studio/secondary-user Licensing Conundrum..
by TheGasMan · in General Discussion · 05/15/2011 (8:07 am) · 30 replies
If this has already been answered, my apologies.
Here's the situation.
I would like to purchase a studio license for TGB.
BUT -> If I start a second account for the extra TGB license then I would not have complete control over that account/license. 'Getting it back could be a possible headache for more than myself.
Yet, if I purchase another license to my account..then the person using that license wouldn't be able to use the forums without getting the ban-hammer-gauntlet tossed around with the non-chalanting flame happy bois of fan, at every turn.
So, how can I grab this person a TGB license, legally, yet still retain full control over that license while still allowing them to not get set on fire by the torches of the forum troll foundations ?
Is there a solution to this ?
If that wasn't explained well enough, just say so.
Here's the situation.
I would like to purchase a studio license for TGB.
BUT -> If I start a second account for the extra TGB license then I would not have complete control over that account/license. 'Getting it back could be a possible headache for more than myself.
Yet, if I purchase another license to my account..then the person using that license wouldn't be able to use the forums without getting the ban-hammer-gauntlet tossed around with the non-chalanting flame happy bois of fan, at every turn.
So, how can I grab this person a TGB license, legally, yet still retain full control over that license while still allowing them to not get set on fire by the torches of the forum troll foundations ?
Is there a solution to this ?
If that wasn't explained well enough, just say so.
About the author
gameartstore.com
Recent Threads
#2
'of course..following that old rule of N times in X days.
Maybe that would save headache ? ..let me know whenever you can. thx
05/15/2011 (10:29 am)
I wouldn't mind calling in to reset the password for the user account that has my name on the license purchase. 'of course..following that old rule of N times in X days.
Maybe that would save headache ? ..let me know whenever you can. thx
#3
//Edit: It's in the Technical forum.
05/18/2011 (1:54 am)
someone else is asking on here..but the site was doing it's 4am Romp-a-Stomp...so I lost the thread. //Edit: It's in the Technical forum.
#4
05/19/2011 (12:06 pm)
OK. So this thread sparked internal discussion, but I don't have an answer or solution right now. It has at least been brought to the attention of the higher ups.
#5
I'd like to buy a second license ASAP..and I have this section of the EULA to cover the legality of the use..
2.3.1. Individual License. If You have purchased an "Individual License," only You may use the Software, unless You are an organizational entity, in which case only one employee of Your entity may use the Software. You may install the Software on up to two (2) Personal Computers at a time in order to use the Software.
but how would this person use the forums without getting torched by torque orcs ?
05/23/2011 (3:02 pm)
I was going to message you in IRC, but I'd rather not disturb you.I'd like to buy a second license ASAP..and I have this section of the EULA to cover the legality of the use..
2.3.1. Individual License. If You have purchased an "Individual License," only You may use the Software, unless You are an organizational entity, in which case only one employee of Your entity may use the Software. You may install the Software on up to two (2) Personal Computers at a time in order to use the Software.
but how would this person use the forums without getting torched by torque orcs ?
#6
05/24/2011 (8:56 am)
I really like the idea of "gifting" licenses or bringing back a studio-like setup where licenses (and their accounts here) can be assigned and reassigned by the owner. 
#7
05/25/2011 (11:40 am)
For the time being, anyone looking at studio licensing will need to contact licensing@garagegames.com. 
#8
quote: I'd like to buy a second license ASAP
EB, as you said that, you have your "STUDIO Version" assigned to you (same as me) - couldn't you buy a second license (non-studio now) that would go in "Your Products" and thus free up your "studio version" license for using as "studio version" was intended? No EULAs broken ... I think ...
edit: below:
Doh! Might have helped if I'd read your original post, then! :S
05/25/2011 (12:02 pm)
Late to the party and probably full of fluff but ...quote: I'd like to buy a second license ASAP
EB, as you said that, you have your "STUDIO Version" assigned to you (same as me) - couldn't you buy a second license (non-studio now) that would go in "Your Products" and thus free up your "studio version" license for using as "studio version" was intended? No EULAs broken ... I think ...
edit: below:
Doh! Might have helped if I'd read your original post, then! :S
#9
@Steve: I don't have a studio license for TGB.
- I'll send out an email later today.
05/25/2011 (12:11 pm)
@DMB: Thx@Steve: I don't have a studio license for TGB.
- I'll send out an email later today.
#10
I expect that your response to this will be "But what if they quit or leave the studio for some reason?" The way things are now, that license goes with them. If you want to hire a replacement, that replacement will have to buy their own copy of Torque. IF your policy is to reimburse new employees for their Torque license AND you churn through a lot of employees, this will start to add up, but compared to past prices, you would have to go through 5 to 10 people before you equal the old costs.
Again, no decisions have been made. I'm not digging my heels in here and saying we shouldn't restart the Studio License program. But when we took over we wanted to a) slash prices, and b) simplify pricing. The Studio option seemed to add unnecessary complexity when the product is only $99.
Another thing is DRM. We don't want to add DRM to Troque products, but at the same time we see our stuff on torrent sites within hours of a new release. And we know there are plenty of cases where people who leave a studio are taking their copies of Torque with them.
05/25/2011 (12:53 pm)
No decisions have been made. Nothing is set in stone. But at $99 is the studio license really needed? If someone is going to join your team, you require them to buy a license. If you want to reimburse them you can, but that's up to you. (that's what we did with contractors now and then prior to purchasing GarageGames)I expect that your response to this will be "But what if they quit or leave the studio for some reason?" The way things are now, that license goes with them. If you want to hire a replacement, that replacement will have to buy their own copy of Torque. IF your policy is to reimburse new employees for their Torque license AND you churn through a lot of employees, this will start to add up, but compared to past prices, you would have to go through 5 to 10 people before you equal the old costs.
Again, no decisions have been made. I'm not digging my heels in here and saying we shouldn't restart the Studio License program. But when we took over we wanted to a) slash prices, and b) simplify pricing. The Studio option seemed to add unnecessary complexity when the product is only $99.
Another thing is DRM. We don't want to add DRM to Troque products, but at the same time we see our stuff on torrent sites within hours of a new release. And we know there are plenty of cases where people who leave a studio are taking their copies of Torque with them.
#11
(Edit) Case in point: My current employer flew me to NYC for the job interview, put me in a hotel overnight, and paid for meals & misc. travel (i.e. taxis). When I got the job, they flew me there again, for a week or on-site orientation & training. I have no idea what the background check cost. All told, the total came up to at least $3k - and yes, that's for a fairly ordinary software engineer.
05/25/2011 (1:36 pm)
I would think that, if employee churn is really that bad, the $99 Torque license is really among the least of your worries.(Edit) Case in point: My current employer flew me to NYC for the job interview, put me in a hotel overnight, and paid for meals & misc. travel (i.e. taxis). When I got the job, they flew me there again, for a week or on-site orientation & training. I have no idea what the background check cost. All told, the total came up to at least $3k - and yes, that's for a fairly ordinary software engineer.
#12
Can we drop the $99 bit ? ..I am here about yellow-tape, not $99.
@Erik
If I buy another license under my user and legally allow an employee to use the license for development as per section 2.3.1., then A. how would that person ask questions or chat in the forums without being fanboi-attacked for not having the license in their profile? and B. Who retains that license once the employee/person is no longer on the job for me ?
- Does it become void ?
As for your DRM point; bad apples are bad apples are bad apples.
05/25/2011 (2:09 pm)
ugh, fanbois posts..Can we drop the $99 bit ? ..I am here about yellow-tape, not $99.
@Erik
If I buy another license under my user and legally allow an employee to use the license for development as per section 2.3.1., then A. how would that person ask questions or chat in the forums without being fanboi-attacked for not having the license in their profile? and B. Who retains that license once the employee/person is no longer on the job for me ?
- Does it become void ?
As for your DRM point; bad apples are bad apples are bad apples.
#13
05/25/2011 (2:17 pm)
You would have to purchase an individual license on their account and they would retain ownership of the license unless you go through our licensing department for a studio license.
#14
So; no license-backed site-user without a new account purchase.
I wonder why that 2.3.1 clause exists..
Either way,
I'm going to quit this debate/thread as I think that it's going to invite loads of unwanted "hey look at me" posters.
Thanks for your time.
05/25/2011 (2:22 pm)
(Not said abruptly, just a shortened post to iterate my final position here)So; no license-backed site-user without a new account purchase.
I wonder why that 2.3.1 clause exists..
Either way,
I'm going to quit this debate/thread as I think that it's going to invite loads of unwanted "hey look at me" posters.
Thanks for your time.
#15
05/25/2011 (2:25 pm)
Just tryin' to help - no need for name-calling. My point remains the same at $99 or $990; either way, if you're worried about employees walking off before justifying your investment in them, that (IMHO) means you're making poor hiring decisions.
#16
05/25/2011 (2:39 pm)
ever hear of the word "assume" ? You do that well.
#17
05/25/2011 (2:48 pm)
Ever heard of "ad hominem?" How about "jerk?" Maybe the help wasn't necessary, but damn! That's no excuse for attacking me just for offering it! After you complain about "fanbois" attacking people, no less...
#18
05/25/2011 (3:29 pm)
Let's pull this back in a constructive direction rather than poking each other with internet sticks.
#19
05/25/2011 (6:07 pm)
David, I received the information I was looking to find. It's definitely sufficient. Thx
#20
It sounds like the real issue for EB is control. Its a fair point based on a reasonable interpretation of the section he sites (2.3.1). He wants to control the license. If an employee leaves, he wants to be able to get control of that license and associated GarageGames website account back - presumably so he can give it to a replacement employee.
Actually, I think section 2.3.1 allows him to do that. More accurately, his 'organizational entity' can purchase an Individual License for an employee (note: not for a contractor). If that employee changes the account password and leaves, then they are committing theft. In such an event then of course EB could contact us to take back control of the account.
However, now that EB brings it up, I'm not sure I like the language in section 2.3.1. First of all 'organizational entity' is not defined anywhere in the document. Also, it was not my intent, when I cut prices and eliminated the Studio License, to allow an organization to purchase a single license and pass it around from employee to employee (regardless of whether or not they are a replacement for someone who was fired or left). What we have is essentially a back-door studio license. We will have to change that.
My intent was that everyone who uses Torque must purchase an Individual License. I am OK with EB or an 'organizational entity' purchasing a license on behalf of an employee (or a contractor), but it becomes that employee's (or contractor's) Individual License. If they leave, they take that license with them and a new license must be purchased for the replacement employee or contractor. That was my intent... I guess we will have to change the EULA now.
The $99 price is inextricably linked to the issues at hand. At such a low price, it was my assumption that a Studio could afford to purchase multiple Individual Licenses. In fact, the total cash outlay for a studio would be less than it would have been under the old pricing model (unless they experience significant turnover in employees). Therefore, because of the $99 price, I felt Studio Licenses were irrelevant and added needless complexity. So no, we can't just 'drop' $99 from the discussion.
EB's implication is that the $99 price is some kind of 'bit' as if to say it's slight-of-hand, that I am trying to trick you in some way, or that the price is not really $99. I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The price really is $99. For that $99 you get full source code. You do not have to pay us royalties, no matter how many units you ship or how much revenue your game generates. You do not have to pay us $99 per game - you can make and sell as many games as you would like. You can sell your game in any market world wide. In exchange, we ask that everyone who uses our engine pays us.
To sum it all up, it sounds like we need to change 2.3.1 of our EULA. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Our current policy on Studio Licenses is not set in stone. We are experimenting. I am willing to listen to reasons for why we should make them available again. That is why I am here, taking the time to write such a long post.
05/25/2011 (6:34 pm)
Whoa... I step away for a few hours and look what happens.It sounds like the real issue for EB is control. Its a fair point based on a reasonable interpretation of the section he sites (2.3.1). He wants to control the license. If an employee leaves, he wants to be able to get control of that license and associated GarageGames website account back - presumably so he can give it to a replacement employee.
Actually, I think section 2.3.1 allows him to do that. More accurately, his 'organizational entity' can purchase an Individual License for an employee (note: not for a contractor). If that employee changes the account password and leaves, then they are committing theft. In such an event then of course EB could contact us to take back control of the account.
However, now that EB brings it up, I'm not sure I like the language in section 2.3.1. First of all 'organizational entity' is not defined anywhere in the document. Also, it was not my intent, when I cut prices and eliminated the Studio License, to allow an organization to purchase a single license and pass it around from employee to employee (regardless of whether or not they are a replacement for someone who was fired or left). What we have is essentially a back-door studio license. We will have to change that.
My intent was that everyone who uses Torque must purchase an Individual License. I am OK with EB or an 'organizational entity' purchasing a license on behalf of an employee (or a contractor), but it becomes that employee's (or contractor's) Individual License. If they leave, they take that license with them and a new license must be purchased for the replacement employee or contractor. That was my intent... I guess we will have to change the EULA now.
Quote:Can we drop the $99 bit ?No.
The $99 price is inextricably linked to the issues at hand. At such a low price, it was my assumption that a Studio could afford to purchase multiple Individual Licenses. In fact, the total cash outlay for a studio would be less than it would have been under the old pricing model (unless they experience significant turnover in employees). Therefore, because of the $99 price, I felt Studio Licenses were irrelevant and added needless complexity. So no, we can't just 'drop' $99 from the discussion.
EB's implication is that the $99 price is some kind of 'bit' as if to say it's slight-of-hand, that I am trying to trick you in some way, or that the price is not really $99. I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The price really is $99. For that $99 you get full source code. You do not have to pay us royalties, no matter how many units you ship or how much revenue your game generates. You do not have to pay us $99 per game - you can make and sell as many games as you would like. You can sell your game in any market world wide. In exchange, we ask that everyone who uses our engine pays us.
To sum it all up, it sounds like we need to change 2.3.1 of our EULA. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Our current policy on Studio Licenses is not set in stone. We are experimenting. I am willing to listen to reasons for why we should make them available again. That is why I am here, taking the time to write such a long post.
Employee Michael Perry
ZombieShortbus