Torque EULA Discussion

#81 @Eb - We are adding a clause to the EULA to allow non-game projects without a waiver if your company earned under $250,000 in the previous year. Still waiting on the changes from legal so I can post that draft here.

#82 Eric, I am glad that you view my posts as genuine. I make the posts to ensure that I am not breaking any rules or laws and that we all remain happy. ..and that is a fact.

As for the new clause;
- I appreciate the change & I know of a few guys/gals that are going to be overly excited to hear this has come their way.
The altered clause is quite 'fair' IMHO.
- I will contemplate my choices when the time arrives.

#83 Yeah with this guinea pig Eula section 1.9 -> The Software does not include next generation versions of the Software or versions of the Software that include major feature enhancements.

So after version 1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 whatever they can pull the plug and say to obtain the next version pay $1000 over…

Why I do not obtain an answer after asking 2 times the same question

I do not like this section when the software is not finish.

#84

Quote:if your company earned under $250,000 in the previous year

That brings me back to the question of...

What if I am financially independent and my combined assets generate revenue exceeds $250,000 a year, but none of that income is derived from any TorquePowered game creation endeavor? Also the question of how would prototyping concepts in the Torque Engine that do contribute to income, yet are not part of a final Torque based product be defined(use of Torque as a quick experimentation tool with variable profits generated indirectly from experiments outcome).

I only once attempted to make money from a (failed) TGE project(appealed to producers who still do not think Torque is a serious game engine), and after that have fully considered my Torque based game creation as a 'free time hobby' (Much less stress and much more fun as a hobby, and having no grand expectation is guaranteed to never disappoint). If I ever do have a product worth charging money for, of course I would follow any expected $250,000 stipulation based on profit from that Torque based project.

I have been a stout advocate of proper Torque EULA practice and protocol, a number of my forum post discussions directly relate to enlightening observed possible EULA transgressors. I hope this helps define my dismay at possibly finding myself in a(future) hypocritical situation with this regard.

I have always believed the past EULA $250,000 stipulation was for generated income derived from a Torque based product but I never had to worry about this a few years ago, when I was mostly normal with a modest income.

#85 @Nostre; I have another engine who only last one year(and it cost much more then Torque), then exclude you from any online resources, basically 'kicking you out' of the community if you dont pay for license updates, and there is no expectation that your paying for engine updates, just a set amount of online resource time (They do fix your code bugs within hours of you finding them, and go as far as debugging your code for you- to an extent). This same engine retracts its publishing rights licence if you do not finish your product in two years (another fee to maintain this right).

Quote:The Software does not include next generation versions of the Software.

Is simply stating you licensee ONE version progression of the engine.

Perfectly reasonable.

Quote:or versions of the Software that include major feature enhancements.

This is ambiguous and could mean a world of different things. It should be changed or clarified. Not perfectly reasonable.


EDIT: Ever have one of them days where all you type are typos?

#86 @Caylo - The restriction isn't for Torque only products. It's for the entity that owns the software ( business or other ). Are you asking about assets or revenue? I think you are asking about revenue but I want to confirm in case.

If you are an independent earning > 250k a year in revenue I think most people here would like to share in your EULA challenge. Having said that, just because an entity does earn above $250k in the prior year it doesn't mean we are going to automatically increase your price, you would just need to get a waiver. What you are talking about for prototyping sounds more like an eval license. If you want more than that and you are earning > $250 than I think we are being taken advantage of.

#87 Just a personal note about the $250k: I feel that it's correct to take into account the overall turnover. To tie the Torque related revenues only $250k is too high: see how UDK works... over $5k of UDK related revenues makes the royalties kick in, which I feel to be correct.

We can discuss that nowadays $250k is pretty low for an independent speaking of revenues only, and I tend to agree that $300k would be a better cutting edge, but always speaking of the overall turnover.

#88 @Nostre - We can't pull your license away to charge you more. 1) I'm pretty sure that it's not legal and 2) it would be mean and 3) that would kill our company. :)

When reading the EULAs there are different ways to look at it. One is legal another is a measure of practicality. That would be horrible business practice. I'll admit that we make mistakes, but I don't think we've ever put out something that would drive away everyone overnight.

#89 @Eric - some people make a LOT of money developing software and just a tiny fraction of it comes from games. Just like some people make press releases and should not have to mention Torque even if its some piece of technology related to a game.

What if our game costs us money, and we never actually see a fraction of that back but we made over 250k the whole year.

And a side rant

We're not interested in being a billboard, we don't want to port our platform to Unity3D just because of your license and logo restrictions and we do want to give additional money for branding removal in a reasonable amount for a indie developer, just don't try to f us because we "might" be successful, let us be successful then charge the correct amount.

We're waiting for a 1.1 stable, dealing with the bugs that exist, waiting for docs, etc for a long time, and we still love torque but its unfair to say you have to pay 5k to remove a logo when the game is not 250k+, save that for people who can afford to pay a little extra and dont punish us.

btw someone should respond to licensing@ email address

#90 More to add about that

Most game customers are not people that are out looking at all the engines, they are gamers.

If someone wants to know what engine MMO X was produced on its super easy to figure it out without them flying banners saying "hey torque is a great mmo platform, look what you could make in 10 minutes"

Now if Torque puts games successfully made with torque on their site people researching engines will see that and see what torque could do without pestering our customer base with torque adverts.

If there is a mandatory logo requirement it should be in the credits at most, anything else will detract from our look and feel, make our stuff look far less professional, etc.

Plus, when a game breaks the indie barrier which seems to be 250k charging a 5k fee seems acceptable. According to matt f it seems like your waiting for the golden goose so you can jack them on this branding removal and make a big payday, perhaps by even denying them branding removal.

#91 I own properties(assets) that generate revenue. EDIT: What type- A farm and 2 commercial fishing vessels, what I lease to persons more suited to use them in exchange for a percentage. I inherited this property what have been in 4 generations(the farm)...

Im not challenging the EULA, but asking for clarification.

How could I be taking advantage of anyone because I have larger bills to pay? My financially independent freedom is not related to my play time with the Torque Engine.

I have often used Torque to generate assets or test design theories what final outcome are used in other engine projects that I am freelancing on. Last project was building its own engine and had craptastic art importing ability. I just tested and tweaked my work with Torque. Final export was for the other project. I bring this up because it never occurred to me that this would qualify as making money FROM a Torque engine. And in the last two years I practically give away my freelance work.

I could see taking advantage if I use my resources to hire a team to make my products. But I do not ever wish to be a small LLC software studio.

EDIT: Oh im so sloppy on the keyboard! So sleepy 32 hour day...

#92 @Caylo - I see your perspective. I'm not sure if there is a reasonable way to cull out "software activities"...but that's the thought on our side.

A Farm...that's awesome. After so much time behind a keyboard I have visions of riding tractors during my lunch hour. Jeff Tunell, one of our founders actaully started a farm after he left. Anyways. I will have to think about that.

#93 Thanks for extending some time and thought on my (i guess more complex then I expected) concerning question.

This farm is the reason I spend summer in the hot dry allergenic Southeast corner of Washington State. It actually is quite heavenly(because I dont toil the soil, less my pathetic weed infested vegetable garden). I do not drive the tractor anymore, not after the 'accident' (that is always fun to say), my operation of the tractor was not the reason the old bridge gave away and stuck the tractor in a three foot deep irrigation ditch (as example of my faming luck). I am just not a farmer. Or a fisherman, yuck that was a nightmare of fish slime and sea filth. But I do love the sea.

And now that my thoughts are rambling....

#94 This EULA change regarding (partially) "non-game" projects, kills the use of T3D for us. We have two products in the queue, one has a very real chance to receive a larger public recognition. This one project has a huge social aspect and some might even use it for educational purposes (though thats not what it is made for).

With the new EULA, we dont even know if we can ever distribute the finished product, because the EULA means we have to haggle with TP on a case to case base because the product contains "non-game" aspects.

The second project would be ideal for T3D, but as a smaller company you have to work with limited resources. Knowledge about a core technology like a 3D engine, is a large and important resource. Will we split the developer resources between two different 3D engine technologies? No, that would be stupid. Using two different engines in a small company, means wasting resources (gathering engine knowledge), being unable to shift developers easily or even replace them if a developer leaves for some reason.

The logical choice is to focus on one engine and if you have the choice between 2 engine technologies where one of them is limited in it's use (no non-game elements in a product unless you want to haggle on a case-to-case base with the engine producer), while the competitor has no such limitations ....

If you (understandably) want a fair share of royalties for very successfull products, just add it with concrete numbers into the EULA?

For example:

20% from any yearly revenue beyond 20k US $ made by any product which integrates the XYZ engine (and contains "non-game" elements).

#95 //edited:

I read Ramihyn's example and thought that it was the worst example ever.
20% over 20k is frickin' ridiculous! ..I still think that. ..but I do have to say that my initial post here did not realize that he was adding portions of the sdk into other sdk..etc.

20 over 20 is still nuts IMO. :P

#96 Ramihyns other points still have merit.

Quote:20% from any yearly revenue beyond 20k US $ made by any product

Would probably end up being changed to "isn't for Torque only products. It's for the entity that owns the software" Im being sarcastic. But once you have some money it seems everyone wants to punish you for it. My "personal individual singular self" value should have nothing to do with EULA license arrangements in regard to profit generated from use of the SDK, two different stacks of cash.Not the same as a 'legal'(business licence)Small(Or offshoot from a large one with external funding) Software Studio using hidden cash resources to build a Torque product, under the guise of still being 'indie'. Im having a hard time understanding the logic(and now my brain is fixated on pondering what i see as obvious logical fallacious; my OCD turrets syndrome trigger).

Just gotta wait for official word from the Torque "legal" team(It have been a big T3D week at TorquePowered, "legal" could very well be all T3D frazzled out). Just to note, once more my lawyer already, in a matter of hours, compiled case examples that seem to protect contract revenue expectations from the contract to the device of the contract who levied them. At best I also now have a list of snake trick loopholes I can use to remain compliant with any future T3D EULA. But being honest by clever manipulation of the full truth is still dishonesty, in my book. I just hate the thought of being an ass on propose, normally that is a secondary accidental manifestation of my condition.

I have been known to overcomplicate simple things. But I have always been more about pursuits of academics and beauty of the arts, then protecting grubby money - maybe that is what is evoking an emotional response of discontent.

I dont know, guess I said my bit on this subject; gunna go eat ice cream and joy ride that tractor over the neighbors ugly new fence (because I can afford to replace it with something better and pleasing to the eye. HAR!) Ah constructive deconstruction, i feel better already.

#97 I was looking at the EULA and it's looking pretty nice. I just had one question. It doesn't say anything about not being able to redistribute the editors? Does that mean you can redistribute them so that end users can mod your games now? If so that is killer, since PC games thrive on the moddibility.

#98 @eb
I was just using numbers i have seen from other SDK's as an example ;)

It doesnt matter that much to me what the numbers are, but to actually KNOW them in advance and not on a "ask us, we might give you individual numbers" base. How exactly should i explain that to an investor? How does that go into a business plan?

What's really "nuts", is to sell a software 1.0 which contains quite a few bugs and lacks documentation, but allows a wide spectrum of usage. Then once you fix the problems, you change the EULA and strip several critical usage rights from your customers. It's fine to do that for the next major version, but doing that for a bugfix + documentation version? Yes, i have seen that "the timing wasnt intentional" etc. but thats what happened in the end.

So you see this cool new engine advertised and you see videos like "precipitation and wetness" and think that might be a cool technology to base a product on. You check the license and it's fine for your product, you buy the engine, but soon after realize that it is too buggy and seriously lacks documentation to be usefull commercially.

After a year of waiting and grinding your teeth because those cool demo video effects actually never made it into the engine, you see that the product finally gets back on track, bugs get fixed and documentation finally appears, but wait ... now they change the license to exclude what you bought the engine for. Right in time for a major bugfix + documentation release. At which point would YOU feel completely screwed over?

#99 ah k. I completely agree with you then. Sorry for 'jumping the gun'.

- It is all very very very depressing & I am sure this is not the end of it all.

// edit: They have lied and lied and lied .... and failed again and again and again and again and again... YET, when I speak up about anything, they say I am an the asshole.(well at least the old GG did, who knows if they still talk about people like that)

Go figure.

#100 Ya the bait and switch fiasco have been TorquePowered away by disclaiming that those were never promised T3D features, but examples of what they had been able to accomplish with T3D. Extra dirty dead sticky fish right there.... EDIT: They did give us many features that far out way the few who were misunderstood to be included.

But somehow the community have an endless aptitude for forgiving some horribly ugly behaver from our TorquePowered deity's. They have indeed kicked ass over the last few months, and made great strides of improvement. I continue to try and be optimistic.

Im starting to think the "legal" TorquePowered speak about is a set of yahtzee dice and a magic 8 ball balanced on the back of a extremely nervous cat, TorquePowered is waiting for it to cough up a EULA reversion hairball. Only plausible because, who would pay any legal professional to take 3+ weeks on a matter that have this amount of importance as a clear and precise EULA? Not to gloss over the fact so much of the 'NEW' EULA that is publicly posted have ambiguity problems, what could have been leftover bugs from some Microsoft-EULA Maker 1.0 "The Quicker Contract Maker". My lawyer would be kicked to the curb for serving such ugly writing, and expecting me to eat it with a side of admiration. I understand I have extra high expectations from payed professionals and the timely quality of delivering on matters of standard responsibility. Perhaps I expect too much from someone in the legal profession? I do expect to be informed of matters that overrun expected deadlines and complexity, and why; this can not be expecting too much. But not being continually lead to believe a EULA reversion would be farted out any day now, Post#31 07/19/2010: Post#49 07/28/2010: Post#70 08/03/2010: Post#81 08/05/2010"Still waiting on the changes from legal". Why do it take so long? Stephen King wrote 2 books in that amount of time! I have probably authored a book worth of complains on the forums here in that amount of time.

Many people have expressed some very valid points in this thread, most of what have not truly been TorquePowered addressed in any satisfactory manner. It is understandable the hesitancy to say anything that would later be EULA invalid, I give Eric Preisz "GRATS" for being careful not to say the wrong thing, and exhibit such a level of patients with so many people who do not have anymore time to hurry up and wait even longer. And what about the great points people have made, no mention of them being forwarded to 'legal' for several weeks now.

I know I had said I was done spouting verbiage on this subject, but i have 5 days left in the lower 48, and will not have any time next week to tie any TorquePowered frayed ends together. My project have been in limbo from the release of Beta3. Im not about to re-start production with 1.1 Beta 2 when the question of accepting a new EULA is completely unsolidified.

I have read it said, "That Caylo really loves to complain about stuff". I truly despise the fact this is the way I get to spend my free time, appearing to be the unchecked asshole who loves to bitch and moan.



EDIT: Because I let this sit for a few hours in hope that Eric would pop in with a late hour EULA news update. I also wanted to see if I still felt like posting it after I got back to it...

You also eb? I wonder why we would have gotten that feeling?
" who knows if they still talk about people like that" They do have Forum #45, what the website update fixed so now an outsider can not even view the Thread Names; it is endlessly reassuring they can "fix" that bug but also bust the Site Search. Hmm, it did not occur to me that perhaps the Site Search was improved, it is not busted it is made better!

I guess thats 2 TorquePowered complainers the non complainers can complain about. Oh, but if the non complainers complain about the complaining complainers then they also become part of the complaining complainers, we will not be so alone then. Of course we will not be alone among the complainers who complained about us being complaining complainers, so thats not reassuring...