questions to other users. Then have a second IRC channel for users buying the higher priced versions of the engine, with GG staff there for questions? The only hesitation about this I have is that the answers given in IRC might not get into the forums where other users can find it, but if you had really good starting docs it might not be that big a problem.
One last thought, please focus the engine development too, we need less engine version's not more, as that splits the community. I would have you drop future development of TGE and TGEA and have one code base for T3d. Simpler is better in my mind, in terms of code maintainability and bug fixing.
Ok this post is getting long, so I better stop.... just know that if you raise the price without raising the quality and usability of the engine by similar amounts, you will lose a lot of folks, who will vote with their feet and head to other engines.
#88
01/09/2009 (4:34 pm)
By the way is the including of the browser plugin in T3D in some way related to the closing of this thread about a torque plugin? Since it seems to me to remember I downloaded the plugin posted as resource and the opening post containing the link has been edited the same date as the closing post... 
#89
TGEA is almost impossible for some people to use. TGE work seems to have stopped.
An over priced engine that is nothing more than what has been stated isnt worth a price increase.
01/09/2009 (4:46 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.I wouldn't buy it with this sceme. I may not buy it anyway as it appears t3d is going to be nothing more than a bug fix with a couple new starter kits.
TGEA is almost impossible for some people to use. TGE work seems to have stopped.
An over priced engine that is nothing more than what has been stated isnt worth a price increase.
#90
The thread was locked and links deleted, with a message from me which boiled down to : "locking thread to be fair to AFX, but with no ill intentions. Feel free to e-mail me."
Anyone with suggestions about what they want out of Torque3D documentation, feel free to e-mail me or post in the Torqu3D Documentation Feedback Thread when it goes live.
@Blake, Jason, Others - I have an intern now to help me with docs. Even without his help, I'm still more than capable of launching mind-blowing docs for Torqu3D by myself. If you have any doubts, go back and read my past few blogs. I appreciate how important docs are to everyone, because it encourages me to work even harder.
01/09/2009 (4:52 pm)
@JoZ - It had nothing to do with closing that thread. Someone posted a project that included code from a product (AFX) in a non-AFX forum.The thread was locked and links deleted, with a message from me which boiled down to : "locking thread to be fair to AFX, but with no ill intentions. Feel free to e-mail me."
Anyone with suggestions about what they want out of Torque3D documentation, feel free to e-mail me or post in the Torqu3D Documentation Feedback Thread when it goes live.
@Blake, Jason, Others - I have an intern now to help me with docs. Even without his help, I'm still more than capable of launching mind-blowing docs for Torqu3D by myself. If you have any doubts, go back and read my past few blogs. I appreciate how important docs are to everyone, because it encourages me to work even harder.
#91
New tech and tools would be worthy of a price increase, but they would have to be magnificent earth shattering jaw-dropping changes to justify anything more than $500-$1000 for an indie in my opinion. Make the commercially successful elite pay $5000-$20000 and provide them with real in-house support.
The license change idea is pure evil however. Any change to the existing license scheme would break the dream of many here. I can see the justifications and argument for a price/per license point/price adjustment -- I just wouldn't like it.
01/09/2009 (4:55 pm)
Quote:I'm willing to pay for upgrades, but not bug fixes.Yeah! That's the most important issue here. Outstanding bugs should be fixed and any missing (promised and/or partially implemented/stubbed/commented) features filled in. No more putting things off until the next engine iteration.
New tech and tools would be worthy of a price increase, but they would have to be magnificent earth shattering jaw-dropping changes to justify anything more than $500-$1000 for an indie in my opinion. Make the commercially successful elite pay $5000-$20000 and provide them with real in-house support.
The license change idea is pure evil however. Any change to the existing license scheme would break the dream of many here. I can see the justifications and argument for a price/per license point/price adjustment -- I just wouldn't like it.
#92
Having worked at GG for the past 3 (going on 4) years, I've been really impressed with the roll out strategy for both TGEA 1.8 AND for Torque 3D. Brett's weekly updates on the development of Torque 3D are more frequent and informative than any product release in course of my time here. There has been some major restructuring here at GG and instead of having Matt F, Clark F, Pat W., Justin D, John Q all triple classing as game engine designers, coders and bug fixers we now have a dedicated team just to making the engine better for YOU! Our teams didn't have the smooth out of box experience and slick WYSIWYG tools to make our games with. Sure it makes it easier for us, but we've been shipping titles this whole time some users were busy berating us on how broken our tech is/was.
TGEA 1.8 is a better engine than we've ever had. It's a smoother, more usable engine, better documented engine than our internal teams have been able to work with. Mike P. has been kicking ass improving the documentation and Brett has been steadily introducing the killer team which has been building Toque 3D. We have more people working on Torque 3d now than their were people in the company when I started. This is not "Just Hype." Our commitment to this technology is clear.
@ Jason R: **Punch to the head** don't pick on Mich's docs! He's put a ton of time into addressing this precise issue and he's the best hire we've made since Deborah, David Mont-Blake, Mel May, Josh Williams and many, many other accomplished employees. With regards to Torque Games being "Unimpressive" MBU sold 300k units on XBLA. What have you done?
01/09/2009 (4:56 pm)
@ Michael: Sounds as if you'll be well informed about if Torque 3D is worth your further investment.Having worked at GG for the past 3 (going on 4) years, I've been really impressed with the roll out strategy for both TGEA 1.8 AND for Torque 3D. Brett's weekly updates on the development of Torque 3D are more frequent and informative than any product release in course of my time here. There has been some major restructuring here at GG and instead of having Matt F, Clark F, Pat W., Justin D, John Q all triple classing as game engine designers, coders and bug fixers we now have a dedicated team just to making the engine better for YOU! Our teams didn't have the smooth out of box experience and slick WYSIWYG tools to make our games with. Sure it makes it easier for us, but we've been shipping titles this whole time some users were busy berating us on how broken our tech is/was.
TGEA 1.8 is a better engine than we've ever had. It's a smoother, more usable engine, better documented engine than our internal teams have been able to work with. Mike P. has been kicking ass improving the documentation and Brett has been steadily introducing the killer team which has been building Toque 3D. We have more people working on Torque 3d now than their were people in the company when I started. This is not "Just Hype." Our commitment to this technology is clear.
@ Jason R: **Punch to the head** don't pick on Mich's docs! He's put a ton of time into addressing this precise issue and he's the best hire we've made since Deborah, David Mont-Blake, Mel May, Josh Williams and many, many other accomplished employees. With regards to Torque Games being "Unimpressive" MBU sold 300k units on XBLA. What have you done?
#93
Something to mull over if you do go down the multiple version of the engine route. There's already a public/private split as well as product split for code posting. It may only confuse matters further if there ends up been multiple engine source code versions too as has been brought up in a few of the comments.
mgo1.maxgaming.net:7778
mgo2.maxgaming.net:7778
mgo3.maxgaming.net:7778
Channel #garagegames
It's run by maxgaming rather than GarageGames, but should be considered the main irc channel for GarageGames/Torque stuff. GG have used it recently for their Q/A sessions.
01/09/2009 (4:58 pm)
Quote:It had nothing to do with closing that thread. Someone posted a project that included code from a product (AFX) in a non-AFX forum.
Something to mull over if you do go down the multiple version of the engine route. There's already a public/private split as well as product split for code posting. It may only confuse matters further if there ends up been multiple engine source code versions too as has been brought up in a few of the comments.
Quote:Also on the issue of support, one thing that was really useful in the beginning of my development with TGE was the IRC channel, which is now gone. How about you have GG host a IRC channel
mgo1.maxgaming.net:7778
mgo2.maxgaming.net:7778
mgo3.maxgaming.net:7778
Channel #garagegames
It's run by maxgaming rather than GarageGames, but should be considered the main irc channel for GarageGames/Torque stuff. GG have used it recently for their Q/A sessions.
#94
Questions that I feel would be well-asked:
1) How do you class yourself and what do you do with Torque [pick one]: Professional/Have released commercial games with more to come. Professional/Working on first commercial game. Amateur/Working on game that may go commercial. Hobbyist/No intention of releasing game. Student
2) What platforms do you consider necessary for support [rate each as "Must have", "Nice to have", "Don't care"]: Windows, OSX, Linux, Plan9. PS3, XBox360, Wii.
3) Would you purchase Torque3D if its price was [pick highest]: Same as TGE/Same as TGEA/50% more than TGEA/100% more than TGEA/200% more than TGEA
4) What features are "must-haves" for you to lay down cash for the next version of torque [pick all that apply]: {list of features that everyone keeps complaining is missing from TGEA}
Re-reading the blog post, number four: "Remain an affordable option for the little guy". My feeling is that since IAC came along, GG has chosen to redefine "the little guy", so that it's no longer "hobbyists and people trying to learn about game programming" by removing "anyone who isn't going to release a commercial game". Remember that Amateurs, Hobbyists and Students from question #1 above are equally valid customers to GG as professionals - GG get just as much money from me as you do from any developer at "real" indie companies.
I have always very strongly felt that GG do a lot of good things, but I fear that raising the price point much more will hemorrhage far more customers than will be offset by the extra money made. Just looking around, it's true that there's some games made with Torque out there, but the sheer number of them is massively massively less than the number of Torque licenses that have been purchased. At what point do you wonder how much of your customer base you're going to lose with a substantial ramping of price?
One last thing, even if you declare that "people who don't want to buy the top of the line engine can buy the cheaper one", you're going to lose customers. Because rather than buy an older version of an engine, people are likely to buy something else. And recent blogs about chucking out TGE altogether - soon the barrier to entry on GG won't be a hundred bucks [as it was when I joined], but instead 300 bucks. As various people have mentioned, that garners a generally higher calibre of community member, but at the same time it's a poke in the eye to GG's original and core customer base.
Gary (-;
01/09/2009 (5:06 pm)
I think that GG would be well-served by doing some informal but maximally-reaching surveys of their community. Send out newletters and blog posts, where people would need to actually log into the GG website [so that you're only surveying people who've actually purchased TGE, TGB, or TGEA - someone who won't even pay for TGE is unlikely to buy something ten times as expensive].Questions that I feel would be well-asked:
1) How do you class yourself and what do you do with Torque [pick one]: Professional/Have released commercial games with more to come. Professional/Working on first commercial game. Amateur/Working on game that may go commercial. Hobbyist/No intention of releasing game. Student
2) What platforms do you consider necessary for support [rate each as "Must have", "Nice to have", "Don't care"]: Windows, OSX, Linux, Plan9. PS3, XBox360, Wii.
3) Would you purchase Torque3D if its price was [pick highest]: Same as TGE/Same as TGEA/50% more than TGEA/100% more than TGEA/200% more than TGEA
4) What features are "must-haves" for you to lay down cash for the next version of torque [pick all that apply]: {list of features that everyone keeps complaining is missing from TGEA}
Re-reading the blog post, number four: "Remain an affordable option for the little guy". My feeling is that since IAC came along, GG has chosen to redefine "the little guy", so that it's no longer "hobbyists and people trying to learn about game programming" by removing "anyone who isn't going to release a commercial game". Remember that Amateurs, Hobbyists and Students from question #1 above are equally valid customers to GG as professionals - GG get just as much money from me as you do from any developer at "real" indie companies.
I have always very strongly felt that GG do a lot of good things, but I fear that raising the price point much more will hemorrhage far more customers than will be offset by the extra money made. Just looking around, it's true that there's some games made with Torque out there, but the sheer number of them is massively massively less than the number of Torque licenses that have been purchased. At what point do you wonder how much of your customer base you're going to lose with a substantial ramping of price?
One last thing, even if you declare that "people who don't want to buy the top of the line engine can buy the cheaper one", you're going to lose customers. Because rather than buy an older version of an engine, people are likely to buy something else. And recent blogs about chucking out TGE altogether - soon the barrier to entry on GG won't be a hundred bucks [as it was when I joined], but instead 300 bucks. As various people have mentioned, that garners a generally higher calibre of community member, but at the same time it's a poke in the eye to GG's original and core customer base.
Gary (-;
#95
01/09/2009 (5:21 pm)
Quote:, we don't need the smooth out of box experience and slick WYSIWYG tools to make our games with.Oh, really. will be interesting to see the actual T3D non-techfreak support then...
Quote:What have you done?Lets please keep kicking the ball, and leave the players who paied the tickets in peace -while we communicating in civilized manner ;)
#96
Graphics Graphics Graphics. AAA this, AAA that.
*yawn*
When people throw around the term AAA, it always points to graphics.
2008 was the picture perfect year of how graphics do not make a game.
We, hobbiest/indies can get AAA rendering for free. (RENDERING I SAID)
All I have seen about Torque3D has been about the graphics, ooh check
out this screen shot. blah blah
What I want to know is, what in Torque3D is going to help
me make better games, faster and easier.
Art Pipeline?
Scripting Modifications?
Network Subsystem Modifications?
Audio Subsystem Modifications?
Multiplatform support?
Tool modifications?
Various Physics SDK Intergrations?
What are you doing to make it easier?
That's what I want to know.
If your just re-writing the renderer every couple of years.
And using the same old network, audio, physics, subsystems.
Then keep it.
I'll stick with TGEA 1.7.1
01/09/2009 (5:24 pm)
*yawn*Graphics Graphics Graphics. AAA this, AAA that.
*yawn*
When people throw around the term AAA, it always points to graphics.
2008 was the picture perfect year of how graphics do not make a game.
We, hobbiest/indies can get AAA rendering for free. (RENDERING I SAID)
All I have seen about Torque3D has been about the graphics, ooh check
out this screen shot. blah blah
What I want to know is, what in Torque3D is going to help
me make better games, faster and easier.
Art Pipeline?
Scripting Modifications?
Network Subsystem Modifications?
Audio Subsystem Modifications?
Multiplatform support?
Tool modifications?
Various Physics SDK Intergrations?
What are you doing to make it easier?
That's what I want to know.
If your just re-writing the renderer every couple of years.
And using the same old network, audio, physics, subsystems.
Then keep it.
I'll stick with TGEA 1.7.1
#97
Regarding players and tickets: If show up at my game, throw stones and claim you know something about playing, I'm going to ask you to prove it. I'm open to hearing constructive feedback on the new docs from people I respect, but showing up on a thread and just spouting the same old mindless dribble: "The documentation is a joke and the Torque portfolio is underwhelming" is going to earn you a smack down. Everyone at this company works hard to make GG a better company and make our products better. Speaking disparagingly about my coworkers efforts, while we are trying to launch a better product is gonna piss me off. Earn my respect and I might listen too you. Talk smack, be prepared to show what you've done that's worthwhile. If you or anyone from this community posts a description of a new project you're working on we don't immediately launch an attack on you if your last project had issues.
01/09/2009 (5:46 pm)
@Christian: I believe Brett has shown some great shots from T3D games which are currently in production w/o the final documentation and or release candidate tools. My point here is that there is a lot of work that goes into something from a production resource to a consumer product. Each stage has it's merits and challenges but we've been using Torque throughout the whole process to ship titles. So have our sister studios. So have our customers.Regarding players and tickets: If show up at my game, throw stones and claim you know something about playing, I'm going to ask you to prove it. I'm open to hearing constructive feedback on the new docs from people I respect, but showing up on a thread and just spouting the same old mindless dribble: "The documentation is a joke and the Torque portfolio is underwhelming" is going to earn you a smack down. Everyone at this company works hard to make GG a better company and make our products better. Speaking disparagingly about my coworkers efforts, while we are trying to launch a better product is gonna piss me off. Earn my respect and I might listen too you. Talk smack, be prepared to show what you've done that's worthwhile. If you or anyone from this community posts a description of a new project you're working on we don't immediately launch an attack on you if your last project had issues.
#98
As for that, part of the original blog is right.
But a very important part is wrong: The $1500 version of Unity IS already the commercial, license, so its 1:1 in price to TGEA. And it comes without the sweet enforcement to show the logo, althought I have no problem with that for Unity, as they deliver great technology. With TGEA its a bit more of a problem as I don't see a reason to advertise a technology that I needed to fix 10%+ to make it working at all.
Might be that you don't get the sources but Unity does actually not require the sources because new releases there are pretty indepth tested there before they are released.
This is one, if not THE major problem with all GarageGames technologies (beside advertising sources as a benefit and offering a not acceptable source documentation)
No mather how good you get the visuals, which are stunning, as long as you have noob errors and major bugs even in final release versions, that any somewhere click capable monkey would have struggled when creating a little test game with the release candidate, this technology is just not worth much more than it costs right now. At a pricetag of $500 it would be at its end price stretching wise for the indie license.
TGEA is together with iTorque your best examples of good ideas with a very lacking execution and a very bad QA end. Ensure that your dedicated QA staff is dedicated to its task if you push back releases by a week and more just to release the stuff still broken (in case of iTGB broken on a level that forces you to manually move libraries around to make it working at all, something anyone would have realized when installing it fresh and I think install & test is a very basic QA requirement)
The blog thought makes hope that this happens a little less than it does currently as you intend to use the technology.
Thought I already hoped that with the online portal games and was proofen wrong as your game developers just skip using the technology and alter it, fixing it for them as it seams, without reporting the bugs back to the technology team to get the stuff fixed. At least thats my impression as the alternatives are that your technology team is ignoring those reports or your developers just are incapable to see bugs when they jump into their face. Both would be very problematic so I've the hopes that its the first and the stuff just never got reported in the past.
So from my end:
First make Torque3D stable and get an acceptable source documentation up (See RakNet as a very great example of what good source documentation means and that at $100, thought even Irrlicht is able to beat TGEA at $0), then we can talk about prices for the indie license around $1000
And don't forget: you might have won the 2008 award, but Unity and a few others were in the final round as well and the knife can easily turn around next year with Unity beeing available for windows as well starting with Unity3D 2.5, when it becomes usable to all your beloved userbase.
01/09/2009 (5:48 pm)
As owner of all current Torque Technologies (beside TX Pro) + iTGB as well as Unity Pro + iPhone Advanced, I'm in the lucky position that I can compare the two.As for that, part of the original blog is right.
But a very important part is wrong: The $1500 version of Unity IS already the commercial, license, so its 1:1 in price to TGEA. And it comes without the sweet enforcement to show the logo, althought I have no problem with that for Unity, as they deliver great technology. With TGEA its a bit more of a problem as I don't see a reason to advertise a technology that I needed to fix 10%+ to make it working at all.
Might be that you don't get the sources but Unity does actually not require the sources because new releases there are pretty indepth tested there before they are released.
This is one, if not THE major problem with all GarageGames technologies (beside advertising sources as a benefit and offering a not acceptable source documentation)
No mather how good you get the visuals, which are stunning, as long as you have noob errors and major bugs even in final release versions, that any somewhere click capable monkey would have struggled when creating a little test game with the release candidate, this technology is just not worth much more than it costs right now. At a pricetag of $500 it would be at its end price stretching wise for the indie license.
TGEA is together with iTorque your best examples of good ideas with a very lacking execution and a very bad QA end. Ensure that your dedicated QA staff is dedicated to its task if you push back releases by a week and more just to release the stuff still broken (in case of iTGB broken on a level that forces you to manually move libraries around to make it working at all, something anyone would have realized when installing it fresh and I think install & test is a very basic QA requirement)
The blog thought makes hope that this happens a little less than it does currently as you intend to use the technology.
Thought I already hoped that with the online portal games and was proofen wrong as your game developers just skip using the technology and alter it, fixing it for them as it seams, without reporting the bugs back to the technology team to get the stuff fixed. At least thats my impression as the alternatives are that your technology team is ignoring those reports or your developers just are incapable to see bugs when they jump into their face. Both would be very problematic so I've the hopes that its the first and the stuff just never got reported in the past.
So from my end:
First make Torque3D stable and get an acceptable source documentation up (See RakNet as a very great example of what good source documentation means and that at $100, thought even Irrlicht is able to beat TGEA at $0), then we can talk about prices for the indie license around $1000
And don't forget: you might have won the 2008 award, but Unity and a few others were in the final round as well and the knife can easily turn around next year with Unity beeing available for windows as well starting with Unity3D 2.5, when it becomes usable to all your beloved userbase.
#99
Lots of good discussion in here. Many of us at GarageGames have been following this all day. There are a ton of good suggestions, and we're getting fantastic feedback from some of our most valued community members on what they'd like to see and what they would not like to see.
This is a very hard line to balance. We have a wide range of customers that we want to serve, from hobbyists who make games with their kids to small studios working on their own IP to even big studios who are working on non-game applications. It's great to see in this thread that people within that entire range are speaking up because we want to find a way to serve all of you. The reason we think we can do this? Because, as Brett mentioned, the only competition really out there is in the triple AAA space, and like a haunted house in a bad horror film, we don't want to go there. So we're sticking to our roots. ^_^
Do know that we are taking your feedback very seriously. In fact, a lot of this change has come about from taking your previous feedback to heart. We have been polling our users for some time now, and the reason we are willing to open these kinds of discussions is that we would rather make this decision by talking to you first, even though doing so is risky for us (i.e. every time I read a more negative comment, my heart skips a bit and I wonder if we've alienated the very people we want to provide products for). However, a change can do us good, and I think it's time to explore the options and see how we can take Torque to the next level.
The only points of discussion that worries me so far is that a few of you are attributing us trying new things as being "too corporate." It is very true that we are trying to market ourselves better. In fact, one of my tasks in the past few months has been to get better exposure for Torque games. We want to share in your success. And yes, we love our tech, and we're going to think it's awesome. I don't think we should have to apologize for that, and loving what we sell is not corporate at all. Everyone here is doing what we love, and some of us have been doing it for a LONG TIME before we received IAC funding, which has allowed us to take many of our products to the next level (sometimes for free, which we didn't think we would be able to do before we had some R&D funding to spare).
So please, continue to be frank, but keep it productive. Name calling or defensiveness, on either side, won't help. Be as specific as possible about your needs and concerns. And please know that we asked the question because we care about the community and our long-time supporters.
***Edited for grammar because it's Friday afternoon. :P
01/09/2009 (5:59 pm)
Hey all,Lots of good discussion in here. Many of us at GarageGames have been following this all day. There are a ton of good suggestions, and we're getting fantastic feedback from some of our most valued community members on what they'd like to see and what they would not like to see.
This is a very hard line to balance. We have a wide range of customers that we want to serve, from hobbyists who make games with their kids to small studios working on their own IP to even big studios who are working on non-game applications. It's great to see in this thread that people within that entire range are speaking up because we want to find a way to serve all of you. The reason we think we can do this? Because, as Brett mentioned, the only competition really out there is in the triple AAA space, and like a haunted house in a bad horror film, we don't want to go there. So we're sticking to our roots. ^_^
Do know that we are taking your feedback very seriously. In fact, a lot of this change has come about from taking your previous feedback to heart. We have been polling our users for some time now, and the reason we are willing to open these kinds of discussions is that we would rather make this decision by talking to you first, even though doing so is risky for us (i.e. every time I read a more negative comment, my heart skips a bit and I wonder if we've alienated the very people we want to provide products for). However, a change can do us good, and I think it's time to explore the options and see how we can take Torque to the next level.
The only points of discussion that worries me so far is that a few of you are attributing us trying new things as being "too corporate." It is very true that we are trying to market ourselves better. In fact, one of my tasks in the past few months has been to get better exposure for Torque games. We want to share in your success. And yes, we love our tech, and we're going to think it's awesome. I don't think we should have to apologize for that, and loving what we sell is not corporate at all. Everyone here is doing what we love, and some of us have been doing it for a LONG TIME before we received IAC funding, which has allowed us to take many of our products to the next level (sometimes for free, which we didn't think we would be able to do before we had some R&D funding to spare).
So please, continue to be frank, but keep it productive. Name calling or defensiveness, on either side, won't help. Be as specific as possible about your needs and concerns. And please know that we asked the question because we care about the community and our long-time supporters.
***Edited for grammar because it's Friday afternoon. :P
#100
I don't know anyone who works at GarageGames who doesn't want to help hobbyists/indies/pros make great games. In fact, the food on our table depends on doing just this... and we care enough that we're looking to our community for feedback on just about everything! That includes the price... which frankly is amazingly candid and refreshing to see...
01/09/2009 (6:03 pm)
Wow, what a great blog and discussion. Keep it up everyone!!! However, if you feel mostly like pouring gasoline... maybe calm down a little bit before posting. You'll do yourself and others a favor ;)I don't know anyone who works at GarageGames who doesn't want to help hobbyists/indies/pros make great games. In fact, the food on our table depends on doing just this... and we care enough that we're looking to our community for feedback on just about everything! That includes the price... which frankly is amazingly candid and refreshing to see...
Associate Michael Hall
Distracted...
Which are filled with vague statements of tentative features and pretty screenshots. Look at how many times GarageGames has done that in the past. Look at all of the prior broad statements of transparent development that have only clouded the waters and went nowhere. Look at all the locked threads for when someone asked a tough and unpopular question.
Not to mention that almost all of his blogs are filled with referrals to upcoming work from "the commercially successful" independent game companies. Nothing wrong with that, it pays the bills right? It seems that GarageGames, by way of it's Instant Action parent company has come to care more about profit and it's "profile" in the market than it's real user base or founding vision and promise. I've seen a lot of propaganda and marketing strategy being exercised in the past year and a half, but little of anything with actual substance. What happened to the the prior goal of providing a low cost means for a dreamer to create a game? Whether or not that dreamer ever releases a commercially successful game is irrelevant. I do get it though: those people don't contribute to the market share and the image of "success".
Here we are at TGEa 1.8 and some people are still waiting for promises to be fulfilled from the TSE early adopter days. Is that what we have to look forward to? A price increase and/or licensing change just to test an incomplete and bug filled engine that will be deprecated in a few years, after finally reaching some of it's promised potential, for something newer and shinier. TGEa 1.8 came out of beta and it is still bug-ridden and yet now it seems to be implied that T3D will suddenly be the next big thing, so lets all move away from TGEa. It was even said less than a year ago that TGE wouldn't be going away anytime soon, yet where is it now? What about all of it's outstanding bugs and broken features that have never been addressed? A lot of the long-time community members from the pre-TSE days are gone -- I wonder why? Sure it can be said that: "You've got the code, someone with commitment can fix it themselves." Are GarageGames going to change that mantra for T3D?
With that being said, I do love my hobby and Torque in general, but increased pricing and changes in licensing had better come with seriously improved support, tools, and workflow. I'll also need to see these promised improvements in tech and tools in action before I believe the hype.