Upgrading from binary to source question ...
by Derelict · in Torque Game Builder · 03/18/2008 (3:23 pm) · 19 replies
I'm wondering if the pricing information is as I understand it, regarding an upgrade from the binary TGB to the source version (PRO). It appears that it costs an additional $45 to go from binary to source (binary indie [$100] + upgrade [$195] = $295) as opposed to just getting the source version in the first place ($250)--is this a correct understanding?
At that price it seems that simply purchasing a second seat would make more sense. I mean really, for an extra $55 you have two licenses instead of one, including access to the source. Is it me or does the upgrade pricing seem a little skewed as a result?
Has anyone else simply gone that route (i.e., second seat) for the same reason? From the perspective of an indie developer, it almost seems like an all or nothing deal if you've already got the binary. That is, stick with the binary and forget upgrading entirely or go all out (if you will) and pick up the second PRO license.
I suppose that is what I'm going to do, though at this point I have no foreseeable need to have two licenses. I'm quickly realizing that I'd prefer to dabble in the source than just TS alone, to accomplish what I'd really like so the PRO license is inevitable.
Any suggestions or thoughts from others who have contemplated the same thing?
At that price it seems that simply purchasing a second seat would make more sense. I mean really, for an extra $55 you have two licenses instead of one, including access to the source. Is it me or does the upgrade pricing seem a little skewed as a result?
Has anyone else simply gone that route (i.e., second seat) for the same reason? From the perspective of an indie developer, it almost seems like an all or nothing deal if you've already got the binary. That is, stick with the binary and forget upgrading entirely or go all out (if you will) and pick up the second PRO license.
I suppose that is what I'm going to do, though at this point I have no foreseeable need to have two licenses. I'm quickly realizing that I'd prefer to dabble in the source than just TS alone, to accomplish what I'd really like so the PRO license is inevitable.
Any suggestions or thoughts from others who have contemplated the same thing?
#2
03/18/2008 (6:29 pm)
Ditto!! This has prevented from buying the source version. I have the money to purchase but I refuse to just on general principle of such flawed business logic. The kicker for me was when TGB 1.5 was released with major File IO issues and all the workarounds involved mods to the code base. There is no ways in hell that they should have or even market a binary version with issues like these. GG should follow the lead from TGE and package the source in a single version.
#3
Stanley: That is an interesting point, though you have to wonder how many people wouldn't get it at all if no binary version existed. After all, there are at least three of us here who figured we'd "demo" the binary before really deciding on the source version.
At the same time, it is just prohibitive and wonky enough that I'm forced to think that it loses them more than a few sales that could otherwise be had. I figured there must be reason, which is why I made the post in the first place. I thought someone here might shed some light on it in a way I can't seem to calculate on my own.
Well, as they say, misery loves company. (Sorta) Glad to know I'm not the only one a little dumbfounded by it.
03/18/2008 (9:27 pm)
Tetraweb: Yeah ... it does have a little bit of a, as you say, "penalizing" feeling to it. Gotta be some reason they are doing it this way, I expect. I just can't immediately see the reason is all. *grin*Stanley: That is an interesting point, though you have to wonder how many people wouldn't get it at all if no binary version existed. After all, there are at least three of us here who figured we'd "demo" the binary before really deciding on the source version.
At the same time, it is just prohibitive and wonky enough that I'm forced to think that it loses them more than a few sales that could otherwise be had. I figured there must be reason, which is why I made the post in the first place. I thought someone here might shed some light on it in a way I can't seem to calculate on my own.
Well, as they say, misery loves company. (Sorta) Glad to know I'm not the only one a little dumbfounded by it.
#4
03/18/2008 (10:08 pm)
I find the prices extreamily reasonable. The only reason I'd buy the source version is if it was $50 more. I have no use for it. If/when the day comes I could use it, $195 would be cheap. If I sold 20 copies of a $10 game I made I would of payed for it. Another 10 & my initial costs are payed for ($100).
#5
For an Indie, having two licenses makes exactly zero sense. Licenses are not transferable, so it doesn't do you any good to have 2.
A very rough guess at the numbers (I'm not part of the marketing side), but less than 85% of TGB games probably ever need source code access. Bugs that require source code changes for immediate correction notwithstanding, we just don't see that many indies needing to use source with the TGB engine. For those that do, and didn't originally purchase it, it is available.
Finally, there is a 30 day free trial of the binary version--I should think that would be enough time to evaluate if your game ideas will work with a binary only license, or if you need the source code before you purchase anything at all?
All that being said, I'll run this by the marketing department for review and see if they have any additional information or feedback.
03/18/2008 (10:16 pm)
A couple of things to keep in mind:For an Indie, having two licenses makes exactly zero sense. Licenses are not transferable, so it doesn't do you any good to have 2.
A very rough guess at the numbers (I'm not part of the marketing side), but less than 85% of TGB games probably ever need source code access. Bugs that require source code changes for immediate correction notwithstanding, we just don't see that many indies needing to use source with the TGB engine. For those that do, and didn't originally purchase it, it is available.
Finally, there is a 30 day free trial of the binary version--I should think that would be enough time to evaluate if your game ideas will work with a binary only license, or if you need the source code before you purchase anything at all?
All that being said, I'll run this by the marketing department for review and see if they have any additional information or feedback.
#6
03/19/2008 (2:23 am)
@Stephen ZeppQuote:Finally, there is a 30 day free trial of the binary version--I should think that would be enough time to evaluate if your game ideas will work with a binary only license, or if you need the source code before you purchase anything at all?The issue with the 30 day trial is that it does not include access to the private TGB forums. The private forums is where most of the under-the-hood issues are discussed and gives you a better feel as to what you are getting.
#7
My personal experience had me feeling, well, a little blind to the product without having access to the private forums. The forums do, indeed, have information that is very useful in both evaluating the product as well as getting a good grip on its capabilities.
I think, if you look, I'm about six weeks into my experience with TGB. Roughly three weeks with the demo and another three weeks with a purchased license for the binary. So, in my case, I'd suggest it took six weeks to evaluate the product (to my satisfaction), and not just four. Not to mention, having access to the private forums helped me to do so in a substantial way.
Just so I understand, permit me a chance to throw a hypothetical at you. Let us say that, at some point down the road, I wanted to hire a full time employee to work on a game with me. Not a contractor, mind you, but a full-fledged employee for whom I would have to provide equipment (computer, desk, etc.) and tools (TGB license, etc.).
In such a circumstance, wouldn't it be beneficial and in fact necessary to have a second license? That is, I can't force (and wouldn't want to force) an employee to purchase a license--a contractor is traditionally expected to provide their own utilities, including a license to software they use--however, as far as I understand the employment laws in my state, the employer must take that burden in non-contractor circumstances.
What I'm getting at is that there could be a value in owning multiple licenses, despite the fact that they are non-transferable (I wouldn't want to transfer them anyhow!).
Unless I've misunderstood, I would need to have a number of licenses equal to the number of programmers employed by me. For each that access the source, the license fee is $250. For each that access the binary only, the license fee is $100.
To quote the license (from the PRO version):
Is my understanding valid? If so, then there is some value in having two licenses, even if that value is never realized.
Frankly, I'd tend to agree that there exists very little use in me having two licenses at this point. I don't anticipate having any employees, certainly none in the near or foreseeable future, and ownership of a second license would be entirely non-kinetic to me. Useless, if you will.
But ... the option would still remain if I had two licenses. If that is the case, I'd rather spring an extra $55 and have that right, along with a seat for the source version, instead of paying $55 less and having only a single license.
Beyond that, don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that the price on the product is out of hand, or anything along that line. I think $250 is a reasonable enough price for the source version and $100 for the binary is a great deal.
The only thing that strikes me as mysterious is why an upgrade from one to the other is priced in such a way that we'd pay more for having done so. It isn't as though we'd derive any additional benefit over someone who went straight to the source version. The only difference is that we would have paid more for the same privilege.
03/19/2008 (10:12 am)
I second the notion Stanely suggests. Gaining access to the private forums was one of the major motivators for me to purchase the binary. My personal experience had me feeling, well, a little blind to the product without having access to the private forums. The forums do, indeed, have information that is very useful in both evaluating the product as well as getting a good grip on its capabilities.
I think, if you look, I'm about six weeks into my experience with TGB. Roughly three weeks with the demo and another three weeks with a purchased license for the binary. So, in my case, I'd suggest it took six weeks to evaluate the product (to my satisfaction), and not just four. Not to mention, having access to the private forums helped me to do so in a substantial way.
Quote:For an Indie, having two licenses makes exactly zero sense. Licenses are not transferable, so it doesn't do you any good to have two.
Just so I understand, permit me a chance to throw a hypothetical at you. Let us say that, at some point down the road, I wanted to hire a full time employee to work on a game with me. Not a contractor, mind you, but a full-fledged employee for whom I would have to provide equipment (computer, desk, etc.) and tools (TGB license, etc.).
In such a circumstance, wouldn't it be beneficial and in fact necessary to have a second license? That is, I can't force (and wouldn't want to force) an employee to purchase a license--a contractor is traditionally expected to provide their own utilities, including a license to software they use--however, as far as I understand the employment laws in my state, the employer must take that burden in non-contractor circumstances.
What I'm getting at is that there could be a value in owning multiple licenses, despite the fact that they are non-transferable (I wouldn't want to transfer them anyhow!).
Unless I've misunderstood, I would need to have a number of licenses equal to the number of programmers employed by me. For each that access the source, the license fee is $250. For each that access the binary only, the license fee is $100.
To quote the license (from the PRO version):
Quote:
(a) The TGB Pro Indie Game License fee for the Engine is $250 per each programmer using or accessing the source code to the Game(s) There are no additional royalties. Licensee does not have to publish the Games with GarageGames.
Is my understanding valid? If so, then there is some value in having two licenses, even if that value is never realized.
Frankly, I'd tend to agree that there exists very little use in me having two licenses at this point. I don't anticipate having any employees, certainly none in the near or foreseeable future, and ownership of a second license would be entirely non-kinetic to me. Useless, if you will.
But ... the option would still remain if I had two licenses. If that is the case, I'd rather spring an extra $55 and have that right, along with a seat for the source version, instead of paying $55 less and having only a single license.
Beyond that, don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that the price on the product is out of hand, or anything along that line. I think $250 is a reasonable enough price for the source version and $100 for the binary is a great deal.
The only thing that strikes me as mysterious is why an upgrade from one to the other is priced in such a way that we'd pay more for having done so. It isn't as though we'd derive any additional benefit over someone who went straight to the source version. The only difference is that we would have paid more for the same privilege.
#8
The Commercial license agreement allows temporary or permanent transfer of licenses.
03/19/2008 (10:30 am)
You cannot "allow someone to use" an indie license that you own. That's a temporary transfer of license, which is not allowed in the Indie license agreement.The Commercial license agreement allows temporary or permanent transfer of licenses.
#9
The substantial difference between the two licenses is that the commercial license extends the ability for the a corporate or business entity to gain use of the engine, which is not an option for such an entity by way of the Indie version. That is, a corporation can't even obtain an Indie license, they must obtain a commercial license instead.
Please, take a moment to look for yourself at the grants:
(Indie:)
(Commercial:)
Note that both provide a seat and are non-exclusive, in addition to being non-transferable. Both provide the possibility of ownership of the license to an individual while the latter permits a corporation or business entity the same ability.
There is nothing, in either EULA, specifying that use or assignment of the seat granted by a license represents a transfer of the license in any way. That is, assignment of a seat is expected--someone, including the license holder, is expected to be assigned use of the seat that the license grants. That is what the license is for! Who in their right mind, using either license, would want a seat assignment to also equate as a transfer, however temporary! It would be a horrible, horrible license if that were the implication.
Assignment of ownership to the license itself is another topic entirely, and is obviously not permitted--it is non-transferable for that reason. This goes for both the Indie and Commerical versions.
Now, I don't really want to argue the semantics of the EULA, but if the intention is for the Indie license to make use of the engine perpetually exclusive to a single individual, the license holder only, you guys should probably send the license to your lawyers for rewording because that is not how it reads as it stands.
I have to suspect that such a thing is not and was not the intention anyhow, but I obviously could be wrong. The real concern seems to be that corporations and larger entities (i.e., non-indie/small game developers) do not gain access to seats by way of the Indie license. What do I know though, you're the one who works for GG, not me ...
03/19/2008 (12:05 pm)
No ... no, in fact both are non-transferable licenses. Assignment to use of a seat has nothing at all to do with transferring that license, temporary or otherwise. The substantial difference between the two licenses is that the commercial license extends the ability for the a corporate or business entity to gain use of the engine, which is not an option for such an entity by way of the Indie version. That is, a corporation can't even obtain an Indie license, they must obtain a commercial license instead.
Please, take a moment to look for yourself at the grants:
(Indie:)
Quote:
2. LICENSE GRANT.
Licensor grants Licensee a single 'seat' to an individual, a limited non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Engine for the purposes of making source code and object code for an unlimited number of electronic single or multi-user Games ("Games").
(Commercial:)
Quote:
2. LICENSE GRANT.
(a) In accordance with the terms herein, Licensor grants a limited non-exclusive, non-transferable license to the Licensee to use the Engine for the sole purposes of making executable electronic single or multi-user games for entertainment ("Games"). This license is granted specifically to a single individual or a single corporate or business entity only. This license grants only a single seat license per commercial copy purchased, and additional copies must be purchased for each user that will use this software within a business or corporate entity at the rate of one copy/seat per user.
Note that both provide a seat and are non-exclusive, in addition to being non-transferable. Both provide the possibility of ownership of the license to an individual while the latter permits a corporation or business entity the same ability.
There is nothing, in either EULA, specifying that use or assignment of the seat granted by a license represents a transfer of the license in any way. That is, assignment of a seat is expected--someone, including the license holder, is expected to be assigned use of the seat that the license grants. That is what the license is for! Who in their right mind, using either license, would want a seat assignment to also equate as a transfer, however temporary! It would be a horrible, horrible license if that were the implication.
Assignment of ownership to the license itself is another topic entirely, and is obviously not permitted--it is non-transferable for that reason. This goes for both the Indie and Commerical versions.
Now, I don't really want to argue the semantics of the EULA, but if the intention is for the Indie license to make use of the engine perpetually exclusive to a single individual, the license holder only, you guys should probably send the license to your lawyers for rewording because that is not how it reads as it stands.
I have to suspect that such a thing is not and was not the intention anyhow, but I obviously could be wrong. The real concern seems to be that corporations and larger entities (i.e., non-indie/small game developers) do not gain access to seats by way of the Indie license. What do I know though, you're the one who works for GG, not me ...
#10
Forwarding this to our licensing folks--could you describe where the particular EULA you are quoting is (our web site version, the EULA displayed with your installer, the EULA on your hard drive, etc.)
03/19/2008 (12:24 pm)
It's always possible EULA versions don't get properly updated--we do the best we can, but sometimes things fall through the cracks. It's also possible that I could be wrong ;)Forwarding this to our licensing folks--could you describe where the particular EULA you are quoting is (our web site version, the EULA displayed with your installer, the EULA on your hard drive, etc.)
#11
http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=73218
and
http://www.garagegames.com/pg/product/eula.php?id=97
The only thing I would really mention as notably different, in terms of the non-Pro/binary and Pro/source versions of the EULA that I've seen, is that the non-Pro additionally specifies the sale and distribution of the game is dependent on paying additional license fees per programmer, first. It reads as such:
It actually provides a looser set of constraints--that one could have others use and develop without having first paid for the additional licenses so long as sale and distribution of the game isn't done before paying for those licenses. A nice and very generous concession in the agreement with an obvious eye toward the very small developers out there.
In any case, I appreciate that you've forwarded this to your licensing folks. I'm more than willing to grant that I too could be wrong, without a doubt.
Yet, for what it is worth, if I am wrong I'd suggest that the license is a *lot* less friendly to the small time game developers than most might have guessed. It has always appeared, to me, that GG is continually making strides to support and encourage the smallest of developers, not unnecessarily restrict their abilities to singly, or with others, develop games using the engine. I'm still willing to bet that isn't the case.
03/19/2008 (1:06 pm)
Though I didn't quote it, for the non-Pro version I was referencing is the EULA in my install directory (EULA_Indie_Binary.txt). I don't have local copies for the Indie-Pro or Commercial EULAs (I don't own copies of them after all!) so I was referring to web instances that I located. Specifically, by following the EULA links from their respective product pages:http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=73218
and
http://www.garagegames.com/pg/product/eula.php?id=97
The only thing I would really mention as notably different, in terms of the non-Pro/binary and Pro/source versions of the EULA that I've seen, is that the non-Pro additionally specifies the sale and distribution of the game is dependent on paying additional license fees per programmer, first. It reads as such:
Quote:
4. FEES.
(a) The TGB Indie Game License fee for the Engine is $100 per each programmer using or accessing the source code to the Game(s). Licensee may not sell or otherwise distribute Games created with the Engine until the license fee has been paid. There are no additional royalties, and Licensee does not have to show the Games or publish the Games with GarageGames.
It actually provides a looser set of constraints--that one could have others use and develop without having first paid for the additional licenses so long as sale and distribution of the game isn't done before paying for those licenses. A nice and very generous concession in the agreement with an obvious eye toward the very small developers out there.
In any case, I appreciate that you've forwarded this to your licensing folks. I'm more than willing to grant that I too could be wrong, without a doubt.
Yet, for what it is worth, if I am wrong I'd suggest that the license is a *lot* less friendly to the small time game developers than most might have guessed. It has always appeared, to me, that GG is continually making strides to support and encourage the smallest of developers, not unnecessarily restrict their abilities to singly, or with others, develop games using the engine. I'm still willing to bet that isn't the case.
#12
We have another pass of the licenses in the works, but it probably isn't going to be immediate.
03/19/2008 (1:13 pm)
The initial word from Brett is that the Pro license is still worded a bit confusingly, and Pro licenses are intended to be transferable (for business reasons, i.e. a company gets bought, they need the legal right to transfer their licenses to the purchaser. It's not intended for a re-sale market of licenses themselves).We have another pass of the licenses in the works, but it probably isn't going to be immediate.
#13
There are certainly parts of our EULA we'd like to make clearer. It's been mostly unchanged for about 5-6 years and could probably use a new pass. It's something that makes all customers nervous though and we take a bunch of crap everytime we make a change, even if it's just for clarity. We'll be addressing these issues in the near future.
Brett
03/19/2008 (1:17 pm)
Just to clarify here, the intent is that commercial licenses are transferable, but indie licenses are not. Indie licenses are not because the transfer of ownership is clearly prohibited in both and only individuals may own the indie license. Use of a commercial licenses is a different case and should transferable within the ownership of a company. There are certainly parts of our EULA we'd like to make clearer. It's been mostly unchanged for about 5-6 years and could probably use a new pass. It's something that makes all customers nervous though and we take a bunch of crap everytime we make a change, even if it's just for clarity. We'll be addressing these issues in the near future.
Brett
#14
I do understand what you are saying with respect to the transferability of a commercial license from one company to another. Frankly, I'm not concerned with the non-transferable nature of the Indie licenses, but more toward the assignment or use of the seat a license provides.
The real question here is whether your intention is that, under an Indie license presumably, an individual person may only have a single license with a single seat, period. That it is not possible, nor the intention of GG, for an individual to ever obtain multiple seats (by way of multiple licenses or the payment of additional fees via a single license) that would provide that individual the ability to have programmers work on their game using those seats, without forcing those other programmers to individually obtain licenses on their own.
If true, the definition of a small game developer narrows drastically. That is your right to define, mind you--it is your engine and your source after all! It would be a surprise, though, particularly as the EULAs read right now. Why? Because defining it that way will only affect small developers. It would have no impact whatsoever on a larger, corporate developer who would already be obtaining a commercial license.
In all, there is nothing more explicit than the license agreement as to precisely how you want others to be able to use and access the game engine (or its source). Even if it causes a stir, it is probably worthwhile to update them to reflect your certain intention. Confusion and misunderstanding in that arena is really the last thing you probably want.
03/19/2008 (2:29 pm)
LOL--yeah, I can imagine that changing the EULA will always make people a bit nervous. I do understand what you are saying with respect to the transferability of a commercial license from one company to another. Frankly, I'm not concerned with the non-transferable nature of the Indie licenses, but more toward the assignment or use of the seat a license provides.
The real question here is whether your intention is that, under an Indie license presumably, an individual person may only have a single license with a single seat, period. That it is not possible, nor the intention of GG, for an individual to ever obtain multiple seats (by way of multiple licenses or the payment of additional fees via a single license) that would provide that individual the ability to have programmers work on their game using those seats, without forcing those other programmers to individually obtain licenses on their own.
If true, the definition of a small game developer narrows drastically. That is your right to define, mind you--it is your engine and your source after all! It would be a surprise, though, particularly as the EULAs read right now. Why? Because defining it that way will only affect small developers. It would have no impact whatsoever on a larger, corporate developer who would already be obtaining a commercial license.
In all, there is nothing more explicit than the license agreement as to precisely how you want others to be able to use and access the game engine (or its source). Even if it causes a stir, it is probably worthwhile to update them to reflect your certain intention. Confusion and misunderstanding in that arena is really the last thing you probably want.
#15
Partly (there are a lot of other background reasons) it's a risk mitigation scenario for us--there are all sorts of abuses and grey areas regarding "seat swapping" that from a business perspective have to be factored in to the cost of the product, and this is a relatively painless way to mitigate those risks for us.
You are correct, it's not 100% in favor of a small studio, but then again at the price point we're talking it really shouldn't be a large barrier to any serious indie team.
03/19/2008 (2:48 pm)
Historically yes, this has been the case--indie licenses cannot be bought by a single individual and then use of those licensed doled out on a per-project basis.Partly (there are a lot of other background reasons) it's a risk mitigation scenario for us--there are all sorts of abuses and grey areas regarding "seat swapping" that from a business perspective have to be factored in to the cost of the product, and this is a relatively painless way to mitigate those risks for us.
You are correct, it's not 100% in favor of a small studio, but then again at the price point we're talking it really shouldn't be a large barrier to any serious indie team.
#16
The Pro upgrade price has been changed to the difference between the binary and Pro prices.
03/19/2008 (4:04 pm)
Addressing the original question, you guys are absolutely right. The original intent (I believe) was to incentivize consumers to purchase the source code version straight away. However, after a brief discussion, it was agreed that such a pricing structure is not in-line with our goals or marketing for TGB, nor is it in-line with our mission or with the intended learning curve for TGB. Obviously, we want newcomers to jump in with the binary and work their way up to the Pro version, not the other way around.The Pro upgrade price has been changed to the difference between the binary and Pro prices.
#17
So what about the people who upgraded at the old price from binary to source? I did the upgrade less than 2 weeks ago - am I now to be penalized for making that swap too early?? Do I get credit? Throwing any bones to those that paid full price????
You just opened a big can of worms - I hope you ready for the wigglin!
03/19/2008 (4:13 pm)
Quote:The Pro upgrade price has been changed to the difference between the binary and Pro prices.
So what about the people who upgraded at the old price from binary to source? I did the upgrade less than 2 weeks ago - am I now to be penalized for making that swap too early?? Do I get credit? Throwing any bones to those that paid full price????
You just opened a big can of worms - I hope you ready for the wigglin!
#18
Honestly, after having given it so much thought, I probably would've bought another license entirely if the views on seat assignment (re: project to project "doling") were something that you folk at GG didn't find unpleasant. I can understand the reasoning there, and how things could potentially be abused, but doesn't make it less unfortunate for small developers.
Still, it would be smart for you all to update your licenses to reflect that stance, for your benefit at least. It is absent in the existing format, so far as I can tell.
Stephen, all
I appreciate the input and willingness that you all have given toward discussing the licensing model. I wasn't expecting the thread to turn into what it has, but the outcome is good for everyone (well, maybe not early-bird Brian). I'm impressed with the responsiveness you all have had to the issue and just wanted to say "Thanks!"
03/19/2008 (4:56 pm)
Eric: Well, that pretty much decided it from me. I just sent my $150 for the upgrade.Honestly, after having given it so much thought, I probably would've bought another license entirely if the views on seat assignment (re: project to project "doling") were something that you folk at GG didn't find unpleasant. I can understand the reasoning there, and how things could potentially be abused, but doesn't make it less unfortunate for small developers.
Still, it would be smart for you all to update your licenses to reflect that stance, for your benefit at least. It is absent in the existing format, so far as I can tell.
Stephen, all
I appreciate the input and willingness that you all have given toward discussing the licensing model. I wasn't expecting the thread to turn into what it has, but the outcome is good for everyone (well, maybe not early-bird Brian). I'm impressed with the responsiveness you all have had to the issue and just wanted to say "Thanks!"
#19
03/19/2008 (4:57 pm)
Anyone who purchased the higher priced TGB Pro upgrade this year (since Jan. 1, 2008) can contact me at ericf AT garagegames DOT com and we can work something out. Any purchases made before that date will have to chalk it up to a post-purchase price drop... sorry. 
Torque Owner Tetraweb
Greg