Unity vs Torque: Different Business Strategies
by Ryan Timoney · in Torque 3D Beginner · 10/30/2010 (10:17 pm) · 6 replies
Torque made a splash first. The GG guys made their own engine, without third party software. This allowed them to offer both source code and binary only licenses. The people rejoiced.
Then Unity arrived. Their strategy is different. They incorporate middleware like Umbra. This allows them to leverage the work of others and stay current without investing thousands of man hours into developing new technologies themselves. However, their inclusion of middleware prohibits them from offering a license to their source code. They only offer binary licenses.
This is the fundamental difference between the two offerings. Because Torque is home-brewed they can offer the source code, but will always be behind the technology curve. Because Unity includes middleware, they will always be able to ride the technology wave, but will never be able to offer the source code under their own legal authority.
Which is right for you, at this point, depends upon what you want to do and what you are willing to risk. If you have long term, studio building goals, access to the source code is essential. If you're on a one-off project with limited complexity, being pretty might be more important to you than being able to do anything.
What the Torque guys need to do is recognize how they differ from Unity and bank on it. Torque is more appealing to serious indie developers with longer time horizons - particularly as a choice for a body of code upon which to build for years. Unity is more appealing to casual enthusiasts who want to make simpler, pretty games. These are the markets each needs to go for.
IA should start catering more toward serious indie developers. From a business perspective, I'd suggest focusing on fewer engines. The race to have AN engine for every platform is misguided. You want to have the best engine on a few platforms. Continue to do R&D so as to not fall hopelessly far behind the tech curve. Ensuring that the code allows for simple implementation of popular middleware would be a good move. Since Torque is destined to lose casual customers, attaching a small royalty to future licenses is prudent. It would need to be competitive. For some context, UDK is available at a 25% royalty (which makes it a terrible choice). 5% to 10% would be tolerable by serious indie developers.
Then Unity arrived. Their strategy is different. They incorporate middleware like Umbra. This allows them to leverage the work of others and stay current without investing thousands of man hours into developing new technologies themselves. However, their inclusion of middleware prohibits them from offering a license to their source code. They only offer binary licenses.
This is the fundamental difference between the two offerings. Because Torque is home-brewed they can offer the source code, but will always be behind the technology curve. Because Unity includes middleware, they will always be able to ride the technology wave, but will never be able to offer the source code under their own legal authority.
Which is right for you, at this point, depends upon what you want to do and what you are willing to risk. If you have long term, studio building goals, access to the source code is essential. If you're on a one-off project with limited complexity, being pretty might be more important to you than being able to do anything.
What the Torque guys need to do is recognize how they differ from Unity and bank on it. Torque is more appealing to serious indie developers with longer time horizons - particularly as a choice for a body of code upon which to build for years. Unity is more appealing to casual enthusiasts who want to make simpler, pretty games. These are the markets each needs to go for.
IA should start catering more toward serious indie developers. From a business perspective, I'd suggest focusing on fewer engines. The race to have AN engine for every platform is misguided. You want to have the best engine on a few platforms. Continue to do R&D so as to not fall hopelessly far behind the tech curve. Ensuring that the code allows for simple implementation of popular middleware would be a good move. Since Torque is destined to lose casual customers, attaching a small royalty to future licenses is prudent. It would need to be competitive. For some context, UDK is available at a 25% royalty (which makes it a terrible choice). 5% to 10% would be tolerable by serious indie developers.
About the author
#2
Read section Game Distribution and it will tell you there.
Just wanted to point that out to ya.
11/01/2010 (7:31 pm)
Well unity has a price for sorce code but its allot of money. Torque adds middleware just not to much. Also if you read the last official blog you will read that they looking to add allot more middleware.Read section Game Distribution and it will tell you there.
Just wanted to point that out to ya.
#3
@Brandon. I started this thread in response to the October update. I'm looking forward to whatever the distribution system might be - Steam or something like it perhaps? It's a good move.
I'm just throwing my 2 cents out here and looking for thoughts from you all.
11/01/2010 (11:08 pm)
@Henry. That's cool. I can totally see the value of Torque to you. The strategic problem is that I don't see them being able to compete for your attention in the long run. I want IA to thrive, and I think to do that the key is to leverage their competitive advantage - source code.@Brandon. I started this thread in response to the October update. I'm looking forward to whatever the distribution system might be - Steam or something like it perhaps? It's a good move.
I'm just throwing my 2 cents out here and looking for thoughts from you all.
#4
You're absolutely spot-on too. We have a number of (what we believe to be) unique aspects to our game and source code access is absolutely essential. For this reason, Unity is not, and will probably never be, on option. Of course, I've downloaded it and played with it (out of curiosity more than anything) and the toolset really is superb - head and shoulders above the T3D toolset as far as I'm concerned. However, it comes back to source code access. When we first started on this crazy venture, we picked up TGE 1.4 for $100 - there was just *nothing* else like that on the market at the time.
I agree about IA's multi-engine policy too. Coming from someone who is purely interested in 3D game development for Windows (and possibly the mac - I'll be watching the app-store for mac with interest) I have no interest in T2D, iT2D, iT3D, TX, Torque for X360, Torque for Wii, Torque for Windows Phone 7... Obviously a lot of this fine community does have an interest in the other engines so that list isn't going to get smaller any time soon. Personally, I just feel that the TorquePowered team just don't have enough resource to be able to produce an engine for every single platform out there.
That said, I love what the guys are doing with T3D and absolutely stand by our decision to license T3D (and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone in our position). The wait for 1.1 final seems to have been never-ending but that shouldn't stop anyone from working on their game - it certainly hasn't stopped us. You know the issues with beta code and you either fix them or work around them (or work with the previous 'final' version).
11/02/2010 (4:43 pm)
@Ryan - That is the most sensible and level-headed Torque vs Unity post I've seen on this forum. Bravo!You're absolutely spot-on too. We have a number of (what we believe to be) unique aspects to our game and source code access is absolutely essential. For this reason, Unity is not, and will probably never be, on option. Of course, I've downloaded it and played with it (out of curiosity more than anything) and the toolset really is superb - head and shoulders above the T3D toolset as far as I'm concerned. However, it comes back to source code access. When we first started on this crazy venture, we picked up TGE 1.4 for $100 - there was just *nothing* else like that on the market at the time.
I agree about IA's multi-engine policy too. Coming from someone who is purely interested in 3D game development for Windows (and possibly the mac - I'll be watching the app-store for mac with interest) I have no interest in T2D, iT2D, iT3D, TX, Torque for X360, Torque for Wii, Torque for Windows Phone 7... Obviously a lot of this fine community does have an interest in the other engines so that list isn't going to get smaller any time soon. Personally, I just feel that the TorquePowered team just don't have enough resource to be able to produce an engine for every single platform out there.
That said, I love what the guys are doing with T3D and absolutely stand by our decision to license T3D (and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone in our position). The wait for 1.1 final seems to have been never-ending but that shouldn't stop anyone from working on their game - it certainly hasn't stopped us. You know the issues with beta code and you either fix them or work around them (or work with the previous 'final' version).
#5
11/20/2010 (3:45 am)
I have to agree with Ryan and Andy. I am myself one of those 'engineering' game developers, and the fact that Torque lets me play around with the entire umpteen-thousand-line codebase of a mature commercial game engine is priceless. 
#6
At least with T3D we have the tools to modify our own core code even if we lose the support and development of the TP team (as sad as that would be).
This is a solid engine (even with it's warts and all) and while I have my own wishlist there is still nothing stopping us taking what we have now and continuing our game development.
11/20/2010 (9:53 pm)
The current state of affairs also highlights one important consideration. While Unity may be solid at the moment, unforseen circumstances in the future could send them the way of IA and then Unity based game developers are stuck. Without the source code your options for continuing are limited.At least with T3D we have the tools to modify our own core code even if we lose the support and development of the TP team (as sad as that would be).
This is a solid engine (even with it's warts and all) and while I have my own wishlist there is still nothing stopping us taking what we have now and continuing our game development.
Torque 3D Owner Henry Shilling
Smokin Skull
Flash is getting 3D, yea there will be lots of crummy content that will not run well etc, but there will also be a few guys who really get flash, understand the limitations and will make great stuff.
Content is really what matters most, it does not matter what engine you use if you have compelling crap people want it. I believe that IA has to move back to supporting the scripters with great stuff. I do not have a group of C++ experts to help me build my stuff. Hell Pino and the TX team will tell you I get lost with C#. However I and many many more like me would happily give up flash and such to use a tool like T3D to build great stuff if we could do it without needing an engineering team.