T3D conundrum

#1

Quote:
acceptable for a Torque Pro team member to distribute a binary version with additional "snazzy features" to team members using T3D Basic.

As in the executable.exe file, not a copy of the engine. That way artists/scripters can work in the environment with the "snazzy features", not create them.

at least that's what I understood

#2 Hrm, my understanding was that the T3D Pro guy can essentially hand down an upgraded version of T3D Basic, editors, extra features, etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but surely if I buy lets say... T3D Pro, forest kit and racing genre kit, knock it all together and distribute to a 4 man team who all own T3D Basic.

At that point, aside from source access, they can work with the forest kit and presumable use racing kit related changes/additions in TS free of charge.

Granted, that isn't any different from the current situation with TGE/A demo version being the equivalent of T3D Basic.

5 guys, 5 T3D licenses (1 Pro, 4 Basic), 1 middleware license distributed between them?

Isn't that basically saying T3D Basic guys can't buy genre kits, but a guy with T3D Pro can hand it around the team? Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not have to pay for multiple licenses, it just seems odd that builders/scripters can get the feature set someone is trying to make a living off for free when GG have monetized that group.

#3 Or from another perspective...

I buy T3D Basic, but I want to make a basic racing game (something that can presumably be done with the racing genre kit out of the box). I advertise for a programmer who owns T3D Pro to join my team, then task him with adding required features. As it happens he already owns the racing genre kit from a previous project, so he merges, compiles, sends me my upgraded T3D Basic + Racing Genre Kit exe. He's on my dev team, so fulfils the "common sense" criteria outside the license, and he's paid for his genre kit so can use it on multiple projects (presumably). Sure, I'm still limited to T3D Basic's "mod kit" status, but in a different state than it was sold and the racing kit devs get nothing out of it.

Rinse and repeat. Surely that stings the genre kit developers?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but this common sense to justify the usefulness of Basic in a team environment is a bit open to interpretation.

#4 Seems convoluted. Also seems a move to make sure and cut the 'pie in the sky' dreaming, greasy code kiddies out of the budget and force more widespread rampant T3D"PRO" pirating.

In the end GG will still collect the revenue from the people who would pay for it anyhow, also the PRO's who like to keep it professional, and that greasy kid stuff never actually seems to makes it into a end product anyhow.

If i had artist working for me, i would NEVER expect them to dish out extra cash just to test out the assets they are paid to be working on. Not in the case of the game engine itself. That would be totally unprofessional. On the other hand, even in the very early days EPIC's license of SUB$50,000 (Dont know if the price facts are still under NDA) was for a 'small team' of less then 10 employees and even as an artist on the team I had full source access. So even 10 employee * Cost_of_T3D-PRO = less then EPICS very early license. That EPIC license fee by today standards is a great budget for a team of ONE, anything else is 'pie in the sky' greasy kid stuff dreaming...

#5 Convoluted, yes. But that's T3D Basic...

It's not about artists testing assets at all. In response to the criticism of Basic just being a mod kit and no use in a team environment, Brett gave the common sense provision. Basic users don't get advanced lighting or road/river editors, but a Pro user can provide a compiled binary with those features to team members who own Basic. There's a whole lot of stuff there beyond testing art assets without necessarily needing access to source code.

It's also got nothing to do with "greasy kids" or piracy. If a third party genre kit or asset provides additional features to the world editor or extends TS, can a T3D Pro owner hand those features down to a team member who owns Basic for the purpose of scripting or world building? GG are pushing T3D Basic as a world editor/scripter tool in a team environment.

GG have justified T3D Basic as usable in a team environment on this basis, it's not about trying to get something for nothing, it's about how it works in practice.

That said, I like the pie in the sky and greasy kid put downs. Seems like people are starting to draw lines in the sand now GG have said their focus isn't on hobbiests. That's like what, the third time this week someone has slagged off a casual for not being up to their professional standards?

#6 I don't think Caylo meant it that way Ross.. it doesn't seem to be his style.

#7 You took them as 'put downs'; i did not type them to be so.

We both said alot of the same things. My point is aimed at actual thinking of the total cost for a team working in T3D. T3D even at $1000 per user for 10 users is still very cheep for an engine, that have competing abilitys to other more mainstream(better known in PRO circles) engines.

Also the 'pie in the sky' dreaming, greasy code kiddies(I was once one, and miss the days...) would do much better with T3D Basic, or even TGEA/TGE. Jumping right into the middle of things is a great way to crush your own dreams, and drown in the hopelessness of ignorance. I take notice of every 'new' name i see in the forums, and 80% of the new names are only around long enough to dream big talk about it, buy an engine some packs, then fade out once the amount of real works becomes obvious. So lets not say professional standards is a point of this discussion. Also all of my real hobbies cost me far far more then the one time money drop for T3DPRO. So its nothing along that line of thought.

Charging more is a good thing, when the product is worth it! The terms of the T3D license 'seems convoluted'. I dont think very much detail have officially been stated about the T3D license.


EDIT: I never set forth to insult/put down; It just seems to be part of my natural abilitys to upset people.

#8 We haven't completely decided on our strategy for Genre Kits & T3D Basic so all feedback is great, that way we can factor it into our decision. We're all about making the smartest decision for everyone involved :)

Also I heard a comment about not having to pay anything for an artist to test their assets in your game dev. That would be the same as handing them an end result game that they can just switch assets out with (kind of like modding). Tools are now the distinction for needing T3D Basic. So if you want your artists to take advantage of the tools we've spent resources in developing then they will need Basic at least :)

Keep in mind if your an artist that wants all the features of Pro there's no reason to not get Pro if that fits for you. We're just trying to play the amazingly difficult balancing game of making it accessible to Artists while still getting a return on our investment (so that way we can invest even more in development).

#9 Ross has plenty of great points.
...GG has their hands full on this!

#10 I should have stated; If im paying an artist for T3D art, i would also supply (at my cost) any extra needed tools specific to the job.

Also when i was taking contract jobs for game art, I was almost always supplied with the project customized exe to test my art within the game environment, often an ugly alpha build. Of course as an contract artist i never needed to touch script or c'code, just import my art and be sure it function properly.

Perhaps what should be investigated is the definition of "team" project with definitions clearly stated for programmer level use and artist level use.

This truly is only an issue if the art import path is complex, and needs tweaking from the artist side of things. Following this thread of logic, a small team of 3 with mixed skills should each have there very own license to the tools they are using. Plain and simple, main programmer needs T3DPRO, scripter and artists can use BASIC. All together they should be able to use the projects EXE to develop the project with. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

#11 @Caylo: My apologies, evidently I was a bit prickly last night and out of order in my response.

I appreciate what you're saying, as I've said elsewhere I don't object to the price of T3D Pro at all, but obviously if T3D Basic fits the bill for certain members of a team then we're going to choose the more affordable option.

For what it's worth, while I'm very much a hobbyist and relatively new to Torque, I'm not a dreaming kid (although maybe I've haven't done the best job of giving that impression ;)). I'm mid-30's and my "team" is a circle of friends from a fairly long and successful run (over a decade) developing MUDs. No doubt it's a huge step up from text into the domain of graphics and we're firmly doing it for fun, but we're not blind to the work involved and do have day jobs in IT and software dev.

To be honest, TGE is serving well as a learning tool and TGEA is a valid option but I'm trying to get a grasp on where T3D fits into our equation. I'd throw down the money on T3D as a future investment now if I could spare the cash but it's a brutal couple of months and the wife expects a birthday AND anniversary present... *le sigh*

#12 @Ross: apologies accepted. I learned early in life to not let human to human communications effect my mental mood, so I was not insulted but puzzled by how i may have been interpreted as insulting. Part of the miss-communication problem stem from my reply building from what you said, not IN reply to what you said. And in actuality, my comment "Seems convoluted." is not clarified by any understandable participle. And could easily read that what you had just said was convoluted, that would be insulting and my fault. So I am also sorry for using sloppy American English, my education is better then that, but impatiences to get a typed communication transmitted prevailed.