New Idea for GG

#1 Why in the world would you need that? What happens when you make something with the tools? Youl'd just have to buy them all anyways to be allowed to sell or publish anything you make.

#2 Plus, that ain't really neccesary when they are as cheap as they are.

#3 What is it with people who love subscription based products. You don't go out and subscribe to a box of MAC N' Cheese.

#4 Yes, but the Mac'n'cheese doesn't get updated frequently.

Given GG's liberal policy concerning upgrades, a subscription model isn't really a win here for the consumer. If GG routinely charged for upgrades, a subscription model would make sense. The issue of shipping vs. building games could be handled a variety of ways.

-JF

#5 GG is already like the MySpace of videogames.

#6 My thought process was from the business side of it. This would create perhaps a new stream of rev for GG thus enabling them to have more staff and push out more updates. I was suggesting that GG charge like 100 dollars a month or anything. I would think a very small amount becuase the products are so inexpensive. I was just thinking that this could give GG the power to put out more updates and more products. None of would be here right now if the products suck. And everyone seems to complain when the TDN didnt spell out everything they need. So I figured this could be a win for us and GG. Again it was just a thought.

#7 Yeah, but if you had a subscription people would pay for one month, get the latest tools and engine, and then not subscribe for subsequent months, thus getting gold for chips.

#8 I'm not sure, of course, but I doubt that GG business plan revolves around sales of tools. It's games made with those tools that matter.

#9 @Donald: On that front I agree with you. I'd happily pay a subscription fee if it would help fund a second Mac engineer at GG.

@Mincetro: The subscriptions could be made annual, and cost roughly what the tools currently cost. GG would still make more money by virtue of effectively not giving upgrades away completely for free. Yes, some people would pay for a year subscription and be done with it -- but some would want to get upgrades and whatnot. You can also create an incentive to subscribe on an ongoing basis if TDN access is part of the package.

@Nauris: That position might be more compelling if there were more games being produced with the tools that didn't wind up being completely abandoned before development was finished...

-JF

#10 You have to take a look at my post from a completley outside view. This would help both sides of the fence we get updated more often and they can offer us more tools. It's really not that bad of an idea. More books better resource management, deep dives in the TDN, more training, and possibly even more platforms to support like PSP and PSX 3.

#11 I think they are aware of such requests. It's been talked about before.

Another reason they are looking for web talent.

#12 I don't like the idea of paying for minor version upgrades, the TSE upgrade is the type of think that you'd want to pay for, not like from 1.3 to 1.4 or anything.

#13 No but making 1.3 to 1.4 happen more often is a pleasing idea.

#14 At the end of the day, it's a basic economic principle that you get what you pay for. By giving away minor upgrades for free, GG winds up with less resources available to produce those very upgrades. In that event they either are forced to make such upgrades trivial (I.E. enhancements the community can easily do) or not at all.

-JF

#15 This way they could end up having less flexibility about how they manage their resources. For example if you pay monthly or yearly with the promise of frequent substantial upgrades, docs etc.... they will have harder time taking staff away from Torque Tech development to put them on creating their own games.

at the moment you buy the product and they can say... you got what you paid for... we are now busy making this or that game... no promise of when new versions will be ready... it is almost a sell and forget method/attitude.

With a subscription model they will have to guarantee a certain amount of output for you while lately they have been mostly concentrating on developing games with work on tech and on tools like Constructor carried on a part time basis (no meaning anything here, enjoy your baby, baby first, constructor later, enjoy your famliy man)

Can you immagine how much/many more requests (or noise as they like it to call it now) they will get from the community if we were to pay a subscritpion 'expecting' new releases constantly?

#16 Yeah, and 1.4 took time to conceptualize and develop, it wouldn't be faster if you just threw more money at it, evehn if they did hire more staff. In my eye, paying more saleries is losing money.

#17 While it's likely true that core engine work would not benefit much from more resources, there are a number of areas that are somewhat neglected, largely due to a lack of available staff. Mac (and Linux) support being the ones that come to mind first, but there's always room for improvement in documentation, starter kits/tutorials, content packs, etc. More resources = more improvements in these areas.

-JF

#18 @Hokuto
They would have the same flexibility if not more. I am not saying throwing more money at a single problem is the way to run the business. What I am saying is they would have more money to run different projects. The income stream they have now allows them to do all of what they are doing now. Increasing can only allow them to do more if managed properly. As far as the quote

Quote:
at the moment you buy the product and they can say... you got what you paid for... we are now busy making this or that game... no promise of when new versions will be ready... it is almost a sell and forget method/attitude.

No product on this site is a sale and forget each one of them has there own support forum and I am sure there is a person at GG responsible if a bug is found.

@Minectro
The object of the additional rev is not to pay more to the dev team but expand the one they have.

Quote:
it wouldn't be faster if you just threw more money at it, evehn if they did hire more staff.

That statement is not really true. If I had one person trying to move a large pile of rocks it would take him half as long if I hired someone with equal rock moving talents. I am familiar with the phrase diminishing returns and I know there is a certian limit to the amount of people I can have help with the pile of rocks.

Also I want to add this is no way a knock on GG... like I tried to type earlier we would not be here if there product was a bad one..

#19 Actually, assumption that subscription model would yield more money is just that- assumption. You assume that everyone who bought tools for one-time price would also happily pay for it on annual basis. Which might not be true at all.

Anyway, don't you think this discussion is kinda..weird? None here being GG people and all? :)

#20 I must be honest, a subscription based model would put me off. I have no intention of paying for something in an ongoing manor, mainly becasue I buy Torque products as my budget allows. If torque and torque tools became subscription based Ide go and find a free game engine to play with.