TGEA vs Torque3D Mods Discussion
by Chris Cain · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 04/20/2009 (8:33 am) · 11 replies
The official stance seems to be that games developed with Torque3D are not allowed to have player created mods/maps/etc without a license extension. It is claimed that there is no distinction on the licenses on the editors between TGE, TGEA, TGB ( and presumably T2D), and T3D. However, this is incorrect. It has been confirmed on multiple occasions in the past by previous GG employees that you are allowed to distribute the editors and non-compiled *.cs files for mod/map making purposes for your players.
The license for TGE and TGEA clearly states that you are not allowed to make a competing game-making package with the technology. Furthermore, you can view the licenses on the products pages. TGB very clearly states:
(e) Licensee may not distribute any Torque Game Builder-specific editors, including but not limited to the Level Builder, Tile Builder and Particle Builder, in any manner, unless recipient also has a license to the Engine.
There is no such line in TGEA's license. So yes, there is a difference. Torque3D is a downgrade in this regard.
Now, I would love it if Torque3D would have open-to-distribute editors for mod making and map making purposes ... that's the biggest reason I have for not buying Torque3D at this point (I'm unwilling to even consider the "e-mail us" price-tag) ... but I just want to make sure that GG understands that it's too late to change this policy for TGE and TGEA. It's been confirmed too many times in the past, and it's clearly not a distinction in the license agreement, so it's not something you can just say "hasn't changed between TGEA and Torque3D".
Thanks for reading.
The license for TGE and TGEA clearly states that you are not allowed to make a competing game-making package with the technology. Furthermore, you can view the licenses on the products pages. TGB very clearly states:
(e) Licensee may not distribute any Torque Game Builder-specific editors, including but not limited to the Level Builder, Tile Builder and Particle Builder, in any manner, unless recipient also has a license to the Engine.
There is no such line in TGEA's license. So yes, there is a difference. Torque3D is a downgrade in this regard.
Now, I would love it if Torque3D would have open-to-distribute editors for mod making and map making purposes ... that's the biggest reason I have for not buying Torque3D at this point (I'm unwilling to even consider the "e-mail us" price-tag) ... but I just want to make sure that GG understands that it's too late to change this policy for TGE and TGEA. It's been confirmed too many times in the past, and it's clearly not a distinction in the license agreement, so it's not something you can just say "hasn't changed between TGEA and Torque3D".
Thanks for reading.
#2
And I don't think the stock editors are that bad, even in TGEA. Obviously, if your game adds features that could be expressed in the editor, your editor should have those features in it... e.g., maybe you want a mission area in the shape of a sphere or something... so the editor should be able to visualize the sphere and shape it and such. But there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Why code a whole new editor when one sufficient for the job is already provided? It's like writing a whole new player class just because the stock one doesn't have the ability to crouch.
And I honesty don't see why they think changing policies like that would be a wise move. People already think they're turning evil for various reasons (and the community has lost a few people because of it) ... why would they shrink the community and do permanent damage by disallowing a previously touted feature?
It may not be too late to change the license, but after they do that, it will be too late for them to get the impending community losses.
edit: Let's be clear: What I'm talking about for the previous 2 paragraphs is if they changed the license of TGEA and TGE to disallow the shipment of editors. I don't see the changing of the policy for Torque3D to be evil in any way... but, it is disappointing.
04/20/2009 (4:17 pm)
I haven't emailed them... I suppose I could do that, but the problem is that I just wouldn't have that much money laying around... now or if/when my game is released. I was one of the ones that said that anything higher than $600 (or $300 upgrade fee) wouldn't be achievable. So, for me to stretch $505 is already far exceeding what I'm normally willing to pay. The shippable editor license would have to be $100 or less... and, let's be honest, it would cost them more time/money to have you email them for a price quote than to just put that on the website as an option or license extension or something.And I don't think the stock editors are that bad, even in TGEA. Obviously, if your game adds features that could be expressed in the editor, your editor should have those features in it... e.g., maybe you want a mission area in the shape of a sphere or something... so the editor should be able to visualize the sphere and shape it and such. But there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Why code a whole new editor when one sufficient for the job is already provided? It's like writing a whole new player class just because the stock one doesn't have the ability to crouch.
And I honesty don't see why they think changing policies like that would be a wise move. People already think they're turning evil for various reasons (and the community has lost a few people because of it) ... why would they shrink the community and do permanent damage by disallowing a previously touted feature?
It may not be too late to change the license, but after they do that, it will be too late for them to get the impending community losses.
edit: Let's be clear: What I'm talking about for the previous 2 paragraphs is if they changed the license of TGEA and TGE to disallow the shipment of editors. I don't see the changing of the policy for Torque3D to be evil in any way... but, it is disappointing.
#3
Well they had to balance that with the greater wish of the community to provide a lower price point in the Basic edition. If shipping the world editor was a feature that was widely used, then they may have made a different decision. But the fact is since the inception of GarageGames and Torque, very, very few games have shipped with the world editor even when it was allowed. So it's not really some big blow to the community like you're making it out to be, to take a feature that nobody was using and making it a separate license point, in exchange for providing a Basic edition that is $700 cheaper than the Pro edition for team members that don't need the source code.
I can understand it being frustrating if you were really one of the few that was going to do it. In all honesty though, trying to make a compelling game that has enough community interest to warrant being moddable, with a budget of $600, probably isn't realistic.
Though heck, if you DO make a compelling game that sells, you can always ship an editor later. Find out what the price point is for the editor, and if it's something that you think you'll be able to swing after selling x number of games, then just tell your people that the editor will ship in a month or two. Plenty of games have editors shipped well after the fact. If you can't sell enough games to warrant the cost of licensing the editor, then is there really any point of shipping it? Just having an editor isn't going to be a magical replacement for making a game that people want to play, unless they really are using it as a game making tool instead.
04/20/2009 (8:23 pm)
Quote:
And I honesty don't see why they think changing policies like that would be a wise move. People already think they're turning evil for various reasons (and the community has lost a few people because of it) ... why would they shrink the community and do permanent damage by disallowing a previously touted feature?
Well they had to balance that with the greater wish of the community to provide a lower price point in the Basic edition. If shipping the world editor was a feature that was widely used, then they may have made a different decision. But the fact is since the inception of GarageGames and Torque, very, very few games have shipped with the world editor even when it was allowed. So it's not really some big blow to the community like you're making it out to be, to take a feature that nobody was using and making it a separate license point, in exchange for providing a Basic edition that is $700 cheaper than the Pro edition for team members that don't need the source code.
I can understand it being frustrating if you were really one of the few that was going to do it. In all honesty though, trying to make a compelling game that has enough community interest to warrant being moddable, with a budget of $600, probably isn't realistic.
Though heck, if you DO make a compelling game that sells, you can always ship an editor later. Find out what the price point is for the editor, and if it's something that you think you'll be able to swing after selling x number of games, then just tell your people that the editor will ship in a month or two. Plenty of games have editors shipped well after the fact. If you can't sell enough games to warrant the cost of licensing the editor, then is there really any point of shipping it? Just having an editor isn't going to be a magical replacement for making a game that people want to play, unless they really are using it as a game making tool instead.
#4
04/20/2009 (11:21 pm)
Good suggestion Gerald - it's exactly how Left4Dead did things, it shipped without editors and they've annouced recently that there will be a free SDK shipping that will allow players to mod the game.
#5
It's quite simple, there is absolutely no way to please everyone. If your game is moddable ... so what? If they'd prefer faster action, they can increase the speed of the player. If they'd prefer instant-kills all the time, they can increase the damage of weapons. If they want a nuclear missile, they can add that. If they want a racing game-type, they can add it. If they want to run around and collect pink pixies while yelling marco polo, they can do it. All of these would be absurd to implement in your game at first for several reasons (time-money, balance, the fact that not everyone will like it, etc).
But mods? If your players can just change things to exactly how they want it, then it suddenly becomes a game for EVERYONE. Everyone can have their little niche satisfied, if they so choose.
The same idea with maps. Maybe you choose to have your game to have large open fields to fight in... maybe 10% of the players who want to play your game would like to fight inside a small building? Are you going to increase your development time by 15% to please those 10%? Probably not. Are you going to want to turn away an additional 10% in profit? Probably not. With mapping tools and modding tools, you don't have to do either. Someone from that 10% will make the small map, add instant-kill weapons, and make everyone run around faster than a ferret on speed.
If anything features like this are more important to indie game success. Not to mention, I feel like indie games (heck, even AAA titles) feel "cheaper" without mods... almost as if it's not a serious game. Maybe that's just because I've been raised on the idea that any long-lasting fun game (for me) is easily moddable (Tribes, Tribes 2, Morrowind, Oblivion, Unreal Tournament 3, etc.) while games that are "good fun for a week" can't be modded (Fable II, Fallen Empire: Legions -- until it becomes moddable ;) --, etc). I mean, heck, I still screw around with Morrowind & Oblivion ... and I'd still screw around with Tribes & Tribes 2 had they not closed the master servers. (I'm eagerly waiting the return of Tribes at IA, btw!)
So, I guess the point is that modding/mapping tools for the end-user greatly add value to your end product. At the same time, an "email us" price is (most likely) far too high to be made back on a simple small indie game. Realistically, I'd prefer to make a small fun game that costs no more than $10 ... I'd expect "email us" to mean at least $1000 ... so, for me, that'd be the profit from 100 people buying my game, along with all of the other costs associated. If I use the 10% rule I used above, that means I'd have to sell over 1000 copies for it to be justified. It's just not reasonable to expect such a small indie game to be profitable enough to justify prices like that.
04/21/2009 (11:17 am)
That way does seem to work quite often... but there is one error in the logic behind that. Every game that does it that way, is AAA. Oblivion didn't include the editor with their game at first. But it's AAA. These games get enough interest just from being released. In an indie game, I think there's far more to benefit from immediate community involvement.It's quite simple, there is absolutely no way to please everyone. If your game is moddable ... so what? If they'd prefer faster action, they can increase the speed of the player. If they'd prefer instant-kills all the time, they can increase the damage of weapons. If they want a nuclear missile, they can add that. If they want a racing game-type, they can add it. If they want to run around and collect pink pixies while yelling marco polo, they can do it. All of these would be absurd to implement in your game at first for several reasons (time-money, balance, the fact that not everyone will like it, etc).
But mods? If your players can just change things to exactly how they want it, then it suddenly becomes a game for EVERYONE. Everyone can have their little niche satisfied, if they so choose.
The same idea with maps. Maybe you choose to have your game to have large open fields to fight in... maybe 10% of the players who want to play your game would like to fight inside a small building? Are you going to increase your development time by 15% to please those 10%? Probably not. Are you going to want to turn away an additional 10% in profit? Probably not. With mapping tools and modding tools, you don't have to do either. Someone from that 10% will make the small map, add instant-kill weapons, and make everyone run around faster than a ferret on speed.
If anything features like this are more important to indie game success. Not to mention, I feel like indie games (heck, even AAA titles) feel "cheaper" without mods... almost as if it's not a serious game. Maybe that's just because I've been raised on the idea that any long-lasting fun game (for me) is easily moddable (Tribes, Tribes 2, Morrowind, Oblivion, Unreal Tournament 3, etc.) while games that are "good fun for a week" can't be modded (Fable II, Fallen Empire: Legions -- until it becomes moddable ;) --, etc). I mean, heck, I still screw around with Morrowind & Oblivion ... and I'd still screw around with Tribes & Tribes 2 had they not closed the master servers. (I'm eagerly waiting the return of Tribes at IA, btw!)
So, I guess the point is that modding/mapping tools for the end-user greatly add value to your end product. At the same time, an "email us" price is (most likely) far too high to be made back on a simple small indie game. Realistically, I'd prefer to make a small fun game that costs no more than $10 ... I'd expect "email us" to mean at least $1000 ... so, for me, that'd be the profit from 100 people buying my game, along with all of the other costs associated. If I use the 10% rule I used above, that means I'd have to sell over 1000 copies for it to be justified. It's just not reasonable to expect such a small indie game to be profitable enough to justify prices like that.
#6
04/21/2009 (12:23 pm)
It wasn't just Oblivion that shipped without out of the box modding, there have been dozens of games that shipped without it and then added it in later via an SDK or modding kit.
#7
04/21/2009 (12:29 pm)
That doesn't discount my original point. My point was that they are AAA games (hence why it was italicized so much). AAA games usually don't have to care about each individual end-user's desire ... people will buy the game a lot, regardless. But for a low budget (and really low budget, in my case) indie game, you have to realize that every one of your users is extremely important to the success of your game.
#8
04/21/2009 (2:25 pm)
If it really is a key feature of your game then email GG to discuss with them or have a go at writing your own editor - it's not that hard to add your own editors to the game. Perhaps I'm just a great believer in where theres a will theres a way
#9
04/21/2009 (3:30 pm)
Well, I guess that's another concern. Is it possible to strap in TGEA's editor into your T3D project and ship it with that? I mean, that'd be easy/good enough. Would you even be allowed to make your own editor? It's questions like that which need to be answered too. 
#10
It seems to me that doubt is being cast on the legality ( in terms of compliance with EULA ) of a game shipping with an in-game editor --- which tends to be pretty common these days.
I'm assuming though that if an fps or wargame shipped with the ability to auto-generate maps or have players create maps using an in-game map creator then that ought to be exempt from this change in EULA since auto-generation of maps or players creating maps would be done through in-game code and processes and not through the torque engine itself - although obviously visual representation of that map would be via the engine.
So, has this been clarified?
05/21/2009 (8:01 pm)
Has there been any clarification of this point?It seems to me that doubt is being cast on the legality ( in terms of compliance with EULA ) of a game shipping with an in-game editor --- which tends to be pretty common these days.
I'm assuming though that if an fps or wargame shipped with the ability to auto-generate maps or have players create maps using an in-game map creator then that ought to be exempt from this change in EULA since auto-generation of maps or players creating maps would be done through in-game code and processes and not through the torque engine itself - although obviously visual representation of that map would be via the engine.
So, has this been clarified?
#11
It seems that they don't want you to ship editors with TGEA either, even though it was fine in the past. The TGEA EULA currently has no restrictions in place, but I'm sure they will quickly add such restrictions if necessary.
It probably wasn't a good idea to post this topic in this forum anyway, since it appears that edit: employees don't check this forum as often.
05/21/2009 (8:26 pm)
Not yet, but I think it's pretty set in stone for Torque 3D. No shipping any editors without EULA extension.It seems that they don't want you to ship editors with TGEA either, even though it was fine in the past. The TGEA EULA currently has no restrictions in place, but I'm sure they will quickly add such restrictions if necessary.
It probably wasn't a good idea to post this topic in this forum anyway, since it appears that edit: employees don't check this forum as often.
Torque Owner Gerald Fishel
Development Ninja
Obviously a license for shipping the entire stock editor set that comes with T3D is probably going to be expensive, but personally I find the notion of shipping the stock editors as being pretty cheesy. If you want to make a modable game, you should be providing editors that are modeled around the functionality of your game rather than just some general purpose world editor. I'm sure they'll be more willing to work out an affordable deal for shipping custom game-targeted editors that can't be used as a general purpose game making tool.
I do concur that it has always been established that shipping the editor(s) with TGE/TGEA has been acceptable. Though the reason for them changing that policy should be pretty obvious.
And the license can always be amended, so it's never too late for them to change the policy for TGE/TGEA :P