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.
#102
I'm interested to hear about detailed plans for what GG has up its sleeve. Including time frames.
11/13/2009 (2:51 pm)
@Joshua: I believe the Torque team has promised us full compatibility. I would certainly not have stuck with GG since TGE and TGEA if anything else than full platform compatibility hadn't been promised. Simply running Windoze under Bootcamp is in no way a satisfactory substitute. I for one, and I think many with me, will demand a full refund if this ever becomes GG policy for Torque — which is quite, quite brilliant.I'm interested to hear about detailed plans for what GG has up its sleeve. Including time frames.
#103
What I'd like to see for T3D:
@Andy Rollins: It may be true that some of us associates post short comments instead of longer posts when trying to help, but there's a few things at work here. The first is that the associates as I know them (and myself) are a busy bunch, and while those like OmegaDog are very good at participating with the community, some are not as good. It doesn't mean that they haven't moved the ball forward enough to get the recognition- it's just that they've done it in different ways. Myself, try to direct people to information as opposed to rewriting it, and lately my time has been pretty soaked up in a demo, so I'm not even trolling to help as much as I would normally.
I would say that maybe you're right about some of what you say, and I don't take it personally nor think you were flaming associates, and I do intend on releasing some resources and best-practices based on my experience (which I try to do already through the blogs). But sometimes we just get a bit overwhelmed with our own work is all :) I'm not going to comment too much on the arguing stuff you mentioned except to say that we all get pulled into it at some point and it's only human, but without know what you're referring to specifically, I can't really offer an opinion.
I have to back Gerald here. I do want to release some tech to the community, but:
As to the bickering over the engines. I wonder as to how old some people are? For all the energy expended in pissing and moaning about which engine is better (hint: the best engine is the one that gets you the closest to your goal), you could have made your own choice, offered constructive criticism, and directed the 90% of the energy still left over into banging out a game. Get crackin' people!
11/13/2009 (3:13 pm)
I'll throw my hat into the ring here...What I'd like to see for T3D:
- Streaming: Not just for terrains, but for objects as well. There are resources for distance fading and such, but for large environments, streaming is probably best (even better when LODs are thrown at it too).
- Documentation: Well, docs have gotten a lot better, thanks to Mitch and his minions. I think that what can be done to help him and the community out would be to try and farm the threads in the forums for data and coallate that into more in-depth information articles. I'd volunteer to help with this- but not in the next week, since I'm trying to get some things done that are absolutely ruining my sanity...
- Pricing: I would vote for a sub-$500 non-source Indie price point. I currently have a team of 11 people, 10 of them being artists, but aside from previewing a Collada model in a demo, I cannot afford to run out and get them all $1000 seats. $500 is a stretch as well, personally, but I think a $299 or (even better) $99 solution would be grand (math pun intended). I think the higher the price, the more of an obstacle it is for artists to get involved in the community.
@Andy Rollins: It may be true that some of us associates post short comments instead of longer posts when trying to help, but there's a few things at work here. The first is that the associates as I know them (and myself) are a busy bunch, and while those like OmegaDog are very good at participating with the community, some are not as good. It doesn't mean that they haven't moved the ball forward enough to get the recognition- it's just that they've done it in different ways. Myself, try to direct people to information as opposed to rewriting it, and lately my time has been pretty soaked up in a demo, so I'm not even trolling to help as much as I would normally.
I would say that maybe you're right about some of what you say, and I don't take it personally nor think you were flaming associates, and I do intend on releasing some resources and best-practices based on my experience (which I try to do already through the blogs). But sometimes we just get a bit overwhelmed with our own work is all :) I'm not going to comment too much on the arguing stuff you mentioned except to say that we all get pulled into it at some point and it's only human, but without know what you're referring to specifically, I can't really offer an opinion.
Quote:I think if someone want to sell a tool that goes into the engine that make it better GG should offer them a price, they can take it or leave it.
I have to back Gerald here. I do want to release some tech to the community, but:
- If I release it, it will cost near as much as T3D, if not more, depending on the features.
- If any company ever tried to control my own commercial output like that, I would abandon them (and I've already done this once, so I'm good for that word).
As to the bickering over the engines. I wonder as to how old some people are? For all the energy expended in pissing and moaning about which engine is better (hint: the best engine is the one that gets you the closest to your goal), you could have made your own choice, offered constructive criticism, and directed the 90% of the energy still left over into banging out a game. Get crackin' people!
#104
I am a hobbyist/indie, I don't intend to make a living at this. It is something I do because I have a genuine interest in it and I love learning how to do it. I don't have a bunch of cash to fork over up front for an engine (and yes $300, as someone mentioned for an artist price, is a bunch of cash to me).
Should I ever complete a game (that I feel like others would be interested in), I would then like the option to sell it for some modest extra cash. UDK allows me to do this. No up front cost. Should I complete a game and decide to release it, I pay them $99 dollars. Unless I make over $5000, that's all I pay. If I do make over $5000, then certainly I have no problem with sharing 25% of it with EPIC (since I have over $5000 in hand).
All of these conversations of Torque does this a little better, or UDK does that a little better are not as critical to me. I am willing to accept some reasonable limitations if a company provides me a no up-front cost respectable engine.
I really think there are a lot of people out there like me. Think what you want, but I think the UDK and Unity free version announcements are HUGE. I think it's great for gaming in general. I hope to see a dramatic increase in small-medium indie games hitting the internet in the near future. I really hope GG follows the pack and announces a no up-front cost version. If so, then I will certainly take a serious look at it.
Sorry I rambled so long.
11/13/2009 (4:22 pm)
Unless GG can offer a version of Torque (no source obviously, I'm not crazy) for no up-front cost then I am not interested. Sounds cheap probably, but it's just where I am at. Let me explain my thinking...I am a hobbyist/indie, I don't intend to make a living at this. It is something I do because I have a genuine interest in it and I love learning how to do it. I don't have a bunch of cash to fork over up front for an engine (and yes $300, as someone mentioned for an artist price, is a bunch of cash to me).
Should I ever complete a game (that I feel like others would be interested in), I would then like the option to sell it for some modest extra cash. UDK allows me to do this. No up front cost. Should I complete a game and decide to release it, I pay them $99 dollars. Unless I make over $5000, that's all I pay. If I do make over $5000, then certainly I have no problem with sharing 25% of it with EPIC (since I have over $5000 in hand).
All of these conversations of Torque does this a little better, or UDK does that a little better are not as critical to me. I am willing to accept some reasonable limitations if a company provides me a no up-front cost respectable engine.
I really think there are a lot of people out there like me. Think what you want, but I think the UDK and Unity free version announcements are HUGE. I think it's great for gaming in general. I hope to see a dramatic increase in small-medium indie games hitting the internet in the near future. I really hope GG follows the pack and announces a no up-front cost version. If so, then I will certainly take a serious look at it.
Sorry I rambled so long.
#105
This part of the article is what caught my eye, "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."
Does this mean that GG is considering offering T3D without source for free, and then allowing developers to pay after they finish their game and start making money from it? This would allow a lot more people to be able to actually experience T3D and would open the doors for existing Torque users who are out of work, or suffering in the current economy (pay cuts hurt almost as much as job losses right now) and unable to upgrade to T3D to be able to at least play with the new tools. Maybe make something with it that will generate some revenue so they can afford to buy the source, and then progress from there.
I would really like to see this happen. I think it would help a lot of people, and it would retain some Torque users who may be at this moment considering switching engines. I look forward to hearing your decision.
-Laurene
11/13/2009 (4:49 pm)
OK 6 pages already... I really don't have time to read all the comments. Sorry if I duplicate what someone has said, or if my observation has already been addressed.This part of the article is what caught my eye, "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."
Does this mean that GG is considering offering T3D without source for free, and then allowing developers to pay after they finish their game and start making money from it? This would allow a lot more people to be able to actually experience T3D and would open the doors for existing Torque users who are out of work, or suffering in the current economy (pay cuts hurt almost as much as job losses right now) and unable to upgrade to T3D to be able to at least play with the new tools. Maybe make something with it that will generate some revenue so they can afford to buy the source, and then progress from there.
I would really like to see this happen. I think it would help a lot of people, and it would retain some Torque users who may be at this moment considering switching engines. I look forward to hearing your decision.
-Laurene
#106
11/13/2009 (5:29 pm)
I guess there is certainly some merit in what you are saying! If all the other competitors of Torque have made their product available to more people in the Target Market, then they have given their sales pitch to far more people out there. I do think that GG should have a response to this, to at least reclaim some of those people. I know people that I got to school with (for Game Design), that won’t even get a look at the new engine, or feel what it can do because they have to go with something cheaper, and getting something for Free that they can complete the game with, simple or not does make a huge difference to them. I was fortunate enough to save enough quickly to buy T3D, but those that were not were lost to future purchases too because they have no reference to judge, they have only one solution in their mind. 
#107
I agree with most of Brett's post and like the direction that Torque has been going in.
Having made games using the Halo Engine, Unreal 3, and Infernal, and a couple of proprietary engines, there are somethings I would like to see in Torque, out of the box, as a designer.
*A visual scripting toolset like Kismet. This is, hands down, the best part of UE3 for me and every other designer I know who uses it.
*A system like Matinee (or integration of Verve) where I can apply animations to objects in the engine to build a variety of experiences quickly. (Shiva3D has this as well and it's a very neat thing to use). But this has to support Movers (moving platforms) out of the box. I still don't understand why movers are not part of the stock Torque experience.
*An AI system that I can tweak and build upon out of the box. Now I know a lot of people break out into the argument that AI is specific but I disagree and have used generic AI systems to build the specific kinds of behavior that I wanted or used it to show programmers what I wanted so that they could make less resource intensive refined versions.
*Constructor smoothed out and part of the engine like Unreal's Editor.
I am speaking as a designer and not as a programmer. I realize that in the indie space people don't usually think of designers separate from programmers but I do and so have the studios I've worked for. The things that the above requests allow me, as a designer, to do is work in broad strokes. The engine becomes a tool that I can use to quickly prototype ideas and then get those ideas into the hands of other members of the team so they can do the refinements.
Having a built-in BSP allows me to quickly "sketch" out play spaces and define spatial language that an artist can populate or rebuild in a tool like Max. Having movers, something like Verve or Matinee, and a simple ai allows me to quickly sketch out play patterns for moving and playing in the space as well as finding the rhythm that makes encounters fun. (Boy Halo was wonderful for this). Then when I start getting all of those disparate bits and pieces back I can start stitching them together with something like Kismet AND I can get a small team of designers (people who are focusing on on the play and essential experience) up and working fast without them having to learn yet another scripting language. I can also use the BSP tools for building collisions in the refined environment that, again, support the sketching of play.
The problem I have always seen with "indie" game engine design is that the focus has always been on what is convenient for programmers and only recently for artists. There is very little support for designers who aren't coders. I point out to my students that people have been making fun and interesting games a lot longer than we have been programming computers. Requiring designers in this day and age to be coders to make a game shuts an awful lot of great game designers out of the field. An engine that supports them along with the coders and artists is probably going to see a lot more finished projects get made with it.
I applaud Torque for how far it has come and the addition of a lot of the new tools in t3D (like the road editor, terrain system, and river editor) give me hope that at some point we'll see tools like that for designers.
I've been a Torque user since 2001 and I love it and think it's awesome. I've never done anything serious with it as my main work projects have sucked up my life, but as time passes I find myself playing with it more and more wanting to sketch up ideas and frustrated by the hurdles I must jump through to do that. I love it for the capacity to make something that's mine and not something that belongs to some giant corp. The capacity to sit it in front of a bunch of kids at my daughters' afterschool program or school and get them making stuff and see the light in their eyes when I tell them that if they really wanted to they could make something to sell on their own. (Gamemaker and Torque2D are great for this).
The $1000 price tag puts it a bit out of reach for my average college student but once they can get it they're good to go.
That's my $0.02 for what it's worth. I'm starting to ramble so I'll shut up and go back into lurk mode. ;) Please forgive the long post.
11/13/2009 (7:09 pm)
I'm a professional who's an Indie on the side :)I agree with most of Brett's post and like the direction that Torque has been going in.
Having made games using the Halo Engine, Unreal 3, and Infernal, and a couple of proprietary engines, there are somethings I would like to see in Torque, out of the box, as a designer.
*A visual scripting toolset like Kismet. This is, hands down, the best part of UE3 for me and every other designer I know who uses it.
*A system like Matinee (or integration of Verve) where I can apply animations to objects in the engine to build a variety of experiences quickly. (Shiva3D has this as well and it's a very neat thing to use). But this has to support Movers (moving platforms) out of the box. I still don't understand why movers are not part of the stock Torque experience.
*An AI system that I can tweak and build upon out of the box. Now I know a lot of people break out into the argument that AI is specific but I disagree and have used generic AI systems to build the specific kinds of behavior that I wanted or used it to show programmers what I wanted so that they could make less resource intensive refined versions.
*Constructor smoothed out and part of the engine like Unreal's Editor.
I am speaking as a designer and not as a programmer. I realize that in the indie space people don't usually think of designers separate from programmers but I do and so have the studios I've worked for. The things that the above requests allow me, as a designer, to do is work in broad strokes. The engine becomes a tool that I can use to quickly prototype ideas and then get those ideas into the hands of other members of the team so they can do the refinements.
Having a built-in BSP allows me to quickly "sketch" out play spaces and define spatial language that an artist can populate or rebuild in a tool like Max. Having movers, something like Verve or Matinee, and a simple ai allows me to quickly sketch out play patterns for moving and playing in the space as well as finding the rhythm that makes encounters fun. (Boy Halo was wonderful for this). Then when I start getting all of those disparate bits and pieces back I can start stitching them together with something like Kismet AND I can get a small team of designers (people who are focusing on on the play and essential experience) up and working fast without them having to learn yet another scripting language. I can also use the BSP tools for building collisions in the refined environment that, again, support the sketching of play.
The problem I have always seen with "indie" game engine design is that the focus has always been on what is convenient for programmers and only recently for artists. There is very little support for designers who aren't coders. I point out to my students that people have been making fun and interesting games a lot longer than we have been programming computers. Requiring designers in this day and age to be coders to make a game shuts an awful lot of great game designers out of the field. An engine that supports them along with the coders and artists is probably going to see a lot more finished projects get made with it.
I applaud Torque for how far it has come and the addition of a lot of the new tools in t3D (like the road editor, terrain system, and river editor) give me hope that at some point we'll see tools like that for designers.
I've been a Torque user since 2001 and I love it and think it's awesome. I've never done anything serious with it as my main work projects have sucked up my life, but as time passes I find myself playing with it more and more wanting to sketch up ideas and frustrated by the hurdles I must jump through to do that. I love it for the capacity to make something that's mine and not something that belongs to some giant corp. The capacity to sit it in front of a bunch of kids at my daughters' afterschool program or school and get them making stuff and see the light in their eyes when I tell them that if they really wanted to they could make something to sell on their own. (Gamemaker and Torque2D are great for this).
The $1000 price tag puts it a bit out of reach for my average college student but once they can get it they're good to go.
That's my $0.02 for what it's worth. I'm starting to ramble so I'll shut up and go back into lurk mode. ;) Please forgive the long post.
#108
Especially this part:
"Now I know a lot of people break out into the argument that AI is specific but I disagree and have used generic AI systems to build the specific kinds of behavior that I wanted or used it to show programmers what I wanted so that they could make less resource intensive refined versions."
11/13/2009 (7:26 pm)
Since Brett said "even if it's just a "+1" for someone else's comment" I can safelt put a big +1 for everything Allen Turner just said.Especially this part:
"Now I know a lot of people break out into the argument that AI is specific but I disagree and have used generic AI systems to build the specific kinds of behavior that I wanted or used it to show programmers what I wanted so that they could make less resource intensive refined versions."
#109
11/13/2009 (7:41 pm)
@Allen Turner: Thumbs up! Agreed! Couldn't have said it better myself
#110
A source-less version is essential in my mind. A week ago I was saving up my $1000+ (don’t forget add-ons) for T3D because it was clearly the most professional tool for making a game at an affordable price and still have the option to release it. Now, UDK gives me professional tools with zero risk if I never complete a game and options to release if I do (25% is steep, but I don’t plan on making money anytime soon). Suddenly, with another option available, $1000 sounds like a big loss if I fail. (On the other hand, when my C++ skills improve, upgrading to Torque Pro is a lot more realistic than UE3). Please don't think I'm saying you need a free version-- you guys need to eat and frankly Epic doesn't need my money-- but a step in the middle could change a lot of minds.
Along those lines, I’d really, really like to know what your future update cost plan is. Will I need to pay for an upgrade from 1.0 to 1.1? 1.2? 1.5? Theoretically, since UDK is free until you release a game, every update is free as well.
You are highly touting the upcoming features in 1.1 and 1.2, but as a prospective buyer, you haven’t given us anything substantial to get excited about. I know you don’t want to advertise something that may not get released, but please tip your hand a bit and get me excited to buy your product.
Also, a gigantic +1 to everything Allen Turner said.
These things may not be important to everyone, but they are important to me. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion. I am very excited to see what the next few months bring for Torque.
11/13/2009 (8:33 pm)
As a beginner looking for his first engine (and seriously considering T3D), here is what I would like to see…A source-less version is essential in my mind. A week ago I was saving up my $1000+ (don’t forget add-ons) for T3D because it was clearly the most professional tool for making a game at an affordable price and still have the option to release it. Now, UDK gives me professional tools with zero risk if I never complete a game and options to release if I do (25% is steep, but I don’t plan on making money anytime soon). Suddenly, with another option available, $1000 sounds like a big loss if I fail. (On the other hand, when my C++ skills improve, upgrading to Torque Pro is a lot more realistic than UE3). Please don't think I'm saying you need a free version-- you guys need to eat and frankly Epic doesn't need my money-- but a step in the middle could change a lot of minds.
Along those lines, I’d really, really like to know what your future update cost plan is. Will I need to pay for an upgrade from 1.0 to 1.1? 1.2? 1.5? Theoretically, since UDK is free until you release a game, every update is free as well.
You are highly touting the upcoming features in 1.1 and 1.2, but as a prospective buyer, you haven’t given us anything substantial to get excited about. I know you don’t want to advertise something that may not get released, but please tip your hand a bit and get me excited to buy your product.
Also, a gigantic +1 to everything Allen Turner said.
These things may not be important to everyone, but they are important to me. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion. I am very excited to see what the next few months bring for Torque.
#111
11/13/2009 (9:39 pm)
I also have to give a big +1 to what Allen Turner just said he was spot on.
#112
as for licensing here is my idea.
take a page out of tge and tgea. and twist it up a bit:
Torque 3D Artist edition - $199 - No Source Code
Torque 3D Indie Edition - $499 - Source COde + Royalty like tge/tgea
and ofc: T3D Pro $1k
11/13/2009 (10:27 pm)
yet another +1 for everything allen said.as for licensing here is my idea.
take a page out of tge and tgea. and twist it up a bit:
Torque 3D Artist edition - $199 - No Source Code
Torque 3D Indie Edition - $499 - Source COde + Royalty like tge/tgea
and ofc: T3D Pro $1k
#113
11/13/2009 (10:43 pm)
I don't remember anything about Royalty fees, I always thought if you bought a license you could put as many games as want with out having to worry about the royalty fees. I know there used to be a Indie license and a commercial license, and you had to upgrade to a commercial after you sold $250,000. 
#114
TGE/A never had royalty fees. Nor does T3D, or any piece of Torque technology for that matter.
11/13/2009 (11:12 pm)
@RolandTGE/A never had royalty fees. Nor does T3D, or any piece of Torque technology for that matter.
#115
11/13/2009 (11:35 pm)
That good to hear,because that's why I kept upgrading. If they add Royalty fees I probably would look for a free engine or another route.
#116
11/14/2009 (3:32 am)
well ok i guess my wording is kinda all wrong, lol. My Bad
#117
11/14/2009 (4:01 am)
Why is everyone going on price? If you all signed up for the beta ya would not have to now pay $1000 for Torque 3D, It was all offered to everyone, it is not GG fault that You did not buy it then, is it. 
#118
I really like UDK's license over T3D's. I'm guessing most hobbyist won't produce a game that will go to market, but they like playing around with technology with the path open to make money. Does this hurt the engine at all? Torque needs a free full featured non-source version with similiar terms.
I've played around with UDK as well. The thing that really struck me as an advantage over torque was all the content included in the content browser. I caught myself thinking, T3D needs this. It was exciting to have all that stuff right there and being able to put it directly in the game without going to other programs to create content. Having something like this where the hobbyist can make something rapidly would draw in customers. I guess you could say T3D will have content packs that will provide that. As a hobbyist I don't want to have to pay $500 or whatever the price is going to be for content packs.
Here is something I would do. I don't know if it is viable or has ever been looked at, but MMO's charge a monthly fee to maintain the game. I wouldn't mind paying $14.99 a month for access to an engine like Torque. I think most people wouldn't mind. Content packs could be thought of as expansions that could be purchased for a fair sum similiar to a mmo expansion. An arguement to this model would be people would get the engine initially then cancel. I'm sure a system could be easily invoked that talks to a GG server to check for subscription validity upon use, if invalid only the "free" version components would work. I believe this would also encourage GG to produce updates to the engine in a timely manner to maintain its' customers.
Anyhow, my two cents.
11/14/2009 (4:39 am)
Good blog Brett, glad GG is addressing this. I really like UDK's license over T3D's. I'm guessing most hobbyist won't produce a game that will go to market, but they like playing around with technology with the path open to make money. Does this hurt the engine at all? Torque needs a free full featured non-source version with similiar terms.
I've played around with UDK as well. The thing that really struck me as an advantage over torque was all the content included in the content browser. I caught myself thinking, T3D needs this. It was exciting to have all that stuff right there and being able to put it directly in the game without going to other programs to create content. Having something like this where the hobbyist can make something rapidly would draw in customers. I guess you could say T3D will have content packs that will provide that. As a hobbyist I don't want to have to pay $500 or whatever the price is going to be for content packs.
Here is something I would do. I don't know if it is viable or has ever been looked at, but MMO's charge a monthly fee to maintain the game. I wouldn't mind paying $14.99 a month for access to an engine like Torque. I think most people wouldn't mind. Content packs could be thought of as expansions that could be purchased for a fair sum similiar to a mmo expansion. An arguement to this model would be people would get the engine initially then cancel. I'm sure a system could be easily invoked that talks to a GG server to check for subscription validity upon use, if invalid only the "free" version components would work. I believe this would also encourage GG to produce updates to the engine in a timely manner to maintain its' customers.
Anyhow, my two cents.
#119
But it doesn't matter if T3D has a better rendering.
Actually i have worked with Unreal 2 for a while and i think it is a stable gamedev platform.
If i am a new T3D user,the first 10 minutes i'll realize T3D is fairly easy to crash. The bug list is really huge,thus T3D has some very serious bugs into the rendering code.
The most important thing for me is the technology to be stable,that i can rely on it.
To be quite honest about it,if i had a serious company for gamedev,i would never buy T3D. I would go with Vision,Unreal, i would go with a stable platform,that have been polished,that have been produced over 100 AAA titles.
T3D is not my first or second engine.
The only reason i am here is the price.
11/14/2009 (5:00 am)
Nice blog, Bret.But it doesn't matter if T3D has a better rendering.
Actually i have worked with Unreal 2 for a while and i think it is a stable gamedev platform.
If i am a new T3D user,the first 10 minutes i'll realize T3D is fairly easy to crash. The bug list is really huge,thus T3D has some very serious bugs into the rendering code.
The most important thing for me is the technology to be stable,that i can rely on it.
To be quite honest about it,if i had a serious company for gamedev,i would never buy T3D. I would go with Vision,Unreal, i would go with a stable platform,that have been polished,that have been produced over 100 AAA titles.
T3D is not my first or second engine.
The only reason i am here is the price.
#120
Even if it was just 1 binary-only license, I'd be much happier.
If an artist is making one model or a programmer is supplying one bit of functionality, there is no way they are going to pay $1000, $300, or even $99. If I could add their work and pass them the binary to have them make sure it all works, I would have a MUCH easier time finding help.
To confuse matters: I assume an artist can make all the models he wants and export them as DTS without a license and I can use those models in my game. But if the artist wants to see the models in the game while I'm developing, he needs a license? But if the artist was just a beta tester, I'm almost certain he wouldn't need a license. At least I hope beta testers don't need a license. What about alpha testing? Do alpha testers need licenses? Even if they are just friends helping me out?
11/14/2009 (5:26 am)
I like Mike's comment:Quote:I would really like to see T3D licensing be amended to at least allow each Professional license X number of Binary-only licenses.
Even if it was just 1 binary-only license, I'd be much happier.
If an artist is making one model or a programmer is supplying one bit of functionality, there is no way they are going to pay $1000, $300, or even $99. If I could add their work and pass them the binary to have them make sure it all works, I would have a MUCH easier time finding help.
To confuse matters: I assume an artist can make all the models he wants and export them as DTS without a license and I can use those models in my game. But if the artist wants to see the models in the game while I'm developing, he needs a license? But if the artist was just a beta tester, I'm almost certain he wouldn't need a license. At least I hope beta testers don't need a license. What about alpha testing? Do alpha testers need licenses? Even if they are just friends helping me out?
Torque 3D Owner Peter Bengtson
I'm interested to hear about detailed plans for what GG has up its sleeve. Including time frames.