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.
#122
Something where I could pay the $15 a month or whatever for so many months would be fine. Hell I'd even pay 200 more, making it 1,200 in the end to have a cheaper upfront method to get the engine. But that then boils down to people getting the engine and then skipping out on paying. If the user doesn't pay completely then the license is void. And all private access is removed.
The problem most people are going to have with T3D, whether they be existing customers, or would be customers, is going to be the $1,000 price tag. And it's not so much the cost as it is most people don't have that much money to drop all at once. And if people are like me, saving up doesn't work, I'll find something else to get interested in quick, or move on to something that I can afford in the right now.
The removal of TGEA is also really going to hurt you, as I think that would spawn a lot of T3D sales, it's cheaper and still decent. Gives people a step stool to get their feet wet and start to learn. Not everybody who wants to make games is a programmer, and paying 1k for something you have no idea how to even go about using is a big turn off. TGEA was enough like TGE that almost all the resources on the site for TGE/A were useable and are a great learning method.
Also I think you guys really need to look at how you do versioning and updating on the engine. There have been a few times in the past where things would be updated or fixed and then a new price tag thrown on it. In my opinion that is horribly wrong. I don't have to buy a new tv every time my cable company adds a channel.
I think the engine needs to have a strict feature list, and those are the only things that are updated, and those updates should never be charged for. Now where you make the money is by making addons for different features, like the lighting system (even though that should be built in in the first place).
I'll definitely stick around, but I'll never be able to afford T3D at the current pricing model.
11/14/2009 (5:59 am)
My problem with a subscription model is the fact that I'm going to end up paying more than $1,000 for the engine, as I would assume that model would continuously charge forever.Something where I could pay the $15 a month or whatever for so many months would be fine. Hell I'd even pay 200 more, making it 1,200 in the end to have a cheaper upfront method to get the engine. But that then boils down to people getting the engine and then skipping out on paying. If the user doesn't pay completely then the license is void. And all private access is removed.
The problem most people are going to have with T3D, whether they be existing customers, or would be customers, is going to be the $1,000 price tag. And it's not so much the cost as it is most people don't have that much money to drop all at once. And if people are like me, saving up doesn't work, I'll find something else to get interested in quick, or move on to something that I can afford in the right now.
The removal of TGEA is also really going to hurt you, as I think that would spawn a lot of T3D sales, it's cheaper and still decent. Gives people a step stool to get their feet wet and start to learn. Not everybody who wants to make games is a programmer, and paying 1k for something you have no idea how to even go about using is a big turn off. TGEA was enough like TGE that almost all the resources on the site for TGE/A were useable and are a great learning method.
Also I think you guys really need to look at how you do versioning and updating on the engine. There have been a few times in the past where things would be updated or fixed and then a new price tag thrown on it. In my opinion that is horribly wrong. I don't have to buy a new tv every time my cable company adds a channel.
I think the engine needs to have a strict feature list, and those are the only things that are updated, and those updates should never be charged for. Now where you make the money is by making addons for different features, like the lighting system (even though that should be built in in the first place).
I'll definitely stick around, but I'll never be able to afford T3D at the current pricing model.
#123
This seems like a rant towards Epic and UDK maybe to save ground or prove something (wich may be in T3D, but never been proven in a real game yet), and that should have been below you :(.
Fact is, in UDK you dont need source because of the powerful scripting (same goes for unity, not T3D as such), you dont even need money to start making your game (same goes for unity now, not T3D), your artists dont need to spend money on anything (same goes for unity now, not T3D), BUT, you get a AAA proven engine, the first 5000$ you make are royalty free, and later you can purchase the full license if you wish for UT3 (lets call it UT3.5 as its improved for UDK).
And, your making 75% of something (25% goes to royalties), thats a whole lot better then 100% of nothing, considering you get it all for free to begin with (99$ on release though, oh noes! lol).
While this is a well writting article, it has absolutely no hold in real life, and ive used T3D since beta (and Unity and many more), and while T3D has potential, its is no where near the state where you can do such a article ranting unreal engine.
Dont get me wrong, i like T3D, but i also like UDK, but Unity.. not so much, but thats a different story.
Also, you forgot to mention that UDK is currently in BETA, and plenty of things are around the cornor (according to Epic, UDK will have monthly updates).
In the end, i actually think this article is just helping Epic and UDK to get noticed, and i think it will backfire on you later on.
11/14/2009 (9:55 am)
I agree a little bit with Tomas Hron.This seems like a rant towards Epic and UDK maybe to save ground or prove something (wich may be in T3D, but never been proven in a real game yet), and that should have been below you :(.
Fact is, in UDK you dont need source because of the powerful scripting (same goes for unity, not T3D as such), you dont even need money to start making your game (same goes for unity now, not T3D), your artists dont need to spend money on anything (same goes for unity now, not T3D), BUT, you get a AAA proven engine, the first 5000$ you make are royalty free, and later you can purchase the full license if you wish for UT3 (lets call it UT3.5 as its improved for UDK).
And, your making 75% of something (25% goes to royalties), thats a whole lot better then 100% of nothing, considering you get it all for free to begin with (99$ on release though, oh noes! lol).
While this is a well writting article, it has absolutely no hold in real life, and ive used T3D since beta (and Unity and many more), and while T3D has potential, its is no where near the state where you can do such a article ranting unreal engine.
Dont get me wrong, i like T3D, but i also like UDK, but Unity.. not so much, but thats a different story.
Also, you forgot to mention that UDK is currently in BETA, and plenty of things are around the cornor (according to Epic, UDK will have monthly updates).
In the end, i actually think this article is just helping Epic and UDK to get noticed, and i think it will backfire on you later on.
#124
Here is what I think needs to happen to those tiers:
Tier 1: Free, watermarked, Non-Commercial only
Tier 2: $500, non watermarked, licensed version
Tier 3: $1000, Source available, licensed version
The big problem with getting into T3D development as an indie/hobbiest is the gamble you take on the engine. The question I ask myself is, "If I spend $500/$1000, am I going to finish something to make use that $500/$1000?". The answer I have came up with currently is no, its too much money to gamble away on myself. What the revised tiers would mean for most people is they can download T3D, have the freedom to learn the engine, and create a game without the gamble. When they feel capable of releasing a product, they purchase the Tier 2 license then watermark is stripped away and they can now work on getting a game published.
Eric literally took the words right out of my mouth. I think his idea is a total win/win for everyone. After months of researching different engines, I decided to go with T3D for a game I am working on. However, with a family of 5 and going back to college, I simply don't have $1000 to throw into something with no assurance that it will work for my project. I can't risk the gamble. But if I could download the T3D suite and use it for as long as I want (without limitations), I could really see if the engine is going to work for my game and for my skillset. If I can learn the tools, scripting, and code-behind, my game get's developed on your platform and my enthusiasm at making the game on your platform will cause me to dive in to supporting and using your product long-term. We both win!
So I definitely agree with Eric. Tier 1 should be a free watermarked, non-commercial use license so developers can see if the engine works for their projects. Hey, if T3D is half of what you guys claim it is, you have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain!
Thanks for asking!
11/14/2009 (11:04 am)
Quoting Eric (Post #16):Here is what I think needs to happen to those tiers:
Tier 1: Free, watermarked, Non-Commercial only
Tier 2: $500, non watermarked, licensed version
Tier 3: $1000, Source available, licensed version
The big problem with getting into T3D development as an indie/hobbiest is the gamble you take on the engine. The question I ask myself is, "If I spend $500/$1000, am I going to finish something to make use that $500/$1000?". The answer I have came up with currently is no, its too much money to gamble away on myself. What the revised tiers would mean for most people is they can download T3D, have the freedom to learn the engine, and create a game without the gamble. When they feel capable of releasing a product, they purchase the Tier 2 license then watermark is stripped away and they can now work on getting a game published.
Eric literally took the words right out of my mouth. I think his idea is a total win/win for everyone. After months of researching different engines, I decided to go with T3D for a game I am working on. However, with a family of 5 and going back to college, I simply don't have $1000 to throw into something with no assurance that it will work for my project. I can't risk the gamble. But if I could download the T3D suite and use it for as long as I want (without limitations), I could really see if the engine is going to work for my game and for my skillset. If I can learn the tools, scripting, and code-behind, my game get's developed on your platform and my enthusiasm at making the game on your platform will cause me to dive in to supporting and using your product long-term. We both win!
So I definitely agree with Eric. Tier 1 should be a free watermarked, non-commercial use license so developers can see if the engine works for their projects. Hey, if T3D is half of what you guys claim it is, you have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain!
Thanks for asking!
#125
11/14/2009 (12:01 pm)
Where can I see application of the above high-fidelity terrain? As the only thing I saw in the demo was sand, and very, very, very, very under par shadows. 
#126
Tier 2: $500, non watermarked, licensed version (you still need wages)
Tier 3: $1000, Source available, licensed version (when i go pro)
11/14/2009 (12:10 pm)
Tier 1: Free, watermarked, Non-Commercial limited demo onlyTier 2: $500, non watermarked, licensed version (you still need wages)
Tier 3: $1000, Source available, licensed version (when i go pro)
#127
+1 to what Ted S. said about streaming terrain and objects, and the idea of some way of making information already available on the forums more accessible to people looking for help. (maybe the website/forum upgrades, which I think was mentioned not too long ago, will go some ways to address that latter point. )
+1 to what Allen T. said about an AI system.
As to price, I don't mind the $1000 for the pro version as long as it means free upgrades for a reasonable amount-of-time/upgrade-of-features.
e.g. It sounds like that what I was expecting for Torque3D(which may have more to do with wishful thinking on my part based on general forum comments than on promises by GG staff) won't be in the engine until 1.1 or 1.2 or later. I won't get into specifics but I like a lot of what I have heard Tom Spilman say about the direction he would like T3D to go in regarding features, and I hope he gets more time and support to make it happen... sooner rather than later.
11/14/2009 (2:11 pm)
From a quick skimming of the comments here so far...+1 to what Ted S. said about streaming terrain and objects, and the idea of some way of making information already available on the forums more accessible to people looking for help. (maybe the website/forum upgrades, which I think was mentioned not too long ago, will go some ways to address that latter point. )
+1 to what Allen T. said about an AI system.
As to price, I don't mind the $1000 for the pro version as long as it means free upgrades for a reasonable amount-of-time/upgrade-of-features.
e.g. It sounds like that what I was expecting for Torque3D(which may have more to do with wishful thinking on my part based on general forum comments than on promises by GG staff) won't be in the engine until 1.1 or 1.2 or later. I won't get into specifics but I like a lot of what I have heard Tom Spilman say about the direction he would like T3D to go in regarding features, and I hope he gets more time and support to make it happen... sooner rather than later.
#128
@Bo: I think people spend so much time on well it costs me nothing if I fail and don't look at the bigger picture. If you were to say require $100,000 worth of revenue to stay afloat (say to pay 2 individuals or 1 and some contract work, whatever it is) that is going to cost you $23,750 a year. While it might take 3-5 years to develop such a product, even if you factor that in the cost is much higher than most of the tools out in the market right now. You adjust that value even more to say $200,000 and you are looking at the kind of money that could be used to pay an employee. Too many people look at the upfront cost and see the lack of a barrier, but if you have ANY plans of being successful you have to look at the whole picture. If the toolset is worth that much to you then it is a good deal, if it is not be aware of that cost the cost of failure will be quite cheaper than the cost of success.
11/14/2009 (4:20 pm)
@Picasso: Everything crashes, that being said there are still a few holes that need fixed up. For a 1.0 release with a drastic rendering change, things worked out pretty well. I am hoping by 1.1 or 1.2 that a lot of the little issues do get worked out though, but in general it hasn't stopped us from moving forward and working around some of the issues. I imagine the presentation element for T3D is seriously lacking though and hopefully that is rectified in 1.1 with a better demo to illustrate what the engine can do. The current demo zones are subpar to downright bad.@Bo: I think people spend so much time on well it costs me nothing if I fail and don't look at the bigger picture. If you were to say require $100,000 worth of revenue to stay afloat (say to pay 2 individuals or 1 and some contract work, whatever it is) that is going to cost you $23,750 a year. While it might take 3-5 years to develop such a product, even if you factor that in the cost is much higher than most of the tools out in the market right now. You adjust that value even more to say $200,000 and you are looking at the kind of money that could be used to pay an employee. Too many people look at the upfront cost and see the lack of a barrier, but if you have ANY plans of being successful you have to look at the whole picture. If the toolset is worth that much to you then it is a good deal, if it is not be aware of that cost the cost of failure will be quite cheaper than the cost of success.
#129
I keep seeing people basically echoing $500 and $1000 is ok. But these prices are not qualified.
$1000 for a pro license where **EVERYONE** on the team is required to fork out $1000 to access any part of the engine is still completely unreasonable for indie teams. Especially in the current economy.
I understand the developers at GG need to feed their families too. But requiring a team of 20 volunteers to each cough up $1000 for a grand total of $20,000 for the team is just too much. Artists in general are NOT INTERESTED in a $1000 game engine. They just want to make the art, and be able to test it. Quest Writers absolutely are NOT INTERESTED in a $1000 game engine just to enter their text into the scene. Musicians also are NOT INTERESTED in paying $1000 for a game engine just to test their sounds in the environment, they would rather spend that money on music equipment. Worldbuilders MIGHT be interested in a non-source license for $100 or $200 but $500 is too much just to be able to access the world editor. Especially when many of them are out of work and struggling just to put food on their own table. The only developers on the team who actually ARE interested in a $1000 engine for long term use are the programmers and the designers. (Which I absolutely must concur with Allen Turner here - designers have been creating great games for centuries without ever learning a single line of computer code! Games date back as far as ancient Egypt, maybe farther. Limiting design tools to programmers only cuts out a huge design audience.) Demanding a high price from every member of the development team is just prohibitive to using the engine for volunteer teams. Most, if not all, the people on GG started out as a volunteer of some sort, working on a game with no funding and no budget. And if there had been a $1000 price tag on TGE or TGEA, they would have used something else.
And it is this perspective that this blog post addresses. What about the new people who are just starting out in game development, who have no funding, no budget, but do have the talent and drive to bring their dreams to life? These people don't have $1000, and they're not GOING to have $1000 for any time soon. Unity's royalty-free license that you only have to pay for it when your game launches looks pretty good. I'm not so sure about the 25% royalty of the UDK license, as the research I've done shows that after development costs, business expenses, and incidentals, a company only profits from about 25% of the income to begin with. And the UDK license is demanding that 25% right off the top, BEFORE expenses are calculated, so they very well may be demanding 100% of the profits from the game. That makes me really nervous to even try UDK. But Unity seems like a viable option. Plus, they have Iphone support so you can tap into that hot market if you can make your game fast enough.
Edited to remove off topic discussion. - SB
I think Garage Games really needs to consider the immediate economic climate, and the 100 or so new developers they have tallied who are just joining the game development scene every week. They need real options, not excuses. Do what GG has done through all their past up through TGEA and give new developers the chance to make the game of their dreams with Torque. So Unity and UDK have presented a licensing challenge. Make it work.
FREE - Binaries and splash screen, license fee of $250 due at launch, $1000 due at first $5000 profit margin or 5% royalty for first year of sales.
$250 - Source and Splash screen. $1000 due at first $5000 profit margin or 5% royalty for first year of sales.
$1000 - Source. No restrictions.
Put it in the reach of the people you want to sell it to. Would you rather sell half-way five licenses at $250 or one license at $500? Would you rather sell 50 half-way licenses at $250 or two full licenses at $1000? These are the questions you have to ask yourself. Because like it or not, the $1000 pricetag is cutting out a huge portion of your potential audience. And they are migrating over to the free engines, because they can't afford $1000, regardless of how attractive the tools are. Sometimes you take a lesser engine because it's what you can afford, not because you like it better. We all do the best we can with what we have. That's all we can do.
Give them the tools they need to do their best.
God bless you,
-Sparkling
11/14/2009 (4:46 pm)
+1 to Allen Turner.I keep seeing people basically echoing $500 and $1000 is ok. But these prices are not qualified.
$1000 for a pro license where **EVERYONE** on the team is required to fork out $1000 to access any part of the engine is still completely unreasonable for indie teams. Especially in the current economy.
I understand the developers at GG need to feed their families too. But requiring a team of 20 volunteers to each cough up $1000 for a grand total of $20,000 for the team is just too much. Artists in general are NOT INTERESTED in a $1000 game engine. They just want to make the art, and be able to test it. Quest Writers absolutely are NOT INTERESTED in a $1000 game engine just to enter their text into the scene. Musicians also are NOT INTERESTED in paying $1000 for a game engine just to test their sounds in the environment, they would rather spend that money on music equipment. Worldbuilders MIGHT be interested in a non-source license for $100 or $200 but $500 is too much just to be able to access the world editor. Especially when many of them are out of work and struggling just to put food on their own table. The only developers on the team who actually ARE interested in a $1000 engine for long term use are the programmers and the designers. (Which I absolutely must concur with Allen Turner here - designers have been creating great games for centuries without ever learning a single line of computer code! Games date back as far as ancient Egypt, maybe farther. Limiting design tools to programmers only cuts out a huge design audience.) Demanding a high price from every member of the development team is just prohibitive to using the engine for volunteer teams. Most, if not all, the people on GG started out as a volunteer of some sort, working on a game with no funding and no budget. And if there had been a $1000 price tag on TGE or TGEA, they would have used something else.
And it is this perspective that this blog post addresses. What about the new people who are just starting out in game development, who have no funding, no budget, but do have the talent and drive to bring their dreams to life? These people don't have $1000, and they're not GOING to have $1000 for any time soon. Unity's royalty-free license that you only have to pay for it when your game launches looks pretty good. I'm not so sure about the 25% royalty of the UDK license, as the research I've done shows that after development costs, business expenses, and incidentals, a company only profits from about 25% of the income to begin with. And the UDK license is demanding that 25% right off the top, BEFORE expenses are calculated, so they very well may be demanding 100% of the profits from the game. That makes me really nervous to even try UDK. But Unity seems like a viable option. Plus, they have Iphone support so you can tap into that hot market if you can make your game fast enough.
Edited to remove off topic discussion. - SB
I think Garage Games really needs to consider the immediate economic climate, and the 100 or so new developers they have tallied who are just joining the game development scene every week. They need real options, not excuses. Do what GG has done through all their past up through TGEA and give new developers the chance to make the game of their dreams with Torque. So Unity and UDK have presented a licensing challenge. Make it work.
FREE - Binaries and splash screen, license fee of $250 due at launch, $1000 due at first $5000 profit margin or 5% royalty for first year of sales.
$250 - Source and Splash screen. $1000 due at first $5000 profit margin or 5% royalty for first year of sales.
$1000 - Source. No restrictions.
Put it in the reach of the people you want to sell it to. Would you rather sell half-way five licenses at $250 or one license at $500? Would you rather sell 50 half-way licenses at $250 or two full licenses at $1000? These are the questions you have to ask yourself. Because like it or not, the $1000 pricetag is cutting out a huge portion of your potential audience. And they are migrating over to the free engines, because they can't afford $1000, regardless of how attractive the tools are. Sometimes you take a lesser engine because it's what you can afford, not because you like it better. We all do the best we can with what we have. That's all we can do.
Give them the tools they need to do their best.
God bless you,
-Sparkling
#130
TGE Free ($199 do at launch of game)
T3D
$500 Indie
$250 upgrade Indie (for previous users)
$1500 Commercial
$1000 Upgrade commercial (for previous users)
11/14/2009 (5:20 pm)
Why not go back to the way GG used to do it: Indie and commercial license.TGE Free ($199 do at launch of game)
T3D
$500 Indie
$250 upgrade Indie (for previous users)
$1500 Commercial
$1000 Upgrade commercial (for previous users)
#131
Edited to remove off topic discussion. - SB
As acknowledged, there needs to be a lower entry point into Torque 3D. It has been recognized, a blog written about it, and I am sure the excellent posts in the comments are all being factored in. That's kind of the point of putting this stuff out there, at least for GG, where community feedback matters.
11/14/2009 (5:43 pm)
It is clear that Torque 3D needs a lower entry point and as the blog clearly shows, it is coming.Edited to remove off topic discussion. - SB
As acknowledged, there needs to be a lower entry point into Torque 3D. It has been recognized, a blog written about it, and I am sure the excellent posts in the comments are all being factored in. That's kind of the point of putting this stuff out there, at least for GG, where community feedback matters.
#132
1. Those who need full access to the engine top to bottom. Mostly programmers here. I feel $1000 is a fair cost here as you aren't going to have a ton of volunteer work at this level. That being said, some might not need the building tools though.
2. Level designers. Those who are going to be using the Builder tools and any further toolsets that come out down the road. This could include some artists as well or could be your artists depending on skill set.
3. Those who need to do some kind of scripting work or need to add something into the game that doesn't involve extensive use of the building tools.
4. Those who simply need to get assets into the game to make sure they behave as they should.
While 1 is addressed and I think 2 is eventualy going to be addressed, 3 and 4 still need something that is cost effective. I am sure have some more "team" options available if you own 1 or 2 full licenses wouldn't hurt either.
11/14/2009 (5:51 pm)
@Sparkling: Good post. I really see about 3 or 4 needs from the engine as a team.1. Those who need full access to the engine top to bottom. Mostly programmers here. I feel $1000 is a fair cost here as you aren't going to have a ton of volunteer work at this level. That being said, some might not need the building tools though.
2. Level designers. Those who are going to be using the Builder tools and any further toolsets that come out down the road. This could include some artists as well or could be your artists depending on skill set.
3. Those who need to do some kind of scripting work or need to add something into the game that doesn't involve extensive use of the building tools.
4. Those who simply need to get assets into the game to make sure they behave as they should.
While 1 is addressed and I think 2 is eventualy going to be addressed, 3 and 4 still need something that is cost effective. I am sure have some more "team" options available if you own 1 or 2 full licenses wouldn't hurt either.
#133
1) TGE Free, just add it as a bonus for signing up for a GG account. Maybe Open Source it under an OSI approved license in the future. For now, push at least some adoption and people coming to the web site with it. Does not need any presence on the web site other than forums, which can be taken off the main page "recent forums" posts. You can do this "silently" without any big splashes/press releases, etc... just let the news ripple out.
A lot of people would choose a full source + kickass networking TGE over a free Unity, myself included. I just spent some quality time with TGE and it is still valid, especially for bootstrap indies/hobbiests (ArcaneFX2, right?). Don't shove it under a rug, use every tooth and nail at your disposal... and get some goodwill + helping hobbiests/indies messaging back into all our lives.
There are also a lot of tech/resources that can be easily translated to Torque 3D from people working with it... and anyone buzzing around will constantly have Torque 3D coolness to look at and wish they were using that instead. Also, the transition from TGE -> Torque 3D is relatively smooth and that can be useful on getting people moved over to the Torque 3D Binary/Source licenses.
I could go on about this... but a minimal distraction TGE free with every GG account no later than X-mas, please.. what a swell stocking stuffer and "Merry X-mas Blog!" :)
2) Torque 3D Binary: $99 value price, see Houdini, Unreal, etc picking this price point. Remember who you are trying to get here (mostly ARTISTS which push more engine sales and people testing the waters who may pick up a full source license) AND that this is per seat. $250/seat here would do some business, but likely stagnation. I don't think over $250 is much of an option for lowering entry barriers.
3) Torque 3D Source: $1000/seat ... absolutely no reason to adjust this
... and then refine this to push harder on adoption and getting more people working with core tech once possible. ;)
11/14/2009 (6:34 pm)
A few thoughts, could be good, could be not, but here they are:1) TGE Free, just add it as a bonus for signing up for a GG account. Maybe Open Source it under an OSI approved license in the future. For now, push at least some adoption and people coming to the web site with it. Does not need any presence on the web site other than forums, which can be taken off the main page "recent forums" posts. You can do this "silently" without any big splashes/press releases, etc... just let the news ripple out.
A lot of people would choose a full source + kickass networking TGE over a free Unity, myself included. I just spent some quality time with TGE and it is still valid, especially for bootstrap indies/hobbiests (ArcaneFX2, right?). Don't shove it under a rug, use every tooth and nail at your disposal... and get some goodwill + helping hobbiests/indies messaging back into all our lives.
There are also a lot of tech/resources that can be easily translated to Torque 3D from people working with it... and anyone buzzing around will constantly have Torque 3D coolness to look at and wish they were using that instead. Also, the transition from TGE -> Torque 3D is relatively smooth and that can be useful on getting people moved over to the Torque 3D Binary/Source licenses.
I could go on about this... but a minimal distraction TGE free with every GG account no later than X-mas, please.. what a swell stocking stuffer and "Merry X-mas Blog!" :)
2) Torque 3D Binary: $99 value price, see Houdini, Unreal, etc picking this price point. Remember who you are trying to get here (mostly ARTISTS which push more engine sales and people testing the waters who may pick up a full source license) AND that this is per seat. $250/seat here would do some business, but likely stagnation. I don't think over $250 is much of an option for lowering entry barriers.
3) Torque 3D Source: $1000/seat ... absolutely no reason to adjust this
... and then refine this to push harder on adoption and getting more people working with core tech once possible. ;)
#134
Ok lets forget about licensing, publishing for diff formats etc. I just want to know...can you make really good games with this free UDK 3. Games like adventure games "Penny Arcade Adventures: Episode 1" or "Rokkitball" etc.
Thanks for your help and advice!
11/14/2009 (8:01 pm)
Hi! All this time i was thinking to purchase the torque 3d engine but as soon as i heard UDK 3 i was like "OMG omg omg... unreal engine 3!" But deep inside me i had this feeling there might be a catch. I saw some of the trailers on the site and man it looked good. Im a noob wiv games engine, if the graphics & effects etc looks kool id love it. Today i read this blog and my excitement went down. Ok lets forget about licensing, publishing for diff formats etc. I just want to know...can you make really good games with this free UDK 3. Games like adventure games "Penny Arcade Adventures: Episode 1" or "Rokkitball" etc.
Thanks for your help and advice!
#135
I had this idea of getting "invitations" a la Google, and with each invitation cames a TGE indie license. Specially good for distributing among people we know would make good use of it. Even such invitation could include a discount for T3D, nothing important, just to add buzz.
The idea of a free TGE on new accounts would be probably interesting as well.
11/14/2009 (8:06 pm)
+1 To latest Josh post (although I still vote for a FREE binary, 100 bucks sounds ok on your context).I had this idea of getting "invitations" a la Google, and with each invitation cames a TGE indie license. Specially good for distributing among people we know would make good use of it. Even such invitation could include a discount for T3D, nothing important, just to add buzz.
The idea of a free TGE on new accounts would be probably interesting as well.
#136
I have been pleasantly surprised to see the current trend in “free” options available in game development, to help drive independent game development, offer hobbyists an affordable option and provide an option for students wanting to learn more about game development. Garage games has always been in my mind as the first place to go for an affordable, yet high quality engine solution.
So, to the point; my suggestion would be that there definitely needs to be some sort of “low cost entry point” for anyone wanting to enter into game development. Whilst free would certainly be good (and possibly now needed to compete with the likes of unity) I think a paid option would still be feasible. But I think this needs to be a lot less than the $500 artist license that has been suggested. I would say that the price point around $150USD-$250USD would be much more affordable for those “hobbyists” or “students” this type of “entry point” license caters for (although for me this would have been 2-3 weeks wages whilst I was a university student). A lower cost to entry allows for more “new” (or even existing) customers to develop with Torque. I said in a previous post (different thread) that the $1000 was way too expensive for me. The free “model limited” option is good for a trial; but there needs to be a step in between to cater for the non-commercial customers that want to develop with Torque. As a hobbyist, I would love to see a cheaper option to allow me to produce something with Torque. If I get to the point where I feel this is something I want to sell, then I would upgrade to the professional licence in a heartbeat.
I'll finish with this thought: I think if a hobbyist / student / non-commercial / etc, etc customer is entering the market for a 3D engine and considers Unity (free), UDK (free) or Torque ($500-$1000) I think they are most likely to go with one of the free options. Once they learn and are competent with whatever option they select, I think they are then much more likely to purchase a commercial license with the engine they are now comfortable with and effectively already committed to.
Chris
11/14/2009 (10:51 pm)
Hello all,I have been pleasantly surprised to see the current trend in “free” options available in game development, to help drive independent game development, offer hobbyists an affordable option and provide an option for students wanting to learn more about game development. Garage games has always been in my mind as the first place to go for an affordable, yet high quality engine solution.
So, to the point; my suggestion would be that there definitely needs to be some sort of “low cost entry point” for anyone wanting to enter into game development. Whilst free would certainly be good (and possibly now needed to compete with the likes of unity) I think a paid option would still be feasible. But I think this needs to be a lot less than the $500 artist license that has been suggested. I would say that the price point around $150USD-$250USD would be much more affordable for those “hobbyists” or “students” this type of “entry point” license caters for (although for me this would have been 2-3 weeks wages whilst I was a university student). A lower cost to entry allows for more “new” (or even existing) customers to develop with Torque. I said in a previous post (different thread) that the $1000 was way too expensive for me. The free “model limited” option is good for a trial; but there needs to be a step in between to cater for the non-commercial customers that want to develop with Torque. As a hobbyist, I would love to see a cheaper option to allow me to produce something with Torque. If I get to the point where I feel this is something I want to sell, then I would upgrade to the professional licence in a heartbeat.
I'll finish with this thought: I think if a hobbyist / student / non-commercial / etc, etc customer is entering the market for a 3D engine and considers Unity (free), UDK (free) or Torque ($500-$1000) I think they are most likely to go with one of the free options. Once they learn and are competent with whatever option they select, I think they are then much more likely to purchase a commercial license with the engine they are now comfortable with and effectively already committed to.
Chris
#137
I agree with those that say that T3D isn't a AAA product. On paper, sure - but looking at samples and published titles comparing UDK (even the no source version) with T3D is laughable. The fact that T3D has just been released etc doesn't really hold water because game developers should choose what is best for their needs when they need it. It's not all doom and gloom though, my main interest is 2D games so the upcoming T2D will be licenced by me the day it's released, no question about that. Most successful indie/casual games are also 2D so GG is playing in the right space with T2D, and the AAA engine publishers simply can't compete in that arena (for now).
As far as T3D is concerned, I think the main competitor to watch is Emergent GameBryo which already has a "casual" offering at about $30K (2nd hand knowledge, I don't know how true it is). The Gamebryo tool chain is outstanding, and a more indie friendly licence cost will be very attractive...
A question for those that have worked with the full Unreal Engine (with source). Is the $350K+ price tag per studio? If it is then the price needs to be factored according to the number of users, so it may not be that high...
11/15/2009 (4:42 am)
Phew, this thread takes some reading... I always seem to have more to say though...I agree with those that say that T3D isn't a AAA product. On paper, sure - but looking at samples and published titles comparing UDK (even the no source version) with T3D is laughable. The fact that T3D has just been released etc doesn't really hold water because game developers should choose what is best for their needs when they need it. It's not all doom and gloom though, my main interest is 2D games so the upcoming T2D will be licenced by me the day it's released, no question about that. Most successful indie/casual games are also 2D so GG is playing in the right space with T2D, and the AAA engine publishers simply can't compete in that arena (for now).
As far as T3D is concerned, I think the main competitor to watch is Emergent GameBryo which already has a "casual" offering at about $30K (2nd hand knowledge, I don't know how true it is). The Gamebryo tool chain is outstanding, and a more indie friendly licence cost will be very attractive...
A question for those that have worked with the full Unreal Engine (with source). Is the $350K+ price tag per studio? If it is then the price needs to be factored according to the number of users, so it may not be that high...
#138
...just became lame with a gammy leg,aquired an alcohol and drug addiction,looking for support outside the shopping mall with a
blanky and the obligatory dog,which incidentaly has also a gammy leg and a flea infestation.Broken tooth causing misery,stubbed toe gone black overnight,hassle from the welfare dept,walks with a limp,got no money or job right now hoping to get some help.
now THIS man needs T3D pro free
11/15/2009 (7:19 am)
Imagine this scenario: Man just got laid off. Recalls his lifelong dream of making games, and wonders if he can start his own company to make money making games, but has no investment capital. Kids are growing, wife is sick, bills are piling up, quick solution needed. Looks online for game engines to give him a boost......just became lame with a gammy leg,aquired an alcohol and drug addiction,looking for support outside the shopping mall with a
blanky and the obligatory dog,which incidentaly has also a gammy leg and a flea infestation.Broken tooth causing misery,stubbed toe gone black overnight,hassle from the welfare dept,walks with a limp,got no money or job right now hoping to get some help.
now THIS man needs T3D pro free
#139
Instead of looking at what's in it for the game developer, how about looking at what's in it for GG and Epic. The first reaction is to say that GG should do what Epic did and give away a binary version, but that doesn't take the market into account. Epic never provided an indie or hobbiest solution (there never was a $100 - $1000 offering) so the new free version isn't aimed at their existing customer base. If GG were to give away a free version of T3D it would have a direct impact on their sales because it will be aimed directly at their current market so there really isn't an upside to it (other than good will but that won't pay for the development of the next version).
In short, Epic had nothing to lose by releasing a "free" version but GG does. Epic can also (probably) affort to go with the deferred payment (royalties) option which GG maybe can't. So, sure, maybe the Epic offering might cost GG some business, but giving away a free version of T3D will only make it worse in the short term. I do agree that a cheaper binary artist/hobbiest version should be offered though (in the $300 range).
11/15/2009 (7:36 am)
@Jojimbo Amusing, but not very realistic (for many reasons). You do make a good point though (or rather, the inverse). GG is not a charity, it's a business. It's nice to portray an image of being indie friendly and being there for the small guy, but it's still business (it's called the long tail - Google makes billions of it).Instead of looking at what's in it for the game developer, how about looking at what's in it for GG and Epic. The first reaction is to say that GG should do what Epic did and give away a binary version, but that doesn't take the market into account. Epic never provided an indie or hobbiest solution (there never was a $100 - $1000 offering) so the new free version isn't aimed at their existing customer base. If GG were to give away a free version of T3D it would have a direct impact on their sales because it will be aimed directly at their current market so there really isn't an upside to it (other than good will but that won't pay for the development of the next version).
In short, Epic had nothing to lose by releasing a "free" version but GG does. Epic can also (probably) affort to go with the deferred payment (royalties) option which GG maybe can't. So, sure, maybe the Epic offering might cost GG some business, but giving away a free version of T3D will only make it worse in the short term. I do agree that a cheaper binary artist/hobbiest version should be offered though (in the $300 range).
#140
If that role is to promote and be Ambassadors for GG and Torque Tech then absolutely I think there needs to be more restraint on helpful nature from some you're representing a group that "SHOULD" be viewed as senior in the community, much the same way as Moderators on a forum should act - sure we all have discussions but taking on a role with more senior status means you have to bite your tongue a little and not get dragged into arguments.
If the role is just to say thank you as a recognition then I think there is more that could be done for community by creating perhaps a seperate role for those helpful in the community, explaining things for newcomers, pointing in direction of help, answering question on tech, etc.
If it's about GG having a smaller group of people to canvas ideas that's useful too but again there's a need for nurturing the community. As you can guess I'm all for trying to build and develop a stronger community and for that you need people to take the lead.
11/15/2009 (8:38 am)
@Ted - You're right I'm not flaming associates and I know exactly why the vast majority have their titles but as I said I just don't understand the purpose of the role.If that role is to promote and be Ambassadors for GG and Torque Tech then absolutely I think there needs to be more restraint on helpful nature from some you're representing a group that "SHOULD" be viewed as senior in the community, much the same way as Moderators on a forum should act - sure we all have discussions but taking on a role with more senior status means you have to bite your tongue a little and not get dragged into arguments.
If the role is just to say thank you as a recognition then I think there is more that could be done for community by creating perhaps a seperate role for those helpful in the community, explaining things for newcomers, pointing in direction of help, answering question on tech, etc.
If it's about GG having a smaller group of people to canvas ideas that's useful too but again there's a need for nurturing the community. As you can guess I'm all for trying to build and develop a stronger community and for that you need people to take the lead.
Torque 3D Owner Guimo
I think T3D is not an AAA engine yet. It is a really advanced and wonderful piece of software with lots of tools and a great renderer, but the same can be said of many engines.
Torque 3D is marketed as an AAA engine but I guess we cannot really call it AAA until a real AAA game has been produced with it and successfully sold. Sory but I cannot really recall an AAA game produced with it. There are games which have been produced with it... true... but not an AAA title with hundreds of people working on it and a multi million budget.
GG should really embrace indies back. That doesnt mean to make the engine cheaper (come on... $1000 is a steal for this kind of software) but maybe to think the business from a new perspective and make itself a central hub of indie game development.
GG has now a good engine so maybe now it is time to develop new services to go along it and increase its value. Lets say GG promotes a yearly contest like Gamedev's 4 elements which was a very very loved contest and draw major companies to donate some prizes (video cards, software and the like).
Then take all the best projects and work like some kind of incubator so that those ideas are improved and then try to connect indies with publishers so these ideas can get funded and improved. Then, if the games are published, they they will probably use Torque and it will slowly bring more credibility to the Torque name in the publishers head.
Luck!
Guimo