The New Magic Word
by Brett Seyler · 11/12/2009 (4:02 pm) · 289 comments
Last week, Epic Games made a pretty big splash announcing the "UDK" or Unreal Development Kit. UDK is based on the *very expensive* Unreal Engine 3, the most dominant game engine in the big budget console games space. There's been a lot of hyperbolic talk about how this is an "end of days" development for Torque and our friendly Copenhagen competitors, Unity. I want to take a while here to talk about what I think this means for Torque and where we fit in the competitive landscape.When the announcement showed up, of course I immediately wanted to dig in and find out what was up. I took some time and looked at the license on the UDK site. Many people here downloaded the UDK to play around with it and see what was what. It turns out that the UDK is basically an up to date set of editors for Unreal Engine 3. There's no source code provided. Instead, as with modding, you can do scripting with Epic's Unrealscript. You can package your project for Windows only. There are docs online, but otherwise no dedicated support. So let's be clear. This is NOT Unreal Engine 3. That would kill a huge source of revenue (supported, source code licensing for PC and consoles) for Epic. It *is* a well-tested, rich set of editors for making stuff based on UE3 games or projects.
What's the license like for this? Well, Epic is slapping up the word FREE everywhere and who doesn't love something for FREE right? It's a magic word. The UDK website grants you (for free) a license to make non-commercial works. If you want to make money, or benefit indirectly somehow from using the UDK (think making a demo to advertise or sell something else or a company who wants to train employees with a simulation), you have to pay. The terms of making something commercial with the UDK are actually a bit murky because Epic does not post the license on their site or allow you to purchase a commercial license on thier site. Instead, they give you an email address to hit up and describe the terms of the license structure.
Option A: You benefit (somehow) from using and distributing UDK projects, but there's no revenue. You can pay $2500 / seat annually for this use of the UDK.
Option B: You sell, advertise on, or somehow directly or indirectly, generate revenue from a project made with UDK. You pay $99 up front and you give up 25% of all revenues exceeding $5000 on that project.
Pretty straightforward options! It would be nice to see the license, but assuming it's reasonable, sounds like a pretty fair deal. So what's the catch? How does Epic make money from this? They don't. Not really. This is a loss leader and an evangelism play and it really doesn't cost them much of anything to do. For years you've been able to spend $60 on Unreal Tournament, Gears of War, or other Unreal titles and use the provided editors to modify the game. You can do a lot with mods and people have created really cool stuff. Epic never monetized this practice before. Instead, they used it as a way to create longer tail sales for their games and to recruit new talent from the modder community. By offering the "UDK," Epic is taking the next step by letting people distribute Unreal mods without requiring ownership of the modded Unreal game. In addition to formalizing what they've always done with the mod communities built around Unreal, Epic is likely to heavily monetize the inevitable step from UDK --> UE3. This is no small step and it will cost small teams as much as Epic can wring out of them, in addition to the 25% royalties they are already on the hook for. My guess is that it will be case by case, but it's guaranteed that most teams will run into barriers not having access to the engine source, just as they do with other binary-only engines.
I'm not going to dismiss this move by Epic. It matters. Here's why...
#1: It's Epic (no pun intended). They are an absolute behemoth in the games industry. They've absolutely demolished all competitors in the AAA console engine space for the last 5 years, essentially since EA acquired Criterion, makers of Renderware, and stopped licensing it to 3rd parties. They have an established business selling very expensive (think 6-7 figures, depending on the royalty rate) licenses for big budget console games and now, they've decided they want indies, amateurs, and hobbyists to use their product too. That's a pretty decent market disturbance.
#2: It's validation. When I wrote about the hyper-competitive, well-served big budget AAA space while discussing the pricing and licensing of Torque 3D back in January, I noted that the AAA middleware market hasn't grown much in the last decade and it continues to be a pretty fixed size market. At the same time, the space Torque and Unity occupy (better accessibility and opportunity via lower licensing costs and more attractive platforms) has grown tremendously. This community here grows by hundreds of users every week. A larger portion of the games industry as a whole is moving away from stagnant AAA console games and targeting super-fast growing platforms like the iPhone, Facebook, and yes, even just regular PC online games. Clearly Epic must see something they like in these markets. They missed the boat on the Wii and they are probably struggling to maintain (let alone grow) revenues in the AAA console space. I'm not sure if this will be a long-lasting commitment on Epic's part, or simply a way to maximize the value of their current tech while the new stuff (UE4) is what they're going to start pushing to high-end clients, right around the corner. Regardless, validation is nice.
#3: Now everyone can see behind the "AAA" curtain. We've been telling you for years that Torque is top-notch technology. We've said "it's documented up to, and in many cases well beyond the industry standard." Without being able to look at engines like Unreal, that's been a hard claim for you guys to verify. Now you can. Have a look at UDK. Look at the tools. Look at the docs. Test out the support. We think you'll find that Torque 3D stacks up very well in comparison, and all without the licensing burden of big royalties or high-cost access to source. Putting aside source though, it's worth answering the question:
What does Torque currently do better than Unreal?
Rendering - Torque is the first affordable engine with a deferred renderer. You have real-time dynamic lighting and shadows. You can have thousands of dynamic point lights in a scene at almost no hit to performance. You can't do this in Unreal. Torque's Light Pre-pass rendering is the standard for the current era of hardware. CryEngine uses it as do many of the best looking games on the market.
Contrast this with Unreal, which uses a years old forward renderer that does not allow for global dynamic lighting or shadows. In fact, UE3 does not support more than one dynamic light casting shadows on the same object. It will switch shadows automatically to the nearest light. A directional light will allways switch off any light's shadows. With Unreal, all global illumination is baked. Everything you can do in Unreal, you can do with pureLIGHT in Torque 3D, but with Torque, you can combine dynamic global lighting and shadows with beautfully baked static lightmaps that give you realtime iterative results, not an hours long, black box baking process. Looking ahead, we'll probably be the first affordable engine with DX11 support, and I doubt you're going to see that from Unreal until UE4, likely a couple years away from public licensing, at least.
Terrain (editing AND fidelity) - Definitely test out the UDK terrain editors next to Torque 3D's. The UDK terrain tools are several generations behind us. In Torque 3D, you get much nicer terrain fidelity as well. It takes the right artwork to show this (which you'll see with Pacific Demo here in a few weeks), but the advantage for Torque is clear.
Networking - Out of the box, Torque 3D will do things that you'll never get UDK to do without source code access and a LOT of work. It's as simple as that.
Platform support - Capable deployment to OSX machines is increasing a very important component to success for small teams. Torque 3D offers a path to every major platform out there (Windows, Mac, Web, Wii, Xbox 360, iPhone, with PS3 and PSP in the works).
Special purpose tools. - The road and river tools are just the beginning, but there's a lot more coming in 1.1 and 1.2 that you haven't seen before and which you definitely won't find in UDK.Community resources, add-ons, and extensions. This is such a talent-rich and generous community. We do our very best not to take your contributions for granted. Rather, a major focus, particularly on this website in the next year, will be adding features that make the surfacing, sharing, and vetting of community resources and project much easier and much more powerful. There's really a lot we can do here and you're going to see constant improvement.
Now, UDK has some things not currently in Torque in it's favor as well. Nice features like nav meshes for AI, improved animation tools, etc. are all on our roadmap, but not yet in Torque 3D, so we've still got plenty of work ahead of us to keep up and stay competitive.
We want to take Torque much further, allowing developers to unlock opportunities on the best emerging platforms. That's going to take continued work and investment in the product by us, but we run a pretty lean operation, we reinvest nearly every dollar you spend with us back into product development, and we are moving *super* fast.
'FREE' might just be the new SSAO
We realize that staying ahead of the curve on technology is just part of the equation. The licensing model we choose is important and we're paying attention to all this FREE stuff as much as the rest of you. We want to offer something at a very accessible price, or perhaps for FREE as a good entry to learning and using Torque 3D. Currently, our free option is a demo, limited by the number of objects you can place in your scene. This obviously isn't useful to create an entire game, but it does give you a good feel for what Torque 3D's tool set can do, given that it's not feature limited in any way other than not including the source code.
By comparison, UDK also gives you everything for free, no features limited by the free version other than the source code, but you cannot use it to make anything commercial without payment. The cost, at minimum, is $99 + 25% of your revenues (after $5k total). Unity strips a great deal of their features out of their free version. These can drastically handicap development for some teams, but there's no reason why you couldn't finish some games with it either. The license is liberal, so it's a good stepping stone to make your first game, solo, if you're willing to live with some of the feature limitations.
So where does Torque 3D fit in all of this? Our "Professional" version, which includes source code, access to beta builds, private forums, etc is just $1000 / seat. We don't currently have an option between this and our free demo, but we want one. I think the recent developments by Unity and Epic and all the new developers trying their hand at 3D games warrants a low-priced option for Torque 3D, as well.
At the end of September, when we released Torque 3D 1.0, I included a poll contemplating an full-featured, binary-only version of Torque 3D to go for $500 / seat. Though the results were overwhelmingly in favor of this option, I think we can do better. In the past, I've been really happy with the feedback you've given us making decisions like this, so I want to enlist your help again.
What should we do?
What would you be happy with?
What do you think would be best for the community the future of the product?
Do we want a more elite, experienced community of programmers here?
Do we want to create a more balanced mix of great artists too?
I have my instincts on these questions, and we've discussed them a great deal internally, but I've always come back to this community as one of the big reasons to choose Torque for a new developer. It's one of kind and I want to keep it together and help it grow as much as possible. That won't happen if we don't have a competitive offering in Torque. This means we need enough income to feed the developers and keep the product blazing ahead full speed. But at the same time, if every new beginner cuts their teeth on UDK or Unity because they have viable free option and Torque doesn't, well, I don't like the position that puts us in for the long run either.
So please, let us know what you think! I promise I'll listen and weigh all feedback carefully. I hope to make a decision on this by the end of the month, so let fly with the suggestions and opinions. It's all welcome.
About the author
Since 2007, I've done my best to steer Torque's development and brand toward the best opportunities in games middleware.
#22
If you are looking at things through a hobbyists eyes....well, it's according to how serious the person is about their hobby. Eventually, even those that go the route of the Unreal Engine will probably become disappointed after a while. Face it, you can only do so much without the source.
I'd have to agree with Konrad. His words pretty much sums up how I feel. Unless you can make cigarettes cheaper.....throw that in if ya can! :)
11/12/2009 (5:42 pm)
Common Sense would dictate that if someone is really serious about releasing a title, investing a little money now is better than paying out alot of money later. Hence, invest in Torque now to acquire access to source, or Pay out the nose in royalities later for an engine you don't even get the source for. Unfortunatley, common sense is in short supply these days. If you are looking at things through a hobbyists eyes....well, it's according to how serious the person is about their hobby. Eventually, even those that go the route of the Unreal Engine will probably become disappointed after a while. Face it, you can only do so much without the source.
I'd have to agree with Konrad. His words pretty much sums up how I feel. Unless you can make cigarettes cheaper.....throw that in if ya can! :)
#23
@Christian:
He does say UDK has some tools still laking out-of-the-box in T3D. The point in comparing is that anything you can do with UDK you can do with T3D and then some.
11/12/2009 (5:42 pm)
@Ronny: There's no such thing as coincidences. It's all cause and effect. Pure Physics.@Christian:
Quote:I’m not quite sure what the technical difference is between the 2 in terms of lightning, but it’s kind of odd to see you compare T3D lights with UE3, when using pureLight as a measure (pureLight is not part of the engine out of the box)
He does say UDK has some tools still laking out-of-the-box in T3D. The point in comparing is that anything you can do with UDK you can do with T3D and then some.
#24
I will always use Torque, but I haven't had the money to upgrade as badly as I want to (I just have to stick to TGEA). I really appreciate the Torque Class Matt Langley taught at Collins College. What a crash course on TGE, if it wasn't for him my demo would've looked like everyone elses.
I see all the engines for FREE that's a good word and I love it to. I'de rather pay $1000 once than for the life span of the game I create.
Again Thank You Matt Langley
11/12/2009 (5:45 pm)
I Started using Torque in College (TGE 1.3) and have upgraded every time. I used torque for my class final instead of the UT 2004 editor, because I was able to put out quality and something different from everyone else.I will always use Torque, but I haven't had the money to upgrade as badly as I want to (I just have to stick to TGEA). I really appreciate the Torque Class Matt Langley taught at Collins College. What a crash course on TGE, if it wasn't for him my demo would've looked like everyone elses.
I see all the engines for FREE that's a good word and I love it to. I'de rather pay $1000 once than for the life span of the game I create.
Again Thank You Matt Langley
#25
I'd like to learn more about this, especially that we can't find UDK. It's no brainer that Torque3d current art-pipeline, renderer is much better than UE3. However "you haven't seen before and which you definitely won't find in UDK." means to me something more than Kismet(visual scripting) Facefx(facial animation & lip-synch) tool and speedtree.
11/12/2009 (5:49 pm)
"Special purpose tools. - The road and river tools are just the beginning, but there's a lot more coming in 1.1 and 1.2 that you haven't seen before and which you definitely won't find in UDK."I'd like to learn more about this, especially that we can't find UDK. It's no brainer that Torque3d current art-pipeline, renderer is much better than UE3. However "you haven't seen before and which you definitely won't find in UDK." means to me something more than Kismet(visual scripting) Facefx(facial animation & lip-synch) tool and speedtree.
#26
@Michael: I do think some more video documentation is really essential. There is a ton of scripting documentation you have generated recently and that is very helpful, but some more of the basics really need to be touched. Hopefully after 1.1 starts to get out more of this will be finished up as it sounds like a handful of things are going to change. That is the nature of the beast unfortunately though and stuff you do now will be outdated in 6-12 months. Some more tutorials on how to piece multiple things together would be beneficial as well. How to start a basic RPG, etc.
11/12/2009 (5:59 pm)
@Eric: Would still rather see #2 around the price of TGEA or slightly above ($350 making it a cheap upgrade for current TGEA owners). #1 looks pretty good though as a viable option.@Michael: I do think some more video documentation is really essential. There is a ton of scripting documentation you have generated recently and that is very helpful, but some more of the basics really need to be touched. Hopefully after 1.1 starts to get out more of this will be finished up as it sounds like a handful of things are going to change. That is the nature of the beast unfortunately though and stuff you do now will be outdated in 6-12 months. Some more tutorials on how to piece multiple things together would be beneficial as well. How to start a basic RPG, etc.
#27
Keep in mind, however, that if you are using Unity Pro on your project ALL of your artists have to have Unity Pro as well to comply with their license. 10 artist at $1500 each = *ouch* when you decide to upgrade.
11/12/2009 (6:09 pm)
@AddisonQuote:Since Torque doesn't have a free alternative, that makes it difficult for small teams compared to Unity, where I can get 10 artists going (even as part time consultants) for FREE, right away, then shell out for licenses later on if need be.
Keep in mind, however, that if you are using Unity Pro on your project ALL of your artists have to have Unity Pro as well to comply with their license. 10 artist at $1500 each = *ouch* when you decide to upgrade.
#28
Once I ship in June I'll be trying out T3D. My advise is to keep improving the quality of tools rather then adding new features. The faster you make the pipeline the more apt indie studios are to survive.
Having the source code is huge as well :)
I think T3D could have a bright future.
11/12/2009 (6:19 pm)
I will say for me features don't mater as much as speed of development. Whoever has better bug free tools wins. I haven't used T3D yet. I'm making a game in TX2DOnce I ship in June I'll be trying out T3D. My advise is to keep improving the quality of tools rather then adding new features. The faster you make the pipeline the more apt indie studios are to survive.
Having the source code is huge as well :)
I think T3D could have a bright future.
#29
No doubt, however, this is true at the moment for Torque as well, except, with Torque3D, I have to risk that money "up front", with Unity, we can ALL use the free version to build 99% of the game, and then just upgrade before release to setup the shadows and advanced shaders. In the end it will be more total, but..as someone else said, a lot lower risk short term and up front.
Let's put it in these terms, I can afford 1K, 1.5K or even 3K for unity or torque up front, myself, no problem, but what I don't have/want to spend is 10K to shell out for myself another programmer and a few artists when the project can definitely be 99% completed in the basic FREE Unity3D...for NO cost up front. If the game sells, then "any" team can most likely afford either engine, so the point of 1K vs. 1.5K per license is negligible.
11/12/2009 (6:25 pm)
@DaveyQuote:Keep in mind, however, that if you are using Unity Pro on your project ALL of your artists have to have Unity Pro as well to comply with their license. 10 artist at $1500 each = *ouch* when you decide to upgrade.
No doubt, however, this is true at the moment for Torque as well, except, with Torque3D, I have to risk that money "up front", with Unity, we can ALL use the free version to build 99% of the game, and then just upgrade before release to setup the shadows and advanced shaders. In the end it will be more total, but..as someone else said, a lot lower risk short term and up front.
Let's put it in these terms, I can afford 1K, 1.5K or even 3K for unity or torque up front, myself, no problem, but what I don't have/want to spend is 10K to shell out for myself another programmer and a few artists when the project can definitely be 99% completed in the basic FREE Unity3D...for NO cost up front. If the game sells, then "any" team can most likely afford either engine, so the point of 1K vs. 1.5K per license is negligible.
#30
IMO, You should release a Free Version, an "indie version", and a "Pro" version.
The free version should be just like the Indie version, but without advanced lighting. You could limit the number of objects, but not to the level of the current demo - it's just too small.
The "Indie" version would be exactly like the Pro version, but without source code, and would be released for $99. This version could double up as the "artist" version.
The "Pro version" is the current version and current price point.
I'm happy with what I have now -- Because, I don't have to pay more, I'm already at the top level. If I weren't a customer, I would probably be happy with an indie version for a while. But then I would feel the need to upgrade to add features. Especially if I had "read only" access to the pro forums (see below) and got to see the wonderful goodness that came from customization.
What would my dream additions be? Something like FaceFX. Something like SpeedTree. And easier/faster way to edit/tune/run instead of using TorqueScript.
Reintroducing the $99 price point. Maybe include a royalty, epic style. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
Yes. But in a dedicated "Pro" forum. Then we could always troll the indie forums for people who want to be on a team, etc.
Yes, of course.
You have a lot of people on here voting for "$500" is the price point. But how many of them already purchased the pro version, so it doesn't really effect them? How many people don't bother to vote because that's just too high -- I'd hazard a guess that most of the lower end people see the new price points, and then don't even bother to look further to see the votes (etc), especially now with all the "free" engines out.
11/12/2009 (7:00 pm)
Quote:What should we do?
IMO, You should release a Free Version, an "indie version", and a "Pro" version.
The free version should be just like the Indie version, but without advanced lighting. You could limit the number of objects, but not to the level of the current demo - it's just too small.
The "Indie" version would be exactly like the Pro version, but without source code, and would be released for $99. This version could double up as the "artist" version.
The "Pro version" is the current version and current price point.
Quote:What would you be happy with?
I'm happy with what I have now -- Because, I don't have to pay more, I'm already at the top level. If I weren't a customer, I would probably be happy with an indie version for a while. But then I would feel the need to upgrade to add features. Especially if I had "read only" access to the pro forums (see below) and got to see the wonderful goodness that came from customization.
What would my dream additions be? Something like FaceFX. Something like SpeedTree. And easier/faster way to edit/tune/run instead of using TorqueScript.
Quote:What do you think would be best for the community the future of the product?
Reintroducing the $99 price point. Maybe include a royalty, epic style. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
Quote:Do we want a more elite, experienced community of programmers here?
Yes. But in a dedicated "Pro" forum. Then we could always troll the indie forums for people who want to be on a team, etc.
Quote:Do we want to create a more balanced mix of great artists too?
Yes, of course.
You have a lot of people on here voting for "$500" is the price point. But how many of them already purchased the pro version, so it doesn't really effect them? How many people don't bother to vote because that's just too high -- I'd hazard a guess that most of the lower end people see the new price points, and then don't even bother to look further to see the votes (etc), especially now with all the "free" engines out.
#31
One concern, I have is the animations pipeline! To maybe clarify how to do things like facial rigging, shape animations, and animation for clothing. And how the engine handles such things.
11/12/2009 (7:20 pm)
I love how things are now! Maybe something for the artist but things are fine!One concern, I have is the animations pipeline! To maybe clarify how to do things like facial rigging, shape animations, and animation for clothing. And how the engine handles such things.
#32
In any case, more of Torque3d is just what I need. I have confident in GG to make the right choice, that would benefit both the community and themselves.
11/12/2009 (7:30 pm)
Oh yes, I'd love to learn more the animation pipeline as well. Official documentation on these topics would be awesome.In any case, more of Torque3d is just what I need. I have confident in GG to make the right choice, that would benefit both the community and themselves.
#33
11/12/2009 (7:33 pm)
For me, the single greatest thing T3D could do is add streaming/paging system for both Scene objects and Terrain.
#34
11/12/2009 (7:57 pm)
Nod, streaming/paging would be nice. With Unity adding it in there is probably a good chance we will get it eventually. Some threading work has already went in so hopefully it is in the works. 
#35
With that said I'd love to see some unreal like scenes done in T3D, for example the map where in changes from a rain forest, to a snowy sci-fic map to a low gravity high-tech looking place. That is an amazing map.
I agree with Kory James animation is a problem, we need the fancy stuff also built-in, the rag dolls etc. Yes we can get that with GMK.
But I think we need a really well known format for our animations and models so artists can easily make content for our games. UDK has a huge advantage when it comes to creating content for the engine.
GG needs to stop saying that you can do this and this with such and such add-on. Especially when they aren't even available yet!
11/12/2009 (8:10 pm)
Wow better rendering then the Unreal engine. Maybe on paper? I haven't seen a scene anything like in UT3 in T3D and what I have seen doesn't suggest to me it could run as fast.With that said I'd love to see some unreal like scenes done in T3D, for example the map where in changes from a rain forest, to a snowy sci-fic map to a low gravity high-tech looking place. That is an amazing map.
I agree with Kory James animation is a problem, we need the fancy stuff also built-in, the rag dolls etc. Yes we can get that with GMK.
But I think we need a really well known format for our animations and models so artists can easily make content for our games. UDK has a huge advantage when it comes to creating content for the engine.
GG needs to stop saying that you can do this and this with such and such add-on. Especially when they aren't even available yet!
#36
I think the heading is exceptional, the work done has been awesome. Whats not done already, is on the works or improving faster than ever before in GG.
With just one catch: the lack of a FREE version.
Im feeling the pain already, of knowing capable people, in the verge of picking a tool for their new personal enterprise, and to mention Torque now is to mention USD 1k up front.
I've learn to miss the days where the moddable, full featured, binary version was around. In the end, why can't GG engage a lead loss strategy as verybody else is doing? (even was GG itself until T3D).
+1 to Free version.
11/12/2009 (8:37 pm)
Great blog.I think the heading is exceptional, the work done has been awesome. Whats not done already, is on the works or improving faster than ever before in GG.
With just one catch: the lack of a FREE version.
Im feeling the pain already, of knowing capable people, in the verge of picking a tool for their new personal enterprise, and to mention Torque now is to mention USD 1k up front.
I've learn to miss the days where the moddable, full featured, binary version was around. In the end, why can't GG engage a lead loss strategy as verybody else is doing? (even was GG itself until T3D).
+1 to Free version.
#37
Even with those other engines I was still going for Torque3D in the future anyway. I bought TGE originally due to seamlessly integrated and extremely easy to use networking code and the great community and that has not changed. These are two things any other engine cannot provide.
What should we do?
Demonstrate the power of T3D. In the words of the Gospel of The Matrix... it not the same knowing the way than walking the way. It is one thing to claim you can render and have better tools than UE3 and another thing to show even one demo that makes everybody really drool over the engine. The Pacific demo is nice... but not really impressive.
Make the users of this community proud to have a license of T3D. Make us be able to tell the programmers using other engines... well... yeah... cute game... that is a prototype right?
What would you be happy with?
a. Make the engine load more file formats.
There are hundreds of model out there read to use but in formats like X, Quake3 and others. They are fully animated and ready to use. I really really hate to find a model and having to drop it just because it is in a format I cant modify.
b. Make the community more active.
You have lots of faithful followers... capitalize on that! You can get really creative and make the community help on the engine. Let me give you an example. Make a contest... any member who gives the best solution to a problem like for example... rendering particles in the model view control gets a free license to T2D... that will make people to move and solve problems.
Do we want a more elite, experienced community of programmers here?
There are already lots of experienced programmer here... my jaw keeps dropping sometimes when I see some people creations. What you are missing is a seudo official TorquePowered Approved community contributed solutions. Some kind of user ranking system would be nice in order to keep track of the most active members.
Do we want to create a more balanced mix of great artists too?
Yes of course, one of the most difficult things for an indie if finding good art at good prices. But at the same time add support for more file formats in the engine. Many artists really hate the last export step so that the model is 100% ready and at the same times many programmers hate going into the model and
MMMMM... I guess those were my 2 cents...
11/12/2009 (9:12 pm)
Bret, I need to say... bravooooo!!!!! Great explanation, great rundown of the options. I was never going to have the time to test those engines anyway so you have saved me hours of time. Even with those other engines I was still going for Torque3D in the future anyway. I bought TGE originally due to seamlessly integrated and extremely easy to use networking code and the great community and that has not changed. These are two things any other engine cannot provide.
What should we do?
Demonstrate the power of T3D. In the words of the Gospel of The Matrix... it not the same knowing the way than walking the way. It is one thing to claim you can render and have better tools than UE3 and another thing to show even one demo that makes everybody really drool over the engine. The Pacific demo is nice... but not really impressive.
Make the users of this community proud to have a license of T3D. Make us be able to tell the programmers using other engines... well... yeah... cute game... that is a prototype right?
What would you be happy with?
a. Make the engine load more file formats.
There are hundreds of model out there read to use but in formats like X, Quake3 and others. They are fully animated and ready to use. I really really hate to find a model and having to drop it just because it is in a format I cant modify.
b. Make the community more active.
You have lots of faithful followers... capitalize on that! You can get really creative and make the community help on the engine. Let me give you an example. Make a contest... any member who gives the best solution to a problem like for example... rendering particles in the model view control gets a free license to T2D... that will make people to move and solve problems.
Do we want a more elite, experienced community of programmers here?
There are already lots of experienced programmer here... my jaw keeps dropping sometimes when I see some people creations. What you are missing is a seudo official TorquePowered Approved community contributed solutions. Some kind of user ranking system would be nice in order to keep track of the most active members.
Do we want to create a more balanced mix of great artists too?
Yes of course, one of the most difficult things for an indie if finding good art at good prices. But at the same time add support for more file formats in the engine. Many artists really hate the last export step so that the model is 100% ready and at the same times many programmers hate going into the model and
MMMMM... I guess those were my 2 cents...
#38
I am very interested to see where this will move.
11/12/2009 (9:37 pm)
Thanks for the read Brett. I am very interested to see where this will move.
#39
Here's my thinking.
The source code cost is below that of the other competitors by a long shot. And while many people complain about the docs they are improving with each iteration.
However, this is a market we are talking about. And that market has two components. One is the programmers, the other is the artists.
Artists already spend large amounts of money on other elements to make a game - Photoshop and 3D Max for example. Once they have those tools they can make games pretty much for any engine. Asking the Artists to spend another $500.00 for the connections to your engine when the competition is giving it away is a mistake. And if the Artist community leaves the engine dies.
GarageGames was set up for Indies - the guys who have little money. GG is now pushing themselves up to compete with the big guys, and guess what? The big guys are pushing back.
I'll be blunt.
In my opinion, the great threat here is that GarageGames will lose the Indie community and not get the support of the big name game developers. At the same time they cannot give the Artist version away because the support costs for answering every 7 year-old's questions about how to make a game will kill development and alienate the community too. They have come close to that a couple times already.
So, they need a price point that will screen out those with no money who can't develop a game because they have no resources. And they need to at least partially screen out the dilettantes who just want to be hand held through everything. They need to price point to be low enough to keep the Indie community - that means they don't expect the artist to come up with yet another big chunk of change.
I think, personally they should sell the Artist version for about $99.00
It's enough that a dedicated, artistic Indie can get started, and not so much that it is onerous to a small team to pony up. It maintains the Indie community by screening out those with no resources, and will send the casual samplers over to Unity and Unreal where their support can handle a few million questions about "Which button do I press to get an MMO?"
This is a simple equation, how much do you charge in order to keep your current base and expand your market upward. The low price point of the engine makes the case for the programmers but an exceptionally low price is needed to keep and expand the artist community.
11/12/2009 (10:03 pm)
As a current owner of T3D I am not going to benefit in any way by the suggestion of lowering the price. However, I would like to suggest that the price for the non-source version be set lower, but not free.Here's my thinking.
The source code cost is below that of the other competitors by a long shot. And while many people complain about the docs they are improving with each iteration.
However, this is a market we are talking about. And that market has two components. One is the programmers, the other is the artists.
Artists already spend large amounts of money on other elements to make a game - Photoshop and 3D Max for example. Once they have those tools they can make games pretty much for any engine. Asking the Artists to spend another $500.00 for the connections to your engine when the competition is giving it away is a mistake. And if the Artist community leaves the engine dies.
GarageGames was set up for Indies - the guys who have little money. GG is now pushing themselves up to compete with the big guys, and guess what? The big guys are pushing back.
I'll be blunt.
In my opinion, the great threat here is that GarageGames will lose the Indie community and not get the support of the big name game developers. At the same time they cannot give the Artist version away because the support costs for answering every 7 year-old's questions about how to make a game will kill development and alienate the community too. They have come close to that a couple times already.
So, they need a price point that will screen out those with no money who can't develop a game because they have no resources. And they need to at least partially screen out the dilettantes who just want to be hand held through everything. They need to price point to be low enough to keep the Indie community - that means they don't expect the artist to come up with yet another big chunk of change.
I think, personally they should sell the Artist version for about $99.00
It's enough that a dedicated, artistic Indie can get started, and not so much that it is onerous to a small team to pony up. It maintains the Indie community by screening out those with no resources, and will send the casual samplers over to Unity and Unreal where their support can handle a few million questions about "Which button do I press to get an MMO?"
This is a simple equation, how much do you charge in order to keep your current base and expand your market upward. The low price point of the engine makes the case for the programmers but an exceptionally low price is needed to keep and expand the artist community.
#40
From my cold dead hands!
11/12/2009 (10:28 pm)
Quote:In my opinion, the great threat here is that GarageGames will lose the Indie community
From my cold dead hands!
Torque Owner Addison Chrystie
Addison Chrystie
The bottom line is that Unity "feels" easier to use, particularly for artists, and that goes a long way on these types of projects where even a small team will most likely have a large artist to programmer ratio. Since Torque doesn't have a free alternative, that makes it difficult for small teams compared to Unity, where I can get 10 artists going (even as part time consultants) for FREE, right away, then shell out for licenses later on if need be. With Torque..it's cheaper, but far more overall and up front to get a team of artists going.
I know Torque offers the source code at a lower price, that's a big advantage, seemingly, but in all honesty, a ton can be done through scripting, most if not all in fact, in this day in age. Unity has the advantage here in terms of options (C#, Javascript, Boo(Python)), openness (99% of the engine is exposed including customization of the Unity IDE itself), and documentation in this regard.
Speaking of documentation, Unity just signed a deal with a video courseware company NOESIS, and Unreal has been popular with the "true" garage crowd (12 to 17 year olds literally in the garage) because of cheap training available at places like 3dbuzz.com and also free on youtube and such.
Any chance there might be some "comprehensive" training coming for Torque3D as well?
Torque3D has made some great steps:
1) Collada pipeline
2) Really powerful engine
3) Source code at a low cost
What Torque3D lacks:
1) An entry level/free alternative for long term use. A lot of us need/want something to mess around with for quite a while, then spend the 1K when we're "sure" we can produce something of value. Or at least have something that a team of artists can use regularly to test out models, textures, etc., without having to spend 1K per seat/user to do so.
2) Built in scripting "options" for more mainstream languages, writing a wrapper for C# or something doesn't count.
3) "Comprehensive" training on using the IDE and scripting (particularly because of number 2 and Torquescript being completely proprietary). Yes I know there are documents for it, but it's not enough to motivate me to bother learning yet another syntax when there are similar alternatives...for free.