T2d Vs. Tgb
by Jared Coliadis · in Torque Game Builder · 02/14/2006 (8:28 pm) · 70 replies
Hello everybody. I've read in the recent newsletter that T2D is going to start going by the initials TGB to reduce confusion when it comes to newcomers/ the mainstream audience. People would see the 2D part of the moniker and see it as a limitation. I argue that the opposite holds true. Changing the name from Torque 2D to Torque Game Builder will only create more confusion.
Example 1: If I was a newcomer to GG's site, I would see three products: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. First and foremost, I would question the difference between a Game Engine and a Game Builder. Being that I would be someone looking into making quality games, I would want an engine to do help me out. Seeing the word "builder" immediately makes me think that this isn't actually a game engine, but rather something dumbed down to "build" my game for me. I would completely ignore the real power that is Torque 2D: a quality game engine for needs that TGE can't easily provide.
Example 2: As an experienced 2D indie developer looking for a new engine to power my new "Super match-em-up-turbo-plus" game, I'm looking for something a little more than Flash can provide, but nothing with too much overhead. I stumble upon GG's site and see the same list: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. Being an experienced developer, I first avert from the "builder", which gives me an image of code automation that I do not want to deal with. I look at the Torque Shader Engine first and try out the demo since shaders are the "new" thing in game development. It looks nice, but is way out of scope for my needs. I check out the Torque Game Engine second only to come to a similar conclusion. Almost giving up my search after deciding that these products are more than I need, I decide that I might as well try out the Torque Game Builder. This is exactly what I need! If only it had a more specific name as to what it is, I would have saved myself some time and saved GG some bandwidth!
My conclusion: As a name, the Torque 2D Game ENGINE makes the most sense. "Builder"s have bad associations (why isn't T2D considered an engine?), and dropping "2D" from the name altogether is misleading if not confusing. It's a great product, but it's mostly for a niche audience. I bought it because I wanted to make 2D games. I most likely would not have noticed it if it didn't have the 2D in the title.
Have a good day,
/Jared.
P.S. Expect a .plan in a week or so with some more tantalizing updates about the Adventure Core. Let's just say that there was a Great Undertaking Involved. ;)
Example 1: If I was a newcomer to GG's site, I would see three products: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. First and foremost, I would question the difference between a Game Engine and a Game Builder. Being that I would be someone looking into making quality games, I would want an engine to do help me out. Seeing the word "builder" immediately makes me think that this isn't actually a game engine, but rather something dumbed down to "build" my game for me. I would completely ignore the real power that is Torque 2D: a quality game engine for needs that TGE can't easily provide.
Example 2: As an experienced 2D indie developer looking for a new engine to power my new "Super match-em-up-turbo-plus" game, I'm looking for something a little more than Flash can provide, but nothing with too much overhead. I stumble upon GG's site and see the same list: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. Being an experienced developer, I first avert from the "builder", which gives me an image of code automation that I do not want to deal with. I look at the Torque Shader Engine first and try out the demo since shaders are the "new" thing in game development. It looks nice, but is way out of scope for my needs. I check out the Torque Game Engine second only to come to a similar conclusion. Almost giving up my search after deciding that these products are more than I need, I decide that I might as well try out the Torque Game Builder. This is exactly what I need! If only it had a more specific name as to what it is, I would have saved myself some time and saved GG some bandwidth!
My conclusion: As a name, the Torque 2D Game ENGINE makes the most sense. "Builder"s have bad associations (why isn't T2D considered an engine?), and dropping "2D" from the name altogether is misleading if not confusing. It's a great product, but it's mostly for a niche audience. I bought it because I wanted to make 2D games. I most likely would not have noticed it if it didn't have the 2D in the title.
Have a good day,
/Jared.
P.S. Expect a .plan in a week or so with some more tantalizing updates about the Adventure Core. Let's just say that there was a Great Undertaking Involved. ;)
#62
03/15/2006 (9:15 pm)
I also agree with Phil. 
#63
If you upgrade to commercial then you are free to remove the splash.
That's how they get ya!
03/15/2006 (9:53 pm)
@Phil,If you upgrade to commercial then you are free to remove the splash.
That's how they get ya!
#64
And yeah, worst case is upgrading to the commercial license.
03/16/2006 (9:07 am)
It would be nice if we are allowed a bit of interpretation of what the TGB splash screen has to be. I've imagined having the black background with the 3D T logo, and under it 'Powered by Torque'. Or with just 'Torque' under the logo. Would be interesting to hear what GG thinks or expects from indie license owners in promoting their brand identity (from clause 4B in the EULA).And yeah, worst case is upgrading to the commercial license.
#65
I dont want to put "Made by Torque Game Builder" in my games...
Why?
Because it is me that looses out.
* People judge it as a no-effort game (to make).
* They judge me as less of a person.
* Some people wont buy, if they play a demo "Made with a builder". (Look at Game Maker!)
* It lacks proffesionalism.
* I loose out on potential customers. Not good.
And now the site has been updated, it is unlikely that we will win. Sigh
Just remember, If our games dont sell, they wont sell your engine.
*Insert last line of Mike's post*
03/19/2006 (12:35 pm)
I would have posted the same as Phil, but he beat me.I dont want to put "Made by Torque Game Builder" in my games...
Why?
Because it is me that looses out.
* People judge it as a no-effort game (to make).
* They judge me as less of a person.
* Some people wont buy, if they play a demo "Made with a builder". (Look at Game Maker!)
* It lacks proffesionalism.
* I loose out on potential customers. Not good.
And now the site has been updated, it is unlikely that we will win. Sigh
Just remember, If our games dont sell, they wont sell your engine.
*Insert last line of Mike's post*
#66
03/19/2006 (2:00 pm)
Buy a commercial license?
#67
The bottom line is: don't waste time and energy worrying about the name of the game platform. BUILD YOUR GAME. When it's the hottest thing on the planet, and you know it, if the name "TGB" still bothers you, buy the commercial license. I personally don't care at all. It's just a name.
03/19/2006 (3:15 pm)
I think some of these opinions are a little extreme. Let's be honest. It's just a name, for God's sake. Think of any fun "casual" title: Zuma, Bejeweled, TextTwist, Hexic, and so on. These are just *fun* games. If any of these were made with TGB, would you think less of them as *fun* games? If I was a customer and I played a game that was fun, do you think I'd give a rat's a** about what engine powered it? No. I think a lot of these complaints also show a lack of knowledge in who your customer really is. The casual game audience consists of a large constituent of older players, many of whom don't even know what a "game builder" is. Furthermore, they don't care. They just want to be entertained.The bottom line is: don't waste time and energy worrying about the name of the game platform. BUILD YOUR GAME. When it's the hottest thing on the planet, and you know it, if the name "TGB" still bothers you, buy the commercial license. I personally don't care at all. It's just a name.
#68
I just read back through all these posts, and I can clearly see the conundrum. I think it boils down to this:
On one hand, GG wants to seed the next generation of game developers by making the product easy to use, and extremely accessible to both young people and people with no or little experience making (or even playing) games. This is some part vision, and some part business. It's an ideal situation when a compelling vision lines up with your tangible business needs, and this particular situation seems to be a pretty good blend.
Now, on the *other* hand, most people here (the early adopters) consider themselves, on some level, very "serious" about making games. They are at heart, game developers, and game development is at its core a mix of creative expression and problem solving. To address Stephen's post about developer "elitism"... I think that's actually hitting the nail on the head. A lot of people here are probably afraid that if the tool becomes too easy, if *game development* ever becomes too easy, that their efforts are somehow diminished. It's just like anything else, it has to be a challenge in order to get a sense of accomplishment and pride. I think for a lot of serious-minded people, that name is like a little nagging voice that's saying "aww, you need training wheels, isn't that cute". I know that sounds harsh, but I think that's the psychology behind the resistence.
So, like I said, it's a conundrum. You want it to be easy ( and c'mon guys, admit it, that's why most of us are here already, and not writing our own engines), but at the same time a serious developer will want it to be a *little* bit hard, and I think what's behind the resistance to "builder" ... simply developers feeling their pride threatened. I think for a lot of serious-minded people, that name is like a little nagging voice that's saying "aww, you need training wheels, isn't that cute". I know that sounds harsh, but I think that's the psychology behind it.
Like I said, the commercial option helps mitigate this for me. For $395 (just checked), a developer can avoid all these issues. That's still a great deal, for a great engine, and there's nothing else out there really like it. And even then, this whole issue depends a lot on how the perception of TGB evolves in the community. If all the serious guys go away and no killer apps ever come out of the tech, well then the point is moot anyway. If a lot of cool product grows out of it, maybe some award-winning games, then it will have the "cred" that I think we're all talking about. All we're really debating is first impressions.
03/19/2006 (6:34 pm)
I'm pretty happy with the "buy the commercial license" option. If I ever do get anything shippable done ( haha, right... ), that's probably what I'd do. (LOL, how much is it anyway? Maybe I should check first...).I just read back through all these posts, and I can clearly see the conundrum. I think it boils down to this:
On one hand, GG wants to seed the next generation of game developers by making the product easy to use, and extremely accessible to both young people and people with no or little experience making (or even playing) games. This is some part vision, and some part business. It's an ideal situation when a compelling vision lines up with your tangible business needs, and this particular situation seems to be a pretty good blend.
Now, on the *other* hand, most people here (the early adopters) consider themselves, on some level, very "serious" about making games. They are at heart, game developers, and game development is at its core a mix of creative expression and problem solving. To address Stephen's post about developer "elitism"... I think that's actually hitting the nail on the head. A lot of people here are probably afraid that if the tool becomes too easy, if *game development* ever becomes too easy, that their efforts are somehow diminished. It's just like anything else, it has to be a challenge in order to get a sense of accomplishment and pride. I think for a lot of serious-minded people, that name is like a little nagging voice that's saying "aww, you need training wheels, isn't that cute". I know that sounds harsh, but I think that's the psychology behind the resistence.
So, like I said, it's a conundrum. You want it to be easy ( and c'mon guys, admit it, that's why most of us are here already, and not writing our own engines), but at the same time a serious developer will want it to be a *little* bit hard, and I think what's behind the resistance to "builder" ... simply developers feeling their pride threatened. I think for a lot of serious-minded people, that name is like a little nagging voice that's saying "aww, you need training wheels, isn't that cute". I know that sounds harsh, but I think that's the psychology behind it.
Like I said, the commercial option helps mitigate this for me. For $395 (just checked), a developer can avoid all these issues. That's still a great deal, for a great engine, and there's nothing else out there really like it. And even then, this whole issue depends a lot on how the perception of TGB evolves in the community. If all the serious guys go away and no killer apps ever come out of the tech, well then the point is moot anyway. If a lot of cool product grows out of it, maybe some award-winning games, then it will have the "cred" that I think we're all talking about. All we're really debating is first impressions.
#69
So what if the splash screen were something in the other direction?
Instead of "Powered by Torque Game Builder", what about "Powered by Torque Game MAGIC" or something? :)
That way if you're a casual player / non-developer you're impressed by the wizardry you're about to experience. If you're a developer, then you'll find out about the different Torque products as soon as you do some further digging of any kind.
But as you say, having the commercial license only $395, is a great answer to this problem.
I'm also quickly learning that in some ways, getting a game together is identical in every respects to getting my avatar in World of Warcraft to level 60. (uh-oh tangent alert!)
-There are many options available to game developers, just as there's many classes and battle strategies to use in WoW.
-Some WoW player feel that the only way to level is to just "grind" (ie. finding a group of monsters and staying there for hours killing them for XP). Whereas other players find they progress through the game with a combination of grinding and finishing quests.
-With game development, some developers feel the only way to finish the game is to roll their own code. While others feel it's a balance of finding an engine that is generic, but not TOO generic (ie. they want something to handle the low-level common stuff, but still want some flexibility to customize each game)
-When you hit level 60 in WoW (the current level cap), in some respects that's when the game REALLY starts: You've got more instances opening up for the 60+ players, more raids, more items/weapons to find, etc. In short, the first 60 levels are forgotten as the game almost begins anew.
-When you finish a game, you suddenly are confronted with how to market it, how to design a website to sell it, how to promote it, how to contact the necessary sites to try to strike a publishing deal, how to make press releases, how to price your game, or maybe how to submit it to a portal site for sale there....In short, most of the time at this stage the makeup of the code behind the game matters a little less. :)
Anyways, to get back to the namechange discussion, I would say worry about finishing the game FIRST. If you then feel that the name provides a disservice to your product in any way, then upgrade to a commercial license to mod it. It's definitely a reasonable price for what you're getting.
03/20/2006 (12:45 am)
Good point @Phil.So what if the splash screen were something in the other direction?
Instead of "Powered by Torque Game Builder", what about "Powered by Torque Game MAGIC" or something? :)
That way if you're a casual player / non-developer you're impressed by the wizardry you're about to experience. If you're a developer, then you'll find out about the different Torque products as soon as you do some further digging of any kind.
But as you say, having the commercial license only $395, is a great answer to this problem.
I'm also quickly learning that in some ways, getting a game together is identical in every respects to getting my avatar in World of Warcraft to level 60. (uh-oh tangent alert!)
-There are many options available to game developers, just as there's many classes and battle strategies to use in WoW.
-Some WoW player feel that the only way to level is to just "grind" (ie. finding a group of monsters and staying there for hours killing them for XP). Whereas other players find they progress through the game with a combination of grinding and finishing quests.
-With game development, some developers feel the only way to finish the game is to roll their own code. While others feel it's a balance of finding an engine that is generic, but not TOO generic (ie. they want something to handle the low-level common stuff, but still want some flexibility to customize each game)
-When you hit level 60 in WoW (the current level cap), in some respects that's when the game REALLY starts: You've got more instances opening up for the 60+ players, more raids, more items/weapons to find, etc. In short, the first 60 levels are forgotten as the game almost begins anew.
-When you finish a game, you suddenly are confronted with how to market it, how to design a website to sell it, how to promote it, how to contact the necessary sites to try to strike a publishing deal, how to make press releases, how to price your game, or maybe how to submit it to a portal site for sale there....In short, most of the time at this stage the makeup of the code behind the game matters a little less. :)
Anyways, to get back to the namechange discussion, I would say worry about finishing the game FIRST. If you then feel that the name provides a disservice to your product in any way, then upgrade to a commercial license to mod it. It's definitely a reasonable price for what you're getting.
#70
I would much rather put T2D then TGB on my games because of the elitism. Names do make a difference. If it's an engine, I feel like I've been through the fire to release my game (almost release..:) ). If it's a builder it conjures up images of drag, drop, done; I feel my experience has somehow been...cheapened...
But that doesn't really matter because I'm out to build a business and become self employed doing what I love. If Garage Games can help me do that in less time and with better success then I don't care what they name it (except vulgarities, etc), I will evangelize it. And when it comes right down to it, the "casual" market probably has no idea, or even cares, what the difference is between an engine and a builder, they just want a fun game to play.
For everyone worried about the name and needing to display the logo in the splash and a "powered by" in the credits, you have a choice other than the commercial version. Don't download the latest releases when they come out. If you stay with the release you have, you are bound by it's EULA and can continue to put Torque 2D. Sure, you'll lose out on all the new functionality like the new editors, but those are part of what makes it Torque Game Builder vs just Torque 2D Engine.
03/21/2006 (4:50 am)
I agree with what Phil said.I would much rather put T2D then TGB on my games because of the elitism. Names do make a difference. If it's an engine, I feel like I've been through the fire to release my game (almost release..:) ). If it's a builder it conjures up images of drag, drop, done; I feel my experience has somehow been...cheapened...
But that doesn't really matter because I'm out to build a business and become self employed doing what I love. If Garage Games can help me do that in less time and with better success then I don't care what they name it (except vulgarities, etc), I will evangelize it. And when it comes right down to it, the "casual" market probably has no idea, or even cares, what the difference is between an engine and a builder, they just want a fun game to play.
For everyone worried about the name and needing to display the logo in the splash and a "powered by" in the credits, you have a choice other than the commercial version. Don't download the latest releases when they come out. If you stay with the release you have, you are bound by it's EULA and can continue to put Torque 2D. Sure, you'll lose out on all the new functionality like the new editors, but those are part of what makes it Torque Game Builder vs just Torque 2D Engine.
Torque Owner Gregory Stewart