Game Development Community

dev|Pro Game Development Curriculum

Web Site Update

by Eric Preisz · 07/15/2010 (10:26 am) · 185 comments

static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/header_blog_employee.jpg
It’s 3:05 am PST and we just finished the most recent upgrade to the site. As a game programmer ( semi-retired ) web deployment makes me nervous. I don’t get that comfy chair, worn-in baseball glove, feeling that I get from the technology domains that feel more like home to me. Luckily, I’ve been able to calm my nerves with few slices of bacon covered pizza. So far, we made it through the update without any major issues. Thanks a million to those in the associate’s forum who spent their free time beta testing for us when they could have been working on their games:


Special Thanks:
Fyodor "bank" Osokin
Joseph Euan
Michael Hall
Tom Spillman
Konrad Kiss
David Montgomery-Blake
Ted Southard
Giuseppe De Francesco

Thanks guys!

The site changes will seem relatively small at first glance, so I’ve put this blog together to help point out some of the foundational changes that make this update a bigger one than you might notice at first glance.

One of my tenants is that bad news should be delivered first, so let’s get that out of the way. You have sent us a lot of web related bug reports and changes and we didn’t cover many of them in this update. Our focus on this round is more about updating systemic business related updates. If we don’t fix those systemic issues, they will undermine all other aspects of how we do business. We’ve been doing a lot of this over the past few weeks and we are slowly raising the tide for more positive future changes. Functionality fixes to come, please hang in there.

So let’s dive into the update:



Brand – Last year we announced that we were retiring the GarageGames name for most of our businesses ( the game studio occasionally uses the GG name ). This is bittersweet change for sure. I have a fondness for the name and more so for the ideology behind the name. As do many, many, people for whom the name GarageGames touched. But the reality is that we are a very different company. Some say better; some say worse -but in the end we are definitely different. Switching to the Torque brand is recognition of that change and a new identity that we can use to move forward with on future projects.

You will notice a new logo that contains the phrase “By InstantAction” which helps people understand that we are a part of a bigger company with a broader focus. We are three divisions: Tools & Engine, Game Studio, and Platform. You know what this division does, but you may not be aware of the others. The game studio is very busy working on high-end socially driven games and the Platform is building the next generation of services (achievements, e-commerce, etc.) that modern gamers expect.

static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/Torque_IA_logo_V.png






Studio Licensing – For a long time we have not given the public visibility into the pricing for studio licenses. Studio licenses are seat licenses rather than licenses that are tied to a given individual and in the past we only offered them via direct sales. If you own a studio license, you will notice that you have a new tab in your account named “My Studio”.

static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/Studio.png

Under this tab you can reassign studio licenses to any other individual who has an account on the site. When you assign a license, your studio name will display under their avatar. This is the first of many ideas we’ve discussed to help your studio build its own brand. Expect to see more and more studio services and functionality over the next couple of years. An upgrade from an individual license to a studio licenses is being offered for a promotional price of $25 per upgrade.

static.torquepowered.com/static/upload/emp-59817/ericP.png

EULA – We’ve updated our EULA for all of our engines (third party products are not part of the uber EULA ). Prior to this change we had different EULAs for each product line which made it difficult to manage and difficult for our users to understand. By consolidating we are making the licensing easier on all involved. We are open to your feedback so if you have any questions regarding the changes, feel free to contact us licensing@torquepowered.com.

Product Names – If you’ve been around the company for a while you know that naming products hasn’t always been our strength ( you might remember the TAT incident ). We’ve done a lot better in recent years, but there is still some confusion when we talk about future vs. current products. To solve this problem we are adding a year designation to our product names. A year denotes a major change in the software. For example, the Torque 3D that you know today is now known as Torque 3D 2009. If we made a major change in the software (typically an editor upgrade or major value increase), we would likely update the year to denote the dramatic upgrade ( i.e. Torque 3D 2011 ). Updates will be delivered as service packs. Torque 3D 2011 SP3. That sounds cool. We will be migrating products to this naming convention over the next couple of releases.

Over the next few weeks, we have a series of blogs that we have been waiting to deliver. Keep checking the site for new updates and news related to all of the work we’ve been doing over the past couple of months. Until then, feel free to post any site bugs related to these changes in this thread. Also, we have our web developer monitoring the live chat system in the bottom right hand corner to help you if you get stuck over the next couple of days. There will be bugs, but we will do our best to fix them ASAP.

Thanks everyone!

About the author

Manager, Programmer, Author, Professor, Small Business Owner, and Marketer.

#141
07/16/2010 (11:02 pm)
Eric:
so what about my architectural buddies that were afforded the use of T3D for non-game apps with version 1.0.1 who would now have to spend 10-75k to do the same thing with 1.1 ?

..and not to mention, if they did not use the 1.0.1 version then their loss of upgrade-ability with intent for use on Arch. projects for which they specifically licensed the engine is of no concern to you guys ?

As I see it: this EULA convolution allows you guys to selectively grab part of the 'money and/or ideas' from people with certain ideas simply because they have to "clear" their project with TP first.
- I can understand this for certain aspects but when it comes down to being 'shady', this takes the cake because *it is* possible to use this "check and clear" system in a bad fashion and to obtain ideas that should be 'unprivy'. Or better yet; you simply get more money because someone proved they had a good idea and you decided to want part of their action because of your disregard for concrete stipulations ?

Even with Donald's blog comments coming alive it appears to me that Ken Johnston's company is going to have to pay 10-75k more than they initially expected if they plan to use T3D for their project. In certain instances, ..*it WOULD be cheaper to use the UDK*.

& with UDK, a licensee knows what they can and can't do and what they need to pay.. -> with GG you would have to share your idea and wait for the judgement of whether or not you guys want to take part of that cake ?

This seems pretty sly and vindictive to those of us who licensed the engine for reasons previously afforded to us, now removed.

How I see it: Nothing is in concrete as discretion is left up to you guys...& if I was not clear through my post: I find that baffling.

Please don't avoid replying to sections of the post. I am growing tired of partial replies that avoid the tough points.

BTW: this concept is akin to charging 10-75k for engine bug fixes to those people who are using 1.0.1 for non-game development legally.
#142
07/16/2010 (11:04 pm)
this post is to grab my above post from the missing page of 7.5(site bug)
#143
07/16/2010 (11:15 pm)
Just thinking, but it could be useful to take some time and try and define a few rough boundaries on the non-game thing, just to give people a little more of a concrete idea of "does and don'ts" before being put off by a vague EULA.

A lone guy doing freelance architectural visualization or a small team doing in-house simulation is very different from a larger organization with substantial financial backing that may stray into competition for tools.
#144
07/16/2010 (11:28 pm)
[post originally made to make page 8 appear]

Steve makes good points here. Lumping small studios or individuals in with IBM is a bit of a stretch.


// BTW: can you imagine needing to spend up to 76k per architectural visualization job ?
#145
07/17/2010 (12:08 am)
I suppose it's futile to get an answer to my actual question.
#146
07/17/2010 (12:26 am)
@Christian -not futile, there's a lot to answer.

Unfortunately, I am about to catch a plane and won't be able to provide any more answers until my next chance to get on the internet.

@Eb -I will answer your questions as well. You would only pay the 10% of phase II if we give you a free license during phase I. The licensing Donald is referring to is Specific to SBIR and STTR based projects. It's not intended for individuals -more details to follow.
#147
07/17/2010 (12:45 am)
Guys,

let me post my 2 cents. We get here to find a "game engine", which is advertised as a "game creation platform" so... buying a game engine not to produce games isn't quite right, you have to expect that the engine producer will reserve the usage to the advertised aim (and nearby use cases).

The producer of any software wants to reserve the right to avoid unfair competition, so I really don't see any originality in this EULA, nothing new in the software marketplace, nothing unfair.

We (developers) do this all the time to protect our creations, our intellectual property, our marketplace... why on earth IA shouldn't? Really guys, I don't understand all this whining.

BTW Eric has also stated (in more than one occasion) that for a Studio entering in the extended EULA to publish a tool or an application "doesn't necessarely mean another fee", it's basically a way to avoid problems. Yes, I know... "doesn't necessarely mean another fee" is somewhat vague and the EULA has a space to put in an cost, so in all this whining the only question that could make sense asking is: for transparence sake is it possible to draw a line where the tool/app agreement will entail an additional cost? Maybe (for instance) based on the retail price? Or will be a royalty on actual sales selling on TP website? and so on... This is really the only question that makes sense to ask.
#148
07/17/2010 (12:49 am)
Eric:
I understand it is tough ground to cover all of your ends on this. I'll wait for your reply.
Meanwhile, to extend on the conversation:in the EULA of T3D 1.0.1 there is this section that prevents entities from creating competing tools development derived from the sdk itself.
Hence; I don't understand why you think that competing tools development was allowed under the previously allowed non-game stipulation? (this is a serious question, not a sarcastically phrased knock)

Quote:(f) Licensee may not: (i) distribute or release any derivative works of the Software, including but not limited to translations, localizations, starter kits, technology add-ons, or game making software; (ii) reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the algorithms
... ...

//Edit in:
@Giuseppe ..I came to find an sdk that I could use for
1.simulations
2.games
3. presentations
4. any use within my abilities as a developer

perhaps YOU came searching for a game engine..that does not mean everyone did the same.
Also: are you are referring/or/including my post in your statement of "whining" ? -> If so, I think you owe me an apology. IMO that is not how an associate should speak to licensees as that is a terrible choice of words that happens to make me feel condescended and patronized.
#149
07/17/2010 (1:13 am)
@eb and All:

that's my point exactly: the previous EULA (T3D 1.0.1) was very strict: games only:

Quote:(f) Licensee may not: (i) distribute or release any derivative works of the Software, including but not limited to translations, localizations, starter kits, technology add-ons, or game making software; (ii) reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the algorithms for the Software (iii) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software; or (iv) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Software.

So... IA is now granting the ability to publish non-games given some restriction... I don't understand the whining. The EULA has been games only since more than a year (time I got here), so... how is it possible that people realizes that just now when IA is opening up to tools and apps? It's a total nonsense or it means that people bought the engines not even bothering to read the EULA... but that's not IA's fault.
---------------------
Edit: In English "whining about a service/product" means TO STRONGLY COMPLAIN (Oxford Thesaurus for Advanced Learners). I don't think this is in any way patronizing or offensive, it's just the proper noun for what I've been reading in this thread.
#150
07/17/2010 (1:33 am)
Giuseppe, You are wrong. You're boasting arrogance while proving your ignorance on this subject and your 'over the top' condescending posts are growing tiresome.

- T3D 1.0.1 allowed for non-game development and Eric noted this as he stated that the EULA for T3D 1.1 was changed because the previous EULA allowed for the development of T3D-competing-products based upon use of the T3D sdk itself, HOWEVER, one of my previous posts points out the 1.0.1 EULA section that would prevent such a thing from occuring.

Why do I feel like I am arguing stage 2 of a debate when my counterpart should be on stage 12 of the debate, with me ?


I'll avoid posting again until Eric posts a reply.
No sense in replying to Giuseppe who thinks he's got it all solved anyways.

[resorting to the oxford thesaurus to avoid an apology ? .. get a dictionary you rude person. whining def.
#151
07/17/2010 (1:55 am)
@eb: I really thank you very much for your pleasant words of appreciation.

My knowledge on the subject is indeed very limited: it's only based on the EULAs I got when I bought my licenses which IMO are the only things that count evaluating this matter, so yes, it's written black on white thus IMO it's all solved on it's own without need of debating the subject.

@All: I'm sorry to have been dragged in an argument making this thread worse than before. I'll be more careful in the future... in my defense: it's 3am here so I'm not at my best thus it's better for me to call it a night.
#152
07/17/2010 (3:55 am)
eb, wonderfully blunt as always!

Is not this simply an issue of a product the licensee is expecting to sell and generate profit from? I have always been fearful that the $250,000 profit stipulation would leave me out of the EULA, but figured because i never made any of the money from the help of Torque it did not matter, and only Torque project profits were pertinent. As an example of past EULA ambiguity.

But this new EULA seems like we can no longer build most of what is currently listed under the Add-ons Tab. This truly needs to be clarified, as it is indeed a legal reason to seek full refunds on account of bate and switch EULA tactics.

It is very bothersome that T3D have had more EULA modifications then Build Releases...

EDIT: To clarify my meaning external to my own thought process.
#153
07/17/2010 (6:07 am)
@Eric - back in the days when TGB was bundled and you got TGB pro (source included) for free, which shows up as two products. As there are two studio options, if I upgrade the TGB but not the TGB Pro, would the Pro stay as the Individual licence, or would Pro also need to be upgraded/upgraded automatically? I plan on using the Pro part for development where as the non pro (without source) would be assigned to an artist under the studio licence. Where do I stand under the licencing for the bundled deal?
#154
07/17/2010 (4:11 pm)
Also, if I assign my Torque 3D licence to a contractor for the duration of his contract, would I be in breach of that licence by having the software installed on my PC? or would it cover me under the installed on two PCs/Macs. (1 contractor / 1 me - providing I don't use it?). What happends after the contractors work is finished and I transfer the licence back to me (on paper electronically), and they still continue to use the licence, would they or me be in breach of the EULA ? Lots of red tape if the studio owner has to stop them from using it by means of a legal letter and contract and prevents mis-use. Wouldn't it be easier to have internet key code based checks to ensure that new keys are assigned for each licence in use, and locks them out of the engine until it has been re-allocated?
#155
07/17/2010 (9:21 pm)
This also seems to be about the right time to clarify exactly what the licensee is receiving when they purchase a Torque product.

No place in legal writing are we guaranteed Bug fix updates, and many other naturally assumed related services.

Quote:1.9. "Software" includes the source code and executable code provided to You in connection with Your purchase and all associated documentation (if any). The Software also includes any update to the Software that corrects bugs or provides minor feature enhancements. The Software does not include next generation versions of the Software or versions of the Software that include major feature enhancements.
Is not stating much at all, except including a conditional IF about bugs being fixed. Definition is not stated what major feature enhancements could possible be. And the wording itself cast doubt to the necessity of provide documentation at all.

Quote:
You may install the Software on up to two (2) Personal Computers.
I have way more then two Personal Computers, i use for development. This is a productivity crippling stipulation. And pointless because the HACK in this case is using an unsecured(convenience of access with all my computers) single location sever and working with the Torque files remotely.

The full Studio License bit is just plain stupid, unless your studio have fewer then 10 employee, the added cost equal more then specialty Game Engines such as Unigine™.

Part 2.6 and 2.7 are absurdly convoluted almost as if left open for future interpretation on purpose.

The question of Intellectual Property Rights in regards to ownership of modification to the "Software" is never clarified, and most wording seem to void rightful titles of ownership in regards with EULA termination.

And the TorquePowered poop to top off this crumbling cake is Part 9.5! My god, you expect us to be rather stupid huh?
Quote:This EULA expresses the parties' final agreement as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating thereto.

I love that last bit:supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating thereto.


With this new "branding", I do not feel safe assuming any of the old business practice relating to the old Garage Games.

It is time for TorquePowered to put all expectations into legal writing, so there is less room for disappointment and misunderstanding later down the road.

As it stands now, every move TorquePowered have made after the IA takeover leaves me more and more dubious of the actual intent. And personally wondering to myself if this is the type of CO. I wish to be supporting at all...

EDIT: Not to mention Nevada have some very odd laws relating to protection from consumer expectations, and this alone is the only reason i see Torque being moved to a more legally sheltering state. I trust TorquePowered less now then ever before.

All this 'Good News' is more a harbinger of bad things coming. Dont smear elephant crap in my face and call it zit cream.

EDITEDIT: More pinpoint exampled clarification to my line of questioning.
#156
07/18/2010 (12:55 am)
I do not feel confident with the wording of this EULA. Please contact me by email for further discussion on the mater of my not accepting the new EULA and the related legal ramifications.
#157
07/18/2010 (3:19 am)
My lawyer dug up legal case precedence where by using 'First-sale doctrine Law' and 'Clayton Antitrust Act' examples, expressed legal power of any EULA is only true to the agreement made at time of sale. No other modification have retrospective power over the EULA agreed at time of purchase. Only one (the original) EULA is legally binding.

The new EULA will only effect me(or anyone else for that matter) when relicensing is required as stated by the original EULA agreement. The only EULA agreement that is legal is the EULA agreement that accompanied the product it covers.

In basic English, the only lawful binding contract is the one found along with the Torque product at the time of licensing, and acquiring the product. So be sure to have an unadulterated backup of weather Torque products you may be using.

Furthermore EULA legal enforcement such as this one is an issue of the Supreme Court of the United States, not individual state laws unless all product sales are restricted to that state.

Disclaimer should be understood because the nature of legal arguments. Get your own lawyer to clarify this new EULA and general EULA law for you, dont take my word for it.

My Lawyer also advises the winner in this type of case is often the party who have the most time and money to spend on the legal battle.

If TorquePowered are going to start playing dirty it is best to just stop playing with them.
#158
07/18/2010 (5:25 am)
I'll just let Eric respond here.
#159
07/18/2010 (9:21 am)
This is getting weirder by the day.

As DFT Games we are a family run company, still due to my "real world" job position I forward all the EULAs of the software I buy to the company's legal department (which is also in charge of writing the EULAs covering all our own products).

Regarding the EULAs I got buying Torque licenses there are a few points binding me (the licensee). Here the verbatim wording from my legal dept. (translated from Italian of course) sent to me in Dec. 2009. I share the following in the hope to make clear the EULA situation giving a legal reading from a licensee's point of view:

EULA T3D 1.0.1: Having checked the EULA acceptance boxes during the purchase process and the setup process this EULA is binding (EU and US). This one is almost identical to the previous EULA you sent me (Torque X), carrying as sole real limitation the kind of product you may produce which shall be a game (legal definiotion: a product designed and sold to entertain the end-user).
Strangely the jurisdiction clause in this EULA has been left blank so in your case the venue and jurisdiction is the District Court of Tuam, County Galway, Ireland.
There is no clause reserving the right to change the EULA during the lifetime of the product, which is correct because that is a null clause.
This EULA will cover the produtc lifetime unless changed during an upgrade: if installing any upgrade you will be prompted to accept a new EULA please forward that to us before to continue the installation process.
Side note: the EULA accompaining any update fixing relevant bugs cannot introduce any binding changes (excluding major releases constituting a product lifetime milestone as provided by common law in US, part of the UK and Ireland. This usually won't apply in Civil Law countries). As we are in the EU the limitations about decompiling/getting the source code from the binaries are regulated by the EU directives which allow decompilation in order to fix problems and for security reasons. The clauses for Germany are missing but that doesn't change the licensee's situation in Germany and Austria.


I hope this helps.

Cheers,
Pino
#160
07/18/2010 (6:03 pm)
Sorry everyone, i have very limited Internet and I'm limited to my iPhone. Just a few quick points for now and I will elaborate more when I have more than my iPhone.

Firstly, we want the best for your companies. Our legal department does thoer job to protect us from the small minority that abuse the license. If the language creates unfair challenges for our loyal ethical customers, we will adjust it. We worked with our associates who reviewed the language before we shared it with you.

Regarding license reassignment: those who you reassign will agree to the terms on installation.

Regarding the other concerns, we will check with our legal folks to address your concerns.

Regarding non game licensing, we don't want to limit the indie. If this requires Language changes, then so be it. We think that lifting the restrictions for game development is a step in the right direction for our community. Non game applications unknowingly break the license more often than games, so having people attain a waiver helps us know who is using the software.

Sorry that I don't have more availability this weekend. Next week is the casual connect conference which will limit availability as well. We will work with you to address concers as best we can.