full screen torque logo required. 'indie' licence for torque2d engine

For anyone purchasing any of the Torque engines, they have to agree to the EULA. It actually says on the checkout screen:

We tell people up front, and if they choose to ignore it, then that's their problem.

 

Legally that's correct. In terms of customer service... Why not provide a small faq to make the license more transparent?

 

I would tend to agree with Illume that the logo requirement appears rather too hidden for something which I would deem quite significant. Ciperl, you're not wrong in what you're doing, but I'm sure you're aware that very few people read the full EULA. In my opinion, it would be better to be even more upfront about it. I must admit that I myself wasn't aware of this logo requirement until I read these threads.

 

I'm still not sure why this is a huge issue to everyone. It's a documentation issue that's been blown out of proportion. The T2D release was really intended to be an Early Adopter release. That means things are complete but they need a little ironing. This is one of those ironing issues, whoever wrote the product page description likely didn't think the logo requirement would be a big issue. The vast majority of the GG developer community would proudly display the logo and consider it an privilege. This is the community that the EA was really intended for, naturally as all this discussion has shown, the issue isn't cut an dry. Especially for people who like T2D technology but aren't necessarily hard core GG fans, or like our friend Robert are concerned about the look and feel of their game.

I closed the other thread because the issue was basically dead, things in a EULA aren't necessarily "hidden" and GG could do a better job of stating the Logo requirement on the product page as it's obviously an issue to some people. A simple oversight doesn't have to be a multi forum multi thread discussion. I'm not sure what further value this thread can add to any party, but I'll leave it open for people to say their piece.

 

Firstly, The requirement of the Tourqe Full screener is completely within their rights. Think about all the coding/work that has gone into the engine, enabling the user to create games in 1/4 of the time it would normally take, still be able to SELL those games for a profit and pay no royalties. All they are asking for is one screen where they can advertise to make more money to re-invest in future versions of the engine.

From the developers point of view, I understand it is not always "nice" to have to put middleware or high level engine/gamemaker logos in your game - for that you have a choice... code it yourself as many others have managed to do!

I have nothing against "game makers" or pre built engines if they save time and hassle (and it IS a lot of hassle believe me) but you can't really complain when you have to put the logo in (even if you have paid a $100 or so) - the work it has shouldered for you is phenomenal and worth every penny. If there is a way around that with the commercial licence then I feel it is fair.

One thing I agree with though is that it SHOULD be made clearer that you will need to display the screen rather than tuck it away in the EULA which - while legally correct - they must think would impact a % if sales if people were really clear on it before purchase.

At the end of the day though, all the info was there, it is just unfortunate it is not a bullet point or in an FAQ. So while I can understand both sides, the T2D guys are acting within their rights and doing nothing un-ethical.

It is probably more an "ego" thing, not wanting to display "made in/with XXXX" rather than worrying about the amount of screens before the game starts properly. It can have an effect on some users perception of the game but normally these are the "hardcore" lot, i'm sure the main audience of DL games really don't care what it was made in as long as it is good. So my advice is leave it in until you are sure sales can easily cover the full - licence price (even then I would be tempted to leave it considering the target audience).

Other than that... write your own engine or find one that doesn't require the screen.

 

I think that it actually isn't a huge issue to the vast, vast, vast majority. I think almost everyone would agree that a splash screen isn't much to ask in this case, and everything is perfectly fair and reasonable. Perhaps the requirement could use being made a little clearer, I don't know. But I really can't see this as being a duplicitous move on GG's part.

Nobody reads EULAs when installing stuff. But I can't imagine ever incorporating any middleware into a commercial product without carefully reading the EULA first.

 

I think the issue here is not a matter why people should/want to show middleware logo in their product. Obviously there r people who don't mind and others do.
The problem rise when people who purchase T2D (who obviously don't want to show middleware logo) feel like they've been had cause they missed the small obscured part of EULA.

IMHO, I think it's their own fault and they should learn a lesson from it (i got a nasty experience once about this legal mumbo jumbo and I've learned my lesson well). But the fault is not up to theirs entirely (prolly about 99% is theirs) cause some engines eliminate their logo display necessity after you purchase them (still depends on various terms/agreement).
GG have the right to put any price and terms on their products and there's nothing you can do about it, next time pay attention dude !! if showing logo or not matters so much then you should find out about it before you make the purchase.

It's up to you wether you think the developer performs unfair action or not.. dude, this kinda things have been around for years, I have a friend in the shareware business and I think he performs unfair marketing scheme by not put the limitations of his software in his page. Do you wanna know what he said ?
he said, "Nobody wants to buy my software if I put my software limitations on the frontpage, I put the software limitations on FAQ and answer their questions directly without lying so morally I think I'm fair enough and hopefully no one will notice the FAQ or ask "

That's why I never buy stuffs especially softwares dan hightech gadget unless I'm really really sure about the product..

 

Or you can use other good engines like PTK that doesn't have such absurd requirements.
I was really pissed when I saw that requirement. Customers see that logo and the product looks cheap. They may even be curious to see what is that site and visit it and maybe buy one of their games instead of yours.

Well, I bought it but I suspect I'll never use it...

 

So many people have bought Torque and don't or never use it. It's a shame because it's clearly a good engine. The problems lie in the promise of being able to create a game just like that *click* and then when you use it it's this confusing mess that takes an age to get used to, the caveat being that when you do get used to it it's really great and easy, so I'm told. I guess they've just got really good marketing, because even really sensible people who should know to try the demo for a long time first before deciding to buy will just fork out for it without playing about with it first. That's what I did, and I don't really bear GG any ill will because of that; it's my own stupid fault.

 

I think it is not that fault at all, but anyway it would be nicer to put
some FAQ together about what you will need to do if you want to
release a title by their engine commercially.

It is fine how it is, it would be only nicer. I never read through EULA-s until I bought some musics from sounddogs.com. It costed me around $100 but I read the EULA AFTER I made the purchase and I was terrified because when you "broadcast" the music it might need more fees to be paid. So I contacted them and it turned out that I should pay another $750 for using the music until 25,000 pieces) and $3000 for unlimited...

So I learned the lesson well, that $100 gone to the toilet...

IMPORTANT: I have no problems with sounddogs, they even had a FAQ! I was stupid. Nonetheless, if there would had been 2 prices 1 is for licensing and 1 for PRO licensing, that might help. But I cannot blame them. I should have been more careful.

 

Oh. Count me in on the list of people that missed that. Though I've already accepted that $100 as a casualty of research, just to know what the whole Torque2D thang was all about. Having worked with Konami in the past, they had us pull our logo from a the boot sequence of a project. I'd suspect the T2D logo could be met with similar scrutiny, but then again that's likely what you get when you pay for the commercial license (asuming the same clause is not in it's EULA).

EDIT: Oh! Hahaha... The commercial license is a mere $400! Hahaha... What's there to complain about? Try to license Renderware for a 10th that price.

 

There's this notion circulating lately called "transparency", saying that companies that are most transparent to their customers have more success. I think GarageGames wouldn't loose a thing when they made the fine print of their license clearly visible. As mentioned before, most users won't care about the requirement, and those who do would feel treated better.

On the other hand this logo thing is not that big deal.

 

Personally, I think embedding something like this in the license agreement is very uncool as most of that stuff is boilerplate and let's be honest - who reads the license agreement of every product they're about to buy?

You can say it's the guys fault for not reading it, but come on. We jump all over installers that embed implicit spyware permission in their EULA's, but in this case it's OK? Let's maintain a level standard here.

The splash screen itself isn't a terrible thing but they need to make the requirement clear. Like, in bold text on the purchasing screen. This is not something you would expect to have to do when purchasing middleware and it's important to let people know about it up front.

And I also agree with the "customers don't care" objections. They don't. Whenever I start up a console game and I have to sit through screen after screen of logos, I get pissy. I'm sitting there hammering the START button, trying to bypass all this crap that I really don't care about. I just want to play the game! Come on!!

Developers care about which engine was used (at which time they will seek out that developers web site, read the FAQ, etc). Customers don't. Why make the customers stare at a logo they don't know and don't care about?

 

Some more interpretations from the EULA:

Just to make sure, reading this, what it's saying is if I want to distribute my "Torque" game through Real or other portals, I'd need to upgrade anyways, right? By association?

$400... It's a bargain.

 

I never ever read the EULA when I'm about to buy a game or a software I'm going to use privately. Since if I violate it chances are they won't ever know. BUT with some piece of middleware / libarry / engine whatever you're going to use, let's say publically (after all you're going to ship games with it), of course I read it.
What if they said in T2D's EULA:

"Althought you paid for this you can't ship anything using this software. If you're reading this after you've bought it: Ha Ha!"

It's $100, and if there's a clause in the EULA that doesn't allow me to use it the way I want, it'll be $100 lost.

 

Because, quite frankly, that isn't going to be in there. Word of that would spread like a brush fire and they'd have no customers left. Not a great business strategy.

People have certain expectations of EULA's and you can't just inject special clauses in them and say, "Oh well, you didn't read it? Too bad!" If 999 EULA's are all the same but yours is different, it's unreasonable to expect people to have seen your special, small print, last page requirement.

 

Well, one of the first things I look at when I know abou a new free engine is its license (GPL, LGPL, etc.), so it makes a lot of sense to me to read the EULA before purchasing a commercial one. If you read T2D's EULA you'll see other 'special clauses' not seen in other software/games' EULA, like you can't release your game with T2D's built-in editors enabled. Or you can't ship your game with 'uncompiled' TorqueScript source that involves some T2D code (not your own game logic code).

 

I'm not sure if someone has brought this up, but how long do you have to leave the logo up?

Does "displays a full screen Torque 2D logo in the startup sequence" mean for 5 minutes, or a split second? There is no specific time requirement.

Couldn't you just flash it and still be compliant with the requirements of the EULA? If GG is going to be vague about the requirement, you can still be in compliance without it actually appearing to the user for more than a split second.

 

yup... there's always a moment like this when you feel like "... grnawllll %$#$%".. it happens.. just shout some profanity to the air, get on with it and make sure you remember about it for the rest of your life.