Login | Register 
FEATURES
APPLICATIONS
DOWNLOADS
EDUCATION
BLOG
WIKI
FORUM
STORE

Build to .exe // no client-side license

Send us your requests for enhancements (RFEs)

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby choy9 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:37 am

+1
choy9
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:37 pm

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby sburgin » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:36 am

+1
I think TD missing out on commercial creative application projects with the way the licenses work, it is too complicated for client deployment.. the present approach is unfortunately a big turnoff for some clients, especially compared to the simplicity of a stand alone exe from Unity or Unreal, there must be a way to make it easier
sburgin
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:16 am

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby jmt4zj » Wed May 01, 2019 9:16 am

+1

I'd love to have a path to release VR apps on steam, apps to sell on itch.io, etc.
Jonathan Thompson
@pointshader
http://pointshader.com
User avatar
jmt4zj
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:15 am
Location: NYC

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby WooFL » Thu May 09, 2019 5:11 am

Definitely +1 . This will be a game changer for Touchdesigner. I have the same kind of headache with my clients.
WooFL
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:42 pm

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby elburz » Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 am

+1 and also adding some thoughts towards the larger picture issue or how it impacts licensing. As Idz mentioned, it's a bit tough to subsidize when there maybe arent as many other revenue streams coming in.

One thing that I've been pondering is how to best represent TD work-life within the licensing structure itself. For example if you were to extrapolate professional life from the pricing tiers of softwares you could say something like

Notch: High pricing of pro tier because pro revenue is likely recurring (events/media server rentals), and only a small number of licenses are needed (unlike installations where you need to just drop a license)

Unity: Free unless you need team collaboration, project management integration, or want Unity engineering support, so essentially the story they're telling is that the "pro scene" has a pretty clear divide between individuals and companies, and all companies will be paying 125$ for help dealing with collaboration on their team and wanting their PMs to have easier time, and for everyone else, just getting you to use it for free over Unreal is worth it to them.

Unreal: 5% royalty on your games...basically only big companies are going to be paying so they don't get sued, and as such everything unreal is catered to enterprise usage and AAA-sized companies, which you can see by their "pricing" page being this jargon-y mouthful: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release But they also own fortnite...so.....

Max MSP: Cheap perpetual license until next big version, even cheaper yearly subscription, and even cheaper monthly sub. Yearly new release (I think?). So essentially they want a high volume of individual artists to be able to afford a license for their systems and they want those artists to have no reason to not upgrade every year. At that point they don't care about "installations" per se as I believe Max runtime is built into the regular Max now (as opposed to being separate) so you don't need a license per machine.

Obviously my reading into license models is tinted with my experiences and bias, but I think there's also truth in that. If we then apply the same thought process to Derivative's license model it's a bit trickier but it feels like it represents the pro scene decently. It has the free version for getting started and bringing in artists, but it's so permissive that similarly to unity I can imagine the number of people that just use that on projects. Then there's the commercial license which is in that price range of individual pro range of 600$ a year, which is pretty reasonable considering the amount of updates, but I wish the 600$ were per person not per computer (or dongles were free), because the reality is most devs have multiple computers. Then there's the big jump up to pro with a few features that real top-end folks and enterprises might need such as personalized support and frame sync and etc.

The only alternative I'd suggest to simplify our representation of the work-life of a TD pro would be to have something similar to a "dev/performance license" which is similar to commercial now which is targeted at anyone who has a license for working on their computers and then their work is just using that single license on performance machines or similar. Then a "deploy license" which is maybe more than "jsut one license" but is a package of licenses combined with personalized support + maybe built to .exe functionality and this would basically be companies and enterprises buying this to roll out installations, and you would price it at the point where the loss from licenses since you can build to exe is built in.

A very long +1 haha
--
Elburz Sorkhabi
Creative + Technology
nVoid Art-Tech Limited
http://nvoid.com
elburz
 
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby landonth » Mon May 20, 2019 2:50 pm

+1
Without an option like this, Touchdesigner will remain limited to prototyping and bespoke installation / performance.
User avatar
landonth
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby devy » Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:30 pm

At this point it would be really nice to hear Derivative's official position on the topic
Denis Akopov,
dsakopov@gmail.com
User avatar
devy
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby flowb » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:32 pm

I might be missing something here but I don't understand the need for this. The main advantage I see to compiling standalone exe is a theoretically easier way to deploy projects. The licensing concern is secondary since licensing costs can be built into the project budget. At $300 it shouldn't break the bank if you're already sourcing new computers for deployment as well.

It would be cool if there was a feature that rolled a TouchPlayer instance with an installer for you as a deployment package so that you could just install one thing and be done.
User avatar
flowb
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby dogboy23 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:25 am

I'd appreciate this feature too!

Maybe an additional per license charge for pro version holders [or something similar]
dogboy23
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:10 am
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Build to .exe // no client-side license

Postby m0nkiiking » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:36 am

+1
I've been requested from multiple clients to sell them an app I developed in Touch which is a pain at the moment. Would love a way to easily package the app up for deployment and licensing somehow incorporated to make it easier for deployment and use by clients. Happy to support Derivative and pay for use... however would love to hear from Derivative on their view on licensing and if they are considering helping with commercialization of their users work and investment in Touch.
m0nkiiking
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Wishlist and RFEs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests