http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=28463 Check it out: your IP may be compromised if you go with the T2D development platform. The EULA states you have to show a full screen logo of theirs. I think this is unacceptable in this day and age and will be moving my development from T2D if a compromise cannot be reached, as I need to preserve my IP and game branding/presentation. I simply cannot have a large Made in Torque2D driving away customers. Presentation is EVERYTHING, and I don't want that in my product. What are your opinions - should indies put up with that? In fact there is no reason we ought to in this day and age. Most SDK's do not have this - I know BlitzMax doesn't for sure, and that is in direct competition with T2D. -Rob
Let me get this straight. You licensed an engine from a middleware provider (Garage Games) You didn't read the licensing terms which spell out quite clearly the logo requirements. Now, after you've ported a game to said engine, you're up in arms about some 'hidden clause' which isn't really hidden, as it's stated flat out in the license for Torque 2D. That about sum it up?
It's pretty common and it's not necessarily a bad thing. How many times do you see publishers logos, middleware logos and other such things? The horrendous RenderWare logo doesn't put off developers.
I have nothing against Garage Games I would be pleased to put the logo in the credits screen for example, but I really do need to have a seamless and slick startup with some nice presentation. How many portal games have you played with full screen "made in gamemaker" etc logos? not many! I have found out I shall have to pay more though (for a commercial license) which seems very steep and non-indie for just removing a splash screen. I won't be transferring development away from Torque 2D as I have since found out that paying for the commercial license will allow me to remove the splash screen. Expensive? yes, worth it? yes it is for me. -Rob
EXACTLY. Why do you want them to know? Obviously you're not selling much are you? Yes they do give a rats ass about things. I don't want even one "WTF has this got to do with the game?" thought appearing in their heads.
I'm very curious to know what products YOU have published that give you such insights into the minds of your customers. Can we see your games? Second, have you played any games, ever? Can you even keep track of the entities to whom each logo belongs? You get the publisher's logo, the developer's logo, and sometimes the IP owner's logo (i.e. Acclaim presents Sculptured Software's port of Midway's Mortal Kombat, or Acclaim presents Iguana's port of Midway's NBA Jam.) I know people who've made games using Conitec's GameStudio, which also requires that the user display their logo for one second on startup, unless you spend $900 for the unrestricted Pro version. They've been published, they display the logo, and no one gives a toss. A couple of them have sold in excess of 100k copies at retail. And I don't think I'd be off-base if I guessed that that number is far higher than your current and past sales.
Well I've been part of a few published games (I am an artist). I have never published a game of my own, and I'll go on record with that. You might deride me, but then would you think George Lucas was arrogant for moving his titles to the end of the film? He changed the way films were made and was stiffly penalised for it. I don't want splash screens like "everyone else" and I want to be a bit different. Whats wrong with that? I feel you should be saying "if he wants to try that, then lets see what his results are" not trying to put me down or trip me up.
I lashed out at you because your first reaction to someone questioning you was "I guess you're not selling much". Live by the sword... There is nothing wrong with your approach, and I'm now I'm intrigued as to what kind of an opening you have in mind, since logos are such a no-no. But the key point is... GG's request wasn't hidden. But we've grown so used to assuming we know what's in the EULA that sometimes we get caught off-base by requisites such as this.
Robert, I've seen your posts over a GG and I have nothing against you, but you named this thread, "Torque2D hidden clause" and then asked for opinions. There is nothing wrong with raising community awareness of the licensing requirements, but there is no hidden clause. It is no more hidden (and in fact less hidden) the clause which states you don't have to pay royalties. Nobody challanged your descision to pay the extra money to avoid this licensing requirement. I, personally, hope the best for your game. In fact, if you can financialy demostrate to us the benefits of not having the full-screen logo after you start selling your game, then you do us a service. That said, the opinion that you ask for here is clear. The opinion of those who posted is that displaying the logo is not unreasonable and is considered common practice. I think they pretty directly answered your question as asked. Best wishes on your project.
The torque2D licensing requirement was stated right up front, so really its your own fault for not seeing it. If you don't like the logo, pay for the pro license and then you don't have to display it. Case closed.