Torque3D and Unity's New Pricing

#141 Sure its possible to create a AAA game without source code access. However, the moment that you need to do something that you cannot do in script, you are stuck. You'll also start to get limited by the slow interpreted speeds of script as opposed to compiled source code (which can be a concern once your game logic gets complicated enough).

As for selling mods, you'd have to check the eula of the game that you are modding. Most likely, it'll be prohibited unless you get permission to do so. Look at Counterstrike, it started off as a mod.

#142 Tell me one Thing.. if you wanted to make a FPS in Torque with Multiplayer. Weapons, Pickups and Drivable Vehicles, What would you need the source code for to do this?

All those features are built in and are Scriptable.

So even with Torque you can make a complete game without the Source Code.

If there is some technical limition to what you are trying to do and what the script cant't do. You can easily design around those limitiations.

You don't need the low level source code in any of these engines to make a game.. Its a question of what are you trying to do in your game.

With any of these engines. The core of the engine doesn't need to change. All your gameplay specific stuff is done in script anyway.

That Said.. I wont downplay the fact that having the source gives you a tremendous amount of power as a dev and much more felxiblity in what you can do. It allows you to work outside the box.

But saying you can't make a AAA game without it.. Is a Misnomer.. All the tools are there with any one of these engines out of the box to make a Game.. What they are waiting for is content.You can certainly work inside the box. Alot of us are not programmers we are designers and artists who will never touch the code.

All im saying is that Those other 2 engines with great tools have opened the flood gates for us Non progammers. I think we will see their User Base Jump tremendously because of it. And you Will see a Ton of great Content!

#143 I guess it depends on your definition of what a "AAA" game is and who makes one. I think the best analogy I can make is you are assigned to do a job and you are given a lot of tools to do the job. For most jobs those tools will work, but if you need to do something a little bit out of the ordinary you are going to be limited by what you have and either have to work around it with a combination of tools and uses that they were not meant for, or you have to go back to your tool master and beg for a new tool. Sometimes it is best just to be able to go to the hardware shop and buy a tool when you need it. Not to say your current tool set cannot get most of the jobs done though.

#144 OK, i guess some people confuse something.
The first thing you have to know is: In most cases it is necessary to expand the engine with your own functions. No engine (from "free" to "xxxx millions of dollars") offers all functions you need. Access to a Webserver, special operations on the file system or your own AI.

So you have to differentiate between...

#1: ... the source code of the engine itself and...
#2: ... a connection to append your own functions with VC++, VB or Delphi (via a DLL).

As far as i know C4 has this kind of differentiation. You can modify the engine itself and recompile the code. And the code of your game is in another dll.

What i want to say is: If you have a port to the Engine-API with the possibility to add your own solutions with a VC++-Project or a DLL, you dont need the source code of the engine itself. Otherwise the source of the engine is needed.

#145 Ok, lets resolve this the proper way. Pick your preferred FPS and the last one standing is right...

#146 @Drethon - Best idea so far. Team Fortress 2 or L4D, tonight. Steam ID zsbMich.

#147 Wow, did all the vocal people loose the game night and are being sullenly quiet or did GG loose and ban all the winners? This sudden silence is creepy...

;p

#148 No one sent me challenges =(
Fear me not kind people, for I only PWN in the least degree.

#149

Quote:No one sent me challenges =(
Fear me not kind people, for I only PWN in the least degree.

I am am Torque to Unity convertor but I would be up for some L4D. Steam ID is ryanzec. Just give me the date and time and I will let know you if I can make it (I am Eastern Standard Time).

#150 @Ryan Zec - Competitive or co-op? If competitive, make sure you gather your team. I know my three team mates, and I'd hate for you to get stuck with random dregs =)

#151 @Michael Perry - For L4D, I'd rather do co-op (co-op in L4D is more fun to me and to show to not matter what game engine you use, everyone can get along).

#152 ok so the argument here is that torque is better because you cannot code for udk in native c++ and are restricted to only uising what has been predefined to unrealscript??

well what if that were no longer true

wouldnt that be a game changer??

http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/DLLBind.html

the point is that now you can code in native c++ in udk and i felt that that fact was being sourly overlooked in this thread

so i leave you now

proceed

#153 @Michael - Nice link! Is there an example or DLL for deferred rendering to get advanced lighting like Torque 3D? Oh, and I really need to set up two UDP connections for standard networking and DIS/HLA. Need that DLL as well.

The original point is not that you could just code in C++, it was that you had the entire engine source code to modify. If you wanted to gut the rendering system and drop in Ogre, it's possible. If you wanted to swap TNL for Racknet (don't know why you would), you can. Want to support Python or LUA?

The ability to call DLL functions is very cool, and a must for a closed source product. However, C++ support does not mean engine source access.

#154 It isn't just that Torque 3D has a standard, affordable, no "email us and we'll dick around with the price" (or more likely not get back to you), full source option...

A tremendous amount of engineering effort goes into making Torque 3D's build system clean, flexible, and highly modular. I've been pouring work into it and continue to be surprised how expandable it is, looking forward to the day I can talk openly about it :)

It is understandable that full source isn't a big deal to some people, that's cool. It is a pretty big deal to me and one of the main reasons I continue to invest my efforts into Torque.

#155 Fully agreeing here. And while I've come to be a staunch critic of open-source projects, I wish all software that you buy would come with source. Being at the mercy of the initial developer to fix things or implement stuff that I need is just a bad thing.

Out of the top of my head, I could name at least five applications I bought that have critical issues I know I could fix within an hour at most each--if I had the source.

With Torque, you don't get to only use the engineering work, you get the engineering work itself. This is a big value to me (though sure, an artist will understandably find zero value in this).

#156 Rene, Torque 3D is an open-source product which uses a load of open-source projects, both in its core tech, development environment (SVN/TortoiseSVN, Build System, servers), website, installer, etc :)

All open-source means to me is that source is available. Getting into license and development methodology is another matter. The BSD license and the development methods of products like Qt/Mono are kind of hard to rail against. I am not sure how someone can be a staunch critic of open-source projects, at large... but maybe you've managed :)

Quote:Being at the mercy of the initial developer to fix things or implement stuff that I need is just a bad thing.

Totally, the last point release of the binary version your project is using is the end... with no chance to patch up future operating system/hardware compatibility issues, add something, your hands are completely tied.

Quote:With Torque, you don't get to only use the engineering work, you get the engineering work itself.

Quoted for much truth and win!

#157 Okay, then I should probably rephrase my statement: I am a staunch critic of open-source products not developed by someone who gets paid for it. There is good stuff out there but most projects just lack focus, vision, and responsibility.

And you mention the open-source tech we use with Torque 3D. Example: I've done (and to much to my dismay still have to at times) web development work with PHP and yes, it's quite a good example. PHP is a crime.

Qt is different since, while source is available, it is developed by a single company that makes a living off it. Dependence on livelihood is good. Centralized control is good. IMO that's the best thing Windows has to offer over that abysmal mess that is Linux (what's the count for desktop environments on Linux today?).

So, I guess my point of focus is less the availability of source than the development model that is behind it.

Okay, totally digressing from the thread's topic here...

#158 There's 8 pages of digression in this thread... and as we're talking about source code vs no source code, at least partially relevant :)

I only care whether something fits my needs or not... couldn't care less about the philosophy behind it. We run a Linux server in the office. It is great stuff for its purposes. Linux is just a kernel (and standard), distros are really just managers of the (same) packages. I can switch between Ubuntu/OpenSUSE without any confusion and use exactly the same software packages.

The concept that open-source projects are forked into a zillion unusable branches isn't reality, mostly people stick with core development especially of non-trivial projects. I would say that Microsoft isn't a good example of centralized control. Apple is, and that control, makes them stronger in certain ways... and weaker in others. I like Microsoft more than Apple, where I am not a willing slave to their technology *cough* iPod *cough* :)

I am sure the folks that put together the TorquePowered.com site (which is very good) have an opinion as to PHP not being a "crime" and why they used it. As for PHP not being commercial, hm, I bet there is more $$$ generated by it in an hour than in the history of Torque. There are many ways of monetizing technology, selling source code to people who understand its worth, one of the hardest.

The biggest thing most technology has going for it is adoption (aka market share). That is a difficult thing to gain and an easy thing to lose. There are many ways to both gain/lose market, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with source code. Unity Free is an effort to gain market share ... Unity Free is a binary. It also isn't simply a display of generosity, they're hoping it helps dominate the market thus opening up commercial and other opportunities.

#159 Just to steer this a little back on course...

Torque launched with source and that power, control, flexibility remains a key feature of the technology. The source distribution has continually been polished and with Torque 3D it is some of the best/cleanest/easiest to build game technology in existence.

I think work to make Torque 3D less "source necessary" for certain tasks is important. However, I feel strongly that a no-nonsense source license remains extremely important to the product and really sets it apart from binary black boxes.

#160 First, the arguments back there were silly. Shame on all of you back a few pages, insulting each other over preferred tech like common Forum Creatures. This is a forum for sharing ideas, not having a prepubescent slap fight. This used to be a happy place. ;D

Okay, but seriously, I agree that Torque's strength is in access to CORE source files. I'm the kind of person who needs to have the option of entirely rewriting the position handling code at a base object levels if I want to (something I've done before), and there's no box solution out there which can provide that in this price range.

That said, not everyone cares about those things. Most people will never dig into Torque's darker areas because their game design simply doesn't require it to do anything it can't handle already. So for every person like me who thinks Torque is the right solution and insists on having full code down to the crazy opcode, there's another guy who'd rather just have better tools and a smoother art path, and that person might prefer an engine like Unity. To each his own, eh?

Here's how I see it (and I know you're all on the edge of your seats): Torque is an actual commercial game engine that was turned into a dev tool, while Unity was built originally as a dev tool. Unity probably has the better in-engine tools, while Torque provides better overall flexibility. Neither of those seem like a clear "win" from a global standpoint.

Also:

Quote:
PHP is a crime

I thought I was the only one. *wipes away a tear*

Little addiional note, on the topic of AAA: I'm not sure that's really a reasonable way to define which is the "better" engine anyway. You could make a AAA level FPS/TPS game in either engine out of the box if you had a couple $mil to spend on artwork, level design, voice actors, etc, but many of us aren't in that category (either don't have the money, or don't want to make a standard genre of game, or both). In fact, for indie devs, the #1 focus is generally on making someting abnormal that appeals to a niche the AAA market has missed.