Quote:

People using game studio eventaully learn how to function in the industry and then decide they don't need game studio?




Bingo.

Quote:

it doesnt say much at all about gamestudio, and if so why are we here?




I plan on milking ever last dollar of use out of 3DGS. I plan on using it commercially. Just because it's middleware and 90% of the community uses it as Hobbyware doesn't mean that I don't take it seriously. But to that 90% 3DGS is a low cost solution to learn about game development... not game industry, game development. Very few people here actually want to take the next step and sell their game. Oh, we all start saying that but after a few years we realize just how hard that is and either ramp up our operations or just make games for fun. Ultimately, we stay here because 3DGS is stable, powerful, and feature-full...and because the devil you know is better than the one you don't! And trust me, in game engines there are no angels, just different devils!

But once you know how the industry works, you realize that you need a team to make something work... and once you have a team you most likely have the money... and when you have the money, then you can buy something that is more focused on your needs rather than 3DGS' "all in one" approach to game making. Again, let me make very clear that I plan on taking 3DGS as far as I can, that even with the money I have chosen to stay with 3DGS, but I feel that my decision represents a very small minority in the community.

Quote:

Gamestudio is not a stepping stone to anything. It is an indapendant developers solution for producing video games.



There is what a product is meant to be and what a product turns out to be. I agree that 3DGS is meant as a full developer solution; I use it in that fashion. But to 90% of the forum community (for these are the people I have direct contact with), 3DGS is just a hobby or a way to build a portfolio for the future. So it's not really my opinion as much as my observations over the last 3 years on the forum.

Quote:

to get growing and become an industry standard.



The industry standard right now is the Unreal engine at 500 thousand USD and hundreds if not thousands of developer studios cranking out noteworthy commercial products month after month. 3DGS has zero chance of fighting that 500 lb. gorilla with AFAIK 80 thousand users, 1000 USD per license, and maybe a handful of commercial games published a year.

3DGS' closest competitor is Torque. They are trying to do what you suggest, even down to the Dev. Network. However they are burning money at a furious rate and pumping tons into advertising... yet statistically they are on par with 3DGS... about 1000 USD per license and maybe a handful of games a year.

In order for 3DGS to "step up", they would have to radically revamp their business model and plan. They would have to put money into advertising (a budget that as far as I can tell is zero right now), probably revamp their update schedule to fit the marketing campaign (so code freezes and sporatic updates), they would probably have to increase the cost per license, etc. All I'm saying is that Conitec is doing now what works for them. Any slight perturbation to their model and I could see the whole thing crumbling down.

But who knows? Lite-C is a sign of a maturing engine being pitched to a more mature crowd. The tool developments are progressing well. It may be that this is the next direction Conitec wants to go in, that of Business Development. But I have not smelled that on the winds so it's not likely to be on the horizon.

Doug? JCL? Care to chime in? We are hijacking your thread after all...


FUTUR-E-SCAPE: The Future Landscape of Education and Entertainment.