So, Garage games is now switching to a "pay per update" system?

#1 I don't think a pay per update model is a bad idea, especially when there is large salary overheads to think about. I'd sooner pay this per update than GG to go out of business and just solely rely on new business, it would put countless pressure on the sales/marketing side to keep things ticking over.

Its worth putting the amount paid originally down to experience, a head start in learning torque. Also, worth selling any of your own Torque based software resources or art packs that you may have developed, or not used in the GG store and re-coup some of that investment.

#2 Also, if the update prices are as they are now (around 50$), then it's actually a no brainer for me to update let's say once a year. There is no other engine with full source on the market for such a price. I only hope that even tough T3D comes with source, there are more efforts to make it more general-purpose than it is now (very much fps centric).

#3 There has actually been a history of certain dot upgrades being paid upgrades, since the time-spans between the major releases are so far apart that it's very much needed to keep the company afloat (after all, what happens when new engine sales level out to a rate too low to keep paying people?). I don't see a problem with it, and I don't think that it indicates that every dot upgrade will be paid (I'm very sure they would've blogged about that in their announcements if it was the case).

#4 The way I understand it: yes. For every 1.x where x is incremented it will be a fee to get that version. For every 1.xy where y is incremented there will not be a fee. This is a way better model than say $500 or $1000 bucks. That way everyone benefits from leveraging the community.

Also, I had a non-studio version before. Before the 1.2 release it had a "convert" button on my 1.1 product. When I clicked it a message came up asking if I wanted to convert to Studio for $29. I did not do that. Then when 1.2 came out I clicked the "convert" button and it came up with the same information except now it asked if I wanted to convert to 1.2 Studio for $49. So if you had a studio version before then it was $20, not $50. So I am guessing the next upgrade will be around that amount. So $20 for a maintained product is actually an excellent price.

#5 I believe they said nothing is set in stone, they're just going to see how this update goes and then decide on future plans.

A "dot" upgrade is really a very subjective thing, anyway. They could have just as easily called this version 2.0, which is what many software companies might have done, considering the amount of work that went into it. Once or twice a year I have to pay to update WinZip if I want to have the latest version, and that costs me roughly the same as the T3D 1.2 update, usually for very minor feature changes on a simple file compression application.

I realize that many of us (myself included) paid a lot more than $99 for the engine, and it may seem petty to ask for another $20 to upgrade. But remember that even back then they said they were considering periodic paid updates, and if they had kept the price at $1000 for the engine, those paid updates would have likely been a whole lot more than $20. So we're still getting a break from the price drop.

#6 Well i don't know what i was supposed to do to be part of the 20$ deal but, it's 49$ for me, which isn't exactly the same, but as I said, it's extra money i have to fork for features that i was pretty much expecting to be part of what i already paid for...

Thankfully the updated documentation is free -_-, so there is at least that.

#7 We're also putting together a patch file for bugfixes that will be available to 1.1 owners for free. That will be available in about 30 days.

With that said, I'm actually honestly surprised that you seem to be caught off guard by the update being a paid one. We announced that back in the first week of October, though we have been blogging more than we used to, so that blog may have got knocked off the front page sooner than it should have. I'd love hear what you would think we could do to message stuff like that better to everyone.

#8 I don't think there was any mention of most of these new features when you purchased T3D, so I'm not sure why you would have been expecting them to be part of what you already paid for.

Maybe the bug fixes, which I believe you will still get for free if you don't pay for 1.2. Eric mentioned in one of the blogs that they decided they would provide a free bug-fix patch to existing owners sometime after the release of 1.2, that would cover all of the bug fixes they made, but would not include the new features like the first person models or the Chinatown assets.

#9 All the bug fixes are free too they said they would release the bug fixes with in this coming month.

Quote:Improvements and Fixes
Focusing on creating a FPS with Torque 3D 1.2 allowed us to find specific bugs and usability issues with Torque 3D that would have been difficult to locate any other way. On top of that you, the community, have provided us with a plethora of feedback on ways to make Torque 3D 1.2 better. I’m happy to say that on top of the cool features listed above we have been able to address a ton of things with Torque 3D 1.2. You can find the change-log posted here. We’ll also be making these fixes available to current Torque 3D 1.1 users in the coming month so keep your eyes posted for that.

#10 @Kyrah,
Mine was $49 as well. It is because the license was pro, not studio. So what you actually paid for was a Studio upgrade + the 1.2 release. Studio upgrade is $29 and the release is $20. That is why it is $49.

@Gerald,
The way I understand that anything before the new company was founded is history. This is their new model. I dunno about you, but I paid $200 for a yearly service to protect my identity from theft, $30 for a backup program, $15 a month for an internet hosting account, and $150 for an operating system. So $20 upgrade for a maintained product that comes with source code, I can actually talk to the developers, and has a great license is a steal. Of all of my expenses in life, this is not a large one.

#11 I think a lot of people either forget or maybe don't even know that this is a new company, so from that perspective its easy to understand how people can get a little upset about how their investment has been devalued, and then charged for updates.

I do however believe that some people have a very weird sense of entitlement at times, its this which irks me more than most other things.

Sure, I've been vocal about certain things, I spent extra money to buy extra products just before the announcement that upgrades would need to be paid for, but no refunds for source products... (bad timing I guess)

My biggest annoyance however is still the enforced upgrade to studio even if you don't require it, sure its not a huge amount, but that's not the point, I don't need it, wont use it, why should I pay for it. (i'll probably get attacked by fanboys again like in IRC for this comment)

But all in all, the prices are pretty cheap, pay per upgrade i guess works fine depending how often the updates are, how often the paid updates are. My real concern if there is one is will there be 1.2.x updates, I don't want to wait 6-12 months for bug fixes and/or then have to pay to get them.

#12 Yeah, I was kind of wondering about the Studio upgrade. I do like the idea that there is now 1 product though. It may be a bit annoying for early adopters, but in the long run I see the value. As for using the Studio features, I am not sure. I do like the idea that if I need to bring someone on board I am not buying them a license. I am letting them borrow a seat. That is actually an attractive feature. Am I going to use it? I don't know.

FWIW, companies that focus on one core competency (or one core set of products) do better and become more successful. Companies that spread out their resources or have so many products that there is not a clear focus tend to damage the profit potential of each of the products. So for GG to focus on one product as much as possible in the long run will be better for them as a company and better for us as consumers.

#13 Maybe that's some misplaced entitlement, i don't know, i picked the torque engine back then because it appeared to be the best thing my small (non existent) budget could afford as an indie developper, source included engines, you either had to fork half a million dollars or you had to settle with what ID gave back to the community, which at the time was the quake 2 engine, there was ogre too i guess but i never really caught on it.

Now the thing is that i've been basically doing other stuffs, waiting for torque to get better, when TGEA was announced, i felt that if there was one upgrade i had to take, it was this one. OF course it was saying everywhere that it was an incomplete product and that working with it would basically be in the realm of really good software developpers.

I took it anyway, figuring i had the time to watch it mature, which is what i've been doing more or less until T3D where i did some more attempts without much success at making anything.

Now i do know that i'm no expert at torque so i probably do not see it to it's true value, but yeah basically when i saw the 1.2 feature breakdown i was like "woot investment paying back finally!" ... not.


Now i know i will eventually upgrade, a while ago i would have shrugged at a 50$ investment, but a lot of things changed.

#14 I am an early adopter and I have no problems with paying for major upgrades to the engine.
Especially if this means they are actively bug fixing, and adding enhancements. It keeps a revenue coming to GG and is a great incentive to keep the updates and enhancements coming to us licensees.

I can not see a way to stay in business by selling a product only once and continue to upgrade it for free for so many years.
We need them to survive too.

#15 @Kyrah,
I guess the main question for any Torque user/developer is what do they ultimately want out of it? What do you want to accomplish with the technology? If there is no target usage it just looks like an expense. If someone is chasing a vision then cost becomes an investment in that vision.

A great example of this is my usage of Windows 7. For years I was a staunch Linux only person. However, in order to support clients for my consulting business I needed to have a Windows compatible OS. So I cringed and bit the bullet and got Windows 7. It basically is a business expense for my vision, the consulting company. Would I prefer to use Linux? Probably. I do have to say though, that Windows 7 is way better than my XP experience.

Torque is a product that fits into my consulting business as a tool to support customers that require a game engine. So the expense is justifiable. Is Torque fun to program? Heck yah! Do I believe in the product? Definitely. Is that enough to justify it without it contributing to my vision? Maybe not.

I apologize if this is too 'heavy' for the current topic.

#16 Well, I might as well throw my few cents into this one, as I think I have some similar and different thoughts for this.

I'm fully understanding both sides of the argument here, one being that paid updates help keep the company running, but having to pay for updates when being part of the original $1000 engine cost club.

With those in mind, here is what I believe. Personally, it rose an eyebrow for me when I saw that the update was going to cost money, but at first it seemed worth it to me only due to the fact that it had some good enhancements to the engine code, but wait, arm animations, turrets, proximity mines.... that sounds like... well every other 3D game engine out there right now. This may seem kind of rant-ish, but I want to make a point here. I place myself on Kyrah's side of this argument.

While a paid update is probably essential for company costs, you need to understand that features that are causing the engine to lack behind other engines should not cost us money. Most engines already support direct player animation structures that are independent on state, I also know that most engines have turrets, and mines/teleporters in them. I'm not trying to put a dent on anything or cause an issue here, but I believe that when it comes to features that should already be included, you shouldn't be charging us extra for. True you need to make the assets, levels, and everything else, but they could serve as the starting point.

Now, Let me switch sides here. Where do I believe a paid update is warranted properly? well, let's think a major engine update, like a full revamp of a core system, ie: updating everything from 32 to 64 bit, or an addition of a major new system that would optimize performance or ease the developer.

Lastly, the whole notion of needing a constant income, yes, this is true, but word does spread really rapidly over the internet, and a company that is charging for updates makes it seem a little less enticing for new customers, to say a company that is providing updates for free. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft charging $10 per windows update, you quickly see how fast they would lose many customers. Well, same principle here. We want the update, but it seems a little inconsistent to need to buy updates that should already be provided by default.

I don't know, this may make no sense to others or the GG team, but this is my stance on what I believe, you are more than welcome to correct me if this seems incorrect.

#17 The problem I see with the "I paid $1000 so I should get more than the people who only paid $300/$400/$99/etc" is that it is really, really hard to put an endpoint on that.

For example, if I paid $1000 and the engine now costs $149, does that mean I am entitled to $851 worth of $20 updates? Or is it that I am entitled to $1000 - $149 - X times the amount of time I had the engine at before the price dropped? It is true that you paid more than the guy who bought it yesterday but it you also have been able to use the product for the year or two since you bought it. Time is worth money...so should the time you had it factor into the equation of how much GG "owes" you for dropping their price point?

What is a fair calculation for how many updates they owe you? 1, 2, 13? I don't think it is really feasible to come up with a fair solution for that.

I have a friend who bought an iPhone 4 6 months ago for $200. As of last month you can now get the exact same iPhone 4 for $100. Does that mean that Apple owes them $100 towards an iPhone 4S? No...they could have waited for the iPhone 4S and saved that money...instead, they traded that extra money for the use of that phone for the 6 months and consider it a very fair trade.

If you paid $1000 for Torque 3D, you have had at *least* 12 months of free updates and usage of the product and *most* of the people who are concerned about this issue have had closer to 24 months of free updates and time to use the product. Given the average cost of using a game engine (either up front or upon shipping), that actually seems like a pretty fair deal.

Claiming that they owe you because they "finally added a feature that I expected to be there" or because "they added a feature that other engines support" is just plain silly. When you bought Torque, you bought it "AS IS". At the time you looked at the featureset that the engine supported and decided that it was worth the money you paid for it. You weren't "promised" anything beyond those features and you certainly weren't promised any new features "at no cost". If you weren't happy with the featureset, then you shouldn't have paid for it...plain and simple. That isn't GG fault or GG's problem...that is yours.

If you use one single asset (tree, texture, mesh, etc) from this update, you have more than made back the cost of the upgrade. Get over it.

#18

Quote:It would be the equivalent of Microsoft charging $10 per windows update, you quickly see how fast they would lose many customers.

Apple has charged a nominal fee for the upgrades between the last several point versions of OS X (10.5, 10.6, 10.7) and everyone praises them for being so nice and reasonable and it hasn't seemed to hurt their customer base at all.

Each of those updates has been about once a year, cost less than $50, fixed a lot of bugs (which you had to pay to get), and added some new features (many of which were already on other OS's).

Sound familiar?

#19 Matt lets remain courteous on this subject, this doesn't have to turn into personal attacks.

#20 I think the original question of "Is GG going to start charging for updates?" is perfectly valid and largely answered.

Thus far, it seems like GG wants to keep the option open but hasn't gotten enough data to commit to a firm "yes" or "no" yet.

For most customers, the consensus seems to be that a nominal upgrade fee that helps keep GG in business is a good thing as long as it doesn't happen too often. In other words, most people seem to think it is a good thing.

But, that very good and valid discussion quickly wandered into a gripe session about what GG "owes" people and I am just plain tired of hearing it. People have been griping about that since the original price drop at the beginning of the year and in particular in the last couple of months.

I have been wanting to say something about it for a long time and finally had a spare moment today to do so. It isn't intended to be a personal attack on anyone specifically but rather is aimed at the numerous, repeated discussions on this topic. There is a world of difference between being blunt and "personally attacking" someone. The strongest my language got was "plain silly" and "Get over it"...pretty mild by most measures of Internet "courtesy" =P